The growth of gambling with the internet and various betting apps is actually troubling. The growth of firms like Betfair, Betway, Ladbrokes etc has been exponential and it is causing a lot of misery.
A telltale sign for me of my misanthropy rising is disgust with advertising, and gambling ads are the creepiest of all. They seem to be targeted at young people and harp on about convenience and tailoring their products to your needs while scattering fig leafs on responsible gambling. Ban that crap for a start..
Bit embarrassed by my cheap attempts at prose here, but I think the gist of it sums up your feelings
Nothing embarrassing about it, it does sum up my feelings quite well. Selling gambling as a lifestyle particularly to the not clued up does make me puke.
I do agree that the field in general is pretty seedy, even though like most here I've punted happily on Betfair. I've been translating a curious law in a German state. The state government is introducing a state lottery (and banning all other lotteries). The justification that they offer is that gambling is legal but an undesirable Bad Thing, as well as full of unscrupulous unlicensed operators, so they are going to run it cleanly, while wishing that nobody wanted to play. I've never seen a law that explicitly denigrates what they are doing.
That looks weird, but is it Liz Truss in the middle?
I don’t know why some images are coming out blurry recently?
I think it is because too many pictures are being embedded recently and Vanilla is struggling to cope.
We saw something similar when Vanilla shrank pictures when too many pics were previously embedded.
Surely this is configurable (and might involve crossing Vanilla's palm with silver). I'd rather go back to the shrunk but legible pictures we still get from pasted images rather than the massive but illegible messes; even when clear there is no point displaying a photo which cannot be viewed on screen at once and we need to scroll down to see the dog cat for scale. What else would be handy is if we must have massive images, can they at least be shrunk when quoted? I've no idea whether Vanilla allows this.
On the latter point, I've looked into that before, it will quote the fully sized reply.
Another issue is putting several images in one post.
God, it's f****** awful being a Man Utd fan these days. Stress doesn't begin to describe it.
Have to disagree with a comment on the BBC website.
57:58: Coventry 0-3 Man Utd.
94:16: Coventry 3-3 Man Utd.
Only in the FA Cup.
The only reason its "Only in the FA Cup" is that Coventry would only meet Man Utd in the FA Cup. Otherwise it seems a pretty standard Premier League result this season.
One of the biggest embarrassments for LFC this season is that in three attempts, we've not been able to beat Man Utd once this season.
God, it's f****** awful being a Man Utd fan these days. Stress doesn't begin to describe it.
Have to disagree with a comment on the BBC website.
57:58: Coventry 0-3 Man Utd.
94:16: Coventry 3-3 Man Utd.
Only in the FA Cup.
The only reason its "Only in the FA Cup" is that Coventry would only meet Man Utd in the FA Cup. Otherwise it seems a pretty standard Premier League result this season.
One of the biggest embarrassments for LFC this season is that in three attempts, we've not been able to beat Man Utd once this season.
You should indeed be ashamed. This is not a team. Its a collection of reasonably talented players, some of whom really don't seem to care.
fat chance Taz, the weirdo numpties like the money too much. they will come out with some crap that like usual it was an elastic red line and happy to move it down the road.
God, it's f****** awful being a Man Utd fan these days. Stress doesn't begin to describe it.
Have to disagree with a comment on the BBC website.
57:58: Coventry 0-3 Man Utd.
94:16: Coventry 3-3 Man Utd.
Only in the FA Cup.
The only reason its "Only in the FA Cup" is that Coventry would only meet Man Utd in the FA Cup. Otherwise it seems a pretty standard Premier League result this season.
One of the biggest embarrassments for LFC this season is that in three attempts, we've not been able to beat Man Utd once this season.
You should indeed be ashamed. This is not a team. Its a collection of reasonably talented players, some of whom really don't seem to care.
That looks weird, but is it Liz Truss in the middle?
I don’t know why some images are coming out blurry recently?
I think it is because too many pictures are being embedded recently and Vanilla is struggling to cope.
We saw something similar when Vanilla shrank pictures when too many pics were previously embedded.
I shall rein it in
If you're regularly going to post images, then try to upload them elsewhere rather than using vanilla to upload them. Won't count against the quota then.
Free sites you can use online to easily upload them, like imgbb.com
Then to post here use the simple code open-triangular-bracket a href="urlofimage.jpg"backslash close-triangular-bracket and the image will go up without wasting the sites quota.
I believe that is actually: (img src=”example image web address”/)
fat chance Taz, the weirdo numpties like the money too much. they will come out with some crap that like usual it was an elastic red line and happy to move it down the road.
Plus the absolute shite they come out with actually gets reported at the moment because it is government policy. If they leave the government they leave the stage and no one will care what they think anymore.
That looks weird, but is it Liz Truss in the middle?
I don’t know why some images are coming out blurry recently?
I think it is because too many pictures are being embedded recently and Vanilla is struggling to cope.
We saw something similar when Vanilla shrank pictures when too many pics were previously embedded.
I shall rein it in
If you're regularly going to post images, then try to upload them elsewhere rather than using vanilla to upload them. Won't count against the quota then.
Free sites you can use online to easily upload them, like imgbb.com
Then to post here use the simple code open-triangular-bracket a href="urlofimage.jpg"backslash close-triangular-bracket and the image will go up without wasting the sites quota.
I believe that is actually: (img src=”exampleimage web address”/)
That looks weird, but is it Liz Truss in the middle?
I don’t know why some images are coming out blurry recently?
I think it is because too many pictures are being embedded recently and Vanilla is struggling to cope.
We saw something similar when Vanilla shrank pictures when too many pics were previously embedded.
Surely this is configurable (and might involve crossing Vanilla's palm with silver). I'd rather go back to the shrunk but legible pictures we still get from pasted images rather than the massive but illegible messes; even when clear there is no point displaying a photo which cannot be viewed on screen at once and we need to scroll down to see the dog cat for scale. What else would be handy is if we must have massive images, can they at least be shrunk when quoted? I've no idea whether Vanilla allows this.
