Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A hollow victory for the hollow crown? – politicalbetting.com

1234568»

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,310

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    More than you might think.

    One of the ingredients of the classic BBC Saturday night was some sort of chat show; Parkinson, Saturday Night at the Mill, that sort of thing. And the real appeal of them was familiar faces talking to each other.

    Whilst MotD is officially a football show, it has also taken on some of that role. Which is why so much if it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around.
    So much of it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around because the Beeb can't AFFORD more than a few minutes of each match. THAT is why they need "pundits". (I prefer to call them padders.)
    So you’re saying Lineker is value for money ?
    He's cheaper than paying for 22 men kicking a ball around.

    Personally, I'd rather have MOtD half the length and a rerun of Morph-era Vision On to fill the void.
    I don’t care about football at all, but I can see that employing him makes sense for the BBC.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,637
    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
    No AV.

    Two subtle Scottish puns though.
    Who could resist?
    *also slavers in anticipation*
    Not modern slavers, I hope ?
    Question - I am thinking of putting up a statue (group statute) to honour the men and women of the Libyan Coastguard.

    I was thinking of Bristol - I understand they have a space there.

    Any other suggestions?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,427
    Nigelb said:

    .

    I keep hearing how the banks are much better capitalised than in 2008. That isn't saying much though is it? If we are going to have depositor guarantees surely there needs to be a requirement for much more capital. I'm quite happy to help firms who are temporarily without funds because their bank has gone bust but you need to be careful you aren't getting into corporate welfare. Obviously the bank bond holders and shareholders get nothing.

    They are in this country and other countries that have regulatory rules to cover this.

    The issue here isn’t, as far as we know, that depositors money has been lost. It’s that the US bank had a liquidity crisis - they could get the money out of the Government securities they held to give depositors there money *now*, without taking a major loss on the sale of the securities.

    So someone needs to hold the securities to maturity, while paying the depositors *their* money, in the present.
    Problem is that those bonds yield a lot less than current interest rates, so holding them to maturity is going to cost whoever does so, unless they get them at a discount.
    So someone’s got to lose money.

    For a well capitalised bank that just means a hit to profits. For SVB the gearing is much higher, with less capital cover, and the situation was made worse for current depositors by massive deposit withdrawals last werk.
    Yes it's a MTM loss on the assets. The current value will be at a discount to par and to what they paid. If they need cash and the BS and Regs allow they could maybe look to borrow against them rather than sell. Don't know if that's an option.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,255
    Nigelb said:

    DougSeal said:

    Just to wade in on the "gross misconduct" thing, gross misconduct (a colloquialism really) is behaviour so bad a breach that it goes to the very root of the contract, conduct that is capable of destroying the relationship between the employer and employee, or consultant and client in this case.

    However, if it is aware of such behaviour, then an "employer" (i.e. the BBC) can "affirm" conduct that is capable of repudiating the contract between them if it doesn't act quickly enough or, by its actions, indicates that the relationship hasn't been destroyed.

    Whatever the contract says, when Tim Davie said this morning that "Success for me is getting Gary back on air", then in my view, he affirmed the contract with Lineker. He thus openly said the contract can be saved and the relationship was not destroyed. Unless there is some very anti-Lineker drafting in his contract the BBC have left it too late to dismiss for gross misconduct. To get him out fast there will have to be some form of payment.

    Normally the way to go is to suspend for the purposes of an investigation or similar. That didn't happen here.

    The BBC, like the Tories, are tying themselves in knots over this.

    If they’d just said Lineker’s a twat for comparing people to Nazis, but we respect his right to say shit, outside of his BBC appearances, we’d all have forgotten about it by now.
    I think half of the UK think he's a twat.. no surprise there ....
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,553

    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    More than you might think.

    One of the ingredients of the classic BBC Saturday night was some sort of chat show; Parkinson, Saturday Night at the Mill, that sort of thing. And the real appeal of them was familiar faces talking to each other.

    Whilst MotD is officially a football show, it has also taken on some of that role. Which is why so much if it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around.
    So mucch of it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around because the Beeb can't AFFORD more than a few minutes of each match. THAT is why they need "pundits". (I prefer to call them padders.)
    MOTD should be on ITV, sponsored by Walkers
    Do you get this worked up by all those England cricketers pimping for all these starch and greasy laden products?
    How many of them are paid £100k an hour by the public service broadcaster?
    So it's ok to pump starch and greasy laden products if you don't work for the state broadcaster?

