It's times like this I imagine a world where bookies always offered both sides of a bet with a profit margin in between the back and lay prices. Alas.
I worked as a football trader for IG Sport which became extrabet & binarybet, and we did lay two way prices on every market.. that's why it makes me so sick when I see "bookmakers" offering one way bad value prices and then closing down anyone who has the temerity to beat them
So...that 80/1 bet on West Ham to qualify. Really not good value indeed.
They need 8 now!
I made it 31,500/1
Tweeted William Hill to rub them down about it , and they said they thought they were almost best price!!! It was 1000/1 on Betfair, and 500s with Lads!
Almost best price? That's almost as insulting as the odds themselves!
@WillHillBet Is your 80/1 West Ham to qualify tonight the worst price ever made in bookmaking history? Are you offering a price on City?
William Hill Betting @WillHillBet Not sure if it is the biggest price, but not far off we don't think. No price on #MCFC on that market.
So...that 80/1 bet on West Ham to qualify. Really not good value indeed.
They need 8 now!
I made it 31,500/1
Tweeted William Hill to rub them down about it , and they said they thought they were almost best price!!! It was 1000/1 on Betfair, and 500s with Lads!
Almost best price? That's almost as insulting as the odds themselves!
@WillHillBet Is your 80/1 West Ham to qualify tonight the worst price ever made in bookmaking history? Are you offering a price on City?
William Hill Betting @WillHillBet Not sure if it is the biggest price, but not far off we don't think. No price on #MCFC on that market.
Maybe tweet them the link to Oddschecker, the poor souls clearly just aren't web-savvy. Unless they are cynical PR bods, which I couldn't possibly believe.
By the way, anyone else seen Oddschecker's TV advert and reckon it's shocking? Maybe it's just me, but I think it's even worse than the Coral "Stick one on it" ads where both the 'protagonist' annoys me and the slogan sounds like a euphemism.
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
Oh, indeed. It's absolutely clear that you lot think there's nothing wrong with what happened. That's the problem.
It is also absolutely clear that you are happy with being punished without following the due process of law and justice
I am happy with someone being punished for their actions. The idea that getting your mates to vote against your punishment is some form of superior due process is one solely for bewildered Lib Dems.
Again you are presuming guilt when none has been proved without having seen any of the evidence . You would serve well on a jury in North Korea .
The complaints were found to be credible, Mark. I'm not presuming anything, I'm basing my judgement on what your own independent investigator found. That intent to cause distress couldnt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in no way means he didnt behave in a way that should have lost him the whip (or his job if he was still employed by them).
Nor does it mean in any way that he did behave in a way that should lose him the whip .
And that's where we differ - you either take that behaviour seriously or you dont. That the Lib Dem peers dont reflects terribly on them.
So...that 80/1 bet on West Ham to qualify. Really not good value indeed.
They need 8 now!
I made it 31,500/1
Tweeted William Hill to rub them down about it , and they said they thought they were almost best price!!! It was 1000/1 on Betfair, and 500s with Lads!
Almost best price? That's almost as insulting as the odds themselves!
@WillHillBet Is your 80/1 West Ham to qualify tonight the worst price ever made in bookmaking history? Are you offering a price on City?
William Hill Betting @WillHillBet Not sure if it is the biggest price, but not far off we don't think. No price on #MCFC on that market.
Maybe tweet them the link to Oddschecker, the poor souls clearly just aren't web-savvy. Unless they are cynical PR bods, which I couldn't possibly believe.
By the way, anyone else seen Oddschecker's TV advert and reckon it's shocking? Maybe it's just me, but I think it's even worse than the Coral "Stick one on it" ads where both the 'protagonist' annoys me and the slogan sounds like a euphemism.
No jesus, don't mention oddschecker to the bookies - that site is a goldmine for punters.
The ads might be annoying but it provides a seriously good service, especially in racing where I beat BSP 90% of the time.
So...that 80/1 bet on West Ham to qualify. Really not good value indeed.
They need 8 now!
I made it 31,500/1
Tweeted William Hill to rub them down about it , and they said they thought they were almost best price!!! It was 1000/1 on Betfair, and 500s with Lads!
Almost best price? That's almost as insulting as the odds themselves!
@WillHillBet Is your 80/1 West Ham to qualify tonight the worst price ever made in bookmaking history? Are you offering a price on City?
William Hill Betting @WillHillBet Not sure if it is the biggest price, but not far off we don't think. No price on #MCFC on that market.
Maybe tweet them the link to Oddschecker, the poor souls clearly just aren't web-savvy. Unless they are cynical PR bods, which I couldn't possibly believe.
By the way, anyone else seen Oddschecker's TV advert and reckon it's shocking? Maybe it's just me, but I think it's even worse than the Coral "Stick one on it" ads where both the 'protagonist' annoys me and the slogan sounds like a euphemism.
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
Oh, indeed. It's absolutely clear that you lot think there's nothing wrong with what happened. That's the problem.
It is also absolutely clear that you are happy with being punished without following the due process of law and justice
I am happy with someone being punished for their actions. The idea that getting your mates to vote against your punishment is some form of superior due process is one solely for bewildered Lib Dems.
Again you are presuming guilt when none has been proved without having seen any of the evidence . You would serve well on a jury in North Korea .
The complaints were found to be credible, Mark. I'm not presuming anything, I'm basing my judgement on what your own independent investigator found. That intent to cause distress couldnt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in no way means he didnt behave in a way that should have lost him the whip (or his job if he was still employed by them).
Nor does it mean in any way that he did behave in a way that should lose him the whip .
And that's where we differ - you either take that behaviour seriously or you dont. That the Lib Dem peers dont reflects terribly on them.
No we differ on whether evidence is necessary before someone is punished .