Perhaps we could just avoid posting images?
Non!!
I know I sometimes post a lot but they really add interest to the site. I love the travel ones from @IanB2 and @BlancheLivermore etc
They are like illustrations, photos and cartoons in a magazine. They add variety and life. You might be having a dense argument about by elections or Ukraine or - god help us - trans issues, then suddenly there’s a sweet photo of a dog on a cliff in the sun. It lifts the spirit - and leavens the discourse
That looks weird, but is it Liz Truss in the middle?
I don’t know why some images are coming out blurry recently?
I think it is because too many pictures are being embedded recently and Vanilla is struggling to cope.
We saw something similar when Vanilla shrank pictures when too many pics were previously embedded.
Surely this is configurable (and might involve crossing Vanilla's palm with silver). I'd rather go back to the shrunk but legible pictures we still get from pasted images rather than the massive but illegible messes; even when clear there is no point displaying a photo which cannot be viewed on screen at once and we need to scroll down to see the dog cat for scale. What else would be handy is if we must have massive images, can they at least be shrunk when quoted? I've no idea whether Vanilla allows this.
Perhaps we could just avoid posting images?
Non!!
I know I sometimes post a lot but they really add interest to the site. I love the travel ones from @IanB2 and @BlancheLivermore etc
They are like illustrations, photos and cartoons in a magazine. They add variety and life. You might be having a dense argument about by elections or Ukraine or - god help us - trans issues, then suddenly there’s a sweet photo of a dog on a cliff in the sun. It lifts the spirit - and leavens the discourse
Indeed, I agree, but if you're going to do it regularly then using a hosting site (many of which are free and easy to use) so you don't use up the site's quota which can be left to those who post irregularly would be good form.
Thanks for this overview -- which I'll have to think about.
In the US, most gambling was banned in most states, and then has come back in two ways: State-run lotteries, and Indian casinos. (The Indian reservations are not controlled by state laws.)
Both have grown considerably in recent decades.
In many (indeed most) US states, bans on gambling were VERY selectively enforced. With plenty of loopholes and other dodges, up to and including payoffs to the forces of order.
For example, when I was a lad, was impressed by the sight of a couple slot machines in the local Elks club - totally "illegal" yet operated quite openly.
So did various types of sports betting; virtually every city, town, hamlet in America had places - often barber shops and bars - where those in the know could and did place their wagers.
As for state lotteries staring in late 20th-century, they were imitating - and replacing - the "numbers" rackets prevalent in New York City and other similar locations. With the benefit that the state got (most of) the profit instead of organized crime.
Indeed, the major argument in favor of legal gambling, was that it's an alternative to taxation.
fat chance Taz, the weirdo numpties like the money too much. they will come out with some crap that like usual it was an elastic red line and happy to move it down the road.
Plus the absolute shite they come out with actually gets reported at the moment because it is government policy. If they leave the government they leave the stage and no one will care what they think anymore.
It is quite unbelieveable at the moment David, how is it humanly possible we have the current absolute dross running the country, Useless and the corrupt SNP and the odious grifting weirdo Greens. Who ever voted for those clowns to be in government.
That looks weird, but is it Liz Truss in the middle?
I don’t know why some images are coming out blurry recently?
I think it is because too many pictures are being embedded recently and Vanilla is struggling to cope.
We saw something similar when Vanilla shrank pictures when too many pics were previously embedded.
Surely this is configurable (and might involve crossing Vanilla's palm with silver). I'd rather go back to the shrunk but legible pictures we still get from pasted images rather than the massive but illegible messes; even when clear there is no point displaying a photo which cannot be viewed on screen at once and we need to scroll down to see the dog cat for scale. What else would be handy is if we must have massive images, can they at least be shrunk when quoted? I've no idea whether Vanilla allows this.
Perhaps we could just avoid posting images?
Non!!
I know I sometimes post a lot but they really add interest to the site. I love the travel ones from @IanB2 and @BlancheLivermore etc
They are like illustrations, photos and cartoons in a magazine. They add variety and life. You might be having a dense argument about by elections or Ukraine or - god help us - trans issues, then suddenly there’s a sweet photo of a dog on a cliff in the sun. It lifts the spirit - and leavens the discourse
Indeed, I agree, but if you're going to do it regularly then using a hosting site (many of which are free and easy to use) so you don't use up the site's quota which can be left to those who post irregularly would be good form.
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
Right embeds should be working however some new rules in place
1) Don't go OTT with the photos, use a link to your social media accounts if you want to post lots of pics
2) If you are going to post a pic just one embed per post
3) Don't post screenshots when you can copy and paste the text instead
If we can stick to that we should avoid the photo shrinking/blurring issue occurring again.
I'd add shrink photos to perhaps 1600 x 1200 max from the 5000 x 3750 or so they may come as. I recommend Irfan View - powerful but free and easy, and I have been using it for nearly 20 years.
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
According to the BBC, the reason why they could not conclude that party funds had been misused was because the money came from something called the Fylde Westminster group, which was "outside of the remit" of both the Conservative Party and the local Fylde Conservative Association.
I wonder whether that is a normal way of dealing with political donations.
The Tories have used it from time to time I think (“unincorporated funds”) or something but haven’t seen it used at a constituency level. I think it means the underlying donors don’t have to be disclosed according to the rules? Which is a bit silly.
@MattW, @AndyJS I was going to reply to anybody at the end, but I need to reply to you now to stop you going off down the wrong logic branch. Gambling is not taxed as income because of its historical origins. Gambling was treated as an agreement between gentlemen and could not be enforced (this rule prevented stupid upperclass sons from gambling away their inheritance). This was done away with with the Blair reforms, but the nontaxation is a relic of that.
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
The best thing about gambling in the UK is that you don't pay tax on winnings. In the USA I believe it counts as income.
How much would that raise for Regime Starmer?
Is there a political downside?
