The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
42% of current Conservative voters would vote Reform in a Reform v LD marginal, only 20% LD.
Faced with the forced choice, I'd go for Reform against a Tory. The former would be a significant, but hopefully short-term, gamble that actually winning might burst their bubble and meantime we've broken the two-party system and maybe got a fairer voting system. Going for the Tory would be a depressing return to a failed status quo.
And some Tories would vote LD over Reform but you would both be in a minority
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
I suspect you may be right in North Dorset, and HYUFD in Essex.
Trump, Reform, Ukraine, Putin, the economy, the weather, winter, the cricket ffs!...
Is the nothing out there even slightly positive that might cheer us up?
I managed to add a calendar from my work HR system to outlook this morning and it worked first time. (Of course this does mean that my annual leave data is now exposed to the internet with no security if someone can guess the URL, or is willing to set up a computer to cycle through all the permutations. Hmm, not feeling quite so miraculous now.)
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Technically a routine speeding fine is a criminal offence, but if it was dealt with by a fixed penalty it doesn't count as a criminal record, unlike a conviction in court. I'd guess that driving-related issues account for a fair proportion of those young men with criminal records, with incidents of relatively minor violence accounting for another chunk?
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
A speeding offence wouldn't give you a criminal record on the Police National Computer though, would it?
(If it did, I'd be amazed it was only 27% of us that have one.)
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
A speeding offence wouldn't give you a criminal record on the Police National Computer though, would it?
Not on its own but if it led to a crash causing injury or death, or was so over the speed limit as to be charged as dangerous driving or inappropriate for the prevailing weather conditions so as to be charged as careless driving it would
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
It wouldn’t be odd at all to not have any immigrants in the debate
Why ? One of the perennial arguments on PB, for example, is what might or might not work to discourage certain categories of information.
I thought we were talking about illegal immigrants and QT last night to be clear, I didn’t mean to say that immigrants shouldn’t be allowed to debate immigration
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
42% of current Conservative voters would vote Reform in a Reform v LD marginal, only 20% LD.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
I suspect you may be right in North Dorset, and HYUFD in Essex.
This is a map (credit J Swarbrick originally, I believe) of local by-election winners since May..those Vikings who settled here would appear to have a lot to answer for...
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
I once noticed that a cucumber hadn't been scanned as I went through the checkout at Lidl, and went back into the queue in order to pay for it. The Lidl employee was somewhat surprised.
These days I don't get a paper receipt (it's on the app) so I don't normally check it. This means I don't notice when they put a sweet potato through the till as something more expensive until it's too late to correct the error. No good deed goes unpunished and all that.
The header has tempted me to have a peek at some political bets for the next GE… one stands out
Starmer to lose his seat 10/3
Sir Keir lost almost half his voters from 2019-2024 (36641 to 18884) getting 48.9% of the vote compared with 65.4% five years earlier, so he wasn’t exactly killing it when they won a landslide. Now he’s the most unpopular PM in history, and Labour are polling in the teens, there must be a better than 23% chance that he is unseated, if he doesn’t chicken out beforehand (in which case I assume the bet would be void)
The bottom half of Camden has a relatively working class population (at least until you get down to Bloomsbury), in the large estates built where the wartime bombs fell. Unlike the educated voters of Hampstead & Highgate, many of whom are Labour/LibDem swingers (it will be interesting to see how they react to their MP's colourful record). Reform is the only party that could defeat Starmer with that demographic, and they polled very poorly in 2024, as they did in most inner London seats, significantly because they poll badly with ethnic minority voters. Or a very well regarded independent might poll well, I suppose. But I don't see either as very likely, at all. I wouldn't take that vote.
A pretty well regarded independent came second last time, and is standing again I think. It seems crazy that a new PM that won a landslide also lost 48% of the vote in his own seat. I think he is in danger, but maybe he won’t stand anyway
But that was probably the high watermark of Gaza protest as pertaining to elections here. Although it is not, of course, a resolved issue. Not by a long chalk.
Perhaps, but it was also the high watermark of the current Labour Party, so one would expect fewer votes next time given their collapse in the polls and Sir Keir’s unpopularity. There are pros and cons to every bet (inc whether the person on the other side is reliable) but 10/3 is a decent price all things considered
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
I suspect you may be right in North Dorset, and HYUFD in Essex.
This is a map (credit J Swarbrick originally, I believe) of local by-election winners since May..those Vikings who settled here would appear to have a lot to answer for...
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
I suspect you may be right in North Dorset, and HYUFD in Essex.
This is a map (credit J Swarbrick originally, I believe) of local by-election winners since May..those Vikings who settled here would appear to have a lot to answer for...
