The Draw looks value at 3.3 on betfair. It wouldn't normally be the outsider of three in these circumstances but the market seems to have been influenced by the lack of draws in the WC so far.
Belgium just don't look like they're going to win this one. They might be able to get a draw out of it at best.
Isn't my World Cup betting strategy brilliant. Algeria lead.
Cash the feck out
Good to see Jan's late season form (when not 'unfit') for Spurs continues, his ego has been carrying him for 6 months or longer unfortunately whilst seemingly waiting for a 'big boy' to come in for him. I wouldn't mind him having a stinker and then knuckling down more for us next seaon to get his fan-fave status back.
It wasn't a "donkey jacket", but that's what the tame press is there for, to spin for their preferred party, and hope the gullible buy it.
Apparently not, according to his wife who bought it for him, - however, wearing 'that coat''' at a remembrance day parade did inspire one Labour MP to say he was “disgusted to see that the leader of Her Majesty’s opposition looked more like an Irish navvy than a party leader”.
Anybody know whether Ed The Younger's personal ratings are now WORSE than IDS's were? :^O
Ed's sunshambles was particularly damaging I think.
You can make an argument for having his picture taken, you can make an argument for him not having his picture taken.
It takes a special sort of crapness to have your picture taken, then apologise for it. It just looks so weak.
Your argument is somewhat weakened by the fact that Labour's poll ratings have risen slightly since the Sun thing. Were it such a problem, they would have fallen.
The argument has been made down thread that the Sun type thing does long-term damage to ed rather than short term damage to Labour. 1992 suggests that leader ratings can creep up on party ratings rather late in the campaign.
The old "long term" damage is PB code for "fair cop, it's made no difference".
I have read that get-out clause innumerable times on here, you won't believe how many.
So had Neil Kinnock's supporters at this stage of the game. What happened next?
PS You are over-posting again; makes you look rattled.
I hadn't posted all day until just recently.
Since when did you decide how many posts is the correct amount?
I'm backing Russia to win by 2 or more goals this evening in a combination bet, returning odds of 2.17/1 (3.17 decimal): Stake 57.5% at 5.50 decimal with Ladbrokes on a 2 goal victory Stake 42.3% at 7.50 decimal with Skybet on a 3+ goal victory
@SimonStClare Always judge a man by his appearance, not because of what he says. Apparently it was a car coat from Harrods, suitable for an old man on a cold Septembers day. Did you know he never got to do his bit in the war? He was refused on the grounds of his asthma. He was though, the wrong leader, he had principles that he held, and as we now know, principles are the last thing a politician needs
Crumbs of comfort for Lib Dems in that the share is not in single figures and not below the Feb Figure. However not optimistic about Lord Ashcroft's figures tomorrow in CON/LIB marginals .Swing since GE Lib to Con is nearly 10% and don't expect many marginals to do better than that.
The leaders' debates will aid the judgement of the public on the competencies or otherwise of the leadership candidates.I fully expect Ed's greater intellectual self-confidence to shine through like a beacon.
Anybody know whether Ed The Younger's personal ratings are now WORSE than IDS's were? :^O
Ed's sunshambles was particularly damaging I think.
You can make an argument for having his picture taken, you can make an argument for him not having his picture taken.
It takes a special sort of crapness to have your picture taken, then apologise for it. It just looks so weak.
Your argument is somewhat weakened by the fact that Labour's poll ratings have risen slightly since the Sun thing. Were it such a problem, they would have fallen.
The argument has been made down thread that the Sun type thing does long-term damage to ed rather than short term damage to Labour. 1992 suggests that leader ratings can creep up on party ratings rather late in the campaign.
The old "long term" damage is PB code for "fair cop, it's made no difference".
I have read that get-out clause innumerable times on here, you won't believe how many.
So had Neil Kinnock's supporters at this stage of the game. What happened next?
PS You are over-posting again; makes you look rattled.
I hadn't posted all day until just recently.
Since when did you decide how many posts is the correct amount?
It wasn't a "donkey jacket", but that's what the tame press is there for, to spin for their preferred party, and hope the gullible buy it.
Apparently not, according to his wife who bought it for him, - however, wearing 'that coat''' at a remembrance day parade did inspire one Labour MP to say he was “disgusted to see that the leader of Her Majesty’s opposition looked more like an Irish navvy than a party leader”.
Some might think it odd but the Queen Mother leapt to Foot's defence noting it was a sensible coat for such a day.
She was a personal friend of Foot and whilst not politically aligned they were of the same generation who went through the war and she appreciated his innate decency.
The leaders' debates will aid the judgement of the public on the competencies or otherwise of the leadership candidates.I fully expect Ed's greater intellectual self-confidence to shine through like a beacon.
Was it intellectually self confident to pose with the SUN, or to apologise for it?
@SimonStClare "Always judge a man by his appearance, not because of what he says."
snip
Calm down dear, I'm not judging him, period - it was a very long time ago and certainly before I had any interest in politics - as I said 'that's all I remember about him'.
@MrHarryCole: Harsh. Funny. But harsh MT @chrisdeerin: Not in favour of Scottish independence: USA China EU Pope most of Scotland
In favour: Pat Kane
You still being a big fanny, we will see in September whether you are correct and people in Scotland are servile crawlers like you or if they prefer to run their own country.
@JackW It was the same for many politicians. They could never come to terms with soundbites and opinion polls. I think they are a great loss to democracy, be they left, right, or in the middle.
It wasn't a "donkey jacket", but that's what the tame press is there for, to spin for their preferred party, and hope the gullible buy it.
Apparently not, according to his wife who bought it for him, - however, wearing 'that coat''' at a remembrance day parade did inspire one Labour MP to say he was “disgusted to see that the leader of Her Majesty’s opposition looked more like an Irish navvy than a party leader”.