    What a curious little hill you have chosen to die on.
    Don't worry; my dislike of Mr Lineker is just a part-time hobby

    It certainly won't finish me off
    Werent you the poster who was off to Ukraine to fight for freedom and to defend the world against Putin ?

    Don't you think its a bit pathetic you ended up manning the bunker in your bedroom fighting for the rights of the Government telling the state broadcaster to obey the orders of its masters (just like Putin)

    Just asking
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,320

    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    More than you might think.

    One of the ingredients of the classic BBC Saturday night was some sort of chat show; Parkinson, Saturday Night at the Mill, that sort of thing. And the real appeal of them was familiar faces talking to each other.

    Whilst MotD is officially a football show, it has also taken on some of that role. Which is why so much if it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around.
    So much of it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around because the Beeb can't AFFORD more than a few minutes of each match. THAT is why they need "pundits". (I prefer to call them padders.)
    True: but then you can argue why does MOTD have to be padded? Perhaps the BBC could actually use that time it gets back to try out some original content for once.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
    No AV.

    Two subtle Scottish puns though.
    Who could resist?
    *also slavers in anticipation*
    Not modern slavers, I hope ?
    Question - I am thinking of putting up a statue (group statute) to honour the men and women of the Libyan Coastguard.

    I was thinking of Bristol - I understand they have a space there.

    Any other suggestions?
    Do you support deporting asylum seekers to Libya without assessing their claims, if that is their nationality?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    "I think half of the UK think he's a twat.. no surprise there ...."

    He can say what he likes as long as I'm not paying for it. As it happens, I think he's a twat too, but Mr Anodyne says little about football. He's earned a living by saying very little of consequence about that subject. That's why he annoys me. Give me Roy Keane or Graham Souness instead.

    They'd be value for money.
  • Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    More than you might think.

    One of the ingredients of the classic BBC Saturday night was some sort of chat show; Parkinson, Saturday Night at the Mill, that sort of thing. And the real appeal of them was familiar faces talking to each other.

    Whilst MotD is officially a football show, it has also taken on some of that role. Which is why so much if it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around.
    So mucch of it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around because the Beeb can't AFFORD more than a few minutes of each match. THAT is why they need "pundits". (I prefer to call them padders.)
    MOTD should be on ITV, sponsored by Walkers
    Do you get this worked up by all those England cricketers pimping for all these starch and greasy laden products?
    How many of them are paid £100k an hour by the public service broadcaster?
    So it's ok to pump starch and greasy laden products if you don't work for the state broadcaster?

    What a curious little hill you have chosen to die on.
    Don't worry; my dislike of Mr Lineker is just a part-time hobby

    It certainly won't finish me off
    Werent you the poster who was off to Ukraine to fight for freedom and to defend the world against Putin ?

    Don't you think its a bit pathetic you ended up manning the bunker in your bedroom fighting for the rights of the Government telling the state broadcaster to obey the orders of its masters (just like Putin)

    Just asking
    Are my depressed and drunk, one year old remarks about Ukraine at all relevant here, or are you being an arsehole bringing them up?

    Just asking
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,637
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
    No AV.

    Two subtle Scottish puns though.
    Who could resist?
    *also slavers in anticipation*
    Not modern slavers, I hope ?
    Question - I am thinking of putting up a statue (group statute) to honour the men and women of the Libyan Coastguard.

    I was thinking of Bristol - I understand they have a space there.

    Any other suggestions?
    Do you support deporting asylum seekers to Libya without assessing their claims, if that is their nationality?
    I don’t support locking people up in Libya for the crime of trying to leave Libya. I doubt the Libyan Coast Guard cares about their asylum claims or any other matter associated with them.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,189
    Chris said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Foster said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?

    In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?

    The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
    Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
    Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
    I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
    Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).

    Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
    Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
    Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
    Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
    You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.

    If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
    If you're relying on an argument from authority, the least you have to do is quote him and cite the source.

    But I'd be willing to bet he didn't say anything as ridiculous as that anti-semitism in Germany didn't "really" begin until after World War I. Because - I repeat - Germany was notorious for anti-semitism in the late 19th century.

    It really wasn't. Sure there was prejudice, but no way was it 'notorious' for it. Certainly not compared to France or Russia which really were notorious for it.
    So quote the authority you're relying on. He said there was no anti-semitism in Germany before World War I. Really?
    No. And nor did I. And nor has anyone else. What we said was it was milder in form than most other countries and I later added that your statement 'Germany was notorious for its antisemitism' is flat out wrong, which is also correct.

