Mr. Antifrank, interesting, and seems separate to the eastern strip of Moldova the news mentioned as the next potential Russian annex.
Mr. Eagles, none of those grab me, to be honest. It'll be interesting to see if the second debate has more impact than the first.
I wonder whether we might end up with a different set of debates at the General Election. One with 4 leaders, two with 3 and one with just Cameron and Miliband.
Transnistria is already de facto under Russian control. Vladimir Putin has nothing to gain by formalising the arrangement, except perhaps in the wake of a secession by Gagauzia and an application by Gagauzia to become part of Russia.
If I were him, I'd be looking to have a rolling programme of areas clamouring to return to Moscow's mothership and doing so under referenda (preferably but not inevitably reasonably free and fair).
Evidence that Tory supporters are still comparatively reluctant to vote tactically, a finding as old as tactical voting itself.
Poor old Tories. Their preferred game is FPTP, but they still haven't learned how to play it...
Btw, Mike, IIUC, the article should read "fewest tactical voters", shouldn't it?
Hitherto, they've not really had anyone to vote tactically for. It's possible that the growth of UKIP changes that.
Having been fairly cosy in Coalition together it'll be interesting on the ground during the campaign to note any tactical voting or tacit non aggression from the voters in some seats.
Might open minded Conservatives aid the LibDems even in Con/Libdem targets and indeed vice versa and perhaps more importantly what of the Con/Lab marginals ?
Ah. Just the man I have been looking for. Which of these four seats do you expect the Tories to hold?
Hove Dewsbury Northampton North Stroud
Not a partisan point, more a financial inquiry...
If it helps, I would expect them to hold Hove and Stroud, get mullered in Dewsbury and lose Northamtpon in a fairly close race on the back of Lib Dem decline. All based on the current situation in the polls, obviously a year is a long time in politics.
If you want a good bet, bet on Chloe getting kicked out of Norwich North, she'll get split by the UKIP vote there and Labour will come through the middle.
"The proposed change to neglect laws in England and Wales would see parents who deny their children affection face prosecution for the first time."
It's not just you (LIAMT commented upthread). It sounds like an absolutely dreadful piece of legislation. While I expect few parents would actually be prosecuted, almost any parent could be liable to prosecution if a police officer or social worker took exception to the way they bring up their children.
I joined the Conservative Party to oppose this sort of rubbish. The fact that a Conservative-led government should intend to introduce this rubbish makes me very glad I resigned.
I'd like to see the wording of the Government-sponsored amendment before commenting. The Lib Dem MP's wording is pretty hazy, but something suitably tightly-defined would potentially be a very good thing for children.
I'm not really reassured that the bill's sponsor, Robert Buckland, should rely on the story of Cinderella as a justification for the bill.
Evidence that Tory supporters are still comparatively reluctant to vote tactically, a finding as old as tactical voting itself.
Poor old Tories. Their preferred game is FPTP, but they still haven't learned how to play it...
Btw, Mike, IIUC, the article should read "fewest tactical voters", shouldn't it?
Hitherto, they've not really had anyone to vote tactically for. It's possible that the growth of UKIP changes that.
UKIP is not a centre right party. Other than its EU/immigration policy (though I agree most see it as its only policy) the pontifications from Nigel Farage have more in common with Oswald Mosley than Winston Churchill.
UKIP is a WASP/WWC party.
I've missed the speeches Farage has given about the Jewish Menace, claiming that West Indians eat cat food, and calling for a United States of Europe.
Yeah, but you missed Gerard Batten's plan for Muslims to sign a special charter.
"The proposed change to neglect laws in England and Wales would see parents who deny their children affection face prosecution for the first time."
It's not just you (LIAMT commented upthread). It sounds like an absolutely dreadful piece of legislation. While I expect few parents would actually be prosecuted, almost any parent could be liable to prosecution if a police officer or social worker took exception to the way they bring up their children.
I joined the Conservative Party to oppose this sort of rubbish. The fact that a Conservative-led government should intend to introduce this rubbish makes me very glad I resigned.
Agree, this legislation is unnecessary and cannot esily be defined. Sounds like an open sesame for social workers' diverse opinions.
So, if a parent says no to a child, refuses sweets at every instance, or even disciplines them, then this can be taken as causing stress, does not cuddle them all the time - is this depriving them of emotion, or refusing the requests of a stroppy teenager - does this then involve social worker mediation - perhaps in favour of the teenager.
Sounds like legislation to cause even more not-wanted rift in families.
The government's descent into naked authoritarianism continues unabated, with news today that it is actively considering Robert Buckland MP's mad proposals on reform of the law of child neglect. These include making child neglect an offence of strict liability, so that the parent's intention is irrelevant in determining their guilt or innocence, and substituting a specious subjective definition of "maltreatment" for the current objective definition of neglect. If it is the case, as he claims, that 1.5 million children are "neglected" and that the law should punish their parents as criminals, how many families is he proposing to destroy, and how many additional prison places is he advocating? As ever, "child protection" is used as a justification for grave assaults on individual freedom.
Is it a crime of strict liability? The current law, as I understand it, is not.
The proposed addition of the 'impairment of "physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development"' has an appropriate standard: once shown that that development has actually been impaired, it is safe to say we are not talking about failing to buy them a PS4 for Christmas.
What's the appropriate test for having your children taken into care (on the comparable ground)? That, surely, would provide a useful starting point.
The government's descent into naked authoritarianism continues unabated, with news today that it is actively considering Robert Buckland MP's mad proposals on reform of the law of child neglect. These include making child neglect an offence of strict liability, so that the parent's intention is irrelevant in determining their guilt or innocence, and substituting a specious subjective definition of "maltreatment" for the current objective definition of neglect. If it is the case, as he claims, that 1.5 million children are "neglected" and that the law should punish their parents as criminals, how many families is he proposing to destroy, and how many additional prison places is he advocating? As ever, "child protection" is used as a justification for grave assaults on individual freedom.
Is it a crime of strict liability? The current law, as I understand it, is not.
The proposed addition of the 'impairment of "physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development"' has an appropriate standard: once shown that that development has actually been impaired, it is safe to say we are not talking about failing to buy them a PS4 for Christmas.
What's the appropriate test for having your children taken into care (on the comparable ground)? That, surely, would provide a useful starting point.
Well, duh / No shit, Sherlock / Quelle surprise / etc
Was in Iceland last year - restaurants full of Japanese tucking into whale - they love the blubbery grey stuff.
I'm a happy carnivore. Horse, crocodile, kangaroo, springbok, rabbit. All delicious. Cute, fluffy Larry the Lamb? Pass the mint sauce please. Fox hunting - nowt wrong with that. Fur coats - lovely and snuggly.
However, I hate whaling with a passion. Really, really disgusts me. Is that rational? Probably not. The human mind is a funny old thing.
"The proposed change to neglect laws in England and Wales would see parents who deny their children affection face prosecution for the first time."
I think that's a BBC gloss. Further down, it says: "The Children and Young Persons Act of 1933 provides for the punishment of a person who treats a child "in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement)". Mr Williams's bill would add a further category of harm for which the perpetrator could be punished: impairment of "physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development".
Which sounds far better.
It might sound better but it as dreadful proposal which if enacted would make miscarriages of justice certain. As Mr. Town points out below the intention is that the offence be made absolute so the prosecution would not need to prove intention or even recklessness. Furthermore the test of harm is subjective. An absolute offence plus a subjective test equals very bad law and innocent people going to prison.
I'm always wary of absolute offences of any kind - we are all vulnerable if we can break the law by having a bad effect on someone or something without any intention of doing so. Where the issue is essentially subjective - is child X being looked after well? - it becomes especially dangerous. The concept is best reserved for cases where the results of unintentionally bad behaviour are catastrophic (which bad child-rearing admittedly can be) and both cause and effect are clear beyond reasonable dispute (which in parenting will almost never be the case).