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
The group that comes out of this worst of all has to be the Lib Dem parliamentary party in the Lords. Clegg and Farron must want to shoot them all.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
Certainly better to have them there than those who assume people guilty without having seen or heard any evidence .
The evidence was considered broadly credible by an independent investigator.
Some of us still remember the comments on Christopher Jefferies both on this site and in the press when he was arrested . He looks a bit wierd ... and ..he's a LIB DEM , must be guilty .
Christopher Jeffries didnt do anything.
Women who complained about Lord Rennard harassing them were found to be broadly credible. We must assume that the independent investigator believes at least some of the incidents described probably happened. But most Lib Dem peers apparently dont think that behaving in that way is serious enough to warrant losing the whip. I find that incredible.
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
A disciplinary hearing in most organisations that found that some of the incidents of the nature alleged in the Rennard case probably happened would undoubtedly result in some form of action, possibly dismissal. It doesn't go against the principles of natural justice at all; it goes against Lib Dem procedure, which is a rather different thing.
A disciplinary hearing today may well result in some form of action whereas an identical hearing 20 years ago would not . What 20 years ago would have been considered normal male/female flirting/making passes at is now considered sexual harassment worthy of punishment and also to be applied retroactively . I think that this a reason why there is a difference in opinion between generally older Lib Dems such as those in the HofL and younger ones .
That pretty much sums the whole issue up - the Lib Dem chauvinists are living in the past. And it looks terrible.
So...that 80/1 bet on West Ham to qualify. Really not good value indeed.
They need 8 now!
I made it 31,500/1
Tweeted William Hill to rub them down about it , and they said they thought they were almost best price!!! It was 1000/1 on Betfair, and 500s with Lads!
Almost best price? That's almost as insulting as the odds themselves!
@WillHillBet Is your 80/1 West Ham to qualify tonight the worst price ever made in bookmaking history? Are you offering a price on City?
William Hill Betting @WillHillBet Not sure if it is the biggest price, but not far off we don't think. No price on #MCFC on that market.
Maybe tweet them the link to Oddschecker, the poor souls clearly just aren't web-savvy. Unless they are cynical PR bods, which I couldn't possibly believe.
By the way, anyone else seen Oddschecker's TV advert and reckon it's shocking? Maybe it's just me, but I think it's even worse than the Coral "Stick one on it" ads where both the 'protagonist' annoys me and the slogan sounds like a euphemism.
No jesus, don't mention oddschecker to the bookies - that site is a goldmine for punters.
The ads might be annoying but it provides a seriously good service, especially in racing where I beat BSP 90% of the time.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
I've said from early on this parliament that the Lib Dems' biggest mistake was pushing for a referendum on AV rather than a fully elected Lords (or Senate), using STV.
My main reasoning has been that Lords reform would have given the Lib Dems a good chance of holding the balance of power in the Lords, could have been delivered without the need for a referendum, and wouldn't have split the coalition. However, it has to be said that one fringe benefit is that it would have cleared out a lot of dinosaurs who are too satisfied with their own company too (and obviously not just in the Lib Dems).
I think the 2010 Conservative offer to the Liberal Democrats was pretty generous - they were offered a referendum on AV and an 80% elected Lords, plus other moves to beef up backbench scrutiny of the government/more free votes. So they actually had a chance to change the system for electing members in both chambers. The Lib Dems would have got Lords reform too had Labour not decided to play short-term politics with discomforting the coalition. It would have split the Tories (like Iraq did Labour) but Labour were still in 'hate the Lib Dems' mode then. I don't know why Clegg went for semi-open list, rather than STV, that's an odd one.
The Lib Dems didn't really have the luxury of demanding STV for the HoC. Labour *were* offering AV without a referendum, but it was clear that they couldn't deliver the votes for it.
The interesting question, for me, is what negotiations hinge on next time. If Lib Dem + Tory MPs sum to, say, 330 - and Labour fall shorter than that again - what price for a Tory-Lib Dem coalition piddly effective majority of 14-ish?
I'd imagine Lib Dems would want something written in blood this time. I doubt they'd get a second HoC referendum only 5 years after the last. They might demand (and be offered) STV for local authorities but I'm not sure that'd be enough. Certainly not next to the 2010 offer.
I agree the offer was open and generous, as Cameron put it. Even so, had they left reform of the Commons alone but demanded a fully (or overwhelmingly) elected Lords, using STV, I think it would have been agreed - and would have given them benefits that AV for the Commons wouldn't (never mind just the chance of AV for the Commons). It wouldn't have been easy - reform of the Lords never is - but it could have been done. Still, that's all water under the bridge.
In the scenario you envisage, the Lib Dems will have quite a strong hand, even with fewer numbers, as the Tories will demand boundary reform and a Euro-referendum (also written in blood), so there'll be something to trade.
Anyone know the last time a League Cup semi-final had an aggregate of over a 10 goal win? How about 15? Some intern at the sports sections of the papers will be looking this up as we speak.
It's easy to underestimate the tug of friendship in Parliament. The LibDem peers have worked alongside Rennard for many years, and many of them have previously found him a vital aide in campaigns and an affable enough man. It's natural for them to hope he'll be cleared, and cheer when he gets what is perhaps best described as a Scottish Not Proven assessment. Clegg, however, needed to take a broader and frankly more decisive view.
Works the other way too. I suspect the reason why Andrew Mitchell didn't get more support against what have turned out to be false allegations is that some colleagues thought them not entirely implausible and remembered times when he'd been rude to them. If, say, John Major had been subject to the same accusations, nobody would have believed them for a second.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
Certainly better to have them there than those who assume people guilty without having seen or heard any evidence .
The evidence was considered broadly credible by an independent investigator.
