I suppose (ignoring the most obvious fact that it is entirely his choice) strictly it is correct in so far as his place of birth is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which would, in itself, seem to factor against someone from NI representing Great Britain.
Seems a reasonable choice to me.
Indeed. And why is there a bloody 'Team GB' anyway? Great Britain is not a country. And, in any event, we play as Home Nations in golf, as in most other major sports. The Olympics brings this on itself when it insists on having 'Team GB'.
In golf, football, rugby union, cricket, rugby league, hockey, Commonwealth Games we are home nations. The Olympics is bloody odd.
It does seem a crass choice (golf I mean not McIlroy's decision -who cares about that). Plenty of other sports should be ahead like Squash , rugby sevens, T20 cricket or orienteering for instance.
I suppose (ignoring the most obvious fact that it is entirely his choice) strictly it is correct in so far as his place of birth is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which would, in itself, seem to factor against someone from NI representing Great Britain.
Seems a reasonable choice to me.
Indeed. And why is there a bloody 'Team GB' anyway? Great Britain is not a country. And, in any event, we play as Home Nations in golf, as in most other major sports. The Olympics brings this on itself when it insists on having 'Team GB'.
In golf, football, rugby union, cricket, rugby league, hockey, Commonwealth Games we are home nations. The Olympics is bloody odd.
In response to ToryJim: "I agree to an extent, however I think that we shouldn't be prejudicing people because of idiocy in youth. We deserve the option of showing that we are better adults than we were children."
Of course we do - but we show that by explaining what we've done and what we've learnt and why we can and should be trusted now not by hiding. That makes me suspicious that someone has not really learnt the lessons. Any sensible employer can make a distinction between youthful folly and something more worrying. But some youthful misbehaviour is indicative of a person without a moral compass and why should the employer - and his other employees let alone those to whom he/she provides a service - be put at risk of employing such a person because he was not told?
Danny Alexander has been a well liked and hard working local MP in his constituency, I think that a concerted decapitation strategy by his opponents would have the opposite effect than was intended. The SNP may fancy their chances in this seat, but equally, I would expect Alexander to be one of the high profile Better Together MP's who may get a bounce on the back of a comfortable No vote.
Interesting but how could I feel sure that the money would be spent in Sheffield Hallam and not elsewhere? Certainly if the local parties had similar campaigns running in Yeovil or Inverness I'd consider donating.
LOL, it is really looking like a comfortable no, only if you are in La La land.
If I were hiring into a bank I'd like to know if those "minor" offences were offences of dishonesty.
Hmm I'm not sure what relevance it has. Kids do stupid things.
Honesty matters. Small lies matter. If a person is prepared to tell lies about small things how can I trust them not to lie about something bigger. There are far too many examples - particularly in banks - where people with such past histories have been let in because people thought it didn't matter and we've seen the results over the last few years. Character matters - and if we're serious about trying to clean up crooked industries - we need not to make it harder for employers to make well-informed judgments about someone's character. We don't do that by keeping them in the dark.
"The man who is honest in small things will be honest in great. The man who is dishonest in small things will be dishonest in great."
A child aged 14 steals some sweets, gets a caution for it and never gets into trouble again. Do you really think that that child's life should be blighted by being refused any job that involves trust?
It is only relatively recently that juvenile cautions have been disclosable at all. The new ruling would seem just to take us back to the common sense position that used to exist.
In response to ToryJim: "I agree to an extent, however I think that we shouldn't be prejudicing people because of idiocy in youth. We deserve the option of showing that we are better adults than we were children."
Of course we do - but we show that by explaining what we've done and what we've learnt and why we can and should be trusted now not by hiding. That makes me suspicious that someone has not really learnt the lessons. Any sensible employer can make a distinction between youthful folly and something more worrying. But some youthful misbehaviour is indicative of a person without a moral compass and why should the employer - and his other employees let alone those to whom he/she provides a service - be put at risk of employing such a person because he was not told?