We used to tax winnings but that was changed to taxing the bookies on turnover instead. There's been no great clamour to go back and it would not be a great windfall for the government. We've not had income tax on winnings because the government feared having to give tax relief to losing punters. Aiui in America they get round this by only granting tax relief on losing bets as an offset to tax on winning bets.
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
- You don't mention the football pools! Littlewoods had collectors covering practically every urban and suburban street in the country. For many people, this was the only gambling in which they partook.
- After the Gaming Act of 1960 the US-based mafia muscled in in a big way, and a decade or so later it was thought things had gone a tad too far.
- Up until I am not sure when (the 1990s?) both "quality" and tabloid newspapers devoted pages to horseracing...and other pages to share prices. So if you're interested in the class divide...
I did mention the pools: see the text "like the totaliser and football pools" in the second para of "1906-1945"
I don't know about the Mafia. It wouldn't surprise me. But I also know that some of the bookies in Britain came over from Ireland and/or Northern Ireland and were not afraid of a bit of gunplay.
A lot of the early bookies were Jewish. Of course, thanks to the popularity of wars at the time, most men were familiar with guns although they were not much used.
I came across this book a few years back - by a Brummie gent who is not only an academic social historian but also a bookie by family trade. Fascinating stuff.
fat chance Taz, the weirdo numpties like the money too much. they will come out with some crap that like usual it was an elastic red line and happy to move it down the road.
Plus the absolute shite they come out with actually gets reported at the moment because it is government policy. If they leave the government they leave the stage and no one will care what they think anymore.
It is quite unbelieveable at the moment David, how is it humanly possible we have the current absolute dross running the country, Useless and the corrupt SNP and the odious grifting weirdo Greens. Who ever voted for those clowns to be in government.
Some very strange people, a large number of SNP supporters who were told it was the best use of their second vote and some environmentalists who probably never thought for a second that they were electing a government.
Let's face it, the bar for Ministers in the UK at the moment would walk a Caribbean limbo competition but Harvie and Slater would beat the average mole.
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
That sounds somewhat as if he is hoping that there won't be an investigation.
Whilst it sounds as if it is very important that there IS one.
Investigation of what though?
A private campaigning fund authorised money to be sent to an MP. It was correctly declared as a donation.
The Tory party was clearly embarrassed and he was asked to resign but not straight away.
What isn’t clear?
Facts appear to have been established, judgement reached, punishment rendered and accepted.
Him using £14k for medical expenses.
That looks like a potential violation of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.
I hadn’t seen those details - and don’t know the law. But if it is a gift to an individual why would it be a violation?
If you're raising funds for an election etc it should be used for those purposes and not to enrich the candidate.
It is effectively giving yourself a tax free bonus.
It is effectively theft/fraud is it not, if funds aren't used for their purpose?
I don't see how its any different to embezzlement.
The article said it was signed off by two of the authorised signatories. So it’s definitely not theft, fraud or embezzlement.
If that precluded convictions for theft, fraud or embezzlement then there wouldn’t be any. For example, all of the wrong uns from the solicitors profession (shocking I know) with their hand in the client account were authorised signatories. Similarly, if a false representation is made to authorised signatories, or they were in on it (not suggesting that happened here), then an offence occurred.
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
That sounds somewhat as if he is hoping that there won't be an investigation.
Whilst it sounds as if it is very important that there IS one.
Investigation of what though?
A private campaigning fund authorised money to be sent to an MP. It was correctly declared as a donation.
The Tory party was clearly embarrassed and he was asked to resign but not straight away.
What isn’t clear?
Facts appear to have been established, judgement reached, punishment rendered and accepted.
Him using £14k for medical expenses.
That looks like a potential violation of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.
I hadn’t seen those details - and don’t know the law. But if it is a gift to an individual why would it be a violation?
If you're raising funds for an election etc it should be used for those purposes and not to enrich the candidate.
It is effectively giving yourself a tax free bonus.
It is effectively theft/fraud is it not, if funds aren't used for their purpose?
I don't see how its any different to embezzlement.
The article said it was signed off by two of the authorised signatories. So it’s definitely not theft, fraud or embezzlement.
If that precluded convictions for theft, fraud or embezzlement then there wouldn’t be any. For example, all of the wrong uns from the solicitors profession (shocking I know) with their hand in the client account were authorised signatories. Similarly, if a false representation is made to authorised signatories, or they were in on it (not suggesting that happened here), then an offence occurred.
BTW it wasn't the Graun leaping to the defence of Tory dodginess, but the Tories themselves who came up with that original obiter dictum:
'A Conservative party spokesperson said: “The money in question that was sent to Mark Menzies MP was signed off by the two signatories of Fylde Westminster Group. This body sits outside of the remit of both the Conservative party and Fylde Conservative Association. Therefore we cannot conclude that there has been a misuse of Conservative party funds.["]'
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
According to the BBC, the reason why they could not conclude that party funds had been misused was because the money came from something called the Fylde Westminster group, which was "outside of the remit" of both the Conservative Party and the local Fylde Conservative Association.
I wonder whether that is a normal way of dealing with political donations.
The Tories have used it from time to time I think (“unincorporated funds”) or something but haven’t seen it used at a constituency level. I think it means the underlying donors don’t have to be disclosed according to the rules? Which is a bit silly.
The BBC has now updated its report to add: "It [the Conservative Party] also said it would retrain individuals across the party on how to manage "accounts which fall outside of the remit of the Conservative Party" and set up a whistleblowing helpline."
Apparently using the word "remit" in a rather unconventional way there.
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
That sounds somewhat as if he is hoping that there won't be an investigation.
Whilst it sounds as if it is very important that there IS one.
Investigation of what though?
A private campaigning fund authorised money to be sent to an MP. It was correctly declared as a donation.
The Tory party was clearly embarrassed and he was asked to resign but not straight away.
What isn’t clear?
Facts appear to have been established, judgement reached, punishment rendered and accepted.
Him using £14k for medical expenses.
That looks like a potential violation of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.
I hadn’t seen those details - and don’t know the law. But if it is a gift to an individual why would it be a violation?