    I think you might benefit from rereading my comment before disappearing down a Hyufd style rabbit hole and threatening to nuke the Falklands.

    If you are interested however, and can read German, try Kneipengesprache im Kaissereich (Bar Talk in the German Empire).

    And now I have work to do. Have a good afternoon.
    For those interested in the history of European Jews in the 19th and first half of the 20th Century, I highly recommend this book:

    https://amzn.eu/d/ieFbUe9

    It deals with all aspects, from Shtetl pogroms to the anxieties amongst Jews that they were becoming so assimilated that they would soon no longer exist as a distinct people.

    Fair to say that most European countries were anti-semitic to a greater or lesser degree, but also that Jewish culture was also strong and vibrant in the same countries. History is complicated.
    As two people accused me of contradicting Richard Evans - but neither of them was able to quote anything by him in support - I was quite curious to know what he had written. I couldn't find any direct quotations from him about pre-WWI antisemitism (his main focus was on WWII) but I did find this in a review of his book "The Coming of the Third Reich" by Andrew Roberts:

    Evans accepts that one prerequisite for Hitler's success – deep-seated anti-Semitism among wide sections of German society – was present as early as the 1870s. He might well be shocked to recognise it, but his analysis of German anti-Semitism comes down far more on the side of Daniel Goldhagen's theory in Hitler's Willing Executioners, which argued that the Germans had been irredeemable anti-Semites for generations, than upon the opposite point of view which states that the Nazis were uniquely exterminationist.

    Although the organised working-class Left was not particularly anti-Semitic in Bismarckian and later Weimar Germany, the roots of anti-Semitism went deep into much of the rest of German society. Evans points to the foundation of the League of Antisemites in 1879, and the career of the thieving, blackmailing forger (and headmaster) Hermann Ahlwardt, who got elected to the Reichstag in the 1880s simply on a platform of spewing hatred against Germany's Jews – who only made up one per cent of the population.

    What Evans calls "the domestication of anti-Semitism" took place in the 1880s and early 1890s, with novelists such as Julius Langbehn writing about the Jews in terms of "poison", "plague" and "vermin". Evans is particularly interesting about the Führer's own anti-Semitism. "Hitler was the product of circumstances as much as anything else," he writes, and the milieu in which the young Hitler lived in Vienna, as well as the political tracts he read while scraping a living as a drawer of houses, drew him ineluctably towards his loathing of Jews.

    "Hitler could scarcely ignore the everyday anti-Semitism of the kind of newspapers that were available in the Men's Home, and the cheap anti-Semitic pamphlets he later described reading at this time." Yet it was not until Germany's defeat in 1918 that his anti-Semitism became murderous, believes Evans: "His hatred of Jews only became visceral, personal and extreme at the end of the First World War."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3606146/The-roots-of-Hitlers-murderous-anti-Semitism.html

    That doesn't not reassure me that either of them had much of a clue about what they were talking about, snarky personal comments aside.
    'If you are interested however, and can read German, try Kneipengesprache im Kaissereich (Bar Talk in the German Empire).'

    And in case you hadn't noticed - the particular reference to Hitler is about Vienna. As for the rest of it that's the Telegraph twisting what's written.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,659
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
    No AV.

    Two subtle Scottish puns though.
    Who could resist?
    *also slavers in anticipation*
    Not modern slavers, I hope ?
    Question - I am thinking of putting up a statue (group statute) to honour the men and women of the Libyan Coastguard.

    I was thinking of Bristol - I understand they have a space there.

    Any other suggestions?
    Do you support deporting asylum seekers to Libya without assessing their claims, if that is their nationality?
    If they are escaped slaves, it is the duty of every right-thinking Conservative to return them to their owners immediately. If they carry no papers on them, that is what they must be. Anybody else would be properly documented. Having due respect for a person's property is very important.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,574
    malcolmg said:

    Here we go again.

    Isn’t the market wonderful until it crashes, then socialism is required for the losses.

    The risk is that one crash rapidly mushrooms into a lot of crashes. The US Fed not intervening with Lehman Brothers created the chain of events which crippled us with austerity.

    Whether you agree with the ethics or not this is a lose lose situation. Personally I'd rather them stop any mushrooming early as it's the lowest cost and least risk.
    It’s a fair point. I’m just pointing out that the market inherently cannot work without government support. So the current Tory ideology is a failure
    It’s not the “market” generally

    Fractional banking has always needed a lender of last resort. It’s why it is such a highly regulated industry

    If highly regulated why are they going bust so easily
    Because they made a bad risk decision in buying long dated government bonds.