On the other hand should the employer be forced to admit that he or the company has gone bust in the past and if not isn't that putting at risk potential wages to the employee? You cannot legislate or regulate to prevent all bad things -,just live and let live. Most interviewers are arrogant enough to think they are brilliant at it anyone so they should be able to suss somebody dodgy out
I am pretty certain Cameron would resign if he lost Scotland. He has just enough of that old fashioned Old Etonian do-the-decent thing High Toryism in him; he'd see no moral alternative.
However the notion is, of course, being strenuously denied so it doesn't give Scots another reason to vote YES.
The only evidence that he's that sort of person is his attendance at Eton. Yet his behaviour suggests he's not that sort of guy: he doesn't show a firm attachment to traditional liberal conservative principles, he doesn't have the decorum to stop his calling others "fruitcakes and racists", he doesn't have the usual modesty (e.g. "I think I'd be pretty good at it.").
The evidence has shown his comment about UKIP being mostly full of racists, loonies fruitcakes isn't exactly inaccurate.
And heaven forfend we have a Prime Minister with the self confidence in himself.
You can make an argument it's justifiable in both cases, but it's certainly not the sort of behaviour you would expect from an "old fashioned Old Etonian do-the-decent thing High Tory". Such a person would always be outwardly modest, polite about others and value principle over personal advantage. Cameron's just not that sort of guy.
Well that's what you get when you stereotype.
People turn out not what you expect them to be.
Perhaps, but it's also enough evidence to accept that Cameron wouldn't be motivated by High Tory ideals to resign in the case of Scottish independence. He'll cling on with everything he's got.
I tend to assume that Etonians are perverts, traitors, con-artists, or adulterers, until the contrary is proved.
The second highest news story on the BBC website is Kate Middleton visiting a historic site. This is above the Ukrainian president calling for a ceasefire, a huge funding gap in the NHS and a possible sovereign default from Argentina.
God I hate our obsession with one celebrity family sometimes.
I was fined for breach of the peace in London many years ago, what lesson did I learn? I learned that the Met Police were happy to commit perjury in court, and of course the judge had the notion that police officers never lie.
The second highest news story on the BBC website is Kate Middleton visiting a historic site. This is above the Ukrainian president calling for a ceasefire, a huge funding gap in the NHS and a possible sovereign default from Argentina.
God I hate our obsession with one celebrity family sometimes.
TBF she has some family connection and the story is half about how Bletchley (wonderful day out btw) has now finished its refurbishment .
News shouldn't always be about depressing things . Nobody would read it eventually. I rather think it would be a good idea to have a news feed only about uplifting things
Any sensible employer can make a distinction between youthful folly and something more worrying.
No. Many large institutions would filter out all applicants with a 'record' as an initial screen. Huge numbers would be affected in a manner which is manifestly unfair. Their whole career/life would blighted by a moment of madness as a 14 year old.
It's just plain wrong. Might as well tattoo 'potential criminal' on their forehead.
The second highest news story on the BBC website is Kate Middleton visiting a historic site. This is above the Ukrainian president calling for a ceasefire, a huge funding gap in the NHS and a possible sovereign default from Argentina.
God I hate our obsession with one celebrity family sometimes.
It isn't in the top ten most read.
#1 for that honour goes to Uruguay's chocolate spread
The second highest news story on the BBC website is Kate Middleton visiting a historic site. This is above the Ukrainian president calling for a ceasefire, a huge funding gap in the NHS and a possible sovereign default from Argentina.
God I hate our obsession with one celebrity family sometimes.
TBF she has some family connection and the story is half about how Bletchley (wonderful day out btw) has now finished its refurbishment
It's not a noteworthy story.
I find it odd that the BBC is so left-leaning in virtually every area, except for the monarchy, which they are incredibly enthusiastic for.
I was fined for breach of the peace in London many years ago, what lesson did I learn? I learned that the Met Police were happy to commit perjury in court, and of course the judge had the notion that police officers never lie.
He would just have ensured 53 less opposition MPs for the GE - Con maj would be nailed on.
Ed Miliband would have to throw in the towel.
No he wouldn't. Scotland would remain in the UK and vote in the 2015 election.
That isn't a given.
Until formal independence, you cannot strip the Scots of representation at Westminster. However, I suspect there would be an informal agreement that Scottish MPs (who would be 90% SNP following a 'yes' vote) would not vote on rUK matters.