Some of us still remember the comments on Christopher Jefferies both on this site and in the press when he was arrested . He looks a bit wierd ... and ..he's a LIB DEM , must be guilty .
Christopher Jeffries didnt do anything.
Women who complained about Lord Rennard harassing them were found to be broadly credible. We must assume that the independent investigator believes at least some of the incidents described probably happened. But most Lib Dem peers apparently dont think that behaving in that way is serious enough to warrant losing the whip. I find that incredible.
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
A disciplinary hearing in most organisations that found that some of the incidents of the nature alleged in the Rennard case probably happened would undoubtedly result in some form of action, possibly dismissal. It doesn't go against the principles of natural justice at all; it goes against Lib Dem procedure, which is a rather different thing.
A disciplinary hearing today may well result in some form of action whereas an identical hearing 20 years ago would not . What 20 years ago would have been considered normal male/female flirting/making passes at is now considered sexual harassment worthy of punishment and also to be applied retroactively . I think that this a reason why there is a difference in opinion between generally older Lib Dems such as those in the HofL and younger ones .
We're not talking about something that happened twenty years ago though are we? The investigation reported this month, found the complainants to be broadly credible, yet no meaningful action is to be taken. It might be in line with the party procedure but then the line that "it was all within the rules" is one that was tried with expenses, and was found wanting there too.
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
Oh, indeed. It's absolutely clear that you lot think there's nothing wrong with what happened. That's the problem.
It is also absolutely clear that you are happy with being punished without following the due process of law and justice
I am happy with someone being punished for their actions. The idea that getting your mates to vote against your punishment is some form of superior due process is one solely for bewildered Lib Dems.
Again you are presuming guilt when none has been proved without having seen any of the evidence . You would serve well on a jury in North Korea .
The complaints were found to be credible, Mark. I'm not presuming anything, I'm basing my judgement on what your own independent investigator found. That intent to cause distress couldnt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in no way means he didnt behave in a way that should have lost him the whip (or his job if he was still employed by them).
Nor does it mean in any way that he did behave in a way that should lose him the whip .
And that's where we differ - you either take that behaviour seriously or you dont. That the Lib Dem peers dont reflects terribly on them.
No we differ on whether evidence is necessary before someone is punished .
The evidence is there, the independent investigator found it credible - your last comment betrays the fact that your reservations have nothing to do with due process, it's just that you think this is the kind of behaviour that men should be allowed to display towards more junior women in their organisation.
It's easy to underestimate the tug of friendship in Parliament. The LibDem peers have worked alongside Rennard for many years, and many of them have previously found him a vital aide in campaigns and an affable enough man. It's natural for them to hope he'll be cleared, and cheer when he gets what is perhaps best described as a Scottish Not Proven assessment. Clegg, however, needed to take a broader and frankly more decisive view.
Works the other way too. I suspect the reason why Andrew Mitchell didn't get more support against what have turned out to be false allegations is that some colleagues thought them not entirely implausible and remembered times when he'd been rude to them. If, say, John Major had been subject to the same accusations, nobody would have believed them for a second.
You are seeing that through anti-Tory glasses.
It could just be that many people owed Rennard for their positions, and that he knows where the bodies are buried. Both of these make a powerful combination that would get support.
Still, it's good to see that some people are still trying to make out that Mitchell was in some way responsible for what happened ...
Err, no, someone inappropriately harassing female staff in the workplace was not regarded as male/female flirting/making passes by those on the receiving end of it even back in the 80's!
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
Certainly better to have them there than those who assume people guilty without having seen or heard any evidence .
The evidence was considered broadly credible by an independent investigator.
Some of us still remember the comments on Christopher Jefferies both on this site and in the press when he was arrested . He looks a bit wierd ... and ..he's a LIB DEM , must be guilty .
Christopher Jeffries didnt do anything.
Women who complained about Lord Rennard harassing them were found to be broadly credible. We must assume that the independent investigator believes at least some of the incidents described probably happened. But most Lib Dem peers apparently dont think that behaving in that way is serious enough to warrant losing the whip. I find that incredible.
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
A disciplinary hearing in most organisations that found that some of the incidents of the nature alleged in the Rennard case probably happened would undoubtedly result in some form of action, possibly dismissal. It doesn't go against the principles of natural justice at all; it goes against Lib Dem procedure, which is a rather different thing.
A disciplinary hearing today may well result in some form of action whereas an identical hearing 20 years ago would not . What 20 years ago would have been considered normal male/female flirting/making passes at is now considered sexual harassment worthy of punishment and also to be applied retroactively . I think that this a reason why there is a difference in opinion between generally older Lib Dems such as those in the HofL and younger ones .
Women who complained about Lord Rennard harassing them were found to be broadly credible. We must assume that the independent investigator believes at least some of the incidents described probably happened. But most Lib Dem peers apparently dont think that behaving in that way is serious enough to warrant losing the whip. I find that incredible.
...
A disciplinary hearing today may well result in some form of action whereas an identical hearing 20 years ago would not . What 20 years ago would have been considered normal male/female flirting/making passes at is now considered sexual harassment worthy of punishment and also to be applied retroactively . I think that this a reason why there is a difference in opinion between generally older Lib Dems such as those in the HofL and younger ones .
Mark
You have come off the rails.
The Rennard issue is most certainly not about "normal male/female flirting/making passes". It is about a middle aged man allegedly using the power he holds in an organisation as a licence to importune young female activists for his personal sexual gratification.
It is about the organisation seeking to protect their senior officer by applying a different complaint handling process than they would have done to a junior employee.
It is a story of coverup and compromise.
And it would have been just as unacceptable twenty years ago as it is today.
Finally, Rennard is not having the whip forcibly removed from him. It is being conditionally returned to him with the condition being that he offers an apology without accepting liability to those women who have taken offence due to their perceptions of his behaviour.