Some might think it odd but the Queen Mother leapt to Foot's defence noting it was a sensible coat for such a day.
She was a personal friend of Foot and whilst not politically aligned they were of the same generation who went through the war and she appreciated his innate decency.
@MrHarryCole: Harsh. Funny. But harsh MT @chrisdeerin: Not in favour of Scottish independence: USA China EU Pope most of Scotland
In favour: Pat Kane
You still being a big fanny, we will see in September whether you are correct and people in Scotland are servile crawlers like you or if they prefer to run their own country.
The only crawling I see is the Nats to the great leader.
I wonder if any criticism will ever come his way even if he loses ?
It wasn't a "donkey jacket", but that's what the tame press is there for, to spin for their preferred party, and hope the gullible buy it.
Apparently not, according to his wife who bought it for him, - however, wearing 'that coat''' at a remembrance day parade did inspire one Labour MP to say he was “disgusted to see that the leader of Her Majesty’s opposition looked more like an Irish navvy than a party leader”.
Some might think it odd but the Queen Mother leapt to Foot's defence noting it was a sensible coat for such a day.
She was a personal friend of Foot and whilst not politically aligned they were of the same generation who went through the war and she appreciated his innate decency.
He was also something of a scholar, was he not?
Foot, in the manner of Powell, was too much of a scholar for his own good
It wasn't a "donkey jacket", but that's what the tame press is there for, to spin for their preferred party, and hope the gullible buy it.
Apparently not, according to his wife who bought it for him, - however, wearing 'that coat''' at a remembrance day parade did inspire one Labour MP to say he was “disgusted to see that the leader of Her Majesty’s opposition looked more like an Irish navvy than a party leader”.
Some might think it odd but the Queen Mother leapt to Foot's defence noting it was a sensible coat for such a day.
She was a personal friend of Foot and whilst not politically aligned they were of the same generation who went through the war and she appreciated his innate decency.
He was also something of a scholar, was he not?
He was highly intelligent and had a somewhat romantic view of politics. He didn't thrive as leader because he refused to be spiteful.
Tim would have been proud.. Discussion on PM between Mark Reckless and ???? re the EU presidency( Junker Junket.). It was Latvian homophobes all over again with a slightly different accent.(anyone who does not support Junker that is)
The leaders' debates will aid the judgement of the public on the competencies or otherwise of the leadership candidates.I fully expect Ed's greater intellectual self-confidence to shine through like a beacon.
So long as he doesn't have to eat a bacon sandwich in them he'll be OK I think.
Crumbs of comfort for Lib Dems in that the share is not in single figures and not below the Feb Figure. However not optimistic about Lord Ashcroft's figures tomorrow in CON/LIB marginals .Swing since GE Lib to Con is nearly 10% and don't expect many marginals to do better than that.
Crumbs of comfort for Lib Dems in that the share is not in single figures and not below the Feb Figure. However not optimistic about Lord Ashcroft's figures tomorrow in CON/LIB marginals .Swing since GE Lib to Con is nearly 10% and don't expect many marginals to do better than that.
I think it might square the Lab-Con marginal/national picture a touch.
@MrHarryCole: Harsh. Funny. But harsh MT @chrisdeerin: Not in favour of Scottish independence: USA China EU Pope most of Scotland
In favour: Pat Kane
You still being a big fanny, we will see in September whether you are correct and people in Scotland are servile crawlers like you or if they prefer to run their own country.
The only crawling I see is the Nats to the great leader.
I wonder if any criticism will ever come his way even if he loses ?
LOL, why would he be criticised , he has done very well since 2007. Way its going if he does lose it will be by a very small margin indeed and we will move on to the next referendum.
PS: Can you elaborate on "Nats crawling to the great leader", what kind of stupid bollocks is that, if you mean that people actually support a YES vote , you are not right in the head. Strange ideas.
Mr de Bois' amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which will impose a mandatory minimum sentence for a second offence of knife crime, has been approved by 404-53.
@MrHarryCole: Harsh. Funny. But harsh MT @chrisdeerin: Not in favour of Scottish independence: USA China EU Pope most of Scotland
In favour: Pat Kane
You still being a big fanny, we will see in September whether you are correct and people in Scotland are servile crawlers like you or if they prefer to run their own country.
The only crawling I see is the Nats to the great leader.
I wonder if any criticism will ever come his way even if he loses ?
I am not an SNP member, but I do think that your suggestion misses the point, given that the whole point of indyref is for the Scots to be able to vote in and out our leaders the way we want.
An ex-labour voting (and still centrist socialist to the core) friend of mine said to me that he was voting SNP because they did a good job in running the country, better than the main alternative. He noted that he was getting annoyed by sniping by people such as you, Mr Paxman, etc., equating Mr Salmond to a third world dictator. Firstly what does that make the likes of Messrs Cameron and Clegg, given Mr Salmond has far more democratic mandate (i.e. a majority in pmt)? Secondly, my friend was particularly fed up with the implied slur on him and other Scots for being so stupid as to vote him in - 'we voted him in and we'll dam' well vote him out when the time comes'!! So remarks such as you lead neither to greater understanding nor to improved persuasion.
And, though you may not recall it, it is also worth noting that the SNP actually had a free vote on NATO membership - which is something almost extinct in major political parties this country.
Much Lib Dem support came from the public sector (such as teachers) in the 2010 election. Following the coalition putting a cap on public sector salary range increases, public sector workers have switched back to Labour.
PS TSE was wrong about Fellani after all, as well as wrong about a challenge to Clegg.
I wonder if any criticism will ever come his way even if he loses?
He can't lose. If the referendum result is struck down, he will rise again even stronger.
3 days later perhaps.
When this is the level of debate from the NO side it is very hard to imagine it could ever win any referendum. Scott is a model of the NO side , negative, whinging , we cannot do it, nothing to add to the debate , no vision , no hope , no thanks.