If you're raising funds for an election etc it should be used for those purposes and not to enrich the candidate.
It is effectively giving yourself a tax free bonus.
It is effectively theft/fraud is it not, if funds aren't used for their purpose?
I don't see how its any different to embezzlement.
The article said it was signed off by two of the authorised signatories. So it’s definitely not theft, fraud or embezzlement.
If that precluded convictions for theft, fraud or embezzlement then there wouldn’t be any. For example, all of the wrong uns from the solicitors profession (shocking I know) with their hand in the client account were authorised signatories. Similarly, if a false representation is made to authorised signatories, or they were in on it (not suggesting that happened here), then an offence occurred.
BTW it wasn't the Graun leaping to the defence of Tory dodginess, but the Tories themselves who came up with that original obiter dictum:
'A Conservative party spokesperson said: “The money in question that was sent to Mark Menzies MP was signed off by the two signatories of Fylde Westminster Group. This body sits outside of the remit of both the Conservative party and Fylde Conservative Association. Therefore we cannot conclude that there has been a misuse of Conservative party funds.["]'
That merely says they can not conclude misuse of Tory Party funds as they weren't Tory Party funds does it not?
It doesn't preclude a possible charge for misuse of "Fylde Westminster Group" funds.
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
According to the BBC, the reason why they could not conclude that party funds had been misused was because the money came from something called the Fylde Westminster group, which was "outside of the remit" of both the Conservative Party and the local Fylde Conservative Association.
I wonder whether that is a normal way of dealing with political donations.
The Tories have used it from time to time I think (“unincorporated funds”) or something but haven’t seen it used at a constituency level. I think it means the underlying donors don’t have to be disclosed according to the rules? Which is a bit silly.
The BBC has now updated its report to add: "It [the Conservative Party] also said it would retrain individuals across the party on how to manage "accounts which fall outside of the remit of the Conservative Party" and set up a whistleblowing helpline."
Apparently using the word "remit" in a rather unconventional way there.
As opposed to "but still get their mitts on", presumably.
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
That sounds somewhat as if he is hoping that there won't be an investigation.
Whilst it sounds as if it is very important that there IS one.
Investigation of what though?
A private campaigning fund authorised money to be sent to an MP. It was correctly declared as a donation.
The Tory party was clearly embarrassed and he was asked to resign but not straight away.
What isn’t clear?
Facts appear to have been established, judgement reached, punishment rendered and accepted.
Him using £14k for medical expenses.
That looks like a potential violation of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.
I hadn’t seen those details - and don’t know the law. But if it is a gift to an individual why would it be a violation?
If you're raising funds for an election etc it should be used for those purposes and not to enrich the candidate.
It is effectively giving yourself a tax free bonus.
It is effectively theft/fraud is it not, if funds aren't used for their purpose?
I don't see how its any different to embezzlement.
The article said it was signed off by two of the authorised signatories. So it’s definitely not theft, fraud or embezzlement.
If that precluded convictions for theft, fraud or embezzlement then there wouldn’t be any. For example, all of the wrong uns from the solicitors profession (shocking I know) with their hand in the client account were authorised signatories. Similarly, if a false representation is made to authorised signatories, or they were in on it (not suggesting that happened here), then an offence occurred.
BTW it wasn't the Graun leaping to the defence of Tory dodginess, but the Tories themselves who came up with that original obiter dictum:
'A Conservative party spokesperson said: “The money in question that was sent to Mark Menzies MP was signed off by the two signatories of Fylde Westminster Group. This body sits outside of the remit of both the Conservative party and Fylde Conservative Association. Therefore we cannot conclude that there has been a misuse of Conservative party funds.["]'
Whether or not the funds were outside the remit of the Conservative Party, in whatever guise, is beside the point in a fraud case. If the funds were appropriated for a purpose outside that they were donated for then that should be investigated.
And yet apparently I’m “making it up” and my “photos mean nothing” and “Paris is fine” and “oh I went there last autumn and went straight to one nice restaurant then left and everything was great”
Or you could listen to the actual travel expert, his mind expertly attuned to the vibrations of the world, after decades of exploration. Thankyou. I’m here all week
I didn't disbelieve you. I was just surprised how you only needed 10 minutes to suss the City's problems. It was like you'd been primed and hit the ground running, looking for what you'd already been told about. Which is absolutely fine. Nothing wrong with that. But probably a different person could file a different (slightly sunnier) report and they wouldn't be making it up either. Paris being Paris. Enjoyable and interesting anyway.
No, I’m just really really REALLY good at detecting urban moods and national ambience and “sense of place” - and doing it super quickly - after constantly travelling for forty years and having to THINK about it jolly hard, because I have to write about it
I bet a massively experienced restaurant critic - Jay Rayner - can walk into most restaurants and work out what he’s going to eat and what the staff will be like and how the menu will go, within 5 minutes. Moreover if he returns to a restaurant he knows very well - and loves - but hasn’t visited in half a decade, he will pretty much instantly detect a problem and have a good chance of diagnosing why and what that is: he will also be expert at noting details, especially changes
Think of me as the “Jay Rayner of Place”
Ok I can definitely do that. Not keen on Jay Rayner.
That looks weird, but is it Liz Truss in the middle?
I don’t know why some images are coming out blurry recently?
I think it is because too many pictures are being embedded recently and Vanilla is struggling to cope.
We saw something similar when Vanilla shrank pictures when too many pics were previously embedded.
Surely this is configurable (and might involve crossing Vanilla's palm with silver). I'd rather go back to the shrunk but legible pictures we still get from pasted images rather than the massive but illegible messes; even when clear there is no point displaying a photo which cannot be viewed on screen at once and we need to scroll down to see the dog cat for scale. What else would be handy is if we must have massive images, can they at least be shrunk when quoted? I've no idea whether Vanilla allows this.
Perhaps we could just avoid posting images?
Non!!