That said, it's obvious to anyone who deals with a lot of families that there is SOME seriously awful parenting out there (e.g. one case I heard of from a police source of a woman who regularly took her early-teenage son to help in burglaries), and I wouldn't endorse what I understand to be Town's fundamentalist view that the State has no business taking an interest in child upbringing. I think I'd favour adding those additional categories of harm, but not making them absolute offences - some kind of intent needs to be shown, if only reckless refusal to listen when the effects are pointed out.
Sharp piece on SLAB by Holyrood magazine, the apolitical journal for the Scottish parliament and its doings.
'Labour’s pains
..With just six months to go to the referendum, Scottish Labour seems moribund. The vote on the welfare cap reveals the inherent flaw because this is a party still ruled by Westminster and it has its eye on the Tory marginals in 2015, not on the housing estates of Scotland where the SNP is meanwhile fighting for independence in 2014. Nationalists made the right strategic decision in opposing the cap – standing up for the disadvantaged, standing up for Scotland. Lamont, unfortunately, is tied to a UK party that still calls the shots and is working to a different electoral timetable. Jim Murphy told me in 2011, after his party had been defeated for the second time at Holyrood, that people asked themselves ‘what does Labour stand for?’ and they were unable to answer. I fear nothing has changed and time is running out.'
Remember PB Unionists, these guys are you footsoldiers in the fight to save the Union (and will be handy scapegoats no doubt).
I was struck by the intro -
"A Westminster Labour front-bench politician asked me last week at his party conference in Perth how I felt the polls were looking for 2016. “Didn’t he mean 2014?” I asked before realising that for him, the referendum was all but won.
And worse, he had already bought into the belief that with the SNP soundly thumped at the ballot box, his party would rise, phoenix like, to assume power 18 months on."
Well, duh / No shit, Sherlock / Quelle surprise / etc
Was in Iceland last year - restaurants full of Japanese tucking into whale - they love the blubbery grey stuff.
I'm a happy carnivore. Horse, crocodile, kangaroo, springbok, rabbit. All delicious. Cute, fluffy Larry the Lamb? Pass the mint sauce please. Fox hunting - nowt wrong with that. Fur coats - lovely and snuggly.
However, I hate whaling with a passion. Really, really disgusts me. Is that rational? Probably not. The human mind is a funny old thing.
I refuse to eat anything specie that has a breed called "sperm"
Edit: Plus as a Star Trek fan, watching The Voyage Home as a young child had a real impression on me, and the vileness of whale hunters.
Well, duh / No shit, Sherlock / Quelle surprise / etc
Was in Iceland last year - restaurants full of Japanese tucking into whale - they love the blubbery grey stuff.
I'm a happy carnivore. Horse, crocodile, kangaroo, springbok, rabbit. All delicious. Cute, fluffy Larry the Lamb? Pass the mint sauce please. Fox hunting - nowt wrong with that. Fur coats - lovely and snuggly.
However, I hate whaling with a passion. Really, really disgusts me. Is that rational? Probably not. The human mind is a funny old thing.
If you were in Korea or China, would you eat dog? Or monkey bushmeat in West Africa? (Serious question. Might help to pin down your mental logic.)
Well, duh / No shit, Sherlock / Quelle surprise / etc
Was in Iceland last year - restaurants full of Japanese tucking into whale - they love the blubbery grey stuff.
I'm a happy carnivore. Horse, crocodile, kangaroo, springbok, rabbit. All delicious. Cute, fluffy Larry the Lamb? Pass the mint sauce please. Fox hunting - nowt wrong with that. Fur coats - lovely and snuggly.
However, I hate whaling with a passion. Really, really disgusts me. Is that rational? Probably not. The human mind is a funny old thing.
I had a bit of whale in Iceland when I was over there last year. It was blubbery.
Evidence that Tory supporters are still comparatively reluctant to vote tactically, a finding as old as tactical voting itself.
Poor old Tories. Their preferred game is FPTP, but they still haven't learned how to play it...
Btw, Mike, IIUC, the article should read "fewest tactical voters", shouldn't it?
Hitherto, they've not really had anyone to vote tactically for. It's possible that the growth of UKIP changes that.
UKIP is not a centre right party. Other than its EU/immigration policy (though I agree most see it as its only policy) the pontifications from Nigel Farage have more in common with Oswald Mosley than Winston Churchill.
UKIP is a WASP/WWC party.
I've missed the speeches Farage has given about the Jewish Menace, claiming that West Indians eat cat food, and calling for a United States of Europe.
Yeah, but you missed Gerard Batten's plan for Muslims to sign a special charter.
Well, duh / No shit, Sherlock / Quelle surprise / etc
Was in Iceland last year - restaurants full of Japanese tucking into whale - they love the blubbery grey stuff.
I'm a happy carnivore. Horse, crocodile, kangaroo, springbok, rabbit. All delicious. Cute, fluffy Larry the Lamb? Pass the mint sauce please. Fox hunting - nowt wrong with that. Fur coats - lovely and snuggly.
However, I hate whaling with a passion. Really, really disgusts me. Is that rational? Probably not. The human mind is a funny old thing.
If you were in Korea or China, would you eat dog? Or monkey bushmeat in West Africa? (Serious question. Might help to pin down your mental logic.)
I'd probably draw the line at dissecting and eating a live lobster.
Well, duh / No shit, Sherlock / Quelle surprise / etc
I don't know the details of the process but I'd have thought they'd want to just make a few tweaks then start again, and carry on for a few more years while the next court case works its way through. Do they need the court's permission to start again?
There can't really be a referendum in the rUK on currency union until an outline deal is agreed. People have to know what they are voting for. I think Darling is wrong about Sturgeon. She must understand what the implications of currency union are. It's more a case of not wanting to talk them through prior to the vote.
Perhaps at some stage someone will ask the SNP leadership what amount of sovereignty they are prepared to cede in order to keep the pound. Is it just the ability to decide monetary and fiscal policy, or will they throw Faslane in as well?
Evidence that Tory supporters are still comparatively reluctant to vote tactically, a finding as old as tactical voting itself.
Poor old Tories. Their preferred game is FPTP, but they still haven't learned how to play it...
Btw, Mike, IIUC, the article should read "fewest tactical voters", shouldn't it?
Hitherto, they've not really had anyone to vote tactically for. It's possible that the growth of UKIP changes that.
UKIP is not a centre right party. Other than its EU/immigration policy (though I agree most see it as its only policy) the pontifications from Nigel Farage have more in common with Oswald Mosley than Winston Churchill.
UKIP is a WASP/WWC party.
I've missed the speeches Farage has given about the Jewish Menace, claiming that West Indians eat cat food, and calling for a United States of Europe.
Yeah, but you missed Gerard Batten's plan for Muslims to sign a special charter.
Did he suggest that?
Yes
A Ukip MEP believes that British Muslims should sign a special code of conduct and warns that it was a big mistake for Europe to allow "an explosion of mosques across their land".
Evidence that Tory supporters are still comparatively reluctant to vote tactically, a finding as old as tactical voting itself.
Poor old Tories. Their preferred game is FPTP, but they still haven't learned how to play it...
Btw, Mike, IIUC, the article should read "fewest tactical voters", shouldn't it?
Hitherto, they've not really had anyone to vote tactically for. It's possible that the growth of UKIP changes that.
Having been fairly cosy in Coalition together it'll be interesting on the ground during the campaign to note any tactical voting or tacit non aggression from the voters in some seats.
Might open minded Conservatives aid the LibDems even in Con/Libdem targets and indeed vice versa and perhaps more importantly what of the Con/Lab marginals ?
Ah. Just the man I have been looking for. Which of these four seats do you expect the Tories to hold?
Hove Dewsbury Northampton North Stroud
Not a partisan point, more a financial inquiry...
If it helps, I would expect them to hold Hove and Stroud, get mullered in Dewsbury and lose Northamtpon in a fairly close race on the back of Lib Dem decline. All based on the current situation in the polls, obviously a year is a long time in politics.