A gentleman would most definitely apologise in the circumstances, thereby part satisfiying the women involved, protecting the party and cause for which he has devoted a lifetime of worth and upholding the dignity and reputation of the party, its leadership and management process.
Perhaps it is the concept of gentlemanly behaviour which is twenty years out of date?
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
Oh, indeed. It's absolutely clear that you lot think there's nothing wrong with what happened. That's the problem.
It is also absolutely clear that you are happy with being punished without following the due process of law and justice
I am happy with someone being punished for their actions. The idea that getting your mates to vote against your punishment is some form of superior due process is one solely for bewildered Lib Dems.
Again you are presuming guilt when none has been proved without having seen any of the evidence . You would serve well on a jury in North Korea .
The complaints were found to be credible, Mark. I'm not presuming anything, I'm basing my judgement on what your own independent investigator found. That intent to cause distress couldnt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in no way means he didnt behave in a way that should have lost him the whip (or his job if he was still employed by them).
Nor does it mean in any way that he did behave in a way that should lose him the whip .
And that's where we differ - you either take that behaviour seriously or you dont. That the Lib Dem peers dont reflects terribly on them.
No we differ on whether evidence is necessary before someone is punished .
The evidence is there, the independent investigator found it credible - your last comment betrays the fact that your reservations have nothing to do with due process, it's just that you think this is the kind of behaviour that men should be allowed to display towards more junior women in their organisation.
The evidence was looked at by the police and found insufficient , we could also consider that none of the women considered the evidence strong enough to commence a civil action against Lord Rennard . There are aspects of men's behaviour towards women that I find unacceptable and always have . There are some aspects that were considered acceptable 20 years ago that I would not consider acceptable now but even so I would not consider it justifiable to prosecute someone now for behaviour on which opinion has changed over that time .
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
Certainly better to have them there than those who assume people guilty without having seen or heard any evidence .
The evidence was considered broadly credible by an independent investigator.
Some of us still remember the comments on Christopher Jefferies both on this site and in the press when he was arrested . He looks a bit wierd ... and ..he's a LIB DEM , must be guilty .
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
A disciplinary hearing in most organisations that found that some of the incidents of the nature alleged in the Rennard case probably happened would undoubtedly result in some form of action, possibly dismissal. It doesn't go against the principles of natural justice at all; it goes against Lib Dem procedure, which is a rather different thing.
A disciplinary hearing today may well result in some form of action whereas an identical hearing 20 years ago would not . What 20 years ago would have been considered normal male/female flirting/making passes at is now considered sexual harassment worthy of punishment and also to be applied retroactively . I think that this a reason why there is a difference in opinion between generally older Lib Dems such as those in the HofL and younger ones .
We're not talking about something that happened twenty years ago though are we? The investigation reported this month, found the complainants to be broadly credible, yet no meaningful action is to be taken. It might be in line with the party procedure but then the line that "it was all within the rules" is one that was tried with expenses, and was found wanting there too.
In one case we are talking about something that happened over 10 years ago .
Err, no, someone inappropriately harassing female staff in the workplace was not regarded as male/female flirting/making passes by those on the receiving end of it even back in the 80's!
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
Certainly better to have them there than those who assume people guilty without having seen or heard any evidence .
The evidence was considered broadly credible by an independent investigator.
Some of us still remember the comments on Christopher Jefferies both on this site and in the press when he was arrested . He looks a bit wierd ... and ..he's a LIB DEM , must be guilty .
Christopher Jeffries didnt do anything.
Women who complained about Lord Rennard harassing them were found to be broadly credible. We must assume that the independent investigator believes at least some of the incidents described probably happened. But most Lib Dem peers apparently dont think that behaving in that way is serious enough to warrant losing the whip. I find that incredible.
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
A disciplinary hearing in most organisations that found that some of the incidents of the nature alleged in the Rennard case probably happened would undoubtedly result in some form of action, possibly dismissal. It doesn't go against the principles of natural justice at all; it goes against Lib Dem procedure, which is a rather different thing.
A disciplinary hearing today may well result in some form of action whereas an identical hearing 20 years ago would not . What 20 years ago would have been considered normal male/female flirting/making passes at is now considered sexual harassment worthy of punishment and also to be applied retroactively . I think that this a reason why there is a difference in opinion between generally older Lib Dems such as those in the HofL and younger ones .
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
Oh, indeed. It's absolutely clear that you lot think there's nothing wrong with what happened. That's the problem.
It is also absolutely clear that you are happy with being punished without following the due process of law and justice
I am happy with someone being punished for their actions. The idea that getting your mates to vote against your punishment is some form of superior due process is one solely for bewildered Lib Dems.
Again you are presuming guilt when none has been proved without having seen any of the evidence . You would serve well on a jury in North Korea .
The complaints were found to be credible, Mark. I'm not presuming anything, I'm basing my judgement on what your own independent investigator found. That intent to cause distress couldnt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in no way means he didnt behave in a way that should have lost him the whip (or his job if he was still employed by them).
Nor does it mean in any way that he did behave in a way that should lose him the whip .
And that's where we differ - you either take that behaviour seriously or you dont. That the Lib Dem peers dont reflects terribly on them.
No we differ on whether evidence is necessary before someone is punished .
The evidence is there, the independent investigator found it credible - your last comment betrays the fact that your reservations have nothing to do with due process, it's just that you think this is the kind of behaviour that men should be allowed to display towards more junior women in their organisation.
But "broadly credible" is a very low test. In any court proceedings both parties almost always have some "broadly credible" evidence available to them (or else they wouldn't be there, if properly advised). Being credible doesn't mean it's right, it only means it deserves taking into consideration along with any other credible evidence, which may contradict it. The evidence against Andrew Mitchell was at least as "broadly credible" as that against Rennard, and look what happened there.