    The equity holders will - and should - be wiped out. That’s why they are there: as risk capital.

    The depositors are not at fault here.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419
    edited March 2023

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
    No AV.

    Two subtle Scottish puns though.
    Who could resist?
    *also slavers in anticipation*
    Not modern slavers, I hope ?
    Question - I am thinking of putting up a statue (group statute) to honour the men and women of the Libyan Coastguard.

    I was thinking of Bristol - I understand they have a space there.

    Any other suggestions?
    Do you support deporting asylum seekers to Libya without assessing their claims, if that is their nationality?
    I don’t support locking people up in Libya for the crime of trying to leave Libya. I doubt the Libyan Coast Guard cares about their asylum claims or any other matter associated with them.
    So if a Libyan asylum seeker arrived by dinghy here, would you deport him to Libya?

    Or an Uighar asylum seeker to China?

    Without hearing either claim?

    I just want to be sure that you are comfortable with our government's policy.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,431

    SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker

    All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong
    Con voters: 51% / 36%
    Lab voters: 10% / 75%

    Whomp whomp

    Its a bit more complicated than that.....

    Most Britons...
    1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker;
    2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis;
    3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels;
    4. Like Stopping The Boats™


    https://twitter.com/BNHWalker/status/1634682526835908610?s=20
    I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
    With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.

    The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people.
    Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis
    The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.

    However we can now add some people who are right.

    All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.


    Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
    Which was an equally stupid comment. But that is not the point. People should be allowed to make stupid comments without fear of their personal comments being used to push them out of their jobs.
    You are utterly utterly utterly utterly wrong.

    It was not a stupid comment, it was perfect.

    The Tories and their friends are labelling absolutely everyone who comes across on a dingy a criminal, part of an invasion force - and insisting they should be treated as criminals.

    If you suggested to Braverman and Sunak it would be a good idea if the asylum seekers in hotels awaiting processing wore something, like an armband to identify what they are, they’d think it a good idea.

    The language of 1930s Germany was EXACTLY THE SAME labelling people who done no wrong, never been convicted of a crime as second class people and criminals. And in fact the language of 1930s Germany didn’t begin in Germany in the thirties, didn’t it. it’s as old as the human race.

    The problem with PB on this is there are not enough Christians here thinking in a Christian way.
    What reason can they have for leaving the safety of France. Why do they pay criminals large sums of money and risk their lives. Must be some compelling reason behind it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419
    edited March 2023

    malcolmg said:

    Here we go again.

    Isn’t the market wonderful until it crashes, then socialism is required for the losses.

    The risk is that one crash rapidly mushrooms into a lot of crashes. The US Fed not intervening with Lehman Brothers created the chain of events which crippled us with austerity.

    Whether you agree with the ethics or not this is a lose lose situation. Personally I'd rather them stop any mushrooming early as it's the lowest cost and least risk.
    It’s a fair point. I’m just pointing out that the market inherently cannot work without government support. So the current Tory ideology is a failure
    It’s not the “market” generally

    Fractional banking has always needed a lender of last resort. It’s why it is such a highly regulated industry

    If highly regulated why are they going bust so easily
    Because they made a bad risk decision in buying long dated government bonds.

    The equity holders will - and should - be wiped out. That’s why they are there: as risk capital.

    The depositors are not at fault here.
    Yes, but why should their deposits over £85 000 be guaranteed by the government?

    Or do you think that the government should guarantee all deposits, with all banks, whatever the amount?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,637
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
    No AV.

    Two subtle Scottish puns though.
    Who could resist?
    *also slavers in anticipation*
    Not modern slavers, I hope ?
    Question - I am thinking of putting up a statue (group statute) to honour the men and women of the Libyan Coastguard.

    I was thinking of Bristol - I understand they have a space there.

    Any other suggestions?
    Do you support deporting asylum seekers to Libya without assessing their claims, if that is their nationality?
    I don’t support locking people up in Libya for the crime of trying to leave Libya. I doubt the Libyan Coast Guard cares about their asylum claims or any other matter associated with them.
    So if a Libyan asylum seeker arrived by dinghy here, would you deport him to Libya?

    Or an Uighar asylum seeker to China?