I know I sometimes post a lot but they really add interest to the site. I love the travel ones from @IanB2 and @BlancheLivermore etc
They are like illustrations, photos and cartoons in a magazine. They add variety and life. You might be having a dense argument about by elections or Ukraine or - god help us - trans issues, then suddenly there’s a sweet photo of a dog on a cliff in the sun. It lifts the spirit - and leavens the discourse
Ears are handy for pointing out things, like the church…
Dionysus Lardner was the product of one of my ancestor's expert farms:
"Whilst lecturing in America Lardner was paid by Norris Brothers, the largest firm of locomotive builders, to investigate a fatal accident in Reading, near Philadelphia, where a boiler had exploded on a newly made train. Lardner pronounced that the accident had been caused by lightning, which meant that Norris Brothers were not personally liable for the accident. A committee of the Franklin Institute pointed out that there was no lightning present at that time and that the pumps had been faulty, the water indicator was ill-designed and the bridge bands made of cast iron rather than wrought iron. The Coroner's inquest jury were persuaded by Lardner that the accident was an 'act of God' but the company were careful to design their later locomotives with wrought-iron bands."
Perhaps he could be resurrected and appear at the Post Office inquiry? He'd still appear a more reliable expert than the current ones...
If ever we wonder how we ended up with governments employing their own independent experts to report impartially on transport accidents, well there’s your answer.
Lardner was the “critical voice” - independent SAGE before its time
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
Sadiq can sack Rowley in the same way Boris sacked Sir Ian Blair, even if in theory it is the Home Secretary's call.
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
According to the BBC, the reason why they could not conclude that party funds had been misused was because the money came from something called the Fylde Westminster group, which was "outside of the remit" of both the Conservative Party and the local Fylde Conservative Association.
I wonder whether that is a normal way of dealing with political donations.
The Tories have used it from time to time I think (“unincorporated funds”) or something but haven’t seen it used at a constituency level. I think it means the underlying donors don’t have to be disclosed according to the rules? Which is a bit silly.
it makes the PPERA reporting requirements slightly simpler and prevents peoples snail mail addresses being published
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
Sadiq can sack Rowley in the same way Boris sacked Sir Ian Blair, even if in theory it is the Home Secretary's call.
Sadiq Khan also sacked Commissioner Dick in the same way.
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
Sadiq can sack Rowley in the same way Boris sacked Sir Ian Blair, even if in theory it is the Home Secretary's call.
Sadiq Khan also sacked Commissioner Dick in the same way.
And some here act like Khan hasn't done anything sensible in office.
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
Sadiq can sack Rowley in the same way Boris sacked Sir Ian Blair, even if in theory it is the Home Secretary's call.
Sadiq Khan also sacked Commissioner Dick in the same way.
And some here act like Khan hasn't done anything sensible in office.
'Khan gets Dick out' was one of my all time favourite headlines.
The former Tory MP Mark Menzies is quitting parliament after allegations that he misused campaign funds.
The MP for Fylde announced that he would not stand at the next election after the allegations were referred to Lancashire police.
The Conservative party said that an internal investigation could not conclude there had been a misuse of party funds. However, it said that Menzies had demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” that fell below the standards expected of MP.
In a statement, he said: “It has been an enormous privilege representing the people of Fylde since 2010, but due to the pressures on myself and my elderly mother, I have decided to resign from the Conservative party and will not stand at the forthcoming general election.
“This has been a very difficult week for me and I request that my family’s privacy is respected.”
That sounds somewhat as if he is hoping that there won't be an investigation.
Whilst it sounds as if it is very important that there IS one.
Investigation of what though?
A private campaigning fund authorised money to be sent to an MP. It was correctly declared as a donation.
The Tory party was clearly embarrassed and he was asked to resign but not straight away.
What isn’t clear?
Facts appear to have been established, judgement reached, punishment rendered and accepted.
Him using £14k for medical expenses.
That looks like a potential violation of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.
I hadn’t seen those details - and don’t know the law. But if it is a gift to an individual why would it be a violation?
If you're raising funds for an election etc it should be used for those purposes and not to enrich the candidate.
It is effectively giving yourself a tax free bonus.
It is effectively theft/fraud is it not, if funds aren't used for their purpose?
I don't see how its any different to embezzlement.
The article said it was signed off by two of the authorised signatories. So it’s definitely not theft, fraud or embezzlement.
Sounds like SNP and they are all getting measured for fancy suits with arrows.
I thought that a big part of the SNP matter was the *lack* of audited books, sign off and even a refusal to allow the responsible officers of the party access to the books?
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
Thanks @viewcode. Not directly relevant, but I don't know if you have come across the book 'the rule of laws: a 4000 year quest to order the world' by Fernanda Pirie... one of the key points is that many laws become ineffective/useless due to lack of will/enforcement;
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
All that bile and it's not even rooted in fact.
I've made the decision not to engage with the troll.
@kinabalu asked me the other day when I said that I believed in free speech would I be happy to have a fascist here, and I said that its not my site so its up to the site owners but in my view if they follow the rules they should be allowed on the site, if they break the rules then it becomes a problem same as anyone else.
Well following through on my principles here. We have a certain ass on the site who is routinely a fascist antisemite who engages in the worst sort of antisemitic tropes and rantings.
But its your site not mine, and as far as I'm concerned if they don't break the rules they should be allowed to say what they have to say. Doesn't mean I need to respond directly and feed the troll though.
That looks weird, but is it Liz Truss in the middle?
I don’t know why some images are coming out blurry recently?
I think it is because too many pictures are being embedded recently and Vanilla is struggling to cope.
We saw something similar when Vanilla shrank pictures when too many pics were previously embedded.
Surely this is configurable (and might involve crossing Vanilla's palm with silver). I'd rather go back to the shrunk but legible pictures we still get from pasted images rather than the massive but illegible messes; even when clear there is no point displaying a photo which cannot be viewed on screen at once and we need to scroll down to see the dog cat for scale. What else would be handy is if we must have massive images, can they at least be shrunk when quoted? I've no idea whether Vanilla allows this.
Perhaps we could just avoid posting images?