2000 years in the making, the forthcoming great Watling Street liberal/Reform divide of British politics.
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
I suspect you may be right in North Dorset, and HYUFD in Essex.
This is a map (credit J Swarbrick originally, I believe) of local by-election winners since May..those Vikings who settled here would appear to have a lot to answer for...
Vikings = Reform Saxons = Lib Dems.
Where is today's Alfred?
The weird thing is that the Vikings who stayed at home went all social democratic? So the gentle, peace-loving ones who made all that jewelry stayed in Scandinavia, and we got landed with all the bold, troublesome ones?
The same story as to how the US came to be full of religious nutters while Europe went all secular.
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
I suspect you may be right in North Dorset, and HYUFD in Essex.
This is a map (credit J Swarbrick originally, I believe) of local by-election winners since May..those Vikings who settled here would appear to have a lot to answer for...
2000 years in the making, the forthcoming great Watling Street liberal/Reform divide of British politics.
Well, the sack of Lindisfarne was in 793AD, so more like 1223 years or so, if you mark the start of this period of politics to the Brexit referendum.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
So, people can only debate matters that have no impact on them? Should we exclude rich people from debates on tax? Should we exclude Ukrainians from debates on Ukraine? Should we exclude doctors from debates on healthcare?
The point of a democracy is that we listen to those people who are affected by a decision.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
I always have a feeling of trepidation whenever I have a rescan required at the Waitrose self-scan checkout.
So far, I've never had a mistake but I worry about the prospect of alarms going off, security marching me off to back room past a crowd of horrified fellow Waitrose shoppers shouting "Thief! Thief!" as the police are called...
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
Bloomberg: The US lobbied several countries in the European Union in an effort to block EU plans to use frozen Russian central bank assets to back a massive loan to Ukraine…. US officials argued to member states that the assets are needed to help secure a peace deal between Kyiv and Moscow and should not be used to prolong the war, said the diplomats, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
I suspect you may be right in North Dorset, and HYUFD in Essex.
This is a map (credit J Swarbrick originally, I believe) of local by-election winners since May..those Vikings who settled here would appear to have a lot to answer for...
Vikings = Reform Saxons = Lib Dems.
Where is today's Alfred?
The weird thing is that the Vikings who stayed at home went all social democratic? So the gentle, peace-loving ones who made all that jewelry stayed in Scandinavia, and we got landed with all the bold, troublesome ones?
The same story as to how the US came to be full of religious nutters while Europe went all secular.
Hmm, quite a few jewellers and other craftsmen went to Jorvik, Dyflin, etc. etc. As the archaeological record famously shows. (But then stayed at home in those urban centres, I suppose ...).
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Looking at the Conservative Party's current polling, there are certianly plenty of ex-Cons... oh, I see what you mean...
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
Yes but if you just forgot to return and pay for it even if not knowingly if you were arrested and charged with theft the prosecution would still try and argue you knowingly did not return and pay for it even it was not done with intent (but only you know that)
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
Deeply shocking to see HYUFD minimising and hand-waving away the seriousness of crime. His fellow Tories will be wondering if he's a social worker (or at least what they imagine a social worker is, which isn't the same thing).
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
If the shop has video of a customer scanning it twice in error and does not contact the customer is that theft? And if it is, what are the odds of getting the police interested......
If supermarkets want to delegate scanning to customers, there will be errors both ways.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
Deeply shocking to see HYUFD minimising and hand-waving away the seriousness of crime. His fellow Tories will be wondering if he's a social worker (or at least what they imagine a social worker is, which isn't the same thing).
Bloomberg: The US lobbied several countries in the European Union in an effort to block EU plans to use frozen Russian central bank assets to back a massive loan to Ukraine…. US officials argued to member states that the assets are needed to help secure a peace deal between Kyiv and Moscowmore funds for Trump and his cronies and should not be used to prolong the war, said the diplomats, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
It wouldn’t be odd at all to not have any immigrants in the debate
16% of the UK population were born overseas, it would be quite odd if the BBC had to filter them all out from their audiences.
Or say us. PB. If the Mods censored all comments about immigration from posters who weren't born in the UK that wouldn't feel right at all, would it.
I think you'd also have to censor comments about immigration from posters who were born in the UK, but have now emigrated to a different country. They're immigrants too. Plus those with spouses who are immigrants: a clear bias there. Possibly those with parents who were immigrants? Maybe we should extend that to grandparents? Would that satisfy you, @noneoftheabove ?
