Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….
It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.
But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
This is what happens when people spend nearly 10 years refusing to engage with the underlying reasons why someone like Trump has become popular in the US.
Yes, and they’re all going to completely lose their minds when Trump wins again.
Governments around the world are now trying to imitate the UK Rwanda policy for tackling illegal people trafficking. This bill must be as legally robust as possible - and the right course is to adopt the amendments.
The Iowa thing is hardly a surprise. A substantial minority of Americans think Trump is the Messiah and won’t accept any other result. Regardless of what the various courts or even the general election decides.
I used to quite admire America and Americans, I don't know where I'd rank them now, I'd have to have a think about it, but it isn't very high. If 2024 isn't a calamity of historic proportions is looks very likely that an election soon after it will be. It's mad that we could soon be using words like "failed state" about the USA.
Governments around the world are now trying to imitate the UK Rwanda policy for tackling illegal people trafficking. This bill must be as legally robust as possible - and the right course is to adopt the amendments.
I see your comments re: non-Execs not doing their jobs.
I note from your link that they are being "held to account" by Ian Lavery MP as a member of the Trade and Industry Select Committee.
Ian Lavery being an MP who received a loan of £72500 from a Miners' Welfare fund, which was then written off under highly suspicious circumstances. As the Guardian reported:
The regulator found that the Northumberland provident and benevolent fund loaned Lavery £72,500 to buy a house in 1994. Thirteen years on, the union Lavery was then running wrote off the loan.
Lavery paid into an endowment fund to pay back the capital cost of the house. It under-performed but still paid out £18,000. The regulator found Lavery kept the money.
The report also says Lavery received a number of termination payments from the union totalling £89,887.83.
The report says neither Lavery nor the union could provide documentary evidence of the process or the decision by which Lavery was made redundant as he left his full-time job to take another as an MP.
Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….
It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.
But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
Those are the accounting rules - and military aid on that scale requires Congressional budget approval. His opponents would be screaming if he'd seriously fudged them.
Blaming Biden for the GIP holding Ukraine hostage over domestic policy is dumb.
When equipment that cost $10m in 1980 is now “valued” at $100m, despite the fact that it’s obsolete and about to be mothballed at best, it doesn’t help when the administration decides to shout from the rooftops about how they’re “spending another $100m”, when they’re clearly not spending any actual money at all bar some shipping and training costs.
One can understand why the talk of tens of million dollars here and there (of actual money from federal funds), is being compared to the “$100bn spent on Ukraine” in a domestic political environment.
If the administration hadn’t given the big-up to the hundred billion spent in Ukraine, there wouldn’t be the opposition to it that says that the $100bn would better be spent domestically.
You’ve got the equivalent of Boris derangement syndrome when it comes to Biden.
No, he’s just better informed about the war in Ukraine.
Off topic: I would appreciate an update header on where we are with the Boundary Commission review process for 2024, and what the impacts are likely to be.
I had a look at Ashfield, and it is ... complicated !
Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….
It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.
But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
This is what happens when people spend nearly 10 years refusing to engage with the underlying reasons why someone like Trump has become popular in the US.
Yes, and they’re all going to completely lose their minds when Trump wins again.
The first of many comedy highlight of Trump47 are going to be the paroxysms of the Labour Party when SKS has to genuflect before GEOTUS.
An entire article which doesn't address why. Does anyone actually know?
Labour costs are behind some of it. Dealers have now been hollowed out to sales reptiles and lube techs with very few mechanics. Most accident damage involves bodywork which is very labour intensive to do properly.
Additionally, if the air bags go off the interior is trashed - very labour intensive again.
My current daily (Mk.7 GTI Clubsport) was a Class N write off due to front and rear bumper damage and airbag deployment. Probably a grand in parts to fix it but written off due to labour costs.
Just checked, last renewal was a smidgen under £250. The most annoying part is insurers don't properly keep track of my no claims. It's 18 years (19 upcoming) I haven't claimed in, not 9 !
Don’t they stop counting after 9? My wife are much the same and ours was considerably more than that, and when I went on comparison sites it was about as good as I could get. I did a bit of a reduction when I rang the firm and grumbled, though. I blame all the potholes!
Esure goes up to 20, but Churchill stops at 9. I have a document with '17' on from Esure back from 2022 though so I'll stick 19 in the comparison sites next time and have the Esure 17 document & Churchill 9 (23) to hand if needed.
Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….
It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.
But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
Those are the accounting rules - and military aid on that scale requires Congressional budget approval. His opponents would be screaming if he'd seriously fudged them.
Blaming Biden for the GIP holding Ukraine hostage over domestic policy is dumb.
When equipment that cost $10m in 1980 is now “valued” at $100m, despite the fact that it’s obsolete and about to be mothballed at best, it doesn’t help when the administration decides to shout from the rooftops about how they’re “spending another $100m”, when they’re clearly not spending any actual money at all bar some shipping and training costs.
One can understand why the talk of tens of million dollars here and there (of actual money from federal funds), is being compared to the “$100bn spent on Ukraine” in a domestic political environment.
If the administration hadn’t given the big-up to the hundred billion spent in Ukraine, there wouldn’t be the opposition to it that says that the $100bn would better be spent domestically.
You’ve got the equivalent of Boris derangement syndrome when it comes to Biden.
No, he’s just better informed about the war in Ukraine.
In what respect ?
The level of practical support provided (or not provided) by western countries.
Isam laid me £100 at 3/1 Starmer to be PM after the GE. No dispute on this.
The proposal is that this be netted against something Isam has going with RCS such that I will collect the £300 from RCS if the bet wins (which looks likely but you never know).
In August last year I suggested we either void it or you sort something out with Robert, and you replied
“Happy whatever, I mean. We can keep it or we can void it. Your suggestion is also fine by me if it's fine by rcs.“
So why would you think, five months later, that I’d think we were still on?? You agreed with both of my suggestions
That is not accurate.
Here's you on a September thread posting about how you've done a 'bad' 3/1 lay of SKS PM post-GE. Why would you do that if you'd got yourself out of it?
The fact is nobody replied to me in August. You didn't. RCS didn't. It was left hanging. There was no agreement to do anything. Hence why I'd like it resolved now. My preference in order is as follows:
1. Our bet stands as we struck it. That's the norm after all. 2. RCS takes the bet from you. But he needs to confirm that. 3. We forget it and I let you off.
If it's (3) I'd be agreeing to cancel a bet that looks almost certain to be a £300 winner. There needs to be a good reason for that.
This is complete madness. You literally said you were happy to void it.
I suggested two options and you said you were happy to do either. I didn’t say anything more because I was leaving it to you and Robert to sort out, you having agreed to what I had suggested
I mentioned it as a self deprecating joke, because I did lay 3/1 Sir Keir to be PM after the GE, and @Peter_the_Punter had been calling me a useless bettor. But you had agreed to either void it or sort it out with Robert
Yes, laid to me!
That isn't at all a reasonable interpretation of where the email exchange left things. You didn't reply to me. RCS made no comment at all. It was left hanging. There was nothing agreed. Hence the need to resolve it now.
Let's assume a misunderstanding (it happens) and start again with the presumption of good faith on all sides.
We did the bet. That's agreed.
You propose it is transferred from you to @rcs1000 (because of some outstandings the two of you have, the details of which I don't have knowledge of).
We await his input before continuing.
You said you were happy to void it. What on earth makes you think I wasn’t happy to, seeing as I suggested it? If Sir Keir had dropped dead, or been sacked, do you really think I’d have asked for the £100??!
In fact our situation is similar to that between Robert and myself; I wanted to void that bet because I was banned from the site, outrageously unfairly in my view, and didn’t want to be in the situation of being unable to post, liable for bets and easily able to be knocked. He said our bet stood, and if I refused to pay that was my choice. I said it’s void. We never spoke about it again. As it happens, I will win that bet, but I’m not going to ask for the money, and it’s a lot more than £300, because I understood it to be void, despite Robert never saying ‘Happy to void’ as you did
Well that's between you and him. We struck the Starmer bet and that's not disputed. Neither are the terms. You want to cancel it and I don't.
There's an email exchange between us which you say was an agreement to cancel it and I say left the issue hanging with no agreed resolution.
We don't want to argue about it for 10 months so what to do?
An idea. Is there a PB mechanism for betting dispute resolution? Eg how about the facts (inc that email exchange) are reviewed by somebody trusted by both of us and au fait with betting etiquette and they opine? We agree to go with what they say.
Why did you say ‘happy to void’ then if you’re not standing by that now? It’s not as though it was in the balance then and now the position has changed drastically. I emailed you to explain the situation, making it obvious I didnt think the bet should stand, and you said ‘happy to void’. Is your word not worth £300?