    I just want to be sure that you are comfortable with our government's policy.
    Well, you seem comfortable with the EU policy of stockpiling Africans in Libya…

    It would rather depend on what his/her asylum application was about.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,431
    Eabhal said:

    I've actually bothered to have a look at the stats on "small boats" migration. Albanian migration is a new phenomenon, and really quite significant. In summer 2022 they made up 42% of people making the crossing, 95% were male. Albania is designated a "safe" country, and these migrants have had to pass through multiple safe countries to get here.

    When the facts look like this, Labour finds itself in a tricky position. They need to understand that the situation has changed - this isn't Afghans anymore. I'm pro-immigration (at least compared with the average position of PB posters), will almost certainly vote Labour in 2024, and want us to accept more refugees (Stuart posted some pretty shameful stats on this last night), but even I recognise that this is not desirable.

    1) Deaths in the channel
    2) Pressure on the resources of the Coastguard and RNLI
    3) Asylum system clogged up
    4) Income for human trafficking gangs

    Is France not a safe country as well
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,637
    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    I've actually bothered to have a look at the stats on "small boats" migration. Albanian migration is a new phenomenon, and really quite significant. In summer 2022 they made up 42% of people making the crossing, 95% were male. Albania is designated a "safe" country, and these migrants have had to pass through multiple safe countries to get here.

    When the facts look like this, Labour finds itself in a tricky position. They need to understand that the situation has changed - this isn't Afghans anymore. I'm pro-immigration (at least compared with the average position of PB posters), will almost certainly vote Labour in 2024, and want us to accept more refugees (Stuart posted some pretty shameful stats on this last night), but even I recognise that this is not desirable.

    1) Deaths in the channel
    2) Pressure on the resources of the Coastguard and RNLI
    3) Asylum system clogged up
    4) Income for human trafficking gangs

    Is France not a safe country as well
    According to various aid organisations - no. Apparently conditions there are unacceptable for refugees.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
    No AV.

    Two subtle Scottish puns though.
    Who could resist?
    *also slavers in anticipation*
    Not modern slavers, I hope ?
    Question - I am thinking of putting up a statue (group statute) to honour the men and women of the Libyan Coastguard.

    I was thinking of Bristol - I understand they have a space there.

    Any other suggestions?
    Do you support deporting asylum seekers to Libya without assessing their claims, if that is their nationality?
    I don’t support locking people up in Libya for the crime of trying to leave Libya. I doubt the Libyan Coast Guard cares about their asylum claims or any other matter associated with them.
    So if a Libyan asylum seeker arrived by dinghy here, would you deport him to Libya?

    Or an Uighar asylum seeker to China?

    I just want to be sure that you are comfortable with our government's policy.
    Well, you seem comfortable with the EU policy of stockpiling Africans in Libya…

    It would rather depend on what his/her asylum application was about.
    Well under this government's legislation we wouldn't know what his asylum application was. It would automatically be disallowed and unheard.

    So would you send him back to Libya under the new rules?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,431
    DougSeal said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Foster said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?

    In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?

    The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
    Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
    Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
    I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
    Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).

    Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
    Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
    Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
    Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
    You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.

    If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
    Isn’t it a case of both things were true?

    Antisemitism was a big thing in Germany - Houston Stewart Chamberlain waves hello - but in day to day life, there was an equally marked level of liberalism towards Jews, compared to several other countries.
    Well, yes, but since I said there was prejudice but it was milder, as in, less ruthlessly enforced, I don't think you can say 'both things were true.' It's not as though Germany was 'notorious for its antisemitism.' The much greater anti-religious prejudice was directed against the Catholic Church - which was state enforced through the Kulturkampf.
    Was it not a big thing in England as well
    Not by then. It was in the middle ages but England had a comparatively low level of antisemitism from Cromwell's readmission onwards. Not perfect by any means - not good as the US - but certainly not as bad as most of Europe. Disraeli (ethnically Jewish but an Anglican convert) was Victoria's favourite PM.

    Oh...sorry...this is a Malc post. You are now going to insult me and call me a "Little Englander" or some such thing for the temerity of saying something positive about the Sub-Human English...fire away Mr Malc!
    You were doing well answering my seriously asked question and then your bigotry took over and you lost the plot. Thanks for the first part though, perhaps get that chip on your shoulder seen to.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,637
    Foxy said:

    malcolmg said:

    Here we go again.

    Isn’t the market wonderful until it crashes, then socialism is required for the losses.

    The risk is that one crash rapidly mushrooms into a lot of crashes. The US Fed not intervening with Lehman Brothers created the chain of events which crippled us with austerity.