This is all by-the-by, as 'yes' will secure less than 40% of the vote.
@Socrates This is the true worth of the Royal Family, a happy story to take our minds off the mistakes and madness in the world around us. Drug companies handing out a bribe?.... Look the little prince is walking!
The second highest news story on the BBC website is Kate Middleton visiting a historic site. This is above the Ukrainian president calling for a ceasefire, a huge funding gap in the NHS and a possible sovereign default from Argentina.
God I hate our obsession with one celebrity family sometimes.
TBF she has some family connection and the story is half about how Bletchley (wonderful day out btw) has now finished its refurbishment
It's not a noteworthy story.
I find it odd that the BBC is so left-leaning in virtually every area, except for the monarchy, which they are incredibly enthusiastic for.
As I have said its not really about The Duchess of Cambridge its more about Bletchley. Granted the Kate factor gets it higher up the agenda but worse examples of celebrity dross imo
Most unlikely Clegg will agree to a referendum. Why? Because he is a passionate europhile who does not want the British people to be given a say, in case they say OUT - and if the Lib Dems support a referendum the pressure on Miliband to do the same, in a very tight election, might become irresistible.
And then we WILL get a referendum, whoever wins, and then we might say Bog Off to Europe, which is Clegg's, and Miliband's, worst nightmare.
The europhile Left will stick together. Clegg won't go for it.
This is just one of those fake referendum rumours that lefty parties like to start from time to time, to give the impression they are vaguely democratic on this topic, even though they are not.
It's traditional British election etiquette for all parties to advocate a referendum in any situation where they don't think they'll actually be in power and actually have to hold it, so if Clegg doesn't expect to end up in government again you'd expect him to promise one in his manifesto.
The second highest news story on the BBC website is Kate Middleton visiting a historic site. This is above the Ukrainian president calling for a ceasefire, a huge funding gap in the NHS and a possible sovereign default from Argentina.
God I hate our obsession with one celebrity family sometimes.
TBF she has some family connection and the story is half about how Bletchley (wonderful day out btw) has now finished its refurbishment
It's not a noteworthy story.
I find it odd that the BBC is so left-leaning in virtually every area, except for the monarchy, which they are incredibly enthusiastic for.
You don't find it noteworthy, but many more people - I'd guess - would rather read about that than Argentinian default. Sadly.
I am pretty certain Cameron would resign if he lost Scotland. He has just enough of that old fashioned Old Etonian do-the-decent thing High Toryism in him; he'd see no moral alternative.
However the notion is, of course, being strenuously denied so it doesn't give Scots another reason to vote YES.
The only evidence that he's that sort of person is his attendance at Eton. Yet his behaviour suggests he's not that sort of guy: he doesn't show a firm attachment to traditional liberal conservative principles, he doesn't have the decorum to stop his calling others "fruitcakes and racists", he doesn't have the usual modesty (e.g. "I think I'd be pretty good at it.").
The evidence has shown his comment about UKIP being mostly full of racists, loonies fruitcakes isn't exactly inaccurate.
And heaven forfend we have a Prime Minister with the self confidence in himself.
You can make an argument it's justifiable in both cases, but it's certainly not the sort of behaviour you would expect from an "old fashioned Old Etonian do-the-decent thing High Tory". Such a person would always be outwardly modest, polite about others and value principle over personal advantage. Cameron's just not that sort of guy.
Well that's what you get when you stereotype.
People turn out not what you expect them to be.
Perhaps, but it's also enough evidence to accept that Cameron wouldn't be motivated by High Tory ideals to resign in the case of Scottish independence. He'll cling on with everything he's got.
I tend to assume that Etonians are perverts, traitors, con-artists, or adulterers, until the contrary is proved.
Even UKIP Treasurers...or particularly UKIP Treasurers?
The second highest news story on the BBC website is Kate Middleton visiting a historic site. This is above the Ukrainian president calling for a ceasefire, a huge funding gap in the NHS and a possible sovereign default from Argentina.
God I hate our obsession with one celebrity family sometimes.