I also said I was happy to keep it. Or to transfer to RCS if he said ok to that. The exchange then went nowhere. Replies were needed but nobody did. You didn't, RCS didn't. The matter was thus left unresolved with no agreement.
Hence where we are now - this dispute whereby I want to keep the bet we struck and you want to cancel it.
My word is worth a lot as I hope yours is. And I don't want to get into accusations of bad faith. Misunderstandings happen all the time. We seem to have one here.
So my suggestion is a review of the facts by an agreed PB 3rd party. Is this bet cancelled or does it stand? We abide by their opinion. No quibbles, no drama, move on.
Isam laid me £100 at 3/1 Starmer to be PM after the GE. No dispute on this.
The proposal is that this be netted against something Isam has going with RCS such that I will collect the £300 from RCS if the bet wins (which looks likely but you never know).
In August last year I suggested we either void it or you sort something out with Robert, and you replied
“Happy whatever, I mean. We can keep it or we can void it. Your suggestion is also fine by me if it's fine by rcs.“
So why would you think, five months later, that I’d think we were still on?? You agreed with both of my suggestions
That is not accurate.
Here's you on a September thread posting about how you've done a 'bad' 3/1 lay of SKS PM post-GE. Why would you do that if you'd got yourself out of it?
The fact is nobody replied to me in August. You didn't. RCS didn't. It was left hanging. There was no agreement to do anything. Hence why I'd like it resolved now. My preference in order is as follows:
1. Our bet stands as we struck it. That's the norm after all. 2. RCS takes the bet from you. But he needs to confirm that. 3. We forget it and I let you off.
If it's (3) I'd be agreeing to cancel a bet that looks almost certain to be a £300 winner. There needs to be a good reason for that.
This is complete madness. You literally said you were happy to void it.
I suggested two options and you said you were happy to do either. I didn’t say anything more because I was leaving it to you and Robert to sort out, you having agreed to what I had suggested
I mentioned it as a self deprecating joke, because I did lay 3/1 Sir Keir to be PM after the GE, and @Peter_the_Punter had been calling me a useless bettor. But you had agreed to either void it or sort it out with Robert
Yes, laid to me!
That isn't at all a reasonable interpretation of where the email exchange left things. You didn't reply to me. RCS made no comment at all. It was left hanging. There was nothing agreed. Hence the need to resolve it now.
Let's assume a misunderstanding (it happens) and start again with the presumption of good faith on all sides.
We did the bet. That's agreed.
You propose it is transferred from you to @rcs1000 (because of some outstandings the two of you have, the details of which I don't have knowledge of).
We await his input before continuing.
You said you were happy to void it. What on earth makes you think I wasn’t happy to, seeing as I suggested it? If Sir Keir had dropped dead, or been sacked, do you really think I’d have asked for the £100??!
In fact our situation is similar to that between Robert and myself; I wanted to void that bet because I was banned from the site, outrageously unfairly in my view, and didn’t want to be in the situation of being unable to post, liable for bets and easily able to be knocked. He said our bet stood, and if I refused to pay that was my choice. I said it’s void. We never spoke about it again. As it happens, I will win that bet, but I’m not going to ask for the money, and it’s a lot more than £300, because I understood it to be void, despite Robert never saying ‘Happy to void’ as you did
Well that's between you and him. We struck the Starmer bet and that's not disputed. Neither are the terms. You want to cancel it and I don't.
There's an email exchange between us which you say was an agreement to cancel it and I say left the issue hanging with no agreed resolution.
We don't want to argue about it for 10 months so what to do?
An idea. Is there a PB mechanism for betting dispute resolution? Eg how about the facts (inc that email exchange) are reviewed by somebody trusted by both of us and au fait with betting etiquette and they opine? We agree to go with what they say.
Why did you say ‘happy to void’ then if you’re not standing by that now? It’s not as though it was in the balance then and now the position has changed drastically. I emailed you to explain the situation, making it obvious I didnt think the bet should stand, and you said ‘happy to void’. Is your word not worth £300?
I also said I was happy to keep it. Or to transfer to RCS if he said ok to that. The exchange then went nowhere. Replies were needed but nobody did. You didn't, RCS didn't. The matter was thus left unresolved with no agreement.
Hence where we are now - this dispute whereby I want to keep the bet we struck and you want to cancel it.