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
Yes but if you just forgot to return and pay for it even if not knowingly if you were arrested and charged with theft the prosecution would still try and argue you knowingly did not return and pay for it even it was not done with intent (but only you know that)
To be fair I doubt the police would take any action over a £3 punnet of blueberries
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
If the shop has video of a customer scanning it twice in error and does not contact the customer is that theft? And if it is, what are the odds of getting the police interested......
If supermarkets want to delegate scanning to customers, there will be errors both ways.
Scanned some socks from Tesco about a month ago, reduced from £9 to 4 pence.
I checked, never in the history of England have socks ever been as cheap as 4 pence for 5 as a regular price.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
It wouldn’t be odd at all to not have any immigrants in the debate
16% of the UK population were born overseas, it would be quite odd if the BBC had to filter them all out from their audiences.
Or say us. PB. If the Mods censored all comments about immigration from posters who weren't born in the UK that wouldn't feel right at all, would it.
I think you'd also have to censor comments about immigration from posters who were born in the UK, but have now emigrated to a different country. They're immigrants too. Plus those with spouses who are immigrants: a clear bias there. Possibly those with parents who were immigrants? Maybe we should extend that to grandparents? Would that satisfy you, @noneoftheabove ?
Not sure why I should be the arbiter of this but if it were up to me I would ban the whole audience from the studio. Equal opportunities chap here.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
On Wednesday I popped into a pub in Cambridge and ordered a single Jamesons no ice. My card took exception to their device and refused to work. Tried several times, no dice, by which point I'd finished the drink. They apologised for their device and asked if I had cash. I said no, was there a cashpoint nearby? There was one in the Sainsburys opposite, they said. Me and the barman exchanged a knowing look as I left. It was goodbye. Except it wasn't! I did go to the cashpoint in Sainsburys and I did get some cash (£20) and I went back to the pub. You should have seen the astonished grin on the guy's face as I approached brandishing the note. Not just him either, some of the punters had been following the saga. Single Jamesons no ice £5.95, restoring everybody's faith in human nature - priceless.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
Yes but if you just forgot to return and pay for it even if not knowingly if you were arrested and charged with theft the prosecution would still try and argue you knowingly did not return and pay for it even it was not done with intent (but only you know that)
To be fair I doubt the police would take any action over a £3 punnet of blueberries
Probably not but Labour is changing the law to say even thefts of goods under £200 must now be investigated by police and rightly so so they might do.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
Deeply shocking to see HYUFD minimising and hand-waving away the seriousness of crime. His fellow Tories will be wondering if he's a social worker (or at least what they imagine a social worker is, which isn't the same thing).
You changed that very quickly after you realised you were committing a contempt of court! You need to be more careful with keyboards and supermarket checkouts.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
If the shop has video of a customer scanning it twice in error and does not contact the customer is that theft? And if it is, what are the odds of getting the police interested......
If supermarkets want to delegate scanning to customers, there will be errors both ways.
Scanned some socks from Tesco about a month ago, reduced from £9 to 4 pence.
I checked, never in the history of England have socks ever been as cheap as 4 pence for 5 as a regular price.
Maybe because you would have an odd sock !!!!!!!!!
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
If the shop has video of a customer scanning it twice in error and does not contact the customer is that theft? And if it is, what are the odds of getting the police interested......
If supermarkets want to delegate scanning to customers, there will be errors both ways.
Scanned some socks from Tesco about a month ago, reduced from £9 to 4 pence.
I checked, never in the history of England have socks ever been as cheap as 4 pence for 5 as a regular price.
Maybe because you would have an odd sock !!!!!!!!!
Trump, Reform, Ukraine, Putin, the economy, the weather, winter, the cricket ffs!...
Is the nothing out there even slightly positive that might cheer us up?
This cheered me up
Home Alone crowned UK’s favourite Christmas film as nation says 'Ho Ho No' to Die Hard Christmas status
As the festive season is in full swing, one of Britain’s most hotly debated Christmas questions has yet again been put to the test, and the nation has spoken. According to a new survey of 2,000 people in the UK conducted by the BBFC, Die Hard has officially been voted not a Christmas film.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
If the shop has video of a customer scanning it twice in error and does not contact the customer is that theft? And if it is, what are the odds of getting the police interested......
If supermarkets want to delegate scanning to customers, there will be errors both ways.
Scanned some socks from Tesco about a month ago, reduced from £9 to 4 pence.
I checked, never in the history of England have socks ever been as cheap as 4 pence for 5 as a regular price.
Not even the famous Viking sock found in a Jorvik toilet? From the fanous 6 for one silver pennty offer. But of course that doesn't count as England, I was forgetting.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
The Indian Parliament says "Hold my Lassi!":
"Record 46% of newly-elected Lok Sabha MPs facing criminal cases: Study "06 Jun 2024, 2:44 pm
"251 of the 543 newly elected members have criminal cases registered against them and 27 of them have been convicted, revealed an analysis done by the Association of Democratic Reforms."