Non!!
I know I sometimes post a lot but they really add interest to the site. I love the travel ones from @IanB2 and @BlancheLivermore etc
They are like illustrations, photos and cartoons in a magazine. They add variety and life. You might be having a dense argument about by elections or Ukraine or - god help us - trans issues, then suddenly there’s a sweet photo of a dog on a cliff in the sun. It lifts the spirit - and leavens the discourse
Ears are handy for pointing out things, like the church…
That looks weird, but is it Liz Truss in the middle?
I don’t know why some images are coming out blurry recently?
I think it is because too many pictures are being embedded recently and Vanilla is struggling to cope.
We saw something similar when Vanilla shrank pictures when too many pics were previously embedded.
Surely this is configurable (and might involve crossing Vanilla's palm with silver). I'd rather go back to the shrunk but legible pictures we still get from pasted images rather than the massive but illegible messes; even when clear there is no point displaying a photo which cannot be viewed on screen at once and we need to scroll down to see the dog cat for scale. What else would be handy is if we must have massive images, can they at least be shrunk when quoted? I've no idea whether Vanilla allows this.
Perhaps we could just avoid posting images?
Non!!
I know I sometimes post a lot but they really add interest to the site. I love the travel ones from @IanB2 and @BlancheLivermore etc
They are like illustrations, photos and cartoons in a magazine. They add variety and life. You might be having a dense argument about by elections or Ukraine or - god help us - trans issues, then suddenly there’s a sweet photo of a dog on a cliff in the sun. It lifts the spirit - and leavens the discourse
Ears are handy for pointing out things, like the church…
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
Sadiq can sack Rowley in the same way Boris sacked Sir Ian Blair, even if in theory it is the Home Secretary's call.
Sadiq Khan also sacked Commissioner Dick in the same way.
And some here act like Khan hasn't done anything sensible in office.
'Khan gets Dick out' was one of my all time favourite headlines.
I like the people who tried to defend Blair and Dick as innocents. One was trying to justify randomly shooting people for being a bit suntanned. The other was presiding over a force that can’t filter out the obvious rapists and whose response to a candle lit vigil to remember a murder victim (victim of a Met police officer) was to arrest the candle carriers.
That looks weird, but is it Liz Truss in the middle?
I don’t know why some images are coming out blurry recently?
I think it is because too many pictures are being embedded recently and Vanilla is struggling to cope.
We saw something similar when Vanilla shrank pictures when too many pics were previously embedded.
Surely this is configurable (and might involve crossing Vanilla's palm with silver). I'd rather go back to the shrunk but legible pictures we still get from pasted images rather than the massive but illegible messes; even when clear there is no point displaying a photo which cannot be viewed on screen at once and we need to scroll down to see the dog cat for scale. What else would be handy is if we must have massive images, can they at least be shrunk when quoted? I've no idea whether Vanilla allows this.
Perhaps we could just avoid posting images?
Non!!
I know I sometimes post a lot but they really add interest to the site. I love the travel ones from @IanB2 and @BlancheLivermore etc
They are like illustrations, photos and cartoons in a magazine. They add variety and life. You might be having a dense argument about by elections or Ukraine or - god help us - trans issues, then suddenly there’s a sweet photo of a dog on a cliff in the sun. It lifts the spirit - and leavens the discourse
Ears are handy for pointing out things, like the church…
..
Italian lakes I’m guessing?
The dog is intriguingly camouflaged by the black sand. I missed him at first!
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
All that bile and it's not even rooted in fact.
Is there any mechanism whereby Cleverly can remove Khan from office? That is, suspend the Office of Mayor.
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
All that bile and it's not even rooted in fact.
Is there any mechanism whereby Cleverly can remove Khan from office? That is, suspend the Office of Mayor.
IIRC, the mayor can only be removed by committing a moderately serious crime (but like an MP) or, somewhat curiously, not attending a certain number of meetings of the London Assembly.
That looks weird, but is it Liz Truss in the middle?
I don’t know why some images are coming out blurry recently?
I think it is because too many pictures are being embedded recently and Vanilla is struggling to cope.
We saw something similar when Vanilla shrank pictures when too many pics were previously embedded.
Surely this is configurable (and might involve crossing Vanilla's palm with silver). I'd rather go back to the shrunk but legible pictures we still get from pasted images rather than the massive but illegible messes; even when clear there is no point displaying a photo which cannot be viewed on screen at once and we need to scroll down to see the dog cat for scale. What else would be handy is if we must have massive images, can they at least be shrunk when quoted? I've no idea whether Vanilla allows this.
Perhaps we could just avoid posting images?
Non!!
I know I sometimes post a lot but they really add interest to the site. I love the travel ones from @IanB2 and @BlancheLivermore etc
They are like illustrations, photos and cartoons in a magazine. They add variety and life. You might be having a dense argument about by elections or Ukraine or - god help us - trans issues, then suddenly there’s a sweet photo of a dog on a cliff in the sun. It lifts the spirit - and leavens the discourse
Ears are handy for pointing out things, like the church…
..
Italian lakes I’m guessing?
Looks like Liguria to me.
I’ve never managed to love the Ligurian coast. Very pretty-pretty and all that, but something missing. A bit candyfloss. But I’m more of a France-Spain than an Italy person.
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
"Mr Khan does have the power to effectively sack the Commissioner, but can only do so with the permission of the Home Secretary, who can also require the Mayor to dismiss the head of the Met."
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
Sadiq can sack Rowley in the same way Boris sacked Sir Ian Blair, even if in theory it is the Home Secretary's call.
Sadiq Khan also sacked Commissioner Dick in the same way.
And some here act like Khan hasn't done anything sensible in office.
'Khan gets Dick out' was one of my all time favourite headlines.
But Met Commissioners being forced out in ignomy is getting a bit Brenda from Bristol.
At what point do we conclude that the current job is basically undoable? And what the flip do we do next?
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
Sadiq can sack Rowley in the same way Boris sacked Sir Ian Blair, even if in theory it is the Home Secretary's call.