TBF she has some family connection and the story is half about how Bletchley (wonderful day out btw) has now finished its refurbishment
It's not a noteworthy story.
I find it odd that the BBC is so left-leaning in virtually every area, except for the monarchy, which they are incredibly enthusiastic for.
It's preferable to a story about Katie Price getting her tits out.
It's why my late father, though a Justice of the Peace, was never allowed to sit on the bench. He assumed that the defendants word was the equal of a police officers, and that more evidence might be required. This is apparently against the spirit of justice.
It's why my late father, though a Justice of the Peace, was never allowed to sit on the bench. He assumed that the defendants word was the equal of a police officers, and that more evidence might be required. This is apparently against the spirit of justice.
Did your Dad tell you off for your Nick Clegg type behaviour?
Anyway you will have no need to disclose formally your conviction at a job interview. Any interviewer would just need to coax it out of you with a 'aren't the police and our courts wonderful' and give you the rope so as to speak!!
Mr. T, would the Lib Dems backing a referendum actually matter? Not just because they said they wanted one on Lisbon, then reneged like lying shysters, and opposed the In/Out vote some Conservative backbenchers wanted even after it was in the Lib Dem manifesto.
The reason it probably doesn't matter is that the Lib Dems hope of government is through coalition. It's almost impossible for them to be able to pick and choose which party to play with. So, if it's the blues then a vote would be needed or there's no chance of a deal (even if Cameron wanted to, he'd be unable to go without a vote as the backbenchers would murder him), and if it's the reds then the Lib Dems can just use their 'solemn promise' of a referendum as a bargaining chip for giving one bit of England special super minority status or somesuch bullshit.
Even if the same absolute number of Tory and UKIP councillors have said stupid things, as a % of the UKIP councillor base the number is much high.
"Mostly" is a proportional not an absolute comment
The point, as I have made many times before, is not how many there are but what the parties' reactions to them are. As a rule UKIP sack their idiots. The Tories on the other hand seem content to let them remain as councilors even after they have received police cautions.
It does seem a crass choice (golf I mean not McIlroy's decision -who cares about that). Plenty of other sports should be ahead like Squash , rugby sevens, T20 cricket or orienteering for instance.
The Olympics should exclude any event in which winning a gold medal isn't the biggest achievement in the sport. Eg. tennis, football and golf
Mike Hancock has today admitted conducting an “inappropriate and unprofessional” relationship with a mentally ill constituent, apologising to her for “any distress............
According to guido
Will that admission create a vacancy in Portsmouth?
The second highest news story on the BBC website is Kate Middleton visiting a historic site. This is above the Ukrainian president calling for a ceasefire, a huge funding gap in the NHS and a possible sovereign default from Argentina.
God I hate our obsession with one celebrity family sometimes.
TBF she has some family connection and the story is half about how Bletchley (wonderful day out btw) has now finished its refurbishment
It's not a noteworthy story.
I find it odd that the BBC is so left-leaning in virtually every area, except for the monarchy, which they are incredibly enthusiastic for.
It's preferable to a story about Katie Price getting her tits out.
Even if the same absolute number of Tory and UKIP councillors have said stupid things, as a % of the UKIP councillor base the number is much high.
"Mostly" is a proportional not an absolute comment
The point, as I have made many times before, is not how many there are but what the parties' reactions to them are. As a rule UKIP sack their idiots. The Tories on the other hand seem content to let them remain as councilors even after they have received police cautions.
They've been forced into a draconian response to every incident after being heavily criticised for hosting so many unpleasant and deranged characters. It's a PR decision to be seen as 'cleaning house'.
@state_go_away Only Tory MP's, Bullingdon boys, and the well off are fitted up by the police? Those drunken Scouse gits were guilty everything the police accused them of? I see now where you are coming from.......though it looks a lot like a slime pit, and you have left a trail.
If I were hiring into a bank I'd like to know if those "minor" offences were offences of dishonesty.
Hmm I'm not sure what relevance it has. Kids do stupid things.