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
If the shop has video of a customer scanning it twice in error and does not contact the customer is that theft? And if it is, what are the odds of getting the police interested......
If supermarkets want to delegate scanning to customers, there will be errors both ways.
Scanned some socks from Tesco about a month ago, reduced from £9 to 4 pence.
I checked, never in the history of England have socks ever been as cheap as 4 pence for 5 as a regular price.
Maybe because you would have an odd sock !!!!!!!!!
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
We once had a joint the checkout person did not scan (in the days before self-scan). We were back home before we realised.
I'm afraid our thinking was:
a) it wasn't our mistake; b) they will probably bin it if we take it back it as it will have been out of refrigeration for over an hour; c) they won't be reimbursing our fuel or time for the trip back. d) we probably wouldn't have bothered to challenge if we'd got home and found we'd been overcharged (life's too short).
So we kept it. The probably makes us shoplifters technically.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
Deeply shocking to see HYUFD minimising and hand-waving away the seriousness of crime. His fellow Tories will be wondering if he's a social worker (or at least what they imagine a social worker is, which isn't the same thing).
You changed that very quickly after you realised you were committing a contempt of court! You need to be more careful with keyboards and supermarket checkouts.
Hardly given those were all linked reports from established news organisations posted without comment beyond mentioning the arrest and charge and of course in the latter 2 cases also a conviction has already been given.
In any case I personally believe once a conviction is spent you should be able to move on from it whatever walk of life you are in and criminal records should be irrelevant from that point (except in a few cases like working with children where obviously they remain relevant and offences still need to be disclosed)
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
I suspect you may be right in North Dorset, and HYUFD in Essex.
This is a map (credit J Swarbrick originally, I believe) of local by-election winners since May..those Vikings who settled here would appear to have a lot to answer for...
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
We once had a joint the checkout person did not scan (in the days before self-scan). We were back home before we realised.
I'm afraid our thinking was:
a) it wasn't our mistake; b) they will probably bin it if we take it back it as it will have been out of refrigeration for over an hour; c) they won't be reimbursing our fuel or time for the trip back. d) we probably wouldn't have bothered to challenge if we'd got home and found we'd been overcharged (life's too short).
So we kept it. The probably makes us shoplifters technically.
Did you not do something like put the price of it into a charity collection tin?
I'd be racked by guilt for life if I didn't do something to salve my conscience over it in similar circumstances. Similarly, I will never forgive BT for the £10 they scammed me out of.
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
I suspect you may be right in North Dorset, and HYUFD in Essex.
This is a map (credit J Swarbrick originally, I believe) of local by-election winners since May..those Vikings who settled here would appear to have a lot to answer for...
2000 years in the making, the forthcoming great Watling Street liberal/Reform divide of British politics.
Well, the sack of Lindisfarne was in 793AD, so more like 1223 years or so, if you mark the start of this period of politics to the Brexit referendum.
There's no evidence of a Roman Brexit campaign ever being mooted; those Romano-Britons had a lot more sense.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
I always have a feeling of trepidation whenever I have a rescan required at the Waitrose self-scan checkout.
So far, I've never had a mistake but I worry about the prospect of alarms going off, security marching me off to back room past a crowd of horrified fellow Waitrose shoppers shouting "Thief! Thief!" as the police are called...
(I may be catastrophising this somewhat.)
I just take my two year old - any issues it was his 'fault'...
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
I once woke up after a boozy curry cuddling a pot of mango chutney. Don't recall taking it, but take it I must have...
I was more traumatized as a 10 year old when I took a Lego brochure from Woolworths thinking it was free, only to discover I had stolen a 10p brochure... The horror, the horror.
I woke up once and I had trousered a steak knife from the local where I’d had a boozy lunch.
Given its length I’d have been in a bit of trouble had Plod put their hand on my shoulder while staggering home.
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
I suspect you may be right in North Dorset, and HYUFD in Essex.
This is a map (credit J Swarbrick originally, I believe) of local by-election winners since May..those Vikings who settled here would appear to have a lot to answer for...
2000 years in the making, the forthcoming great Watling Street liberal/Reform divide of British politics.
*English politics.
Reform are still to get a member elected north of Gretna, all their reps are SCon (and I think one SLab) retreads.
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
I suspect you may be right in North Dorset, and HYUFD in Essex.
This is a map (credit J Swarbrick originally, I believe) of local by-election winners since May..those Vikings who settled here would appear to have a lot to answer for...