LOL, why would he be criticised , he has done very well since 2007. Way its going if he does lose it will be by a very small margin indeed and we will move on to the next referendum.
The one to leave the EU? Great! About time you started supporting a genuine independence campaign as opposed to an establishment sham.
It wasn't a "donkey jacket", but that's what the tame press is there for, to spin for their preferred party, and hope the gullible buy it.
Apparently not, according to his wife who bought it for him, - however, wearing 'that coat''' at a remembrance day parade did inspire one Labour MP to say he was “disgusted to see that the leader of Her Majesty’s opposition looked more like an Irish navvy than a party leader”.
Some might think it odd but the Queen Mother leapt to Foot's defence noting it was a sensible coat for such a day.
She was a personal friend of Foot and whilst not politically aligned they were of the same generation who went through the war and she appreciated his innate decency.
He was also something of a scholar, was he not?
He was highly intelligent and had a somewhat romantic view of politics. He didn't thrive as leader because he refused to be spiteful.
It wasn't a "donkey jacket", but that's what the tame press is there for, to spin for their preferred party, and hope the gullible buy it.
Apparently not, according to his wife who bought it for him, - however, wearing 'that coat''' at a remembrance day parade did inspire one Labour MP to say he was “disgusted to see that the leader of Her Majesty’s opposition looked more like an Irish navvy than a party leader”.
Some might think it odd but the Queen Mother leapt to Foot's defence noting it was a sensible coat for such a day.
She was a personal friend of Foot and whilst not politically aligned they were of the same generation who went through the war and she appreciated his innate decency.
He was also something of a scholar, was he not?
Foot, in the manner of Powell, was too much of a scholar for his own good
Thanks - quite a pair of assessments!
And as was pointed out to me recently here his dog was named Dizzy (affectionately, I rather assume) after the great Tory PM of Victorian times.
@MrHarryCole: Harsh. Funny. But harsh MT @chrisdeerin: Not in favour of Scottish independence: USA China EU Pope most of Scotland
In favour: Pat Kane
You still being a big fanny, we will see in September whether you are correct and people in Scotland are servile crawlers like you or if they prefer to run their own country.
The only crawling I see is the Nats to the great leader.
I wonder if any criticism will ever come his way even if he loses ?
LOL, why would he be criticised , he has done very well since 2007. Way its going if he does lose it will be by a very small margin indeed and we will move on to the next referendum.
PS: Can you elaborate on "Nats crawling to the great leader", what kind of stupid bollocks is that, if you mean that people actually support a YES vote , you are not right in the head. Strange ideas.
Most people outside the branch Davidians would recognise their leaders have made mistakes - wouldnt you agree that Eck has made a few ? Cam has - plenty..
Margaret Thatcher didn't mind being hated. Tony Blair does – very much indeed
Margaret Thatcher was suddenly and shocking defenestrated and never overcame her bitterness; but even as her mental powers failed she could take comfort in her achievements. Tony Blair's faculties are not clouded by old age but he is confused and perhaps a little frightened by the contempt of millions of people who once voted for him. It is a far, far worse fate than Mrs Thatcher's.
Blair is terrified of and haunted by the verdict of history. Thatcher is one of the greats, Blair is a venal pariah and disgrace.
Blair did more to damange British politics than anyone else. It's not just the wasted opportunity he had in 1997 and his failure to deal with Brown but that with regard to pretty much every area of policy but especially on an issue of importance - going to war - his behaviour and that of his acolytes was such that trust in the office of Prime Minister and our politics generally has been severely damaged. And without such trust how can our system of politics work?
That is his great failing and it applies regardless of whether or not you think his views on Iraq were right or wrong. Indeed, if he really believed that the UK should go to war in Iraq in 20013 he had an overriding duty to argue that case honestly and be fully transparent now about his discussions with the US.
Labour 1997 - 2010 was all spin and lies, which far outweighed their achievements. For all their distancing themselves from Blair, I don't think Milliband's Labour has fundamentally changed.
I think thats right. I don't think there was anything morally wrong in going to war and invading Iraq, Saddam had serially broken the ceasfire and was abusing his own people for a start, but Blair was corrupt in puting forward his motives (largely I think out of fear of the pacifict wing of Labour whose voters fled to the LDs) and was broadly incompetent about managing the post war situation. The work of the appalling Alistair Campbell was sickening.
We should of course have been much tougher with Saddam all the way through following the original ceasefire and amazingly we repeated the same mistake with Gadaffi after he gave up his nuclear programme (a good by-product of the Iraqi invasion) and allowed him to 'bask' rather than live in sufferance.
I wonder if any criticism will ever come his way even if he loses?
He can't lose. If the referendum result is struck down, he will rise again even stronger.
3 days later perhaps.
When this is the level of debate from the NO side it is very hard to imagine it could ever win any referendum. Scott is a model of the NO side , negative, whinging , we cannot do it, nothing to add to the debate , no vision , no hope , no thanks.
And is calling someone a 'Fanny' or a 'Turnip' a perfect example of YES?
The debating with J K Rowling went well last week. Your fellow travellers were calling her a 'Whore', 'Bitch', 'Cow' and far worse. The votes will be piling in from Scotland's womenfolk.
@schofieldkevin: Stand by your beds #indyref fans - there's a new YouGov poll for The Sun in tomorrow's paper.
Will this be the second poll to show Yes ahead? If the pattern for Yes going up after each foreign leader says people should vote No is an indication its probable.
Mr de Bois' amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which will impose a mandatory minimum sentence for a second offence of knife crime, has been approved by 404-53.
Hmm I don't really agree with mandatory sentencing in this manner. Very dangerous.
Mr de Bois' amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which will impose a mandatory minimum sentence for a second offence of knife crime, has been approved by 404-53.
Hmm I don't really agree with mandatory sentencing in this manner. Very dangerous.