Honesty matters. Small lies matter. If a person is prepared to tell lies about small things how can I trust them not to lie about something bigger. There are far too many examples - particularly in banks - where people with such past histories have been let in because people thought it didn't matter and we've seen the results over the last few years. Character matters - and if we're serious about trying to clean up crooked industries - we need not to make it harder for employers to make well-informed judgments about someone's character. We don't do that by keeping them in the dark.
"The man who is honest in small things will be honest in great. The man who is dishonest in small things will be dishonest in great."
A child aged 14 steals some sweets, gets a caution for it and never gets into trouble again. Do you really think that that child's life should be blighted by being refused any job that involves trust?
It is only relatively recently that juvenile cautions have been disclosable at all. The new ruling would seem just to take us back to the common sense position that used to exist.
I don't think that someone's life should be blighted by what they did at 14. I do think that we should not be censoring our lives and relevant information about ourselves in a way which means that employers cannot make a considered judgment about who they are employing.
Put it this way: if someone under the age of 18 had a string of cautions - not just one - but dozens, how willing would you be to employ that person as a teller in a bankor in a shop at the age of 19? How happy would you feel if you were not told, employed them and then discovered that they stole money from your or your clients?
@state_go_away Only Tory MP's, Bullingdon boys, and the well off are fitted up by the police? Those drunken Scouse gits were guilty everything the police accused them of? I see now where you are coming from.......though it looks a lot like a slime pit, and you have left a trail.
Not sure what you mean . But as I have posted earlier I agree too much disclosure of criminal offences is a bad thing for applying for jobs
Any sensible employer can make a distinction between youthful folly and something more worrying.
No. Many large institutions would filter out all applicants with a 'record' as an initial screen. Huge numbers would be affected in a manner which is manifestly unfair. Their whole career/life would blighted by a moment of madness as a 14 year old.
It's just plain wrong. Might as well tattoo 'potential criminal' on their forehead.
Spot on Mr. Anorak. I know a young lady who really, really wanted to be a nurse, had done well at school, passed all the interviews and aptitude tests, was accepted into training then the results of the CRB check came through - caution for petty shoplifting aged 13 - the offer of a training place was instantly withdrawn and no appeal possible. I got involved as a character reference and wrote to the potential employer. After my third letter I did get a reply, it was policy to reject anyone with a "criminal background" because of the potential risk to patients!
I may be wrong, but it appeared to me that you were suggesting that if I was found guilty on one policeman's, word, that it followed that I am lying now? If this was not so, I apologise
Mike Hancock has today admitted conducting an “inappropriate and unprofessional” relationship with a mentally ill constituent, apologising to her for “any distress............
According to guido
Will that admission create a vacancy in Portsmouth?
I'm not sure, but what is noteworthy is that there is no UKIP PPC yet chosen for this seat. That is quite stunning considering the small but reasonable chance of a by-election there, and the "decent outside" chance they might have in the seat. Especially at a by-election.
Even if the same absolute number of Tory and UKIP councillors have said stupid things, as a % of the UKIP councillor base the number is much high.
"Mostly" is a proportional not an absolute comment
The point, as I have made many times before, is not how many there are but what the parties' reactions to them are. As a rule UKIP sack their idiots. The Tories on the other hand seem content to let them remain as councilors even after they have received police cautions.
It won't give any more details, as I was shown the photos in confidence, but one branch of a political party thought it a great idea to host a Jimmy Saville-themed party a couple of weeks ago (it wasn't UKIP).
If I were hiring into a bank I'd like to know if those "minor" offences were offences of dishonesty.
Hmm I'm not sure what relevance it has. Kids do stupid things.
Honesty matters. Small lies matter. If a person is prepared to tell lies about small things how can I trust them not to lie about something bigger. There are far too many examples - particularly in banks - where people with such past histories have been let in because people thought it didn't matter and we've seen the results over the last few years. Character matters - and if we're serious about trying to clean up crooked industries - we need not to make it harder for employers to make well-informed judgments about someone's character. We don't do that by keeping them in the dark.
"The man who is honest in small things will be honest in great. The man who is dishonest in small things will be dishonest in great."
A child aged 14 steals some sweets, gets a caution for it and never gets into trouble again. Do you really think that that child's life should be blighted by being refused any job that involves trust?