2000 years in the making, the forthcoming great Watling Street liberal/Reform divide of British politics.
Well, the sack of Lindisfarne was in 793AD, so more like 1223 years or so, if you mark the start of this period of politics to the Brexit referendum.
There's no evidence of a Roman Brexit campaign ever being mooted; those Romano-Britons had a lot more sense.
The Romans were the opposite of the EU. Very militarised. Their departure from various places in the West (including here) is pretty fascinating. I'm currently reading a history of Spain.
The Goths had all of Italy, all of Iberia, parts of France, yet ended up with nothing.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
We once had a joint the checkout person did not scan (in the days before self-scan). We were back home before we realised.
I'm afraid our thinking was:
a) it wasn't our mistake; b) they will probably bin it if we take it back it as it will have been out of refrigeration for over an hour; c) they won't be reimbursing our fuel or time for the trip back. d) we probably wouldn't have bothered to challenge if we'd got home and found we'd been overcharged (life's too short).
So we kept it. The probably makes us shoplifters technically.
Did you not do something like put the price of it into a charity collection tin?
I'd be racked by guilt for life if I didn't do something to salve my conscience over it in similar circumstances. Similarly, I will never forgive BT for the £10 they scammed me out of.
No, we let it go.
We do have a standing order* to the Trussell Trust to salve our 'very comfortable life' guilt. (*As suggested by someone on here - @isam?)
Since we are now getting deliveries, we can no longer drop things into the food bank collection boxes.
On the subject of deliveries, if ever the delivery has something we didn't order they always say keep it free of charge rather than take it back.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
Plod always look suspicious
Was at the airport recently, waiting for bag to be rescanned, woman next to me had a knife in her hand luggage, she handed their kid over to her partner with "I've just got to talk to security". I expect it was a bit more hassle than that!
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
We once had a joint the checkout person did not scan (in the days before self-scan). We were back home before we realised.
I'm afraid our thinking was:
a) it wasn't our mistake; b) they will probably bin it if we take it back it as it will have been out of refrigeration for over an hour; c) they won't be reimbursing our fuel or time for the trip back. d) we probably wouldn't have bothered to challenge if we'd got home and found we'd been overcharged (life's too short).
So we kept it. The probably makes us shoplifters technically.
It has to be deliberate, I think. You're in the clear. My shoplifting career was short and successful but long ago. Singles from Boots slipped under my jumper. It started with Get It On and ended with Nutbush City Limits.
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
I suspect you may be right in North Dorset, and HYUFD in Essex.
This is a map (credit J Swarbrick originally, I believe) of local by-election winners since May..those Vikings who settled here would appear to have a lot to answer for...
2000 years in the making, the forthcoming great Watling Street liberal/Reform divide of British politics.
Well, the sack of Lindisfarne was in 793AD, so more like 1223 years or so, if you mark the start of this period of politics to the Brexit referendum.
There's no evidence of a Roman Brexit campaign ever being mooted; those Romano-Britons had a lot more sense.
The Romans were the opposite of the EU. Very militarised. Their departure from various places in the West (including here) is pretty fascinating. I'm currently reading a history of Spain.
The Goths had all of Italy, all of Iberia, parts of France, yet ended up with nothing.
You could argue that the model of Roman occupation - subverting the existing elites with the Roman lifestyle of villas, heating, luxury bath houses etc, in essence making them more 'Roman' is similar to the idea that the chattering classes all voted Remain.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
Knife crime will soon be a thing of the past after the measures brought in by Labour in the summer 👍
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
Ah - I guess they are usually sold with secure packaging. But I would be on the train/walking home. Or back round from B&Q with a Stanley knife or something. I only drive anywhere when I have too much to carry - walking is always easier/quiucker where I live.
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
I suspect you may be right in North Dorset, and HYUFD in Essex.
This is a map (credit J Swarbrick originally, I believe) of local by-election winners since May..those Vikings who settled here would appear to have a lot to answer for...
2000 years in the making, the forthcoming great Watling Street liberal/Reform divide of British politics.
Well, the sack of Lindisfarne was in 793AD, so more like 1223 years or so, if you mark the start of this period of politics to the Brexit referendum.
There's no evidence of a Roman Brexit campaign ever being mooted; those Romano-Britons had a lot more sense.
The Romans were the opposite of the EU. Very militarised. Their departure from various places in the West (including here) is pretty fascinating. I'm currently reading a history of Spain.
The Goths had all of Italy, all of Iberia, parts of France, yet ended up with nothing.
You could argue that the model of Roman occupation - subverting the existing elites with the Roman lifestyle of villas, heating, luxury bath houses etc, in essence making them more 'Roman' is similar to the idea that the chattering classes all voted Remain.