Well its like a Belgium counter attack, after so many years of people not getting sentenced for serious crimes on the front pages of the press, its natural for politicians to react.
Awful for Labour. Even worse for the Tories. Unspeakably bad for the Liberals. *
* On this point, I will again ask the likes of Stodge, Corporeal and Sir Mark Sr what on earth it will take to actually a) kick out the Cleggster or b) pull the plug on the Coalition in the hope of a electoral dividend.
10% with the pollster that is by far the most favourable to the Yellows is surely cut-and-run material? They have nothing left to lose.
I think you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think the LibDems would suddenly surge if they (a) ditched Clegg, and (b) broke the coalition agreement.
But hey...
Change offers you at least a roll of the dice. What is truly "cuckoo" is to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
10% is not inevitably a minimum. If the Lib Dems look like a shambles fighting like ferrets in a sack, they will do worse.
Besides, too many senior Lib Dem MPs have dipped their hands in the coalition's blood. The Lib Dems have little practical option other than holding their heads erect and whistling a happy tune.
Clegg is doing badly because he regularly undercuts the coaition - his own coalition - treating it like its someone else's government. ie he is shooting himself and his party in the foot. Its not as if we see anything useful coming out of Vince Cable in Business. The LDs joined the govt to help the economy, but they rarely seem to want to make a play for it. They still want to carp and criticise where they should have been pushing being resolute and sound, pushing how their coalition had brought long term stability ... you name it all the plusses they could think about. But instead they seek to undermine their partners and think none of it will land back on them. Stupid is as stupid does and I think the public are wondering what their point is, no matter who is leader.
@schofieldkevin: Stand by your beds #indyref fans - there's a new YouGov poll for The Sun in tomorrow's paper.
Will this be the second poll to show Yes ahead? If the pattern for Yes going up after each foreign leader says people should vote No is an indication its probable.
Yes ahead? I assume it's that old outlier from years back but should check ...
Doubt Yougov would show it as Yes ahead, given its tendency IIRC to downplay Yes compared to other firms (which is not to say it is wrong or right). But it'll be interesting to compare it with the previous ones from the same firm.
Mr de Bois' amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which will impose a mandatory minimum sentence for a second offence of knife crime, has been approved by 404-53.
Hmm I don't really agree with mandatory sentencing in this manner. Very dangerous.
Well its like a Belgium counter attack, after so many years of people not getting sentenced for serious crimes on the front pages of the press, its natural for politicians to react.
The problem is that playing into that is dangerous, politicians should look at whether sentencing is actually a problem instead of playing to the gallery over contentious cases. There are other options than this sort of approach which denies discretion and I think is just a terrible way to go.
Guardian article contains findings re interest rates - lots of people will welcome interest rate rises - more savers than borrowers. See bottom of article:
Foot was an old fashioned scholarly gentleman Socialist, the like of whom we rarely see today. Sadly for him he was caught at the cusp of a ruthless media age that was completely unforgiving against his dogmatic and rigid politics. The collision only had one winner.
I wonder if any criticism will ever come his way even if he loses?
He can't lose. If the referendum result is struck down, he will rise again even stronger.
3 days later perhaps.
When this is the level of debate from the NO side it is very hard to imagine it could ever win any referendum. Scott is a model of the NO side , negative, whinging , we cannot do it, nothing to add to the debate , no vision , no hope , no thanks.
And is calling someone a 'Fanny' or a 'Turnip' a perfect example of YES?
The debating with J K Rowling went well last week. Your fellow travellers were calling her a 'Whore', 'Bitch', 'Cow' and far worse. The votes will be piling in from Scotland's womenfolk.
I don't approve of that for a moment (though I genuinely wonder how many of those were from Unionists pretending to be for Yes. There have always been a few of those around in general, and it will be interesting to see what comes out in any prosecutions.) But I don't recall any pro-Yes politicians making personal attacks, or pro-Yes newspapers making Ms Rowling out to be a mental defective groomed by the Labour politicians and publishing where she lived. Even the Daily Express found that abuse was a much greater problem from No than from Yes. So it is pretty shoddy of the Unionists to pretend that internet abuse is a pro-Yes problem, and to concoct media stories to that effect. They are creating the sort of divisive nonsense that they are themselves pretending to condemn.
On a related matter, I don't recall anyone complaining when people on this site accused Mr Salmond or Ms Sturgeon of being paedophiles or child thieves. The wording was ambiguous, and I didn't realise at the time what was being said, despite paedophilia, at the time, being the plat du jour for the main unionist parties, so presumably it was thought a good idea to fling the filth around even more). (This is not aimed specifically at you - you may not have been active at the time.)
'...though I genuinely wonder how many of those were from Unionists pretending to be for Yes. There have always been a few of those around in general, and it will be interesting to see what comes out in any prosecutions...'
It's always someone else.
Has the charity head discovered who hacked his Facebook and Twitter account simultaneously?
Hmm I don't really agree with mandatory sentencing in this manner. Very dangerous.
What's completely mad is Grayling's attempts to have it both ways. On the one hand, he wants rigid economies from HM Courts Service and HM Prison Service. On the other hand, he wants the criminal courts to deal with more business, passing heavier sentences, and for the prisons to house more inmates. The man is chasing his tail in an utterly bizarre fashion. I am also very wary about any further move to mandatory minimums, but the principle was lost with the passage of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. The use of mandatory minimums is, unfortunately, only likely to increase in the years ahead.
'...though I genuinely wonder how many of those were from Unionists pretending to be for Yes. There have always been a few of those around in general, and it will be interesting to see what comes out in any prosecutions...'
It's always someone else.
Has the charity head discovered who hacked his Facebook and Twitter account simultaneously?
It's just the loose definition of the word "hack", given that the person that hacked it had the password already, they were just using the account when they shouldn't have been. Begs the question of why the password wasn't changed so that only authorised people can use it. Anyway, the word hack implies some form of forceful entry into the system.