It's easy to underestimate the tug of friendship in Parliament....
'Ang-about:
Sven, you applauded the arrest of Damian Green [in his Commons' office; service by the armed-wing-of-the-Labour-Party Metropolitan-Police] IIRC, no? You also found it 'hilarious' that Andrew Mitchell was - as the recent conviction proves - stitched-up by some dodgy members of the Supreme Heroes of the Soviet of Protectors of the Labour Party Legacy (sic) Police-Federation!
With your idea of friendship I feel sorry for a few posters on here. Any luck finding a bridge to dwell under in Norway (2015)...?
Oh, indeed. It's absolutely clear that you lot think there's nothing wrong with what happened. That's the problem.
It is also absolutely clear that you are happy with being punished without following the due process of law and justice
I am happy with someone being punished for their actions. The idea that getting your mates to vote against your punishment is some form of superior due process is one solely for bewildered Lib Dems.
Again you are presuming guilt when none has been proved without having seen any of the evidence . You would serve well on a jury in North Korea .
The complaints were found to be credible, Mark. I'm not presuming anything, I'm basing my judgement on what your own independent investigator found. That intent to cause distress couldnt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in no way means he didnt behave in a way that should have lost him the whip (or his job if he was still employed by them).
Nor does it mean in any way that he did behave in a way that should lose him the whip .
And that's where we differ - you either take that behaviour seriously or you dont. That the Lib Dem peers dont reflects terribly on them.
No we differ on whether evidence is necessary before someone is punished .
The evidence is there, the independent investigator found it credible - your last comment betrays the fact that your reservations have nothing to do with due process, it's just that you think this is the kind of behaviour that men should be allowed to display towards more junior women in their organisation.
The evidence was looked at by the police and found insufficient , we could also consider that none of the women considered the evidence strong enough to commence a civil action against Lord Rennard . There are aspects of men's behaviour towards women that I find unacceptable and always have . There are some aspects that were considered acceptable 20 years ago that I would not consider acceptable now but even so I would not consider it justifiable to prosecute someone now for behaviour on which opinion has changed over that time .
Some of the current defendants would agree with you, not entirely sure the jury will though.
The evidence was looked at by the police and found insufficient
And that's why I'm not saying he should face criminal charges. His behaviour may not have been criminal but it was worthy of losing a job / whip. Obviously you and most Lib Dem peers dont think it was that serious. Let's not pretend your stance is down to a higher regard for due process or natural justice though.
Why wouldn't an innocent man who had just been cleared be welcomed back by his friends?
This Rennard fiasco will probably end up destroying the Lib Dems. I know how these things work, having seen it at first hand. This is Deadly serious stuff and a fight to the death, not some spectator sport.
As I intimated last night, Rennard also has the right to a cause of action for defamation.
You and some of your posters should take note..
Few if any of you have the foggiest about the legal ramifications of this case.
Err, no, someone inappropriately harassing female staff in the workplace was not regarded as male/female flirting/making passes by those on the receiving end of it even back in the 80's!
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
Certainly better to have them there than those who assume people guilty without having seen or heard any evidence .
The evidence was considered broadly credible by an independent investigator.
Some of us still remember the comments on Christopher Jefferies both on this site and in the press when he was arrested . He looks a bit wierd ... and ..he's a LIB DEM , must be guilty .
Christopher Jeffries didnt do anything.
Women who complained about Lord Rennard harassing them were found to be broadly credible. We must assume that the independent investigator believes at least some of the incidents described probably happened. But most Lib Dem peers apparently dont think that behaving in that way is serious enough to warrant losing the whip. I find that incredible.
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
A disciplinary hearing in most organisations that found that some of the incidents of the nature alleged in the Rennard case probably happened would undoubtedly result in some form of action, possibly dismissal. It doesn't go against the principles of natural justice at all; it goes against Lib Dem procedure, which is a rather different thing.
A disciplinary hearing today may well result in some form of action whereas an identical hearing 20 years ago would not . What 20 years ago would have been considered normal male/female flirting/making passes at is now considered sexual harassment worthy of punishment and also to be applied retroactively . I think that this a reason why there is a difference in opinion between generally older Lib Dems such as those in the HofL and younger ones .
Why wouldn't an innocent man who had just been cleared be welcomed back by his friends?
This Rennard fiasco will probably end up destroying the Lib Dems. I know how these things work, having seen it at first hand. This is Deadly serious stuff and a fight to the death, not some spectator sport.
As I intimated last night, Rennard also has the right to a cause of action for defamation.
You and some of your posters should take note..
Few if any of you have the foggiest about the legal ramifications of this case.
Didn't the Liberal Party survive (just) a murder investigation into their leader or something in the 70s? It's pre-'my time' so I don't know the details.
Oh, indeed. It's absolutely clear that you lot think there's nothing wrong with what happened. That's the problem.
It is also absolutely clear that you are happy with being punished without following the due process of law and justice
I am happy with someone being punished for their actions. The idea that getting your mates to vote against your punishment is some form of superior due process is one solely for bewildered Lib Dems.
Again you are presuming guilt when none has been proved without having seen any of the evidence . You would serve well on a jury in North Korea .
The complaints were found to be credible, Mark. I'm not presuming anything, I'm basing my judgement on what your own independent investigator found. That intent to cause distress couldnt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in no way means he didnt behave in a way that should have lost him the whip (or his job if he was still employed by them).
Nor does it mean in any way that he did behave in a way that should lose him the whip .
And that's where we differ - you either take that behaviour seriously or you dont. That the Lib Dem peers dont reflects terribly on them.
No we differ on whether evidence is necessary before someone is punished .