Yes, though we also see a similar phenomenon with knightly and noble classes across Europe considering themselves to have more in common with one another than with the peasantry of any nation (including their own).
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
We once had a joint the checkout person did not scan (in the days before self-scan). We were back home before we realised.
I'm afraid our thinking was:
a) it wasn't our mistake; b) they will probably bin it if we take it back it as it will have been out of refrigeration for over an hour; c) they won't be reimbursing our fuel or time for the trip back. d) we probably wouldn't have bothered to challenge if we'd got home and found we'd been overcharged (life's too short).
So we kept it. The probably makes us shoplifters technically.
It has to be deliberate, I think. You're in the clear. My shoplifting career was short and successful but long ago. Singles from Boots slipped under my jumper. It started with Get It On and ended with Nutbush City Limits.
Dr Who novels form a bookshop in Brum for me. I’d buy a couple and a third would then, accidentally, fall into my bag. Ended by the time I started work in Sept 82.
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
I suspect you may be right in North Dorset, and HYUFD in Essex.
This is a map (credit J Swarbrick originally, I believe) of local by-election winners since May..those Vikings who settled here would appear to have a lot to answer for...
Small boats innit
It’s that mass outrage you forecast over the lack of an increase in fuel duty in the budget. 😜
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
We once had a joint the checkout person did not scan (in the days before self-scan). We were back home before we realised.
I'm afraid our thinking was:
a) it wasn't our mistake; b) they will probably bin it if we take it back it as it will have been out of refrigeration for over an hour; c) they won't be reimbursing our fuel or time for the trip back. d) we probably wouldn't have bothered to challenge if we'd got home and found we'd been overcharged (life's too short).
So we kept it. The probably makes us shoplifters technically.
It has to be deliberate, I think. You're in the clear. My shoplifting career was short and successful but long ago. Singles from Boots slipped under my jumper. It started with Get It On and ended with Nutbush City Limits.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
It wouldn’t be odd at all to not have any immigrants in the debate
Why ? One of the perennial arguments on PB, for example, is what might or might not work to discourage certain categories of information.
I thought we were talking about illegal immigrants and QT last night to be clear, I didn’t mean to say that immigrants shouldn’t be allowed to debate immigration
They're not illegal immigrants. They are or have legally applied to an asylum process.
Trump, Reform, Ukraine, Putin, the economy, the weather, winter, the cricket ffs!...
Is the nothing out there even slightly positive that might cheer us up?
England back in the game.
I think its heading away again. I see 5-0 approaching.
The 1 in 4 stat seems to be dubious, summary only 80% are convictions or cautions, the record is retained for 100 years after DOB, so significaqnt % will be deceased.
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
I suspect you may be right in North Dorset, and HYUFD in Essex.
This is a map (credit J Swarbrick originally, I believe) of local by-election winners since May..those Vikings who settled here would appear to have a lot to answer for...
2000 years in the making, the forthcoming great Watling Street liberal/Reform divide of British politics.
*English politics.
Reform are still to get a member elected north of Gretna, all their reps are SCon (and I think one SLab) retreads.
Being Celtic, the influx of bolshie vikings had no discernible effect on Scottish voting patterns?
It seems that almost everyone on here has a cucumber theft or similar to confess, other than HY who revealed his fiendish criminal past by accident through a subconscious change of wording?
Trump, Reform, Ukraine, Putin, the economy, the weather, winter, the cricket ffs!...
Is the nothing out there even slightly positive that might cheer us up?
England back in the game.
Right back in if we'd held on to some.
Missed an easy stumping too.
Need a keeper who can keep.
As my old grandad used to say, ‘dropped catches don’t win matches’
Historically England selectors pick 'keepers on their (perceived) batting ability. Always have. Not sure why, maybe batters are overrepresented as selectors? You'd expect bowlers and 'keepers would pick the better 'keeper.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
I don't think she could have been done for carry a knife, it was the unintentional theft she was more embarrassed by. The knife was a standard dinner knife. I don't think it is possible to stab someone with that. There is no point and not really an edge to it. Having said that some jobsworth might go 'well it is a knife'. I suppose if you really try you could do some damage but less so than a fork and only marginally more than a spoon. Love to see a spoon defined as a dangerous weapon. Still the Sheriff of Nottingham planned to kill Robin Hood with one.
Interesting though lots of harmless stuff is banned on flights because of the difficulty of making a distinction between harmless versions and dangerous versions, although they do seem to have sorted that out for scissors, but we were shocked to find out knitting needles are not banned and they really are dangerous.