Foot was an old fashioned scholarly gentleman Socialist, the like of whom we rarely see today. Sadly for him he was caught at the cusp of a ruthless media age that was completely unforgiving against his dogmatic and rigid politics. The collision only had one winner.
Yes! And that media was quite prepared to lie about anything and everything about him.
@PeteWishart: Miliband's personal ratings are disastrous, it is now minus 39, below Nick Clegg. Call for the men in the ill fitting shiny grey suits?
What we really need is a poster tracking how many months in a row Ed has better leadership rating than Cameron...
A fall of 14 points in his personal rating has resulted in a 2 point rise in the party's ratings, at this rate the Labour party might wish for Milibands ratings to fall further in order for them to win a landslide Labour victory.
'...though I genuinely wonder how many of those were from Unionists pretending to be for Yes. There have always been a few of those around in general, and it will be interesting to see what comes out in any prosecutions...'
It's always someone else.
Has the charity head discovered who hacked his Facebook and Twitter account simultaneously?
No doubt we'll find out when the OSCR report appears. But is it not perfectly plausible, if he used the same passwords for both and one got AWOL? I don't use them myself so can't tell.
Edit: definitely on the case, though no timing given.
What's the point in even having warrants in this country any more, if the state is allowed to read your personal communications and web searches without a warrant?
It's hard to think of a greater intrusion in terms of knowing what's going on in someone's life. And the long history of English and Scots law that led to individual protections against state intrusion have basically been entirely sidestepped. David Cameron, in supporting this crap, has shown he's neither a conservative nor a liberal. Just a pathetic excuse of a politician.
Much Lib Dem support came from the public sector (such as teachers) in the 2010 election. Following the coalition putting a cap on public sector salary range increases, public sector workers have switched back to Labour.
PS TSE was wrong about Fellani after all, as well as wrong about a challenge to Clegg.
Was teaching such a LD hotbed? In any event the public sector is in decline, its vote may have switched from LD to labour but the public sector is smaller. But why should the public sector - assuming you are right - be so upset? The private sector was having no pay rises at all. Are you insuinuating that public sector workers are peculiarly bigoted and selfish in their outlook? Maybe they are but where is the evidence that they are when they can see the state of the country the same as the rest of us?
Guardian article contains findings re interest rates - lots of people will welcome interest rate rises - more savers than borrowers. See bottom of article:
What's the point in even having warrants in this country any more, if the state is allowed to read your personal communications and web searches without a warrant?
It's hard to think of a greater intrusion in terms of knowing what's going on in someone's life. And the long history of English and Scots law that led to individual protections against state intrusion have basically been entirely sidestepped. David Cameron, in supporting this crap, has shown he's neither a conservative nor a liberal. Just a pathetic excuse of a politician.
Cameron is NewLabour,"the heir to Blair" remember?
It wasn't a "donkey jacket", but that's what the tame press is there for, to spin for their preferred party, and hope the gullible buy it.
Apparently not, according to his wife who bought it for him, - however, wearing 'that coat''' at a remembrance day parade did inspire one Labour MP to say he was “disgusted to see that the leader of Her Majesty’s opposition looked more like an Irish navvy than a party leader”.
Some might think it odd but the Queen Mother leapt to Foot's defence noting it was a sensible coat for such a day.
She was a personal friend of Foot and whilst not politically aligned they were of the same generation who went through the war and she appreciated his innate decency.
Then there is the lovely Thatcher/queen anecdote - at an early audience, Thatcher was mortified to find they were wearing the same outfit.
On returning to Downing St, an aide phoned the palace to suggest that in future, No.10 would phone ahead, and in the event of a clash(or coincidence), Thatcher could change.
"Oh that won't be necessary. The queen never notices what anyone else is wearing....."
What's the point in even having warrants in this country any more, if the state is allowed to read your personal communications and web searches without a warrant?
It's hard to think of a greater intrusion in terms of knowing what's going on in someone's life. And the long history of English and Scots law that led to individual protections against state intrusion have basically been entirely sidestepped. David Cameron, in supporting this crap, has shown he's neither a conservative nor a liberal. Just a pathetic excuse of a politician.
Cameron is NewLabour,"the heir to Blair" remember?
The joke is that, despite the obvious downsides of an Old Etonian that studied PPE at Oxford, you'd hope the one upside to it would be that it would be someone who is well grounded in the principles of the English constitutionalism and limits on the state. But he doesn't appreciate them at all. He apparently went through all that education just for the connections and learnt nothing from it.
What's the point in even having warrants in this country any more, if the state is allowed to read your personal communications and web searches without a warrant?
It's hard to think of a greater intrusion in terms of knowing what's going on in someone's life. And the long history of English and Scots law that led to individual protections against state intrusion have basically been entirely sidestepped. David Cameron, in supporting this crap, has shown he's neither a conservative nor a liberal. Just a pathetic excuse of a politician.
You fail to understand the position. The powers conferred by Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 are extraordinarily broad, and it should come as no surprise that the executive make use of them. The fault lies with Parliament for passing the 2000 Act. All interceptions of communication in the United Kingdom must be done under the authority of an interception warrant, issued under s. 8 of the 2000 Act. The question is whether the interception in question requires a warrant under subsection (1) or subsection (4) of that provision. That is a matter of law, which the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (or an appellate court) will ultimately determine.
Any talk of "warrants" in the context of the interception of communications is somewhat misleading in any event. For warrants, under both s. 8(1) and s. 8(4) of the 2000 Act, are issued by the Secretary of State, not a court of record. Unlike a warrant issued by a Magistrates Court, the existence of the warrant does not have to (and in fact cannot) be disclosed when it is executed. Nor is it possible for a person aggrieved by the issue of the interception warrant to apply to the High Court for the warrant to be quashed, and a declaration that actions taken in pursuance of it were unlawful. In this sense, warrants under RIPA are unlike warrants in the ordinary sense of the term.