The evidence is there, the independent investigator found it credible - your last comment betrays the fact that your reservations have nothing to do with due process, it's just that you think this is the kind of behaviour that men should be allowed to display towards more junior women in their organisation.
The evidence was looked at by the police and found insufficient , we could also consider that none of the women considered the evidence strong enough to commence a civil action against Lord Rennard . There are aspects of men's behaviour towards women that I find unacceptable and always have . There are some aspects that were considered acceptable 20 years ago that I would not consider acceptable now but even so I would not consider it justifiable to prosecute someone now for behaviour on which opinion has changed over that time .
Some of the current defendants would agree with you, not entirely sure the jury will though.
Anyone know the last time a League Cup semi-final had an aggregate of over a 10 goal win? How about 15? Some intern at the sports sections of the papers will be looking this up as we speak.
And the BBC intern has it! The record is in fact held by West Ham, a 10-3 victory over Cardiff in 1966. So City already have the record, two more goals and they can be the first to set a double digit margin.
Oh, indeed. It's absolutely clear that you lot think there's nothing wrong with what happened. That's the problem.
It is also absolutely clear that you are happy with being punished without following the due process of law and justice
I am happy with someone being punished for their actions. The idea that getting your mates to vote against your punishment is some form of superior due process is one solely for bewildered Lib Dems.
Again you are presuming guilt when none has been proved without having seen any of the evidence . You would serve well on a jury in North Korea .
The complaints were found to be credible, Mark. I'm not presuming anything, I'm basing my judgement on what your own independent investigator found. That intent to cause distress couldnt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in no way means he didnt behave in a way that should have lost him the whip (or his job if he was still employed by them).
Nor does it mean in any way that he did behave in a way that should lose him the whip .
And that's where we differ - you either take that behaviour seriously or you dont. That the Lib Dem peers dont reflects terribly on them.
No we differ on whether evidence is necessary before someone is punished .
The evidence is there, the independent investigator found it credible - your last comment betrays the fact that your reservations have nothing to do with due process, it's just that you think this is the kind of behaviour that men should be allowed to display towards more junior women in their organisation.
The evidence was looked at by the police and found insufficient , we could also consider that none of the women considered the evidence strong enough to commence a civil action against Lord Rennard . There are aspects of men's behaviour towards women that I find unacceptable and always have . There are some aspects that were considered acceptable 20 years ago that I would not consider acceptable now but even so I would not consider it justifiable to prosecute someone now for behaviour on which opinion has changed over that time .
Some of the current defendants would agree with you, not entirely sure the jury will though.
What defendants and What jury ??
Not quoting specifics for obvious reasons but it's really not difficult.
Err, no, someone inappropriately harassing female staff in the workplace was not regarded as male/female flirting/making passes by those on the receiving end of it even back in the 80's!
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
Certainly better to have them there than those who assume people guilty without having seen or heard any evidence .
The evidence was considered broadly credible by an independent investigator.
Some of us still remember the comments on Christopher Jefferies both on this site and in the press when he was arrested . He looks a bit wierd ... and ..he's a LIB DEM , must be guilty .
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
A disciplinary hearing in most organisations that found that some of the incidents of the nature alleged in the Rennard case probably happened would undoubtedly result in some form of action, possibly dismissal. It doesn't go against the principles of natural justice at all; it goes against Lib Dem procedure, which is a rather different thing.
A disciplinary hearing today may well result in some form of action whereas an identical hearing 20 years ago would not . What 20 years ago would have been considered normal male/female flirting/making passes at is now considered sexual harassment worthy of punishment and also to be applied retroactively . I think that this a reason why there is a difference in opinion between generally older Lib Dems such as those in the HofL and younger ones .
Define inappopriate harassing
Yes I do , I have clear ideas of what I consider inappropriate harassing , I am trying to ascertain whether you do .
Err, no, someone inappropriately harassing female staff in the workplace was not regarded as male/female flirting/making passes by those on the receiving end of it even back in the 80's!
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
Certainly better to have them there than those who assume people guilty without having seen or heard any evidence .
The evidence was considered broadly credible by an independent investigator.
Some of us still remember the comments on Christopher Jefferies both on this site and in the press when he was arrested . He looks a bit wierd ... and ..he's a LIB DEM , must be guilty .
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
A disciplinary hearing in most organisations that found that some of the incidents of the nature alleged in the Rennard case probably happened would undoubtedly result in some form of action, possibly dismissal. It doesn't go against the principles of natural justice at all; it goes against Lib Dem procedure, which is a rather different thing.
A disciplinary hearing today may well result in some form of action whereas an identical hearing 20 years ago would not . What 20 years ago would have been considered normal male/female flirting/making passes at is now considered sexual harassment worthy of punishment and also to be applied retroactively . I think that this a reason why there is a difference in opinion between generally older Lib Dems such as those in the HofL and younger ones .
Define inappopriate harassing
Yes I do , I have clear ideas of what I consider inappropriate harassing , I am trying to ascertain whether you do .
Err, no, someone inappropriately harassing female staff in the workplace was not regarded as male/female flirting/making passes by those on the receiving end of it even back in the 80's!
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
Certainly better to have them there than those who assume people guilty without having seen or heard any evidence .
The evidence was considered broadly credible by an independent investigator.
Some of us still remember the comments on Christopher Jefferies both on this site and in the press when he was arrested . He looks a bit wierd ... and ..he's a LIB DEM , must be guilty .
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
A disciplinary hearing today may well result in some form of action whereas an identical hearing 20 years ago would not . What 20 years ago would have been considered normal male/female flirting/making passes at is now considered sexual harassment worthy of punishment and also to be applied retroactively . I think that this a reason why there is a difference in opinion between generally older Lib Dems such as those in the HofL and younger ones .
Define inappopriate harassing
Yes I do , I have clear ideas of what I consider inappropriate harassing , I am trying to ascertain whether you do .