In other news, anyone have any better solutions to completely remove burn marks from a stainless steel pan beyond those I have already tried, being barkeepers friend, elbow grease (both actual and the product), and boiling up water and vinegar?
Trump, Reform, Ukraine, Putin, the economy, the weather, winter, the cricket ffs!...
Is the nothing out there even slightly positive that might cheer us up?
England back in the game.
I think its heading away again. I see 5-0 approaching.
Ever the optimist !!
One of the PhD students is really into his cricket. I spent a good 30 mins explaining why will lose the Ashes in Aussie. He was so excited after Day one of the first test...
In other news, anyone have any better solutions to completely remove burn marks from a stainless steel pan beyond those I have already tried, being barkeepers friend, elbow grease (both actual and the product), and boiling up water and vinegar?
When I was doing my duke of Edinburgh as a kid we were taught to rub the pan over wet grass...
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
It wouldn’t be odd at all to not have any immigrants in the debate
16% of the UK population were born overseas, it would be quite odd if the BBC had to filter them all out from their audiences.
Or say us. PB. If the Mods censored all comments about immigration from posters who weren't born in the UK that wouldn't feel right at all, would it.
I think you'd also have to censor comments about immigration from posters who were born in the UK, but have now emigrated to a different country. They're immigrants too. Plus those with spouses who are immigrants: a clear bias there. Possibly those with parents who were immigrants? Maybe we should extend that to grandparents? Would that satisfy you, @noneoftheabove ?
Tut tut, British people are never immigrants! Only colonists and ex-pats.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
Yes but if you just forgot to return and pay for it even if not knowingly if you were arrested and charged with theft the prosecution would still try and argue you knowingly did not return and pay for it even it was not done with intent (but only you know that)
To be fair I doubt the police would take any action over a £3 punnet of blueberries
We all now that the police work on this principle
They can't quite seem catch people for lying to the courts over a period of years, when the lies have been documented. As has the conspiracy to do so.
In the case of the The Ting We Can't Talk About, on multiple occasions, the police caught the offenders in the act. Literally. But couldn't manage to arrest them.
Probably, if you accidentally take a punnet of blueberries, that will be 12 armed policemen coming round.
In other news, anyone have any better solutions to completely remove burn marks from a stainless steel pan beyond those I have already tried, being barkeepers friend, elbow grease (both actual and the product), and boiling up water and vinegar?
Stokes is a genuine all rounder, one of the best. Atkinson has a batting average of 22 - on the verges of being a genuine bowling all rounder and a better average than Nesser who is Aus' no 8.
How on earth have we bowled, bar one over, from only 4 bowlers today.
Archer, Carse, Stoke and Gus have been flogged to death today which is probably a good part of the reason we've gone at over 5 an over - poor selection and captaincy picking Jacks who should have been 12th man and permanently on as sub fielder (Which meant he would still have taken the amazing Smith catch).
In other news, anyone have any better solutions to completely remove burn marks from a stainless steel pan beyond those I have already tried, being barkeepers friend, elbow grease (both actual and the product), and boiling up water and vinegar?
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Technically a routine speeding fine is a criminal offence, but if it was dealt with by a fixed penalty it doesn't count as a criminal record, unlike a conviction in court. I'd guess that driving-related issues account for a fair proportion of those young men with criminal records, with incidents of relatively minor violence accounting for another chunk?
Yep fixed penalty and I was livid about it, because it was unfair. It was a notorious (hidden) camera, that people complained about (not a road I knew so I was unaware). It was a dual carriageway off of a motorway that goes into 1 lane prior to a tight left bend into a town. It was a dangerous position that needed speed control, so no complaints about that, but was bound to catch people in the process of slowing down. Speed calming measures were definitely needed, but this seemed like a trap to catch people in the process of going from 60 to 30 rather than a calming measure.
Having said that it is swings and roundabouts. I have been stopped by the police 3 times in my 54 years of driving. Every time I have been let off even though I was in the wrong. I guess because they made a judgement on the spot about me. Cameras don't do that.
Comments
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15355925/internet-goes-amid-massive-Cloudflare-outage.html
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
(If it did, I'd be amazed it was only 27% of us that have one.)
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
These days I don't get a paper receipt (it's on the app) so I don't normally check it. This means I don't notice when they put a sweet potato through the till as something more expensive until it's too late to correct the error. No good deed goes unpunished and all that.
Saxons = Lib Dems.
Where is today's Alfred?
The same story as to how the US came to be full of religious nutters while Europe went all secular.
The point of a democracy is that we listen to those people who are affected by a decision.