My word is worth a lot as I hope yours is. And I don't want to get into accusations of bad faith. Misunderstandings happen all the time. We seem to have one here.
So my suggestion is a review of the facts by an agreed PB 3rd party. Is this bet cancelled or does it stand? We abide by their opinion. No quibbles, no drama, move on.
I just don’t get how you can think I possibly wanted to keep it. I emailed you to say I didn’t want the bet anymore, so the option of ‘keeping it’ was obviously not one I wanted, you said you were happy to void it or sort it out with Robert. For all I knew you had sorted it with him on a different email.
Had you given any indication that you thought voiding, or bringing Robert into it was not on then we could have sorted it out last August. But you offered to void it, it was your idea, which was suited what I wanted. So why is that not an option in your mind now?
Isam laid me £100 at 3/1 Starmer to be PM after the GE. No dispute on this.
The proposal is that this be netted against something Isam has going with RCS such that I will collect the £300 from RCS if the bet wins (which looks likely but you never know).
In August last year I suggested we either void it or you sort something out with Robert, and you replied
“Happy whatever, I mean. We can keep it or we can void it. Your suggestion is also fine by me if it's fine by rcs.“
So why would you think, five months later, that I’d think we were still on?? You agreed with both of my suggestions
That is not accurate.
Here's you on a September thread posting about how you've done a 'bad' 3/1 lay of SKS PM post-GE. Why would you do that if you'd got yourself out of it?
The fact is nobody replied to me in August. You didn't. RCS didn't. It was left hanging. There was no agreement to do anything. Hence why I'd like it resolved now. My preference in order is as follows:
1. Our bet stands as we struck it. That's the norm after all. 2. RCS takes the bet from you. But he needs to confirm that. 3. We forget it and I let you off.
If it's (3) I'd be agreeing to cancel a bet that looks almost certain to be a £300 winner. There needs to be a good reason for that.
This is complete madness. You literally said you were happy to void it.
I suggested two options and you said you were happy to do either. I didn’t say anything more because I was leaving it to you and Robert to sort out, you having agreed to what I had suggested
I mentioned it as a self deprecating joke, because I did lay 3/1 Sir Keir to be PM after the GE, and @Peter_the_Punter had been calling me a useless bettor. But you had agreed to either void it or sort it out with Robert
Yes, laid to me!
That isn't at all a reasonable interpretation of where the email exchange left things. You didn't reply to me. RCS made no comment at all. It was left hanging. There was nothing agreed. Hence the need to resolve it now.
Let's assume a misunderstanding (it happens) and start again with the presumption of good faith on all sides.
We did the bet. That's agreed.
You propose it is transferred from you to @rcs1000 (because of some outstandings the two of you have, the details of which I don't have knowledge of).
We await his input before continuing.
You said you were happy to void it. What on earth makes you think I wasn’t happy to, seeing as I suggested it? If Sir Keir had dropped dead, or been sacked, do you really think I’d have asked for the £100??!
In fact our situation is similar to that between Robert and myself; I wanted to void that bet because I was banned from the site, outrageously unfairly in my view, and didn’t want to be in the situation of being unable to post, liable for bets and easily able to be knocked. He said our bet stood, and if I refused to pay that was my choice. I said it’s void. We never spoke about it again. As it happens, I will win that bet, but I’m not going to ask for the money, and it’s a lot more than £300, because I understood it to be void, despite Robert never saying ‘Happy to void’ as you did
Well that's between you and him. We struck the Starmer bet and that's not disputed. Neither are the terms. You want to cancel it and I don't.
There's an email exchange between us which you say was an agreement to cancel it and I say left the issue hanging with no agreed resolution.
We don't want to argue about it for 10 months so what to do?
An idea. Is there a PB mechanism for betting dispute resolution? Eg how about the facts (inc that email exchange) are reviewed by somebody trusted by both of us and au fait with betting etiquette and they opine? We agree to go with what they say.
Why did you say ‘happy to void’ then if you’re not standing by that now? It’s not as though it was in the balance then and now the position has changed drastically. I emailed you to explain the situation, making it obvious I didnt think the bet should stand, and you said ‘happy to void’. Is your word not worth £300?
I also said I was happy to keep it. Or to transfer to RCS if he said ok to that. The exchange then went nowhere. Replies were needed but nobody did. You didn't, RCS didn't. The matter was thus left unresolved with no agreement.