Sadiq Khan also sacked Commissioner Dick in the same way.
And some here act like Khan hasn't done anything sensible in office.
'Khan gets Dick out' was one of my all time favourite headlines.
But Met Commissioners being forced out in ignomy is getting a bit Brenda from Bristol.
At what point do we conclude that the current job is basically undoable? And what the flip do we do next?
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
Sadiq can sack Rowley in the same way Boris sacked Sir Ian Blair, even if in theory it is the Home Secretary's call.
Sadiq Khan also sacked Commissioner Dick in the same way.
And some here act like Khan hasn't done anything sensible in office.
'Khan gets Dick out' was one of my all time favourite headlines.
But Met Commissioners being forced out in ignomy is getting a bit Brenda from Bristol.
At what point do we conclude that the current job is basically undoable? And what the flip do we do next?
God, it's f****** awful being a Man Utd fan these days. Stress doesn't begin to describe it.
Ratcliffe is there. Why hasn't he just gone up to ETH and told him he's sacked.
Its not merely ETH's fault. How many managers is it now since Fergie that have been sacked without things changing?
The players don't care. The players aren't playing for their shirt, that needs fixing.
To be more exact, the ones who are playing for the shirt are McTominay and Maguire, but the better players aren't.
It is not just ETH but also the dreadful signings like Antony and others plus the lack of leadership on and off the field
The injury list had been chronic but who is responsible for the players fitness, training and motivation as they have utterly failed
They will not beat City, but maybe the supporters can be content they knocked Liverpool out of the cup and deprived them of 4 points which is likely to see them lose out on the title
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
"Mr Khan does have the power to effectively sack the Commissioner, but can only do so with the permission of the Home Secretary, who can also require the Mayor to dismiss the head of the Met."
I suggest you do some research into the dismissals of Commissioners Blair and Dick.
That looks weird, but is it Liz Truss in the middle?
I don’t know why some images are coming out blurry recently?
I think it is because too many pictures are being embedded recently and Vanilla is struggling to cope.
We saw something similar when Vanilla shrank pictures when too many pics were previously embedded.
Surely this is configurable (and might involve crossing Vanilla's palm with silver). I'd rather go back to the shrunk but legible pictures we still get from pasted images rather than the massive but illegible messes; even when clear there is no point displaying a photo which cannot be viewed on screen at once and we need to scroll down to see the dog cat for scale. What else would be handy is if we must have massive images, can they at least be shrunk when quoted? I've no idea whether Vanilla allows this.
Perhaps we could just avoid posting images?
Non!!
I know I sometimes post a lot but they really add interest to the site. I love the travel ones from @IanB2 and @BlancheLivermore etc
They are like illustrations, photos and cartoons in a magazine. They add variety and life. You might be having a dense argument about by elections or Ukraine or - god help us - trans issues, then suddenly there’s a sweet photo of a dog on a cliff in the sun. It lifts the spirit - and leavens the discourse
Ears are handy for pointing out things, like the church…
..
How tricky is getting Fido (I don't know his name) in and out of your travel locations?
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
"Mr Khan does have the power to effectively sack the Commissioner, but can only do so with the permission of the Home Secretary, who can also require the Mayor to dismiss the head of the Met."
I suggest you do some research into the dismissals of Commissioners Blair and Dick.
I'm disappointed, Mr Eagles.
You missed an opportunity to tell a poster to look at Dick.
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
Sadiq can sack Rowley in the same way Boris sacked Sir Ian Blair, even if in theory it is the Home Secretary's call.
Sadiq Khan also sacked Commissioner Dick in the same way.
And some here act like Khan hasn't done anything sensible in office.
'Khan gets Dick out' was one of my all time favourite headlines.
But Met Commissioners being forced out in ignomy is getting a bit Brenda from Bristol.
At what point do we conclude that the current job is basically undoable? And what the flip do we do next?
God, it's f****** awful being a Man Utd fan these days. Stress doesn't begin to describe it.
Ratcliffe is there. Why hasn't he just gone up to ETH and told him he's sacked.
Its not merely ETH's fault. How many managers is it now since Fergie that have been sacked without things changing?
The players don't care. The players aren't playing for their shirt, that needs fixing.
To be more exact, the ones who are playing for the shirt are McTominay and Maguire, but the better players aren't.
It is not just ETH but also the dreadful signings like Antony and others plus the lack of leadership on and off the field
The injury list had been chronic but who is responsible for the players fitness, training and motivation as they have utterly failed
They will not beat City, but maybe the supporters can be content they knocked Liverpool out of the cup and deprived them of 4 points which is likely to see them lose out on the title
Who really cares that much about the ongoing United psychodrama? They have had their time. The latest soap opera just leaves most football fans cold. Hence why 95% of them wanted Cov to win today.
The best thing about gambling in the UK is that you don't pay tax on winnings. In the USA I believe it counts as income.
But can gambling losses be offset against other income? Asking for a friend.
No. After this afternoon's punting, sadly no.
Definitely not. HMRC will fight tooth and nail against any sort of possibility. Quite why they've not ever managed to just say that all gambling profits are taxable (at some very modest rate) and all losses not deductible escapes me.
Sadiq Khan is to meet with Mark Rowley tomorrow for an urgent meeting to discuss community relations. Aka an interview without coffee.
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
"Mr Khan does have the power to effectively sack the Commissioner, but can only do so with the permission of the Home Secretary, who can also require the Mayor to dismiss the head of the Met."
I suggest you do some research into the dismissals of Commissioners Blair and Dick.
I'm disappointed, Mr Eagles.
You missed an opportunity to tell a poster to look at Dick.
I know, I blame tiredness from editing PB from what is now six months in a row.
Comments
Ratcliffe is there. Why hasn't he just gone up to ETH and told him he's sacked.
Another issue is putting several images in one post.
57:58: Coventry 0-3 Man Utd.
94:16: Coventry 3-3 Man Utd.
Only in the FA Cup.