If you want a good bet, bet on Chloe getting kicked out of Norwich North, she'll get split by the UKIP vote there and Labour will come through the middle.
I would agree with that other than I think the Tories have a good chance of holding Northampton North. We as Tories are encouraged here in Derby North, for 2 reasons, Tory/Labour swing voters are looking positive, a lot of the centrist Liberals are too, mainly older ones in both categories I have to say. Here though we will be helped by an MP people of all persuasions find it hard to warm to.
Here in the East Midlands there are good signs the Tories are gaining in the central ground and further South like Northampton I would guess there is even less feeling for Labour.
If anybody fancies a flutter on Tories taking a Labour held marginal Derby North will be a good bet, factor in most people despise the sitting MP.
Well, duh / No shit, Sherlock / Quelle surprise / etc
Was in Iceland last year - restaurants full of Japanese tucking into whale - they love the blubbery grey stuff.
I'm a happy carnivore. Horse, crocodile, kangaroo, springbok, rabbit. All delicious. Cute, fluffy Larry the Lamb? Pass the mint sauce please. Fox hunting - nowt wrong with that. Fur coats - lovely and snuggly.
However, I hate whaling with a passion. Really, really disgusts me. Is that rational? Probably not. The human mind is a funny old thing.
If you were in Korea or China, would you eat dog? Or monkey bushmeat in West Africa? (Serious question. Might help to pin down your mental logic.)
Good question.
Dog: yes Monkey: yes, probably (I'd have to see on the day. I wouldn't touch a primate.)
Perhaps part of what infuriates me about whaling was how close we came to eradicating several species. The intransigence of certain countries on the matter, in the face of near-universal opposition and unequivocal scientific evidence, was/is shocking. Less so now that stocks have recovered.
Having been forced to think about this, I've concluded it's partially an aesthetic objection, and partially to do with intelligence. I find whales to be wonderful, graceful, intelligent creatures. Of course some would assert the same about horses...
EDIT: The nature of whale hunting, and the apparent cruelty involved in harpooning, also has something to do with my objection.
Evidence that Tory supporters are still comparatively reluctant to vote tactically, a finding as old as tactical voting itself.
Poor old Tories. Their preferred game is FPTP, but they still haven't learned how to play it...
Btw, Mike, IIUC, the article should read "fewest tactical voters", shouldn't it?
Hitherto, they've not really had anyone to vote tactically for. It's possible that the growth of UKIP changes that.
Having been fairly cosy in Coalition together it'll be interesting on the ground during the campaign to note any tactical voting or tacit non aggression from the voters in some seats.
Might open minded Conservatives aid the LibDems even in Con/Libdem targets and indeed vice versa and perhaps more importantly what of the Con/Lab marginals ?
Ah. Just the man I have been looking for. Which of these four seats do you expect the Tories to hold?
Hove Dewsbury Northampton North Stroud
Not a partisan point, more a financial inquiry...
If it helps, I would expect them to hold Hove and Stroud, get mullered in Dewsbury and lose Northamtpon in a fairly close race on the back of Lib Dem decline. All based on the current situation in the polls, obviously a year is a long time in politics.
If you want a good bet, bet on Chloe getting kicked out of Norwich North, she'll get split by the UKIP vote there and Labour will come through the middle.
I would agree with that other than I think the Tories have a good chance of holding Northampton North. We as Tories are encouraged here in Derby North, for 2 reasons, Tory/Labour swing voters are looking positive, a lot of the centrist Liberals are too, mainly older ones in both categories I have to say. Here though we will be helped by an MP people of all persuasions find it hard to warm to.
Here in the East Midlands there are good signs the Tories are gaining in the central ground and further South like Northampton I would guess there is even less feeling for Labour.
If anybody fancies a flutter on Tories taking a Labour held marginal Derby North will be a good bet, factor in most people despise the sitting MP.
The main problem with Northampton North is a sizeable Lib Dem vote. If it breaks in line with the polling decline, then Lab are likely to be the main beneficiaries (not sole beneficiaries of course). I would be wary of betting on a hold without a 3 point poll lead
I wonder how Budget 2015 will affect the GE votes. It seems this year's pension reforming budget has made some impact on the polls. I have no doubt that a deeply political and thoughtful chancellor such Osborne will have a rabbit kept in his hat for next year. I'm also pretty sure that it will contain a 'game changing' ideologocail move such as this pension reforming one.
One quirk of Coalition government and fixed term parliaments is that the 2015 budget of future economic arrangements will have been signed off by both parties and presumably will then be campaigned on accordingly.
Yes. It's interesting that the pension reform is in detail the baby of that nice mr Webb (LibDem) but seems to have morphed into a Tory policy by virtue of Osborne presenting it. The LibDems should be more vocal about the bits of coalition policy they are proud of.
I'd say the fact that it was in the Tories 2010 manifesto gives them some claim to the credit (although Webb, of course, deserves credity for the detailed work)
re. whales - no idea the overall population; is there a shortage? Moreso than haddock? re. exotica on the plate - done much if not all, (ahem) horses for courses. re. Politics - we are in the calm before the storm, if I were GO/DC I would be visiting each and every rebelling backbencher and offering lark's tongue butties to STFU until June 2015. The perception of a discordant party is, IMO, one of the gravest threats to the Cons' 2015 chances.
There can't really be a referendum in the rUK on currency union until an outline deal is agreed. People have to know what they are voting for. I think Darling is wrong about Sturgeon. She must understand what the implications of currency union are. It's more a case of not wanting to talk them through prior to the vote.
Perhaps at some stage someone will ask the SNP leadership what amount of sovereignty they are prepared to cede in order to keep the pound. Is it just the ability to decide monetary and fiscal policy, or will they throw Faslane in as well?
Populus as you were. If we were to be petty, maybe a sign of the pension budget credit sliding to the Libs at the expense of a point for the Tories but that would be ignoring MoE
Evidence that Tory supporters are still comparatively reluctant to vote tactically, a finding as old as tactical voting itself.
Poor old Tories. Their preferred game is FPTP, but they still haven't learned how to play it...
Btw, Mike, IIUC, the article should read "fewest tactical voters", shouldn't it?
Hitherto, they've not really had anyone to vote tactically for. It's possible that the growth of UKIP changes that.
UKIP is not a centre right party. Other than its EU/immigration policy (though I agree most see it as its only policy) the pontifications from Nigel Farage have more in common with Oswald Mosley than Winston Churchill.
UKIP is a WASP/WWC party.
I've missed the speeches Farage has given about the Jewish Menace, claiming that West Indians eat cat food, and calling for a United States of Europe.
Yeah, but you missed Gerard Batten's plan for Muslims to sign a special charter.
Did he suggest that?
Yes
A Ukip MEP believes that British Muslims should sign a special code of conduct and warns that it was a big mistake for Europe to allow "an explosion of mosques across their land".
Mr Batten said that he hoped that "those groups claiming to represent Muslims will decide to sign and embrace [the proposals in Sam Soloman's pamphlet]"
"The proposed change to neglect laws in England and Wales would see parents who deny their children affection face prosecution for the first time."
split
Mr Williams's bill would add a further category of harm for which the perpetrator could be punished: impairment of "physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development".
Which sounds far better.
It might sound better but it as dreadful proposal which if enacted would make miscarriages of justice certain. As Mr. Town points out below the intention is that the offence be made absolute so the prosecution would not need to prove intention or even recklessness. Furthermore the test of harm is subjective. An absolute offence plus a subjective test equals very bad law and innocent people going to prison.
I'm always wary of absolute offences of any kind - we are all vulnerable if we can break the law by having a bad effect on someone or something without any intention of doing so. Where the issue is essentially subjective - is child X being looked after well? - it becomes especially dangerous. The concept is best reserved for cases where the results of unintentionally bad behaviour are catastrophic (which bad child-rearing admittedly can be) and both cause and effect are clear beyond reasonable dispute (which in parenting will almost never be the case).