Hence where we are now - this dispute whereby I want to keep the bet we struck and you want to cancel it.
My word is worth a lot as I hope yours is. And I don't want to get into accusations of bad faith. Misunderstandings happen all the time. We seem to have one here.
So my suggestion is a review of the facts by an agreed PB 3rd party. Is this bet cancelled or does it stand? We abide by their opinion. No quibbles, no drama, move on.
I just don’t get how you can think I possibly wanted to keep it. I emailed you to say I didn’t want the bet anymore, so the option of ‘keeping it’ was obviously not one I wanted, you said you were happy to void it or sort it out with Robert. For all I knew you had sorted it with him on a different email.
Had you given any indication that you thought voiding, or bringing Robert into it was not on then we could have sorted it out last August. But you offered to void it, it was your idea, which was suited what I wanted. So why is that not an option in your mind now?
By the same token I don't see how you can think that email exchange represented an agreement to cancel the bet. In the absence of such an agreement the bet stands as struck. That's my position.
So we have a dispute here, sadly. I don't want us to argue on and on about it, it's no big deal in the grand scheme of things, hence my compromise suggestion of 'arbitration'. Are you rejecting that idea? Have you a better one if so?
Isam laid me £100 at 3/1 Starmer to be PM after the GE. No dispute on this.
The proposal is that this be netted against something Isam has going with RCS such that I will collect the £300 from RCS if the bet wins (which looks likely but you never know).
In August last year I suggested we either void it or you sort something out with Robert, and you replied
“Happy whatever, I mean. We can keep it or we can void it. Your suggestion is also fine by me if it's fine by rcs.“
So why would you think, five months later, that I’d think we were still on?? You agreed with both of my suggestions
That is not accurate.
Here's you on a September thread posting about how you've done a 'bad' 3/1 lay of SKS PM post-GE. Why would you do that if you'd got yourself out of it?
The fact is nobody replied to me in August. You didn't. RCS didn't. It was left hanging. There was no agreement to do anything. Hence why I'd like it resolved now. My preference in order is as follows:
1. Our bet stands as we struck it. That's the norm after all. 2. RCS takes the bet from you. But he needs to confirm that. 3. We forget it and I let you off.
If it's (3) I'd be agreeing to cancel a bet that looks almost certain to be a £300 winner. There needs to be a good reason for that.
This is complete madness. You literally said you were happy to void it.
I suggested two options and you said you were happy to do either. I didn’t say anything more because I was leaving it to you and Robert to sort out, you having agreed to what I had suggested
I mentioned it as a self deprecating joke, because I did lay 3/1 Sir Keir to be PM after the GE, and @Peter_the_Punter had been calling me a useless bettor. But you had agreed to either void it or sort it out with Robert
Yes, laid to me!
That isn't at all a reasonable interpretation of where the email exchange left things. You didn't reply to me. RCS made no comment at all. It was left hanging. There was nothing agreed. Hence the need to resolve it now.
Let's assume a misunderstanding (it happens) and start again with the presumption of good faith on all sides.
We did the bet. That's agreed.
You propose it is transferred from you to @rcs1000 (because of some outstandings the two of you have, the details of which I don't have knowledge of).
We await his input before continuing.
You said you were happy to void it. What on earth makes you think I wasn’t happy to, seeing as I suggested it? If Sir Keir had dropped dead, or been sacked, do you really think I’d have asked for the £100??!
In fact our situation is similar to that between Robert and myself; I wanted to void that bet because I was banned from the site, outrageously unfairly in my view, and didn’t want to be in the situation of being unable to post, liable for bets and easily able to be knocked. He said our bet stood, and if I refused to pay that was my choice. I said it’s void. We never spoke about it again. As it happens, I will win that bet, but I’m not going to ask for the money, and it’s a lot more than £300, because I understood it to be void, despite Robert never saying ‘Happy to void’ as you did
Well that's between you and him. We struck the Starmer bet and that's not disputed. Neither are the terms. You want to cancel it and I don't.
There's an email exchange between us which you say was an agreement to cancel it and I say left the issue hanging with no agreed resolution.
We don't want to argue about it for 10 months so what to do?
An idea. Is there a PB mechanism for betting dispute resolution? Eg how about the facts (inc that email exchange) are reviewed by somebody trusted by both of us and au fait with betting etiquette and they opine? We agree to go with what they say.