It is only relatively recently that juvenile cautions have been disclosable at all. The new ruling would seem just to take us back to the common sense position that used to exist.
I don't think that someone's life should be blighted by what they did at 14. I do think that we should not be censoring our lives and relevant information about ourselves in a way which means that employers cannot make a considered judgment about who they are employing.
Put it this way: if someone under the age of 18 had a string of cautions - not just one - but dozens, how willing would you be to employ that person as a teller in a bankor in a shop at the age of 19? How happy would you feel if you were not told, employed them and then discovered that they stole money from your or your clients?
You advance a similar argument used to justify mass surveillance, and I'm sure in specific cases your approach would be of benefit.
However, as with mass surveillance, the needless harm done to others outweighs it by orders of magnitude (in my opinion).
I may be wrong, but it appeared to me that you were suggesting that if I was found guilty on one policeman's, word, that it followed that I am lying now? If this was not so, I apologise
Not at all. I was making light of your conviction (which is what most minor convictions should be made of in most job applications imo)
My whole politics is shaped by being anti- state databases and excessive regulation
Even if the same absolute number of Tory and UKIP councillors have said stupid things, as a % of the UKIP councillor base the number is much high.
"Mostly" is a proportional not an absolute comment
The point, as I have made many times before, is not how many there are but what the parties' reactions to them are. As a rule UKIP sack their idiots. The Tories on the other hand seem content to let them remain as councilors even after they have received police cautions.
It won't give any more details, as I was shown the photos in confidence, but one branch of a political party thought it a great idea to host a Jimmy Saville-themed party a couple of weeks ago (it wasn't UKIP).
Daily Mail would give £5k minimum for those pictures, I'd have thought. You could donate it to PB!
The subject of police and their actions is a touchy subject for me. While the majority of those I have met over the years have been decent people doing a difficult job, I have come across a few of the "bad apples".
@state_go_away Only Tory MP's, Bullingdon boys, and the well off are fitted up by the police? Those drunken Scouse gits were guilty everything the police accused them of? I see now where you are coming from.......though it looks a lot like a slime pit, and you have left a trail.
The Tories' belated realisation that the police are not necessarily to be trusted in all matters is to be welcomed. Obviously, it would have been nicer if it had come sooner, but you can't have everything.
Mike Hancock has today admitted conducting an “inappropriate and unprofessional” relationship with a mentally ill constituent, apologising to her for “any distress............
According to guido
Will that admission create a vacancy in Portsmouth?
While I wish it would, I simply cannot see Mike Hancock resigning his seat short of actual imprisonment.
Even if the same absolute number of Tory and UKIP councillors have said stupid things, as a % of the UKIP councillor base the number is much high.
"Mostly" is a proportional not an absolute comment
The point, as I have made many times before, is not how many there are but what the parties' reactions to them are. As a rule UKIP sack their idiots. The Tories on the other hand seem content to let them remain as councilors even after they have received police cautions.
It won't give any more details, as I was shown the photos in confidence, but one branch of a political party thought it a great idea to host a Jimmy Saville-themed party a couple of weeks ago (it wasn't UKIP).
What is a Jimmy Saville themed party?
Would the LibDems get more votes in 2015 if they renamed themselves the Jimmy Saville Party?
The subject of police and their actions is a touchy subject for me. While the majority of those I have met over the years have been decent people doing a difficult job, I have come across a few of the "bad apples".
This sort of thing doesn't help e0ther (can't work out when it was published though)
"Michael Phuprate said he had tried to explain that his brother was deaf and dumb, but the officer told him: 'Do you think I am stupid?' He then pointed out that his brother was unable to communicate with the police officers because they were holding his arms. 'I told him that if he released his arms he would be able to answer, but the officer refused."
Is it worth backing Australia in the hope of a cash out during the match? Netherlands were so good in their previous match that it may be a waste of time.
Even if the same absolute number of Tory and UKIP councillors have said stupid things, as a % of the UKIP councillor base the number is much high.
"Mostly" is a proportional not an absolute comment
The point, as I have made many times before, is not how many there are but what the parties' reactions to them are. As a rule UKIP sack their idiots. The Tories on the other hand seem content to let them remain as councilors even after they have received police cautions.