That said, it's obvious to anyone who deals with a lot of families that there is SOME seriously awful parenting out there (e.g. one case I heard of from a police source of a woman who regularly took her early-teenage son to help in burglaries), and I wouldn't endorse what I understand to be Town's fundamentalist view that the State has no business taking an interest in child upbringing. I think I'd favour adding those additional categories of harm, but not making them absolute offences - some kind of intent needs to be shown, if only reckless refusal to listen when the effects are pointed out.
Nick, not sure if I have correctly interpreted your drift. But a "refusal to listen" is horribly open to an interpretation of how a child should be brought up (obviously excluding encouraging or abetting illegal actions) according to the pet theory of a social worker, who then involves the police and all the upset that ensues.
Anything that cannot be easily and obviously defined should not be enshrined in such legislation.
Mr. Eagles, a sperm whale is a species, not a breed.
Whale hunting reminds me of ivory and tiger bits for Chinese art/medicine. They're hunting species to extinction, which is just ignorant and barbaric.
Where the Japanese got screwed on this was that they went into the IWC in good faith, thinking it was a body designed to solve just that problem, and stop hunting whales to extinction. But then politicians in other countries realized that since nobody domestic wanted to whale anyway, they could score points with their animal rights lobby by opposing other countries catching whales even when the species in question were no longer under threat, turning an over-fishing (over-mammaling?) organization into an (extremely selective) animal rights organization.
If the British had been on the end of something like this they'd have just said sod the international body and left. The Japanese are just as offended as the British would be in that situation, but they tend to be very committed to international institutions, so they ended up looking for loopholes that would allow them to carry on without leaving the commission. This ends up giving them the worst of both worlds, because everyone thinks just as badly of them as they would if they just left, but they play into a bunch of wartime stereotypes about them being sneaky and dishonest as well.
Well, duh / No shit, Sherlock / Quelle surprise / etc
Was in Iceland last year - restaurants full of Japanese tucking into whale - they love the blubbery grey stuff.
I'm a happy carnivore. Horse, crocodile, kangaroo, springbok, rabbit. All delicious. Cute, fluffy Larry the Lamb? Pass the mint sauce please. Fox hunting - nowt wrong with that. Fur coats - lovely and snuggly.
However, I hate whaling with a passion. Really, really disgusts me. Is that rational? Probably not. The human mind is a funny old thing.
If you were in Korea or China, would you eat dog? Or monkey bushmeat in West Africa? (Serious question. Might help to pin down your mental logic.)
Good question.
Dog: yes Monkey: yes, probably (I'd have to see on the day. I wouldn't touch a primate.)
Perhaps part of what infuriates me about whaling was how close we came to eradicating several species. The intransigence of certain countries on the matter, in the face of near-universal opposition and unequivocal scientific evidence, was/is shocking. Less so now that stocks have recovered.
Having been forced to think about this, I've concluded it's partially an aesthetic objection, and partially to do with intelligence. I find whales to be wonderful, graceful, intelligent creatures. Of course some would assert the same about horses...
EDIT: The nature of whale hunting, and the apparent cruelty involved in harpooning, also has something to do with my objection.
Many thanks. Some good points there - and I sometimes wonder a little about my eating squid.
On a technical point, monkeys are indeed members of the order Primates. Possibly you are thinking of the great apes? They are eaten for bushmeat, at least in Africa (like much else). But I wouldn't touch monkeys either, because of the health risks of eating something so closely related.
Evidence that Tory supporters are still comparatively reluctant to vote tactically, a finding as old as tactical voting itself.
Poor old Tories. Their preferred game is FPTP, but they still haven't learned how to play it...
Btw, Mike, IIUC, the article should read "fewest tactical voters", shouldn't it?
Hitherto, they've not really had anyone to vote tactically for. It's possible that the growth of UKIP changes that.
UKIP is not a centre right party. Other than its EU/immigration policy (though I agree most see it as its only policy) the pontifications from Nigel Farage have more in common with Oswald Mosley than Winston Churchill.
UKIP is a WASP/WWC party.
I've missed the speeches Farage has given about the Jewish Menace, claiming that West Indians eat cat food, and calling for a United States of Europe.
Yeah, but you missed Gerard Batten's plan for Muslims to sign a special charter.
Did he suggest that?
Yes
A Ukip MEP believes that British Muslims should sign a special code of conduct and warns that it was a big mistake for Europe to allow "an explosion of mosques across their land".
Mr Batten said that he hoped that "those groups claiming to represent Muslims will decide to sign and embrace [the proposals in Sam Soloman's pamphlet]"
Mr. Eagles, a sperm whale is a species, not a breed.
Whale hunting reminds me of ivory and tiger bits for Chinese art/medicine. They're hunting species to extinction, which is just ignorant and barbaric.
It depends on the type of whale, doesn't it? In Iceland they eat minke whales mostly. I think. They are not endangered. In any case, there are not enough Icelanders to hunt anything to extinction.
Evidence that Tory supporters are still comparatively reluctant to vote tactically, a finding as old as tactical voting itself.
Poor old Tories. Their preferred game is FPTP, but they still haven't learned how to play it...
Btw, Mike, IIUC, the article should read "fewest tactical voters", shouldn't it?
Hitherto, they've not really had anyone to vote tactically for. It's possible that the growth of UKIP changes that.
UKIP is not a centre right party. Other than its EU/immigration policy (though I agree most see it as its only policy) the pontifications from Nigel Farage have more in common with Oswald Mosley than Winston Churchill.
UKIP is a WASP/WWC party.
I've missed the speeches Farage has given about the Jewish Menace, claiming that West Indians eat cat food, and calling for a United States of Europe.
Yeah, but you missed Gerard Batten's plan for Muslims to sign a special charter.
Did he suggest that?
Yes
A Ukip MEP believes that British Muslims should sign a special code of conduct and warns that it was a big mistake for Europe to allow "an explosion of mosques across their land".
Mr Batten said that he hoped that "those groups claiming to represent Muslims will decide to sign and embrace [the proposals in Sam Soloman's pamphlet]"
If you want to defend that policy, go ahead, even Nigel Farage distanced himself from that policy/Batten.
I'm sure people defending that policy will help UKIP rid the image of being full of loonies, fruitcakes and racists.
Perhaps we could lobotomise them all, or assign a state guard to follow them about ensuring right thinking? The answer is clearly to demonise a segment of society and make them feel like second class citizens/permanently on trial. No chance of that fermenting extremism whatsoever.
Mr. Woolie, if you walk a hound in a rural area there's plenty of long grass where its leavings need not be retrieved.
Besides, dogs are used to help the deaf, the blind, the police, mountain rescue, the army and so on. They're tremendous animals. It's just a shame they don't live longer.
Mr. Woolie, if you walk a hound in a rural area there's plenty of long grass where its leavings need not be retrieved.
Besides, dogs are used to help the deaf, the blind, the police, mountain rescue, the army and so on. They're tremendous animals. It's just a shame they don't live longer.
They are indeed remarkable, they have us in thrall.
Evidence that Tory supporters are still comparatively reluctant to vote tactically, a finding as old as tactical voting itself.
Poor old Tories. Their preferred game is FPTP, but they still haven't learned how to play it...
Btw, Mike, IIUC, the article should read "fewest tactical voters", shouldn't it?
Hitherto, they've not really had anyone to vote tactically for. It's possible that the growth of UKIP changes that.
UKIP is not a centre right party. Other than its EU/immigration policy (though I agree most see it as its only policy) the pontifications from Nigel Farage have more in common with Oswald Mosley than Winston Churchill.
UKIP is a WASP/WWC party.
I've missed the speeches Farage has given about the Jewish Menace, claiming that West Indians eat cat food, and calling for a United States of Europe.
Yeah, but you missed Gerard Batten's plan for Muslims to sign a special charter.
Did he suggest that?
Yes
A Ukip MEP believes that British Muslims should sign a special code of conduct and warns that it was a big mistake for Europe to allow "an explosion of mosques across their land".