    Whether you agree with the ethics or not this is a lose lose situation. Personally I'd rather them stop any mushrooming early as it's the lowest cost and least risk.
    It’s a fair point. I’m just pointing out that the market inherently cannot work without government support. So the current Tory ideology is a failure
    It’s not the “market” generally

    Fractional banking has always needed a lender of last resort. It’s why it is such a highly regulated industry

    If highly regulated why are they going bust so easily
    Because they made a bad risk decision in buying long dated government bonds.

    The equity holders will - and should - be wiped out. That’s why they are there: as risk capital.

    The depositors are not at fault here.
    Yes, but why should their deposits over £85 000 be guaranteed by the government?

    Or do you think that the government should guarantee all deposits, whatever the amount?
    It’s not about guaranteeing the deposits. Which are all there, it seems, in the form of US Government securities, in a large part.

    It’s about getting depositors access to their own money. Which is actually in the bank.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419

    Foxy said:

    malcolmg said:

    Here we go again.

    Isn’t the market wonderful until it crashes, then socialism is required for the losses.

    The risk is that one crash rapidly mushrooms into a lot of crashes. The US Fed not intervening with Lehman Brothers created the chain of events which crippled us with austerity.

    Whether you agree with the ethics or not this is a lose lose situation. Personally I'd rather them stop any mushrooming early as it's the lowest cost and least risk.
    It’s a fair point. I’m just pointing out that the market inherently cannot work without government support. So the current Tory ideology is a failure
    It’s not the “market” generally

    Fractional banking has always needed a lender of last resort. It’s why it is such a highly regulated industry

    If highly regulated why are they going bust so easily
    Because they made a bad risk decision in buying long dated government bonds.

    The equity holders will - and should - be wiped out. That’s why they are there: as risk capital.

    The depositors are not at fault here.
    Yes, but why should their deposits over £85 000 be guaranteed by the government?

    Or do you think that the government should guarantee all deposits, whatever the amount?
    It’s not about guaranteeing the deposits. Which are all there, it seems, in the form of US Government securities, in a large part.

    It’s about getting depositors access to their own money. Which is actually in the bank.
    Don't you think the receiver needs to count the assets before paying out beyond the £85 000 limit?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,637
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
    No AV.

    Two subtle Scottish puns though.
    Who could resist?
    *also slavers in anticipation*
    Not modern slavers, I hope ?
    Question - I am thinking of putting up a statue (group statute) to honour the men and women of the Libyan Coastguard.

    I was thinking of Bristol - I understand they have a space there.

    Any other suggestions?
    Do you support deporting asylum seekers to Libya without assessing their claims, if that is their nationality?
    I don’t support locking people up in Libya for the crime of trying to leave Libya. I doubt the Libyan Coast Guard cares about their asylum claims or any other matter associated with them.
    So if a Libyan asylum seeker arrived by dinghy here, would you deport him to Libya?

    Or an Uighar asylum seeker to China?

    I just want to be sure that you are comfortable with our government's policy.
    Well, you seem comfortable with the EU policy of stockpiling Africans in Libya…

    It would rather depend on what his/her asylum application was about.
    Well under this government's legislation we wouldn't know what his asylum application was. It would automatically be disallowed and unheard.

    So would you send him back to Libya under the new rules?
    I’ve said before that I don’t support the legislation.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,637
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    malcolmg said:

    Here we go again.

    Isn’t the market wonderful until it crashes, then socialism is required for the losses.

    The risk is that one crash rapidly mushrooms into a lot of crashes. The US Fed not intervening with Lehman Brothers created the chain of events which crippled us with austerity.

    Whether you agree with the ethics or not this is a lose lose situation. Personally I'd rather them stop any mushrooming early as it's the lowest cost and least risk.
    It’s a fair point. I’m just pointing out that the market inherently cannot work without government support. So the current Tory ideology is a failure
    It’s not the “market” generally

    Fractional banking has always needed a lender of last resort. It’s why it is such a highly regulated industry

    If highly regulated why are they going bust so easily
    Because they made a bad risk decision in buying long dated government bonds.

    The equity holders will - and should - be wiped out. That’s why they are there: as risk capital.

    The depositors are not at fault here.
    Yes, but why should their deposits over £85 000 be guaranteed by the government?

    Or do you think that the government should guarantee all deposits, whatever the amount?
    It’s not about guaranteeing the deposits. Which are all there, it seems, in the form of US Government securities, in a large part.

    It’s about getting depositors access to their own money. Which is actually in the bank.
    Don't you think the receiver needs to count the assets before paying out beyond the £85 000 limit?
    That’s what they are doing right now. There will probably be government such estranged takeovers of the various part of the bank on Monday.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
    No AV.