Guardian article contains findings re interest rates - lots of people will welcome interest rate rises - more savers than borrowers. See bottom of article:
What's the point in even having warrants in this country any more, if the state is allowed to read your personal communications and web searches without a warrant?
It's hard to think of a greater intrusion in terms of knowing what's going on in someone's life. And the long history of English and Scots law that led to individual protections against state intrusion have basically been entirely sidestepped. David Cameron, in supporting this crap, has shown he's neither a conservative nor a liberal. Just a pathetic excuse of a politician.
Cameron is NewLabour,"the heir to Blair" remember?
The joke is that, despite the obvious downsides of an Old Etonian that studied PPE at Oxford, you'd hope the one upside to it would be that it would be someone who is well grounded in the principles of the English constitutionalism and limits on the state. But he doesn't appreciate them at all. He apparently went through all that education just for the connections and learnt nothing from it.
This really is the man who thinks we - or more precisely the English - should learn about Magna Carta, or have I got it all wrong?
This really is the man who thinks we - or more precisely the English - should learn about Magna Carta, or have I got it all wrong?
Cameron's misuse of history is well-documented. It is, however, less egregious than that of the SNP, who have subscribed to, and actively champion the absurd myth of Scottish "popular sovereignty" going back to the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath.
'...though I genuinely wonder how many of those were from Unionists pretending to be for Yes. There have always been a few of those around in general, and it will be interesting to see what comes out in any prosecutions...'
It's always someone else.
Has the charity head discovered who hacked his Facebook and Twitter account simultaneously?
No doubt we'll find out when the OSCR report appears. But is it not perfectly plausible, if he used the same passwords for both and one got AWOL? I don't use them myself so can't tell.
Edit: definitely on the case, though no timing given.
I wonder if any criticism will ever come his way even if he loses?
He can't lose. If the referendum result is struck down, he will rise again even stronger.
3 days later perhaps.
When this is the level of debate from the NO side it is very hard to imagine it could ever win any referendum. Scott is a model of the NO side , negative, whinging , we cannot do it, nothing to add to the debate , no vision , no hope , no thanks.
And is calling someone a 'Fanny' or a 'Turnip' a perfect example of YES?
The debating with J K Rowling went well last week. Your fellow travellers were calling her a 'Whore', 'Bitch', 'Cow' and far worse. The votes will be piling in from Scotland's womenfolk.
I don't approve of that for a moment (though I genuinely wonder how many of those were from Unionists pretending to be for Yes. There have always been a few of those around in general, and it will be interesting to see what comes out in any prosecutions.) But I don't recall any pro-Yes politicians making personal attacks, or pro-Yes newspapers making Ms Rowling out to be a mental defective groomed by the Labour politicians and publishing where she lived. Even the Daily Express found that abuse was a much greater problem from No than from Yes. So it is pretty shoddy of the Unionists to pretend that internet abuse is a pro-Yes problem, and to concoct media stories to that effect. They are creating the sort of divisive nonsense that they are themselves pretending to condemn.
On a related matter, I don't recall anyone complaining when people on this site accused Mr Salmond or Ms Sturgeon of being paedophiles or child thieves. The wording was ambiguous, and I didn't realise at the time what was being said, despite paedophilia, at the time, being the plat du jour for the main unionist parties, so presumably it was thought a good idea to fling the filth around even more). (This is not aimed specifically at you - you may not have been active at the time.)
'...though I genuinely wonder how many of those were from Unionists pretending to be for Yes. There have always been a few of those around in general, and it will be interesting to see what comes out in any prosecutions...'
It's always someone else.
Has the charity head discovered who hacked his Facebook and Twitter account simultaneously?
No doubt we'll find out when the OSCR report appears. But is it not perfectly plausible, if he used the same passwords for both and one got AWOL? I don't use them myself so can't tell.
Edit: definitely on the case, though no timing given.
Interesting feed. There a quite a few mildly offensive and non charity related tweets referring to 'Fat Dave' (Cameron), IDS, 'slimmy (sic) Lib Dems' and the manager of Celtic. Looks as if the hacker has previous history.
This is a jaw-dropping justification for the mass reading of our communications:
"The government believes that, even when privacy violations happen, it is not an “active intrusion” because the analyst reading or listening to an individual’s communication will inevitably forget about it anyway."
This is a jaw-dropping justification for the mass reading of our communications:
"The government believes that, even when privacy violations happen, it is not an “active intrusion” because the analyst reading or listening to an individual’s communication will inevitably forget about it anyway."
This is a jaw-dropping justification for the mass reading of our communications:
"The government believes that, even when privacy violations happen, it is not an “active intrusion” because the analyst reading or listening to an individual’s communication will inevitably forget about it anyway."
What scumbags Cameron and May are. I can't wait until they get booted out of office.
The government is trying to get a difficult balance between security and privacy concerns. They may get it wrong, they may justify it badly but I think we can drop the insanely aggressive language. The government will be bashed from one side on civil liberties but they'd get an awful lot more grief if 200 people were killed and they could have known about it. There are very few correct answers here.
This is a jaw-dropping justification for the mass reading of our communications:
"The government believes that, even when privacy violations happen, it is not an “active intrusion” because the analyst reading or listening to an individual’s communication will inevitably forget about it anyway."
What scumbags Cameron and May are. I can't wait until they get booted out of office.
The government is trying to get a difficult balance between security and privacy concerns. They may get it wrong, they may justify it badly but I think we can drop the insanely aggressive language. The government will be bashed from one side on civil liberties but they'd get an awful lot more grief if 200 people were killed and they could have known about it. There are very few correct answers here.