Mr Batten said that he hoped that "those groups claiming to represent Muslims will decide to sign and embrace [the proposals in Sam Soloman's pamphlet]"
If you want to defend that policy, go ahead, even Nigel Farage distanced himself from that policy/Batten.
I'm sure people defending that policy will help UKIP rid the image of being full of loonies, fruitcakes and racists.
Perhaps we could lobotomise them all, or assign a state guard to follow them about ensuring right thinking? The answer is clearly to demonise a segment of society and make them feel like second class citizens/permanently on trial. No chance of that fermenting extremism whatsoever.
I'd force Muslims to wear Red Shoes, only because Kate Bush did a song called Red Shoes.
The main problem with Northampton North is a sizeable Lib Dem vote. If it breaks in line with the polling decline, then Lab are likely to be the main beneficiaries (not sole beneficiaries of course). I would be wary of betting on a hold without a 3 point poll lead
I would agree with that, although I don't feel the Liberal vote in the East Midlands is as overwhelmingly Labour's as it will be further North. I am confident if Os follows his path we will get the 3 to 4% lead, for leading party and base my forecasts accordingly. The bookies set their odds on the here and now, when there is no election.
Evidence that Tory supporters are still comparatively reluctant to vote tactically, a finding as old as tactical voting itself.
Poor old Tories. Their preferred game is FPTP, but they still haven't learned how to play it...
Btw, Mike, IIUC, the article should read "fewest tactical voters", shouldn't it?
Hitherto, they've not really had anyone to vote tactically for. It's possible that the growth of UKIP changes that.
UKIP is not a centre right party. Other than its EU/immigration policy (though I agree most see it as its only policy) the pontifications from Nigel Farage have more in common with Oswald Mosley than Winston Churchill.
UKIP is a WASP/WWC party.
I've missed the speeches Farage has given about the Jewish Menace, claiming that West Indians eat cat food, and calling for a United States of Europe.
Yeah, but you missed Gerard Batten's plan for Muslims to sign a special charter.
Did he suggest that?
Yes
A Ukip MEP believes that British Muslims should sign a special code of conduct and warns that it was a big mistake for Europe to allow "an explosion of mosques across their land".
Mr Batten said that he hoped that "those groups claiming to represent Muslims will decide to sign and embrace [the proposals in Sam Soloman's pamphlet]"
If you want to defend that policy, go ahead, even Nigel Farage distanced himself from that policy/Batten.
I'm sure people defending that policy will help UKIP rid the image of being full of loonies, fruitcakes and racists.
Perhaps we could lobotomise them all, or assign a state guard to follow them about ensuring right thinking? The answer is clearly to demonise a segment of society and make them feel like second class citizens/permanently on trial. No chance of that fermenting extremism whatsoever.
I'd force Muslims to wear Red Shoes, only because Kate Bush did a song called Red Shoes.
We could call them pope shoes, after the popes magic red shoes. Great way to bond the two religions.
Well, duh / No shit, Sherlock / Quelle surprise / etc
Was in Iceland last year - restaurants full of Japanese tucking into whale - they love the blubbery grey stuff.
I'm a happy carnivore. Horse, crocodile, kangaroo, springbok, rabbit. All delicious. Cute, fluffy Larry the Lamb? Pass the mint sauce please. Fox hunting - nowt wrong with that. Fur coats - lovely and snuggly.
However, I hate whaling with a passion. Really, really disgusts me. Is that rational? Probably not. The human mind is a funny old thing.
If you were in Korea or China, would you eat dog? Or monkey bushmeat in West Africa? (Serious question. Might help to pin down your mental logic.)
Good question.
Dog: yes Monkey: yes, probably (I'd have to see on the day. I wouldn't touch a primate.)
Perhaps part of what infuriates me about whaling was how close we came to eradicating several species. The intransigence of certain countries on the matter, in the face of near-universal opposition and unequivocal scientific evidence, was/is shocking. Less so now that stocks have recovered.
Having been forced to think about this, I've concluded it's partially an aesthetic objection, and partially to do with intelligence. I find whales to be wonderful, graceful, intelligent creatures. Of course some would assert the same about horses...
EDIT: The nature of whale hunting, and the apparent cruelty involved in harpooning, also has something to do with my objection.
Many thanks. Some good points there - and I sometimes wonder a little about my eating squid.
On a technical point, monkeys are indeed members of the order Primates. Possibly you are thinking of the great apes? They are eaten for bushmeat, at least in Africa (like much else). But I wouldn't touch monkeys either, because of the health risks of eating something so closely related.
Ah, yes, you're quite right. Family Hominidae, according to wiki. Engineer, not a biologist!
I would agree with that, although I don't feel the Liberal vote in the East Midlands is as overwhelmingly Labour's as it will be further North. I am confident if Os follows his path we will get the 3 to 4% lead, for leading party and base my forecasts accordingly. The bookies set their odds on the here and now, when there is no election.
I think I'd favour adding those additional categories of harm, but not making them absolute offences - some kind of intent needs to be shown, if only reckless refusal to listen when the effects are pointed out.
Nick, not sure if I have correctly interpreted your drift. But a "refusal to listen" is horribly open to an interpretation of how a child should be brought up (obviously excluding encouraging or abetting illegal actions) according to the pet theory of a social worker, who then involves the police and all the upset that ensues.
Anything that cannot be easily and obviously defined should not be enshrined in such legislation.
I broadly agree, and think that the "causes" and "effects" would need to be objectively verifiable - e.g. that a child was unable to read because the parent actively discouraged attending school.
The problem is the large grey area - we can all agree on my burglary example, and almost nobody would like to see parents harassed by someone pursuing a fashionable theory. But bad parenting is arguably common enough that saying that the default assumption should be that parents are always right is not ideal.
For example, extremely obese children are clearly heading for major health problems. Sometimes this may be because they get food outside the control of parents, but often it's driven by what they get at home. If a parent says "Well, I'll feed my kids anything I like", should we just shrug and leave it at that? On the other hand, should we really head down the route of taking the kids away, surely not? Is there a middle course?
I'm honestly not sure what the right answer is, and would be interested in others' views.
Well, duh / No shit, Sherlock / Quelle surprise / etc
Was in Iceland last year - restaurants full of Japanese tucking into whale - they love the blubbery grey stuff.
I'm a happy carnivore. Horse, crocodile, kangaroo, springbok, rabbit. All delicious. Cute, fluffy Larry the Lamb? Pass the mint sauce please. Fox hunting - nowt wrong with that. Fur coats - lovely and snuggly.
However, I hate whaling with a passion. Really, really disgusts me. Is that rational? Probably not. The human mind is a funny old thing.
A good rule of thumb is that the cuter something looks, the nicer it will taste. There are obvious exceptions to this rule, notably snails and foxes, but in general it works well.
It doesn't work at all with seafood, but the corresponding rule that does work is that the stupider it is, the better it will taste. On that basis, monkfish and mussels are fine, whereas dolphins and whales aren't.
Well, duh / No shit, Sherlock / Quelle surprise / etc
Was in Iceland last year - restaurants full of Japanese tucking into whale - they love the blubbery grey stuff.
I'm a happy carnivore. Horse, crocodile, kangaroo, springbok, rabbit. All delicious. Cute, fluffy Larry the Lamb? Pass the mint sauce please. Fox hunting - nowt wrong with that. Fur coats - lovely and snuggly.
However, I hate whaling with a passion. Really, really disgusts me. Is that rational? Probably not. The human mind is a funny old thing.
I'm not sure how smart a tuna is.
On a par with a Labour voter, I think. Bum-tish! Thank you, I'm here all week.
There can't really be a referendum in the rUK on currency union until an outline deal is agreed. People have to know what they are voting for. I think Darling is wrong about Sturgeon. She must understand what the implications of currency union are. It's more a case of not wanting to talk them through prior to the vote.