    Two subtle Scottish puns though.
    Who could resist?
    *also slavers in anticipation*
    Not modern slavers, I hope ?
    Question - I am thinking of putting up a statue (group statute) to honour the men and women of the Libyan Coastguard.

    I was thinking of Bristol - I understand they have a space there.

    Any other suggestions?
    Do you support deporting asylum seekers to Libya without assessing their claims, if that is their nationality?
    I don’t support locking people up in Libya for the crime of trying to leave Libya. I doubt the Libyan Coast Guard cares about their asylum claims or any other matter associated with them.
    So if a Libyan asylum seeker arrived by dinghy here, would you deport him to Libya?

    Or an Uighar asylum seeker to China?

    I just want to be sure that you are comfortable with our government's policy.
    Well, you seem comfortable with the EU policy of stockpiling Africans in Libya…

    It would rather depend on what his/her asylum application was about.
    Well under this government's legislation we wouldn't know what his asylum application was. It would automatically be disallowed and unheard.

    So would you send him back to Libya under the new rules?
    I’ve said before that I don’t support the legislation.
    I hadn't realised that you opposed this governments position. My apologies.



  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    malcolmg said:

    Here we go again.

    Isn’t the market wonderful until it crashes, then socialism is required for the losses.

    The risk is that one crash rapidly mushrooms into a lot of crashes. The US Fed not intervening with Lehman Brothers created the chain of events which crippled us with austerity.

    Whether you agree with the ethics or not this is a lose lose situation. Personally I'd rather them stop any mushrooming early as it's the lowest cost and least risk.
    It’s a fair point. I’m just pointing out that the market inherently cannot work without government support. So the current Tory ideology is a failure
    It’s not the “market” generally

    Fractional banking has always needed a lender of last resort. It’s why it is such a highly regulated industry

    If highly regulated why are they going bust so easily
    Because they made a bad risk decision in buying long dated government bonds.

    The equity holders will - and should - be wiped out. That’s why they are there: as risk capital.

    The depositors are not at fault here.
    Yes, but why should their deposits over £85 000 be guaranteed by the government?

    Or do you think that the government should guarantee all deposits, whatever the amount?
    It’s not about guaranteeing the deposits. Which are all there, it seems, in the form of US Government securities, in a large part.

    It’s about getting depositors access to their own money. Which is actually in the bank.
    Don't you think the receiver needs to count the assets before paying out beyond the £85 000 limit?
    That’s what they are doing right now. There will probably be government such estranged takeovers of the various part of the bank on Monday.
    Before paying out over £85 000 we should expect certainty, rather than probably.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,908
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    malcolmg said:

    Here we go again.

    Isn’t the market wonderful until it crashes, then socialism is required for the losses.

    The risk is that one crash rapidly mushrooms into a lot of crashes. The US Fed not intervening with Lehman Brothers created the chain of events which crippled us with austerity.

    Whether you agree with the ethics or not this is a lose lose situation. Personally I'd rather them stop any mushrooming early as it's the lowest cost and least risk.
    It’s a fair point. I’m just pointing out that the market inherently cannot work without government support. So the current Tory ideology is a failure
    It’s not the “market” generally

    Fractional banking has always needed a lender of last resort. It’s why it is such a highly regulated industry

    If highly regulated why are they going bust so easily
    Because they made a bad risk decision in buying long dated government bonds.

    The equity holders will - and should - be wiped out. That’s why they are there: as risk capital.

    The depositors are not at fault here.
    Yes, but why should their deposits over £85 000 be guaranteed by the government?

    Or do you think that the government should guarantee all deposits, whatever the amount?
    It’s not about guaranteeing the deposits. Which are all there, it seems, in the form of US Government securities, in a large part.

    It’s about getting depositors access to their own money. Which is actually in the bank.
    Don't you think the receiver needs to count the assets before paying out beyond the £85 000 limit?
    That’s what they are doing right now. There will probably be government such estranged takeovers of the various part of the bank on Monday.
    Before paying out over £85 000 we should expect certainty, rather than probably.
    Glad we’ve moved on from flatly denying them access to their money, which is apparently all there. It’s only the parent company that has gone bankrupt. If there was an intervention by the government, it would be temporary bridging loans until access to their deposits is restored.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,637
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    malcolmg said:

    Here we go again.

    Isn’t the market wonderful until it crashes, then socialism is required for the losses.