I have a picture of myself in arabic headgear riding a camel on my facebook. I've also just posted الله أكبر 50 times ^_~.
""No-one should be in any doubt that what we see in Syria and now in Iraq in terms of Isis is the most serious threat to Britain's security that there is today," Cameron told a joint news conference with Chinese premier Li Keqiang.
"The number of foreign fighters in that area, the number of foreign fighters including those from the UK who could try to return to the UK is a real threat to our country," he said."
If that is what he believes then the question must be what is he going to do about it? Dare we hope that some one will ask him?
""No-one should be in any doubt that what we see in Syria and now in Iraq in terms of Isis is the most serious threat to Britain's security that there is today," Cameron told a joint news conference with Chinese premier Li Keqiang.
"The number of foreign fighters in that area, the number of foreign fighters including those from the UK who could try to return to the UK is a real threat to our country," he said."
If that is what he believes then the question must be what is going to do about it? Dare we hope that some one will ask him?
My guess is he'll have a photo op where he eats a bacon sandwich.
This will be followed by some self righteous statement about good, evil and tough decisions.
Then he'll stick his head up his arse and hope the problem goes away.
This is a jaw-dropping justification for the mass reading of our communications:
"The government believes that, even when privacy violations happen, it is not an “active intrusion” because the analyst reading or listening to an individual’s communication will inevitably forget about it anyway."
What scumbags Cameron and May are. I can't wait until they get booted out of office.
The government is trying to get a difficult balance between security and privacy concerns. They may get it wrong, they may justify it badly but I think we can drop the insanely aggressive language. The government will be bashed from one side on civil liberties but they'd get an awful lot more grief if 200 people were killed and they could have known about it. There are very few correct answers here.
No, they're not. They're not trying to get any "balance". They've given absolute carte blanche to the security services. They're doing everything they possibly can in terms of snooping. The only thing holding them back is where it's against existing laws, and even here, they are using loopholes to get around it, and trying to pass new snooper's charters to extend it further. And there's been absolutely no evidence presented at all that warrantless mass surveillance has stopped any terrorist attacks. It's just rank authoritarianism, and everyone except hardcore partisan loyalists can see it.
This is a jaw-dropping justification for the mass reading of our communications:
"The government believes that, even when privacy violations happen, it is not an “active intrusion” because the analyst reading or listening to an individual’s communication will inevitably forget about it anyway."
This is a jaw-dropping justification for the mass reading of our communications:
"The government believes that, even when privacy violations happen, it is not an “active intrusion” because the analyst reading or listening to an individual’s communication will inevitably forget about it anyway."
What scumbags Cameron and May are. I can't wait until they get booted out of office.
The government is trying to get a difficult balance between security and privacy concerns. They may get it wrong, they may justify it badly but I think we can drop the insanely aggressive language. The government will be bashed from one side on civil liberties but they'd get an awful lot more grief if 200 people were killed and they could have known about it. There are very few correct answers here.
I find it hard to believe that anyone who has had the most basic training would ever use any of these media for anything significant in the first place. So what are they doing? Well, I suspect that they are looking for the untrained loudmouths, the stupid and proselytisers. Whether this is a good use of resources I am not in a position to judge.
I suspect that they also want to know of any communication involving certain people under observation to make that observation easier and to create a trail as to their movements in the event that becomes significant later. Again, whether that is a good use of resources I cannot judge.
What I think can be said is that they are sifting a lot of sand to find the odd nugget. So much that I suspect the monitoring is electronic rather than someone "listening in".
This is a jaw-dropping justification for the mass reading of our communications:
"The government believes that, even when privacy violations happen, it is not an “active intrusion” because the analyst reading or listening to an individual’s communication will inevitably forget about it anyway."
What scumbags Cameron and May are. I can't wait until they get booted out of office.
rich from a Blairite.
When have I ever been a Blairite?
You're in to all this running around invading places and can't quite work out that's what provides the justification for security based invasion of privacy.
Comments
It wasn't a "donkey jacket", but that's what the tame press is there for, to spin for their preferred party, and hope the gullible buy it.
Since when did you decide how many posts is the correct amount?
Quite pathetic.
Stake 57.5% at 5.50 decimal with Ladbrokes on a 2 goal victory
Stake 42.3% at 7.50 decimal with Skybet on a 3+ goal victory
As ever, DYOR.
Always judge a man by his appearance, not because of what he says.
Apparently it was a car coat from Harrods, suitable for an old man on a cold Septembers day.
Did you know he never got to do his bit in the war? He was refused on the grounds of his asthma.
He was though, the wrong leader, he had principles that he held, and as we now know, principles are the last thing a politician needs
Mexico are number 20 in the world rankings:
http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtable/
However not optimistic about Lord Ashcroft's figures tomorrow in CON/LIB marginals .Swing since GE Lib to Con is nearly 10% and don't expect many marginals to do better than that.
She was a personal friend of Foot and whilst not politically aligned they were of the same generation who went through the war and she appreciated his innate decency.
It was the same for many politicians. They could never come to terms with soundbites and opinion polls.
I think they are a great loss to democracy, be they left, right, or in the middle.
I wonder if any criticism will ever come his way even if he loses ?
The challenge to Clegg died with Oakeshott.
3 days later perhaps.
Highly fancied team full of Premier League stars firing blanks against Algeria. Sounds familiar
PS: Can you elaborate on "Nats crawling to the great leader", what kind of stupid bollocks is that, if you mean that people actually support a YES vote , you are not right in the head. Strange ideas.
An ex-labour voting (and still centrist socialist to the core) friend of mine said to me that he was voting SNP because they did a good job in running the country, better than the main alternative. He noted that he was getting annoyed by sniping by people such as you, Mr Paxman, etc., equating Mr Salmond to a third world dictator. Firstly what does that make the likes of Messrs Cameron and Clegg, given Mr Salmond has far more democratic mandate (i.e. a majority in pmt)? Secondly, my friend was particularly fed up with the implied slur on him and other Scots for being so stupid as to vote him in - 'we voted him in and we'll dam' well vote him out when the time comes'!! So remarks such as you lead neither to greater understanding nor to improved persuasion.