Perhaps at some stage someone will ask the SNP leadership what amount of sovereignty they are prepared to cede in order to keep the pound. Is it just the ability to decide monetary and fiscal policy, or will they throw Faslane in as well?
SO , they are running rings round the unionists and what would you expect with an idiot like Darling in charge. They deserve all they get, a YES gets ever more likely.
I think I'd favour adding those additional categories of harm, but not making them absolute offences - some kind of intent needs to be shown, if only reckless refusal to listen when the effects are pointed out.
Nick, not sure if I have correctly interpreted your drift. But a "refusal to listen" is horribly open to an interpretation of how a child should be brought up (obviously excluding encouraging or abetting illegal actions) according to the pet theory of a social worker, who then involves the police and all the upset that ensues.
Anything that cannot be easily and obviously defined should not be enshrined in such legislation.
I broadly agree, and think that the "causes" and "effects" would need to be objectively verifiable - e.g. that a child was unable to read because the parent actively discouraged attending school.
The problem is the large grey area - we can all agree on my burglary example, and almost nobody would like to see parents harassed by someone pursuing a fashionable theory. But bad parenting is arguably common enough that saying that the default assumption should be that parents are always right is not ideal.
For example, extremely obese children are clearly heading for major health problems. Sometimes this may be because they get food outside the control of parents, but often it's driven by what they get at home. If a parent says "Well, I'll feed my kids anything I like", should we just shrug and leave it at that? On the other hand, should we really head down the route of taking the kids away, surely not? Is there a middle course?
I'm honestly not sure what the right answer is, and would be interested in others' views.
I think in general, I would keep to the default assumption that parents are right, until the opposite is proved. The State generally makes a worse parent.
"Dogs are delightful creatures. Much better, on average, than humans."
Definitely
" It's just a shame they don't live longer."
Especially the big ones. Wolfhounds, for example, are magnificent creatures yet very few make it to 10 years old and many conk-out aged no more than six.
Off course, if you want a true animal friend you can't get better than a cat.
For example, extremely obese children are clearly heading for major health problems. Sometimes this may be because they get food outside the control of parents, but often it's driven by what they get at home. If a parent says "Well, I'll feed my kids anything I like", should we just shrug and leave it at that? On the other hand, should we really head down the route of taking the kids away, surely not? Is there a middle course?
I'm honestly not sure what the right answer is, and would be interested in others' views.
The answer is yes, it is up to the parents how they bring up their kids.
I am horrified (and that's a deliberate use of the term rather than hyperbolic) that you should even think for a moment that there is a reason for the state to intervene
On fat kids, and the like: I was very skinny as a child. Even (in weight terms) perhaps comparable to an anorexic. This was nothing to do with parents being horrid or me thinking I was fat (I was quite aware I wasn't), I just didn't eat much.
And if we're going to intervene in families with one or more fat kids we'll need a million more social workers.
I am horrified (and that's a deliberate use of the term rather than hyperbolic) that you should even think for a moment that there is a reason for the state to intervene
The state already does intervene in exactly those circumstances.
I am horrified (and that's a deliberate use of the term rather than hyperbolic) that you should even think for a moment that there is a reason for the state to intervene
The state already does intervene in exactly those circumstances.
They weren't fat, they were "morbidly obese". There was a serious risk of permanent damage being done, and in some cases a risk to life. No doubt the removal of the children came after a very long process of trying to fix the issue.
One of the children was under 11, and was over 23 stone. That's child abuse in my book.
as in the shrinking lead Fetts four look 50/50 as I said, that's on the current polling. If the polls continue to narrow and go into a reverse Labour lead, then switch your money to hold. A lead of under 4 at this stage of the cycle,,,,,, iffy. YouGov holds hope for a Lab majority, we see tonight if it was an outlier or the start of a new trend
PS on whaling. Astute point from somebody on Twitter:
If you want Japan to stop whaling, just say "go ahead, we don't care" and ignore it. Then they'll stop.
It doesn't provide any particularly valuable resources, it's not a particularly deep-rooted tradition, hardly anyone wants eat the stuff, and it loses shedloads of money. They're only doing it because they don't want to set the precedent of allowing themselves to get pushed around by foreigners.
I am horrified (and that's a deliberate use of the term rather than hyperbolic) that you should even think for a moment that there is a reason for the state to intervene
The state already does intervene in exactly those circumstances.
They weren't fat, they were "morbidly obese". There was a serious risk of permanent damage being done, and in some cases a risk to life. No doubt the removal of the children came after a very long process of trying to fix the issue.
One of the children was under 11, and was over 23 stone. That's child abuse in my book.
Indeed, and those were precisely the circumstances NP was talking about (and that Charles was responding to).
On fat kids, and the like: I was very skinny as a child. Even (in weight terms) perhaps comparable to an anorexic. This was nothing to do with parents being horrid or me thinking I was fat (I was quite aware I wasn't), I just didn't eat much.
And if we're going to intervene in families with one or more fat kids we'll need a million more social workers.
One of my cousins, known in the family as Oxfam, was incredibly skinny as a child. He grew up to be an obese man who needed gastric surgery. His mother had sessions of bulimia. Don’t know whether there was a problem genetic inheritance somewhere there. The rest of the family tend to be overweight on a normal diet, (checked) but one of us has made further inquiries, in consequence of those inquiries made some major changes ....... NOT “just cutting out bread and potatoes” ....eating lots more pulses and legumes for example and is getting quite a good body shape.
The problem is the large grey area - we can all agree on my burglary example, and almost nobody would like to see parents harassed by someone pursuing a fashionable theory. But bad parenting is arguably common enough that saying that the default assumption should be that parents are always right is not ideal.
For example, extremely obese children are clearly heading for major health problems. Sometimes this may be because they get food outside the control of parents, but often it's driven by what they get at home. If a parent says "Well, I'll feed my kids anything I like", should we just shrug and leave it at that? On the other hand, should we really head down the route of taking the kids away, surely not? Is there a middle course?
I'm honestly not sure what the right answer is, and would be interested in others' views.
FWIW my view is that I'm very sceptical of the proposition that the criminal law is a good way of approaching the problem, although I do agree that the problem is real. Obviously one would need to see the exact wording of any proposed legislation, and subject it to proper consultation, but I can't really see many circumstances in which criminal sanctions are going to address the issue.
I think we need to demonise one section of society and that section is not parents but Politicians. I include the assorted hangers-on like Spads and political commentators.
They all (apart from a few exceptions) believe that their world view is the correct one, they lack any vestige of modesty and believe that any evidence to the contrary must be false or the result of malevolent activity.
I'm afraid the BBC (which I support) is becoming a little complicit too.
There are many bad parents around but criminal acts are separate from being a little gormless. And who would make the decision to prosecute? Someone who knows better than anyone else ... a failed politician, no doubt.
And on another tack, domestic violence is sickening but blaming the police is silly. The problem was always getting the victim to cooperate. They cannot make bricks without straw - they're too busy taking bribes from the local media.
The only good politician is one who admits their incompetence at times. That leaves ... no one.
I'll go along with any politician who can explain infinity to me. Or the nature of time (seeing as it is mutable). I blame the clocks going back for my bad temper today; it can't be my fault, can it?
Fetts four look 50/50 as I said, that's on the current polling. If the polls continue to narrow and go into a reverse Labour lead, then switch your money to hold.
But isnt the problem that there's a large gap between a Tory lead in the overall voteshare on the day and the Tories managing to hold seats like these (less likely because a lead on the day could well mean a swing from Tory to Lab anyway).
I'm not sure the Tories hold all 4 seats even if they outpoll Labour by 2% or 3%.