The only reason its "Only in the FA Cup" is that Coventry would only meet Man Utd in the FA Cup. Otherwise it seems a pretty standard Premier League result this season.
One of the biggest embarrassments for LFC this season is that in three attempts, we've not been able to beat Man Utd once this season.
The players don't care. The players aren't playing for their shirt, that needs fixing.
(img src=”example image web address”/)
Replace brackets with less than and greater than.
Example using this format:
The a href is to post a URL link.
I know I sometimes post a lot but they really add interest to the site. I love the travel ones from @IanB2 and @BlancheLivermore etc
They are like illustrations, photos and cartoons in a magazine. They add variety and life. You might be having a dense argument about by elections or Ukraine or - god help us - trans issues, then suddenly there’s a sweet photo of a dog on a cliff in the sun. It lifts the spirit - and leavens the discourse
For example, when I was a lad, was impressed by the sight of a couple slot machines in the local Elks club - totally "illegal" yet operated quite openly.
So did various types of sports betting; virtually every city, town, hamlet in America had places - often barber shops and bars - where those in the know could and did place their wagers.
As for state lotteries staring in late 20th-century, they were imitating - and replacing - the "numbers" rackets prevalent in New York City and other similar locations. With the benefit that the state got (most of) the profit instead of organized crime.
Indeed, the major argument in favor of legal gambling, was that it's an alternative to taxation.
1) Don't go OTT with the photos, use a link to your social media accounts if you want to post lots of pics
2) If you are going to post a pic just one embed per post
3) Don't post screenshots when you can copy and paste the text instead
If we can stick to that we should avoid the photo shrinking/blurring issue occurring again.
A private campaigning fund authorised money to be sent to an MP. It was correctly declared as a donation.
The Tory party was clearly embarrassed and he was asked to resign but not straight away.
What isn’t clear?
Facts appear to have been established, judgement reached, punishment rendered and accepted.
That looks like a potential violation of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.
Is there a political downside?
https://www.irfanview.com/
Trump 44%
Biden 43%
https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/trump-biden-polls
I was going to reply to anybody at the end, but I need to reply to you now to stop you going off down the wrong logic branch. Gambling is not taxed as income because of its historical origins. Gambling was treated as an agreement between gentlemen and could not be enforced (this rule prevented stupid upperclass sons from gambling away their inheritance). This was done away with with the Blair reforms, but the nontaxation is a relic of that.
Gambling companies are taxed on the money, tho:
https://taxqube.co.uk/gambling-and-taxation-in-the-united-kingdom/
It is effectively giving yourself a tax free bonus.
I don't see how its any different to embezzlement.
To be honest I’d just ban this sort of structure. Donations should be transparent
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Better_Betting_with_a_Decent_Feller/o4gbAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=history bookmaking gambling britain
Let's face it, the bar for Ministers in the UK at the moment would walk a Caribbean limbo competition but Harvie and Slater would beat the average mole.
'A Conservative party spokesperson said: “The money in question that was sent to Mark Menzies MP was signed off by the two signatories of Fylde Westminster Group. This body sits outside of the remit of both the Conservative party and Fylde Conservative Association. Therefore we cannot conclude that there has been a misuse of Conservative party funds.["]'
"It [the Conservative Party] also said it would retrain individuals across the party on how to manage "accounts which fall outside of the remit of the Conservative Party" and set up a whistleblowing helpline."
Apparently using the word "remit" in a rather unconventional way there.
It doesn't preclude a possible charge for misuse of "Fylde Westminster Group" funds.
..
Apparently Khan can only sack Rowley with the permission of Cleverly, who can require Khan to sack him regardless of what Khan thinks. Why do they play such a game of silly fuckers? Do they think it's clever? What this means is that Cleverly can sack Rowley but Khan can't.
Fine. Policing London is important. Nothing wrong with it being in the remit of central government. But James Cleverly seems to have been doing something he finds more interesting.
Rowley will certainly fall. The Tories have been playing some politics. Whether Labour will play some is unclear. Perhaps not having a national newspaper hampers them. You would have thought an obvious question to put to the Secretary of State was "Where TF is James Cleverly in these terrible times when a small pro-genocidal phalanx can't barge through an anti-genocide demonstration even just to waltz innocently across the street, akin to nothing more than the heirs of Martin Luther King?"
again…
That’s been demonstrated.
Not directly relevant, but I don't know if you have come across the book 'the rule of laws: a 4000 year quest to order the world' by Fernanda Pirie... one of the key points is that many laws become ineffective/useless due to lack of will/enforcement;
@kinabalu asked me the other day when I said that I believed in free speech would I be happy to have a fascist here, and I said that its not my site so its up to the site owners but in my view if they follow the rules they should be allowed on the site, if they break the rules then it becomes a problem same as anyone else.
Well following through on my principles here. We have a certain ass on the site who is routinely a fascist antisemite who engages in the worst sort of antisemitic tropes and rantings.
But its your site not mine, and as far as I'm concerned if they don't break the rules they should be allowed to say what they have to say. Doesn't mean I need to respond directly and feed the troll though.
I’ve never managed to love the Ligurian coast. Very pretty-pretty and all that, but something missing. A bit candyfloss. But I’m more of a France-Spain than an Italy person.
To be more exact, the ones who are playing for the shirt are McTominay and Maguire, but the better players aren't.
"Mr Khan does have the power to effectively sack the Commissioner, but can only do so with the permission of the Home Secretary, who can also require the Mayor to dismiss the head of the Met."
At what point do we conclude that the current job is basically undoable? And what the flip do we do next?
Vote Count Binface and I will abolish VAR.
The injury list had been chronic but who is responsible for the players fitness, training and motivation as they have utterly failed
They will not beat City, but maybe the supporters can be content they knocked Liverpool out of the cup and deprived them of 4 points which is likely to see them lose out on the title
You missed an opportunity to tell a poster to look at Dick.
You'll have to ask someone more knowledgeable than I am.
Apparently that is a very effective strategy.
For increasing criminality.