The SNP are really quite bizarre in their attempts to ban Fracking "Before it's too late" thay say...too late for what?
I've read a report from McSporran University that they're afraid the underground tremors will effect the mating grounds of the Haggis, and cause a worldwide glut on Scotland main export.
#
Reference please? I can't find it - are you thinking of the Green Party?
Given that AFAIK the Scottish Government and the Scots get none of the revenue (there is no Barnett formula for income), and have to bear all the costs of planning, monitoring, pollution, etc., even without any disasters, and given that they are already net exporters of energy as electricity and as oil, it would not be surprising if the Scots are reluctant to be guinea-pigs yet again for the benefit of the London Government.
I would in any case be very wary of supporting introducing fracking into densely populated synclinal sedimentary basins riddled with 300 years + of old mines, including into oilshale and ironstone and fireclay as well as coal. I would like to see independent analyses not commissioned by the London Government.
Still, it's good to see that some people are still trying to make out that Mitchell was in some way responsible for what happened ...
If he hadnt sworn at the police in the first place it is doubtful events would have developed in the same way.
Bit late to this, but AIUI the police claim Mitchell swore *at* them, whilst he claims he swore *in their presence, but not at them*. Given the officers' apparent poor memories and logbook keeping, I'd trust his version of events.
Wrong, but it wasn't worth what the poor man went through. And it was suspicious from the very start.
Besides, if police are willing to lie in such a grotesque manner, they hardly need an excuse: "looking me at a funny way" becomes more than just a comedy sketch.
The SNP are really quite bizarre in their attempts to ban Fracking "Before it's too late" thay say...too late for what?
I've read a report from McSporran University that they're afraid the underground tremors will effect the mating grounds of the Haggis, and cause a worldwide glut on Scotland main export.
#
Reference please? I can't find it - are you thinking of the Green Party?
Given that AFAIK the Scottish Government and the Scots get none of the revenue (there is no Barnett formula for income), and have to bear all the costs of planning, monitoring, pollution, etc., even without any disasters, and given that they are already net exporters of energy as electricity and as oil, it would not be surprising if the Scots are reluctant to be guinea-pigs yet again for the benefit of the London Government.
I would in any case be very wary of supporting introducing fracking into densely populated synclinal sedimentary basins riddled with 300 years + of old mines, including into oilshale and ironstone and fireclay as well as coal. I would like to see independent analyses not commissioned by the London Government.
*It was a joke*. I know some Scottish PBers have had a sense of humour failure (in direct contrast to many Scots I know), but come on.
Comments
William Hill Betting @WillHillBet
Not sure if it is the biggest price, but not far off we don't think. No price on #MCFC on that market.
ANOTHER WINNING BET THIS YEAR.
By the way, anyone else seen Oddschecker's TV advert and reckon it's shocking? Maybe it's just me, but I think it's even worse than the Coral "Stick one on it" ads where both the 'protagonist' annoys me and the slogan sounds like a euphemism.
The ads might be annoying but it provides a seriously good service, especially in racing where I beat BSP 90% of the time.
In the scenario you envisage, the Lib Dems will have quite a strong hand, even with fewer numbers, as the Tories will demand boundary reform and a Euro-referendum (also written in blood), so there'll be something to trade.
Works the other way too. I suspect the reason why Andrew Mitchell didn't get more support against what have turned out to be false allegations is that some colleagues thought them not entirely implausible and remembered times when he'd been rude to them. If, say, John Major had been subject to the same accusations, nobody would have believed them for a second.
Buy bookings at 42, and depending on how the match is going buy Fat Lady, I'm taking a chance and have bought before kick off at 21
It could just be that many people owed Rennard for their positions, and that he knows where the bodies are buried. Both of these make a powerful combination that would get support.
Still, it's good to see that some people are still trying to make out that Mitchell was in some way responsible for what happened ...
Christopher Jeffries didnt do anything.
Women who complained about Lord Rennard harassing them were found to be broadly credible. We must assume that the independent investigator believes at least some of the incidents described probably happened. But most Lib Dem peers apparently dont think that behaving in that way is serious enough to warrant losing the whip. I find that incredible.
...
A disciplinary hearing today may well result in some form of action whereas an identical hearing 20 years ago would not . What 20 years ago would have been considered normal male/female flirting/making passes at is now considered sexual harassment worthy of punishment and also to be applied retroactively . I think that this a reason why there is a difference in opinion between generally older Lib Dems such as those in the HofL and younger ones .
Mark
You have come off the rails.
The Rennard issue is most certainly not about "normal male/female flirting/making passes". It is about a middle aged man allegedly using the power he holds in an organisation as a licence to importune young female activists for his personal sexual gratification.
It is about the organisation seeking to protect their senior officer by applying a different complaint handling process than they would have done to a junior employee.
It is a story of coverup and compromise.
And it would have been just as unacceptable twenty years ago as it is today.
Finally, Rennard is not having the whip forcibly removed from him. It is being conditionally returned to him with the condition being that he offers an apology without accepting liability to those women who have taken offence due to their perceptions of his behaviour.
A gentleman would most definitely apologise in the circumstances, thereby part satisfiying the women involved, protecting the party and cause for which he has devoted a lifetime of worth and upholding the dignity and reputation of the party, its leadership and management process.
Perhaps it is the concept of gentlemanly behaviour which is twenty years out of date?
Sven, you applauded the arrest of Damian Green [in his Commons' office; service by the armed-wing-of-the-Labour-Party Metropolitan-Police] IIRC, no? You also found it 'hilarious' that Andrew Mitchell was - as the recent conviction proves - stitched-up by some dodgy members of the Supreme Heroes of the Soviet of Protectors of the Labour Party Legacy (sic) Police-Federation!