Expanding on my previous Scotland thought, for the enjoyment of Stuart Dickson et al, I am increasingly of the opinion that Yes will get over the line, in a very tight race. In terms of Tories in Scotland 2015, I expect them to get three seats - Dumfriesshire, Roxborough etc and probably Dumfries and Galloway (the blue borders solution). If the Tories want a majority they would need something like 6 to have an equivalently strong England and Wales showing that gets them over the line, so another three would have to come from.... Aberdeensire West, Argyll and Bute, Banff and Buchan, Fife NE and Edinburgh SW. I can't see any other Scottish seat there is even a dreamers hope in (and three of those five are pushing it to the limits of optimism). Actually D and G is a bit hopeful unless they can get to 18 or 19% in Scotland...... 2 or 3 then on current polling.
Fetts four look 50/50 as I said, that's on the current polling. If the polls continue to narrow and go into a reverse Labour lead, then switch your money to hold.
But isnt the problem that there's a large gap between a Tory lead in the overall voteshare on the day and the Tories managing to hold seats like these (less likely because a lead on the day could well mean a swing from Tory to Lab anyway).
I'm not sure the Tories hold all 4 seats even if they outpoll Labour by 2% or 3%.
For me, no. If the Tories are ahead, then there is no popular move to oust them as it were. Incumbency comes into play, as it was for the Lab guys up to 2010. A Tory lead of 3 would for me see them holding many of the 2010 gains but falling further adrift in the seats they need for OM.
The Muslim Charter idea was to make it clear that groups who sought to represent Muslims were not in favour of jihadists etc. Maybe it would reassure some who have a sceptical view of such organisations real motives. People trying to make it seem as if every Muslim would have been rounded up and forced to sign it are just deliberately misunderstanding it.
You say the Tories will only take 2/4 of Fett's Four but make up the ground elsewhere. Fair enough. Which seats do you see them making up the ground in?
Is it a crime of strict liability? The current law, as I understand it, is not.
The proposed addition of the 'impairment of "physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development"' has an appropriate standard: once shown that that development has actually been impaired, it is safe to say we are not talking about failing to buy them a PS4 for Christmas.
What's the appropriate test for having your children taken into care (on the comparable ground)? That, surely, would provide a useful starting point.
The current law (CYPA 1933, s. 1(1)) requires that the neglect be "wilful". Mr Buckland proposes in his Telegraph article that that that requirement should be removed. The existing law provides that neglect includes conduct which leads to a child's mental derangement. That is objective. The impairment of social, intellectual, behavioural etc development is not, and in any event, hardly seems a matter for the criminal courts. One need do very little to impair.
There is no case in principle for providing an equivalent test to that which applies in civil care proceedings. There are plenty of circumstances where it is appropriate to take a child into care, notwithstanding that no fault attaches to the parents. Care may be a temporary expedient, whereas a criminal conviction is a permanent and irremediable stain on an individual's reputation.
That Mr Buckland thinks 1.5 million children are neglected under his definition shows the outrageous reach of his proposals. If he really thinks the test in crime and family law ought to be the same, he would seemingly be in favour of an astronomical expansion in children being removed from their families.
Fetts four look 50/50 as I said, that's on the current polling. If the polls continue to narrow and go into a reverse Labour lead, then switch your money to hold.
But isnt the problem that there's a large gap between a Tory lead in the overall voteshare on the day and the Tories managing to hold seats like these (less likely because a lead on the day could well mean a swing from Tory to Lab anyway).
I'm not sure the Tories hold all 4 seats even if they outpoll Labour by 2% or 3%.
For me, no. If the Tories are ahead, then there is no popular move to oust them as it were. Incumbency comes into play, as it was for the Lab guys up to 2010. A Tory lead of 3 would for me see them holding many of the 2010 gains but falling further adrift in the seats they need for OM.
I think Kellner has a similar view (in his oft linked to article where he argues that incumbancy etc. means Labour needs a far bigger swing than one would expect to win an overall majority). I'm not so sure but it's always enlightening to hear where people stand on that.
I am horrified (and that's a deliberate use of the term rather than hyperbolic) that you should even think for a moment that there is a reason for the state to intervene
The state already does intervene in exactly those circumstances.
No - the article is talking about morbidly obese children. That's a different category altogether - at the point where you have co-morbidities you have a lot of health issues
edit: in response to your other comment, if Nick had been talking about morbidly obese children he should havee said so. He said "extremely obese" which is entirely different.
It's like muddling up DB and DC pensions. It's only one word different after all...
Comments
If I were him, I'd be looking to have a rolling programme of areas clamouring to return to Moscow's mothership and doing so under referenda (preferably but not inevitably reasonably free and fair).
All based on the current situation in the polls, obviously a year is a long time in politics.
If you want a good bet, bet on Chloe getting kicked out of Norwich North, she'll get split by the UKIP vote there and Labour will come through the middle.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26818863
Well, duh / No shit, Sherlock / Quelle surprise / etc
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/10733980/Scottish-independence-give-English-a-vote-on-sharing-currency.html
So, if a parent says no to a child, refuses sweets at every instance, or even disciplines them, then this can be taken as causing stress, does not cuddle them all the time - is this depriving them of emotion, or refusing the requests of a stroppy teenager - does this then involve social worker mediation - perhaps in favour of the teenager.
Sounds like legislation to cause even more not-wanted rift in families.
The proposed addition of the 'impairment of "physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development"' has an appropriate standard: once shown that that development has actually been impaired, it is safe to say we are not talking about failing to buy them a PS4 for Christmas.
What's the appropriate test for having your children taken into care (on the comparable ground)? That, surely, would provide a useful starting point.
However, I hate whaling with a passion. Really, really disgusts me. Is that rational? Probably not. The human mind is a funny old thing.
That said, it's obvious to anyone who deals with a lot of families that there is SOME seriously awful parenting out there (e.g. one case I heard of from a police source of a woman who regularly took her early-teenage son to help in burglaries), and I wouldn't endorse what I understand to be Town's fundamentalist view that the State has no business taking an interest in child upbringing. I think I'd favour adding those additional categories of harm, but not making them absolute offences - some kind of intent needs to be shown, if only reckless refusal to listen when the effects are pointed out.
"A Westminster Labour front-bench politician asked me last week at his party conference in Perth how I felt the polls were looking for 2016. “Didn’t he mean 2014?” I asked before realising that for him, the referendum was all but won.
And worse, he had already bought into the belief that with the SNP soundly thumped at the ballot box, his party would rise, phoenix like, to assume power 18 months on."
Edit: Plus as a Star Trek fan, watching The Voyage Home as a young child had a real impression on me, and the vileness of whale hunters.
Perhaps at some stage someone will ask the SNP leadership what amount of sovereignty they are prepared to cede in order to keep the pound. Is it just the ability to decide monetary and fiscal policy, or will they throw Faslane in as well?
A Ukip MEP believes that British Muslims should sign a special code of conduct and warns that it was a big mistake for Europe to allow "an explosion of mosques across their land".
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/04/ukip-mep-gerard-batten-muslims-sign-charter-rejecting-violence
Here in the East Midlands there are good signs the Tories are gaining in the central ground and further South like Northampton I would guess there is even less feeling for Labour.
If anybody fancies a flutter on Tories taking a Labour held marginal Derby North will be a good bet, factor in most people despise the sitting MP.
Whale hunting reminds me of ivory and tiger bits for Chinese art/medicine. They're hunting species to extinction, which is just ignorant and barbaric.
New Populus VI: Lab 37 (=); Cons 34 (-1); LD 10 (+2); UKIP 11 (-1); Oth 8 (+1) Tables http://popu.lu/s_vi310314
Dog: yes
Monkey: yes, probably (I'd have to see on the day. I wouldn't touch a primate.)
Perhaps part of what infuriates me about whaling was how close we came to eradicating several species. The intransigence of certain countries on the matter, in the face of near-universal opposition and unequivocal scientific evidence, was/is shocking. Less so now that stocks have recovered.
Having been forced to think about this, I've concluded it's partially an aesthetic objection, and partially to do with intelligence. I find whales to be wonderful, graceful, intelligent creatures. Of course some would assert the same about horses...