    The risk is that one crash rapidly mushrooms into a lot of crashes. The US Fed not intervening with Lehman Brothers created the chain of events which crippled us with austerity.

    Whether you agree with the ethics or not this is a lose lose situation. Personally I'd rather them stop any mushrooming early as it's the lowest cost and least risk.
    It’s a fair point. I’m just pointing out that the market inherently cannot work without government support. So the current Tory ideology is a failure
    It’s not the “market” generally

    Fractional banking has always needed a lender of last resort. It’s why it is such a highly regulated industry

    If highly regulated why are they going bust so easily
    Because they made a bad risk decision in buying long dated government bonds.

    The equity holders will - and should - be wiped out. That’s why they are there: as risk capital.

    The depositors are not at fault here.
    Yes, but why should their deposits over £85 000 be guaranteed by the government?

    Or do you think that the government should guarantee all deposits, whatever the amount?
    It’s not about guaranteeing the deposits. Which are all there, it seems, in the form of US Government securities, in a large part.

    It’s about getting depositors access to their own money. Which is actually in the bank.
    Don't you think the receiver needs to count the assets before paying out beyond the £85 000 limit?
    That’s what they are doing right now. There will probably be government such estranged takeovers of the various part of the bank on Monday.
    Before paying out over £85 000 we should expect certainty, rather than probably.
    It will be fairly easy to work out what percentage of deposits is covered by zero risk assists. This is probably done, already.

    Say 50% of deposits is in Treasuries and the like. You then allow depositors access to 25% of their money, immediately. This will prevent a contagion issue.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,637
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
    No AV.

    Two subtle Scottish puns though.
    Who could resist?
    *also slavers in anticipation*
    Not modern slavers, I hope ?
    Question - I am thinking of putting up a statue (group statute) to honour the men and women of the Libyan Coastguard.

    I was thinking of Bristol - I understand they have a space there.

    Any other suggestions?
    Do you support deporting asylum seekers to Libya without assessing their claims, if that is their nationality?
    I don’t support locking people up in Libya for the crime of trying to leave Libya. I doubt the Libyan Coast Guard cares about their asylum claims or any other matter associated with them.
    So if a Libyan asylum seeker arrived by dinghy here, would you deport him to Libya?

    Or an Uighar asylum seeker to China?

    I just want to be sure that you are comfortable with our government's policy.
    Well, you seem comfortable with the EU policy of stockpiling Africans in Libya…

    It would rather depend on what his/her asylum application was about.
    Well under this government's legislation we wouldn't know what his asylum application was. It would automatically be disallowed and unheard.

    So would you send him back to Libya under the new rules?
    I’ve said before that I don’t support the legislation.
    I hadn't realised that you opposed this governments position. My apologies.



    Do you oppose the EU funding the Libyan Coastguard?

    That has the effect, among other things, of making sure that no one they hold gets to claim asylum.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
    No AV.

    Two subtle Scottish puns though.
    Who could resist?
    *also slavers in anticipation*
    Not modern slavers, I hope ?
    Question - I am thinking of putting up a statue (group statute) to honour the men and women of the Libyan Coastguard.

    I was thinking of Bristol - I understand they have a space there.

    Any other suggestions?
    Do you support deporting asylum seekers to Libya without assessing their claims, if that is their nationality?
    I don’t support locking people up in Libya for the crime of trying to leave Libya. I doubt the Libyan Coast Guard cares about their asylum claims or any other matter associated with them.
    So if a Libyan asylum seeker arrived by dinghy here, would you deport him to Libya?

    Or an Uighar asylum seeker to China?

    I just want to be sure that you are comfortable with our government's policy.
    Well, you seem comfortable with the EU policy of stockpiling Africans in Libya…

    It would rather depend on what his/her asylum application was about.
    Well under this government's legislation we wouldn't know what his asylum application was. It would automatically be disallowed and unheard.

    So would you send him back to Libya under the new rules?
    I’ve said before that I don’t support the legislation.
    I hadn't realised that you opposed this governments position. My apologies.



    Do you oppose the EU funding the Libyan Coastguard?

    That has the effect, among other things, of making sure that no one they hold gets to claim asylum.
    Much the same as us paying for the French enforcement, just further upstream.

    If "stopping the boats" is the objective here, isn't it as much or more an issue in the Med?

    Preventing refugees/migrants from the next step in their journey carries as its baggage keeping these people in a failed state of some sort. If we think that wrong then we should listen to their plea for a safe route of migration.
This discussion has been closed.