And, though you may not recall it, it is also worth noting that the SNP actually had a free vote on NATO membership - which is something almost extinct in major political parties this country.
"Its the end of the world as we know it"
Clegg finally might be replaced.
PS TSE was wrong about Fellani after all, as well as wrong about a challenge to Clegg.
And as was pointed out to me recently here his dog was named Dizzy (affectionately, I rather assume) after the great Tory PM of Victorian times.
I don't think there was anything morally wrong in going to war and invading Iraq, Saddam had serially broken the ceasfire and was abusing his own people for a start, but Blair was corrupt in puting forward his motives (largely I think out of fear of the pacifict wing of Labour whose voters fled to the LDs) and was broadly incompetent about managing the post war situation. The work of the appalling Alistair Campbell was sickening.
We should of course have been much tougher with Saddam all the way through following the original ceasefire and amazingly we repeated the same mistake with Gadaffi after he gave up his nuclear programme (a good by-product of the Iraqi invasion) and allowed him to 'bask' rather than live in sufferance.
The debating with J K Rowling went well last week. Your fellow travellers were calling her a 'Whore', 'Bitch', 'Cow' and far worse. The votes will be piling in from Scotland's womenfolk.
If the pattern for Yes going up after each foreign leader says people should vote No is an indication its probable.
Stupid is as stupid does and I think the public are wondering what their point is, no matter who is leader.
Doubt Yougov would show it as Yes ahead, given its tendency IIRC to downplay Yes compared to other firms (which is not to say it is wrong or right). But it'll be interesting to compare it with the previous ones from the same firm.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/17/ed-miliband-nick-clegg-fall-lowest-popularity-guardian-icm
Foot was an old fashioned scholarly gentleman Socialist, the like of whom we rarely see today. Sadly for him he was caught at the cusp of a ruthless media age that was completely unforgiving against his dogmatic and rigid politics. The collision only had one winner.
What we really need is a poster tracking how many months in a row Ed has better leadership rating than Cameron...
On a related matter, I don't recall anyone complaining when people on this site accused Mr Salmond or Ms Sturgeon of being paedophiles or child thieves. The wording was ambiguous, and I didn't realise at the time what was being said, despite paedophilia, at the time, being the plat du jour for the main unionist parties, so presumably it was thought a good idea to fling the filth around even more). (This is not aimed specifically at you - you may not have been active at the time.)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/shashankjoshi/100276769/re-opening-the-british-embassy-in-tehran-is-not-an-act-of-appeasement/
It's always someone else.
Has the charity head discovered who hacked his Facebook and Twitter account simultaneously?
That's why the iranians tried to get rid off them.
And that media was quite prepared to lie about anything and everything about him.
Edit: definitely on the case, though no timing given.
http://www.oscr.org.uk/news-and-events/latest-news/the-dignity-project/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27887639
It's hard to think of a greater intrusion in terms of knowing what's going on in someone's life. And the long history of English and Scots law that led to individual protections against state intrusion have basically been entirely sidestepped. David Cameron, in supporting this crap, has shown he's neither a conservative nor a liberal. Just a pathetic excuse of a politician.
In any event the public sector is in decline, its vote may have switched from LD to labour but the public sector is smaller.
But why should the public sector - assuming you are right - be so upset? The private sector was having no pay rises at all. Are you insuinuating that public sector workers are peculiarly bigoted and selfish in their outlook? Maybe they are but where is the evidence that they are when they can see the state of the country the same as the rest of us?
NHS managers 10% pay rise, nurse 1%?
On returning to Downing St, an aide phoned the palace to suggest that in future, No.10 would phone ahead, and in the event of a clash(or coincidence), Thatcher could change.
"Oh that won't be necessary. The queen never notices what anyone else is wearing....."
Any talk of "warrants" in the context of the interception of communications is somewhat misleading in any event. For warrants, under both s. 8(1) and s. 8(4) of the 2000 Act, are issued by the Secretary of State, not a court of record. Unlike a warrant issued by a Magistrates Court, the existence of the warrant does not have to (and in fact cannot) be disclosed when it is executed. Nor is it possible for a person aggrieved by the issue of the interception warrant to apply to the High Court for the warrant to be quashed, and a declaration that actions taken in pursuance of it were unlawful. In this sense, warrants under RIPA are unlike warrants in the ordinary sense of the term.
Why hasn't it been deleted?
https://twitter.com/DignityProject
I've also backed Mexico to win tonight.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27894395
"The government believes that, even when privacy violations happen, it is not an “active intrusion” because the analyst reading or listening to an individual’s communication will inevitably forget about it anyway."
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/uk-intelligence-forced-reveal-secret-policy-mass-surveillance-residents-facebook-and-google-use
What scumbags Cameron and May are. I can't wait until they get booted out of office.
"The number of foreign fighters in that area, the number of foreign fighters including those from the UK who could try to return to the UK is a real threat to our country," he said."
If that is what he believes then the question must be what is he going to do about it? Dare we hope that some one will ask him?
This will be followed by some self righteous statement about good, evil and tough decisions.
Then he'll stick his head up his arse and hope the problem goes away.
I suspect that they also want to know of any communication involving certain people under observation to make that observation easier and to create a trail as to their movements in the event that becomes significant later. Again, whether that is a good use of resources I cannot judge.
What I think can be said is that they are sifting a lot of sand to find the odd nugget. So much that I suspect the monitoring is electronic rather than someone "listening in".
Just checked and Rybarikova very narrowly beat Petkovic. Which is nice.
Edited extra bit: cheers, Mr. Putney. Glad it worked out.