EDIT: The nature of whale hunting, and the apparent cruelty involved in harpooning, also has something to do with my objection.
re. exotica on the plate - done much if not all, (ahem) horses for courses.
re. Politics - we are in the calm before the storm, if I were GO/DC I would be visiting each and every rebelling backbencher and offering lark's tongue butties to STFU until June 2015. The perception of a discordant party is, IMO, one of the gravest threats to the Cons' 2015 chances.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2014/feb/04/charter-muslim-ukip-gerard-batten
Anything that cannot be easily and obviously defined should not be enshrined in such legislation.
Presume he's on his way to the Lane to take over from Sherwood....
If the British had been on the end of something like this they'd have just said sod the international body and left. The Japanese are just as offended as the British would be in that situation, but they tend to be very committed to international institutions, so they ended up looking for loopholes that would allow them to carry on without leaving the commission. This ends up giving them the worst of both worlds, because everyone thinks just as badly of them as they would if they just left, but they play into a bunch of wartime stereotypes about them being sneaky and dishonest as well.
On a technical point, monkeys are indeed members of the order Primates. Possibly you are thinking of the great apes? They are eaten for bushmeat, at least in Africa (like much else). But I wouldn't touch monkeys either, because of the health risks of eating something so closely related.
I'm sure people defending that policy will help UKIP rid the image of being full of loonies, fruitcakes and racists.
Oddly, I do like dogs that know me, including my friend's rottweiller, mostly because it is the dumbest dog in the world.
It barks at it owns farts and spends entire afternoons barking at it's own reflection.
The answer is clearly to demonise a segment of society and make them feel like second class citizens/permanently on trial. No chance of that fermenting extremism whatsoever.
Besides, dogs are used to help the deaf, the blind, the police, mountain rescue, the army and so on. They're tremendous animals. It's just a shame they don't live longer.
The main problem with Northampton North is a sizeable Lib Dem vote. If it breaks in line with the polling decline, then Lab are likely to be the main beneficiaries (not sole beneficiaries of course). I would be wary of betting on a hold without a 3 point poll lead
I would agree with that, although I don't feel the Liberal vote in the East Midlands is as overwhelmingly Labour's as it will be further North. I am confident if Os follows his path we will get the 3 to 4% lead, for leading party and base my forecasts accordingly. The bookies set their odds on the here and now, when there is no election.
Squid I'm ok with, less so octopus. The mimic octopus is in my top 10 favourite creatures (along with the killer whale). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-LTWFnGmeg#t=67
Also, I'm surprised you didn't make reference to Caesar apparently wearing red boots (sign of a king, if I recall).
But just as easily could be MOE.
The third time was by a dog that eventually had to be put eventually put down for being aggressive.
The problem is the large grey area - we can all agree on my burglary example, and almost nobody would like to see parents harassed by someone pursuing a fashionable theory. But bad parenting is arguably common enough that saying that the default assumption should be that parents are always right is not ideal.
For example, extremely obese children are clearly heading for major health problems. Sometimes this may be because they get food outside the control of parents, but often it's driven by what they get at home. If a parent says "Well, I'll feed my kids anything I like", should we just shrug and leave it at that? On the other hand, should we really head down the route of taking the kids away, surely not? Is there a middle course?
I'm honestly not sure what the right answer is, and would be interested in others' views.
It doesn't work at all with seafood, but the corresponding rule that does work is that the stupider it is, the better it will taste. On that basis, monkfish and mussels are fine, whereas dolphins and whales aren't.
I'm not sure how smart a tuna is.
Swing back as is the Tories going backwards?
"Dogs are delightful creatures. Much better, on average, than humans."
Definitely
" It's just a shame they don't live longer."
Especially the big ones. Wolfhounds, for example, are magnificent creatures yet very few make it to 10 years old and many conk-out aged no more than six.
Off course, if you want a true animal friend you can't get better than a cat.
I am horrified (and that's a deliberate use of the term rather than hyperbolic) that you should even think for a moment that there is a reason for the state to intervene
And if we're going to intervene in families with one or more fat kids we'll need a million more social workers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/healthyeating/10667066/Obese-children-removed-from-families.html
You are then letting parents slowly kill their children
I keep meaning to get hold of an ivory chess set while there's still ivory to be had.
One of the children was under 11, and was over 23 stone. That's child abuse in my book.
Fetts four look 50/50 as I said, that's on the current polling. If the polls continue to narrow and go into a reverse Labour lead, then switch your money to hold.
A lead of under 4 at this stage of the cycle,,,,,, iffy.
YouGov holds hope for a Lab majority, we see tonight if it was an outlier or the start of a new trend
Except Dewsbury, That's gone IMHO! like Norwich North. The Tories should gain elsewhere on a poll lead however.
His mother had sessions of bulimia. Don’t know whether there was a problem genetic inheritance somewhere there. The rest of the family tend to be overweight on a normal diet, (checked) but one of us has made further inquiries, in consequence of those inquiries made some major changes ....... NOT “just cutting out bread and potatoes” ....eating lots more pulses and legumes for example and is getting quite a good body shape.
I think we need to demonise one section of society and that section is not parents but Politicians. I include the assorted hangers-on like Spads and political commentators.
They all (apart from a few exceptions) believe that their world view is the correct one, they lack any vestige of modesty and believe that any evidence to the contrary must be false or the result of malevolent activity.
I'm afraid the BBC (which I support) is becoming a little complicit too.
There are many bad parents around but criminal acts are separate from being a little gormless. And who would make the decision to prosecute? Someone who knows better than anyone else ... a failed politician, no doubt.
And on another tack, domestic violence is sickening but blaming the police is silly. The problem was always getting the victim to cooperate. They cannot make bricks without straw - they're too busy taking bribes from the local media.
The only good politician is one who admits their incompetence at times. That leaves ... no one.
I'll go along with any politician who can explain infinity to me. Or the nature of time (seeing as it is mutable). I blame the clocks going back for my bad temper today; it can't be my fault, can it?
I'm not sure the Tories hold all 4 seats even if they outpoll Labour by 2% or 3%.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/network-rail-clones-hitler-2014033185183
Wasn't it Mussolini[sp] whom people said made the trains run on time?
In terms of Tories in Scotland 2015, I expect them to get three seats - Dumfriesshire, Roxborough etc and probably Dumfries and Galloway (the blue borders solution). If the Tories want a majority they would need something like 6 to have an equivalently strong England and Wales showing that gets them over the line, so another three would have to come from.... Aberdeensire West, Argyll and Bute, Banff and Buchan, Fife NE and Edinburgh SW. I can't see any other Scottish seat there is even a dreamers hope in (and three of those five are pushing it to the limits of optimism).
Actually D and G is a bit hopeful unless they can get to 18 or 19% in Scotland......
2 or 3 then on current polling.
You say the Tories will only take 2/4 of Fett's Four but make up the ground elsewhere. Fair enough.
Which seats do you see them making up the ground in?
Unreal
There is no case in principle for providing an equivalent test to that which applies in civil care proceedings. There are plenty of circumstances where it is appropriate to take a child into care, notwithstanding that no fault attaches to the parents. Care may be a temporary expedient, whereas a criminal conviction is a permanent and irremediable stain on an individual's reputation.
That Mr Buckland thinks 1.5 million children are neglected under his definition shows the outrageous reach of his proposals. If he really thinks the test in crime and family law ought to be the same, he would seemingly be in favour of an astronomical expansion in children being removed from their families.
"I'll go along with any politician who can explain infinity to me"
Gosh, that is a very low bar. Just Google Hilbert's Hotel for an explanation of infinity.
By Chris Huhne
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/30/nigel-farage-economic-ukip-european-elections
Sith lord runs for president as candidate of Ukrainian Internet party, vowing to 'make an empire out of a republic'
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/31/ukraine-darth-vader-president-internet-party
edit: in response to your other comment, if Nick had been talking about morbidly obese children he should havee said so. He said "extremely obese" which is entirely different.
It's like muddling up DB and DC pensions. It's only one word different after all...