Why did you say ‘happy to void’ then if you’re not standing by that now? It’s not as though it was in the balance then and now the position has changed drastically. I emailed you to explain the situation, making it obvious I didnt think the bet should stand, and you said ‘happy to void’. Is your word not worth £300?
I also said I was happy to keep it. Or to transfer to RCS if he said ok to that. The exchange then went nowhere. Replies were needed but nobody did. You didn't, RCS didn't. The matter was thus left unresolved with no agreement.
Hence where we are now - this dispute whereby I want to keep the bet we struck and you want to cancel it.
My word is worth a lot as I hope yours is. And I don't want to get into accusations of bad faith. Misunderstandings happen all the time. We seem to have one here.
So my suggestion is a review of the facts by an agreed PB 3rd party. Is this bet cancelled or does it stand? We abide by their opinion. No quibbles, no drama, move on.
I just don’t get how you can think I possibly wanted to keep it. I emailed you to say I didn’t want the bet anymore, so the option of ‘keeping it’ was obviously not one I wanted, you said you were happy to void it or sort it out with Robert. For all I knew you had sorted it with him on a different email.
Had you given any indication that you thought voiding, or bringing Robert into it was not on then we could have sorted it out last August. But you offered to void it, it was your idea, which was suited what I wanted. So why is that not an option in your mind now?
By the same token I don't see how you can think that email exchange represented an agreement to cancel the bet. In the absence of such an agreement the bet stands as struck. That's my position.
So we have a dispute here, sadly. I don't want us to argue on and on about it, it's no big deal in the grand scheme of things, hence my compromise suggestion of 'arbitration'. Are you rejecting that idea? Have you a better one if so?
Why did you say “Happy to void” if you’re not happy to stick with that? You can’t possibly have thought that I wasn’t happy to void, as I got in touch with you explaining why I wasn’t happy to have the bet.
Your offer to go to ‘arbitration’ is just a way of trying to get another go at the bet after you had said you were happy to cancel it
Comments
https://x.com/borisjohnson/status/1747187167066022059?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Cold and reasonably clear in Nottinghamshire.
Thanks for the header, @Cyclefree .
I see your comments re: non-Execs not doing their jobs.
I note from your link that they are being "held to account" by Ian Lavery MP as a member of the Trade and Industry Select Committee.
Ian Lavery being an MP who received a loan of £72500 from a Miners' Welfare fund, which was then written off under highly suspicious circumstances. As the Guardian reported:
The regulator found that the Northumberland provident and benevolent fund loaned Lavery £72,500 to buy a house in 1994. Thirteen years on, the union Lavery was then running wrote off the loan.
Lavery paid into an endowment fund to pay back the capital cost of the house. It under-performed but still paid out £18,000. The regulator found Lavery kept the money.
The report also says Lavery received a number of termination payments from the union totalling £89,887.83.
The report says neither Lavery nor the union could provide documentary evidence of the process or the decision by which Lavery was made redundant as he left his full-time job to take another as an MP.
“The allegations further stated that the union’s then general secretary Mr Ian Lavery ceased to be general secretary when he was elected as the MP for Wansbeck on 7 May 2010 and questioned in what way this was redundancy and, if not a redundancy, asked on what basis the payments were made,” the report says.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/20/labour-party-chair-received-165000-from-union-watchdog-finds
I had a look at Ashfield, and it is ... complicated !
NEW THREAD
Ah, I see your point.
Hence where we are now - this dispute whereby I want to keep the bet we struck and you want to cancel it.
My word is worth a lot as I hope yours is. And I don't want to get into accusations of bad faith. Misunderstandings happen all the time. We seem to have one here.
So my suggestion is a review of the facts by an agreed PB 3rd party. Is this bet cancelled or does it stand? We abide by their opinion. No quibbles, no drama, move on.
@isam @rcs1000
Had you given any indication that you thought voiding, or bringing Robert into it was not on then we could have sorted it out last August. But you offered to void it, it was your idea, which was suited what I wanted. So why is that not an option in your mind now?
So we have a dispute here, sadly. I don't want us to argue on and on about it, it's no big deal in the grand scheme of things, hence my compromise suggestion of 'arbitration'. Are you rejecting that idea? Have you a better one if so?
Your offer to go to ‘arbitration’ is just a way of trying to get another go at the bet after you had said you were happy to cancel it