So far, I've never had a mistake but I worry about the prospect of alarms going off, security marching me off to back room past a crowd of horrified fellow Waitrose shoppers shouting "Thief! Thief!" as the police are called...
(I may be catastrophising this somewhat.)
Bloomberg: The US lobbied several countries in the European Union in an effort to block EU plans to use frozen Russian central bank assets to back a massive loan to Ukraine…. US officials argued to member states that the assets are needed to help secure a peace deal between Kyiv and Moscow and should not be used to prolong the war, said the diplomats, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
https://x.com/annmarie/status/1996892832603193784?s=20
If supermarkets want to delegate scanning to customers, there will be errors both ways.
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/nicola-sturgeons-husband-peter-murrell-appears-in-court-charged-with-snp-embezzlement
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/14640314/snp-msp-james-dornan-adolescence/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jan/04/scottish-mp-margaret-ferrier-arrested-over-alleged-covid-rule-breach
I checked, never in the history of England have socks ever been as cheap as 4 pence for 5 as a regular price.
#justsayin'
BTW, Die Hard is still the best Christmas movie ever made.
Was Palpatine doing likewise ?
"Record 46% of newly-elected Lok Sabha MPs facing criminal cases: Study
"06 Jun 2024, 2:44 pm
"251 of the 543 newly elected members have criminal cases registered against them and 27 of them have been convicted, revealed an analysis done by the Association of Democratic Reforms."
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2024/Jun/06/record-46-of-newly-elected-lok-sabha-mps-facing-criminal-cases-study
I'm afraid our thinking was:
a) it wasn't our mistake;
b) they will probably bin it if we take it back it as it will have been out of refrigeration for over an hour;
c) they won't be reimbursing our fuel or time for the trip back.
d) we probably wouldn't have bothered to challenge if we'd got home and found we'd been overcharged (life's too short).
So we kept it. The probably makes us shoplifters technically.
In any case I personally believe once a conviction is spent you should be able to move on from it whatever walk of life you are in and criminal records should be irrelevant from that point (except in a few cases like working with children where obviously they remain relevant and offences still need to be disclosed)
I'd be racked by guilt for life if I didn't do something to salve my conscience over it in similar circumstances. Similarly, I will never forgive BT for the £10 they scammed me out of.
Given its length I’d have been in a bit of trouble had Plod put their hand on my shoulder while staggering home.
Wasn’t even a good knife.
Reform are still to get a member elected north of Gretna, all their reps are SCon (and I think one SLab) retreads.
The Goths had all of Italy, all of Iberia, parts of France, yet ended up with nothing.
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
We do have a standing order* to the Trussell Trust to salve our 'very comfortable life' guilt. (*As suggested by someone on here - @isam?)
Since we are now getting deliveries, we can no longer drop things into the food bank collection boxes.
On the subject of deliveries, if ever the delivery has something we didn't order they always say keep it free of charge rather than take it back.
Was at the airport recently, waiting for bag to be rescanned, woman next to me had a knife in her hand luggage, she handed their kid over to her partner with "I've just got to talk to security". I expect it was a bit more hassle than that!
https://uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/kieran-mullan-mp-to-sir-robert-chote-statistics-on-criminal-records/
Need a keeper who can keep.
As my old grandad used to say, ‘dropped catches don’t win matches’
"Slip-sliding away..."
Not sure why, maybe batters are overrepresented as selectors? You'd expect bowlers and 'keepers would pick the better 'keeper.
Interesting though lots of harmless stuff is banned on flights because of the difficulty of making a distinction between harmless versions and dangerous versions, although they do seem to have sorted that out for scissors, but we were shocked to find out knitting needles are not banned and they really are dangerous.
They can't quite seem catch people for lying to the courts over a period of years, when the lies have been documented. As has the conspiracy to do so.
In the case of the The Ting We Can't Talk About, on multiple occasions, the police caught the offenders in the act. Literally. But couldn't manage to arrest them.
Probably, if you accidentally take a punnet of blueberries, that will be 12 armed policemen coming round.
Atkinson has a batting average of 22 - on the verges of being a genuine bowling all rounder and a better average than Nesser who is Aus' no 8.
How on earth have we bowled, bar one over, from only 4 bowlers today.
Archer, Carse, Stoke and Gus have been flogged to death today which is probably a good part of the reason we've gone at over 5 an over - poor selection and captaincy picking Jacks who should have been 12th man and permanently on as sub fielder (Which meant he would still have taken the amazing Smith catch).
Having said that it is swings and roundabouts. I have been stopped by the police 3 times in my 54 years of driving. Every time I have been let off even though I was in the wrong. I guess because they made a judgement on the spot about me. Cameras don't do that.