With your idea of friendship I feel sorry for a few posters on here. Any luck finding a bridge to dwell under in Norway (2015)...?
:[MODERATED]:
Oh, indeed. It's absolutely clear that you lot think there's nothing wrong with what happened. That's the problem.
It is also absolutely clear that you are happy with being punished without following the due process of law and justice
I am happy with someone being punished for their actions. The idea that getting your mates to vote against your punishment is some form of superior due process is one solely for bewildered Lib Dems.
Again you are presuming guilt when none has been proved without having seen any of the evidence . You would serve well on a jury in North Korea .
The complaints were found to be credible, Mark. I'm not presuming anything, I'm basing my judgement on what your own independent investigator found. That intent to cause distress couldnt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in no way means he didnt behave in a way that should have lost him the whip (or his job if he was still employed by them).
Nor does it mean in any way that he did behave in a way that should lose him the whip .
And that's where we differ - you either take that behaviour seriously or you dont. That the Lib Dem peers dont reflects terribly on them.
No we differ on whether evidence is necessary before someone is punished .
The evidence is there, the independent investigator found it credible - your last comment betrays the fact that your reservations have nothing to do with due process, it's just that you think this is the kind of behaviour that men should be allowed to display towards more junior women in their organisation.
The evidence was looked at by the police and found insufficient , we could also consider that none of the women considered the evidence strong enough to commence a civil action against Lord Rennard . There are aspects of men's behaviour towards women that I find unacceptable and always have . There are some aspects that were considered acceptable 20 years ago that I would not consider acceptable now but even so I would not consider it justifiable to prosecute someone now for behaviour on which opinion has changed over that time .
Some of the current defendants would agree with you, not entirely sure the jury will though.
Why wouldn't an innocent man who had just been cleared be welcomed back by his friends?
This Rennard fiasco will probably end up destroying the Lib Dems. I know how these things work, having seen it at first hand. This is Deadly serious stuff and a fight to the death, not some spectator sport.
As I intimated last night, Rennard also has the right to a cause of action for defamation.
You and some of your posters should take note..
Few if any of you have the foggiest about the legal ramifications of this case.
Enjoy your winning streak
I am happy with someone being punished for their actions. The idea that getting your mates to vote against your punishment is some form of superior due process is one solely for bewildered Lib Dems.
Again you are presuming guilt when none has been proved without having seen any of the evidence . You would serve well on a jury in North Korea .
The complaints were found to be credible, Mark. I'm not presuming anything, I'm basing my judgement on what your own independent investigator found. That intent to cause distress couldnt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in no way means he didnt behave in a way that should have lost him the whip (or his job if he was still employed by them).
Nor does it mean in any way that he did behave in a way that should lose him the whip .
And that's where we differ - you either take that behaviour seriously or you dont. That the Lib Dem peers dont reflects terribly on them.
No we differ on whether evidence is necessary before someone is punished .
The evidence is there, the independent investigator found it credible - your last comment betrays the fact that your reservations have nothing to do with due process, it's just that you think this is the kind of behaviour that men should be allowed to display towards more junior women in their organisation.
The evidence was looked at by the police and found insufficient , we could also consider that none of the women considered the evidence strong enough to commence a civil action against Lord Rennard . There are aspects of men's behaviour towards women that I find unacceptable and always have . There are some aspects that were considered acceptable 20 years ago that I would not consider acceptable now but even so I would not consider it justifiable to prosecute someone now for behaviour on which opinion has changed over that time .
Some of the current defendants would agree with you, not entirely sure the jury will though.
What defendants and What jury ??
Again you are presuming guilt when none has been proved without having seen any of the evidence . You would serve well on a jury in North Korea .
The complaints were found to be credible, Mark. I'm not presuming anything, I'm basing my judgement on what your own independent investigator found. That intent to cause distress couldnt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in no way means he didnt behave in a way that should have lost him the whip (or his job if he was still employed by them).
Nor does it mean in any way that he did behave in a way that should lose him the whip .
And that's where we differ - you either take that behaviour seriously or you dont. That the Lib Dem peers dont reflects terribly on them.
No we differ on whether evidence is necessary before someone is punished .
The evidence is there, the independent investigator found it credible - your last comment betrays the fact that your reservations have nothing to do with due process, it's just that you think this is the kind of behaviour that men should be allowed to display towards more junior women in their organisation.
The evidence was looked at by the police and found insufficient , we could also consider that none of the women considered the evidence strong enough to commence a civil action against Lord Rennard . There are aspects of men's behaviour towards women that I find unacceptable and always have . There are some aspects that were considered acceptable 20 years ago that I would not consider acceptable now but even so I would not consider it justifiable to prosecute someone now for behaviour on which opinion has changed over that time .
Some of the current defendants would agree with you, not entirely sure the jury will though.
What defendants and What jury ??
Not quoting specifics for obvious reasons but it's really not difficult.
Reference please? I can't find it - are you thinking of the Green Party?
Given that AFAIK the Scottish Government and the Scots get none of the revenue (there is no Barnett formula for income), and have to bear all the costs of planning, monitoring, pollution, etc., even without any disasters, and given that they are already net exporters of energy as electricity and as oil, it would not be surprising if the Scots are reluctant to be guinea-pigs yet again for the benefit of the London Government.
I would in any case be very wary of supporting introducing fracking into densely populated synclinal sedimentary basins riddled with 300 years + of old mines, including into oilshale and ironstone and fireclay as well as coal. I would like to see independent analyses not commissioned by the London Government.
Wrong, but it wasn't worth what the poor man went through. And it was suspicious from the very start.
Besides, if police are willing to lie in such a grotesque manner, they hardly need an excuse: "looking me at a funny way" becomes more than just a comedy sketch.