It won't give any more details, as I was shown the photos in confidence, but one branch of a political party thought it a great idea to host a Jimmy Saville-themed party a couple of weeks ago (it wasn't UKIP).
What is a Jimmy Saville themed party?
Would the LibDems get more votes in 2015 if they renamed themselves the Jimmy Saville Party?
One where the party-goers turn up wearing Jimmy Saville wigs, and saying things like "Now then, now then, just because she's dead, it doesn't mean she can't have some fun."
WRT Hancock, there really seems to be something in the water in Hampshire, what with him, Mike Keith-Smith, Cllr Tony McCarthy, Caroline Noakes, Chris Huhne, Stephen Milligan, and Mark Oaten.
I see what you are getting at and one of the problems is the gross misuse of cautions that grew up from the late 1990s (anything to keep people out of the courts and the prison system, whilst still allowing the Old Bill to fiddle their figures for detected offences). However, I think I'd take the view that the balance of risk between lives ruined and money stolen (how many young people with "dozens of cautions" would even apply for any job, let alone one in a bank) leans in favour of keeping juvenile cautions confidential.
As an aside, do banks and shops have access to the Criminal Records these days? They never used to and so would not any attempt to find out about a criminal history rely on an abuse of the subject access provisions under the Data Protection Acts?
I'd like Mike Hancock to hold out to the next general election and then contest the seat as an independent. We'd have a five way marginal, which must be unprecedented in the modern era.
One where the party-goers turn up wearing Jimmy Saville wigs, and saying things like "Now then, now then, just because she's dead, it doesn't mean she can't have some fun."
I would say this was the LibDems, but there's no way they have enough members to host a decent party these days...
I'd like Mike Hancock to hold out to the next general election and then contest the seat as an independent. We'd have a five way marginal, which must be unprecedented in the modern era.
A by-election in Portsmouth South would be one of the most interesting for years, not least because 4 parties would be in with a chance of winning. 30% would probably be enough to win.
I'd like Mike Hancock to hold out to the next general election and then contest the seat as an independent. We'd have a five way marginal, which must be unprecedented in the modern era.
Who would you back if they were all 15-4 ?
It would be a bit of a lottery. I'd probably back everyone other than the Lib Dems and Mike Hancock if I played, but I might just sit it out.
One where the party-goers turn up wearing Jimmy Saville wigs, and saying things like "Now then, now then, just because she's dead, it doesn't mean she can't have some fun."
I would say this was the LibDems, but there's no way they have enough members to host a decent party these days...
Glad Mr Dancer spotted the rather blunt cultural reference. I think Mr W can be forgiven for missing it due to his venerability.
It was, of course, hyperbole to suggest that the shadow cabinet resembles Mos Eisley spaceport.
As partial amends, fresh from Mt. Anecdote, my Mum, a lifelong Labour voter believes that Ed is wierd. Case closed, I believe. On the other hand, she's still going to vote Labour, so there's lessons for all of us here.
It would be a bit of a lottery. I'd probably back everyone other than the Lib Dems and Mike Hancock if I played, but I might just sit it out.
I'd have thought the LibDems and Mike Hancock would knock each other out of the contest, making it more like a 3-way marginal.
Incidentally Guido writes: "Team 2015 will have 200 activists in the constituency this weekend." I've no idea whether this is true, but, if it is, it suggests the Conservatives at least think a by-election might be on the cards. It would be an odd use of resources otherwise.
I'd like Mike Hancock to hold out to the next general election and then contest the seat as an independent. We'd have a five way marginal, which must be unprecedented in the modern era.
Who would you back if they were all 15-4 ?
It would be a bit of a lottery. I'd probably back everyone other than the Lib Dems and Mike Hancock if I played, but I might just sit it out.
If Hancock was to stand as an independent I think there could be a fair bit of value backing CON.
Edit: I'm thinking General Election... By Election would probably be the kippers
A by-election in Portsmouth South would be one of the most interesting for years, not least because 4 parties would be in with a chance of winning. 30% would probably be enough to win.
Indeed and, given the stance of HMG towards Portsmouth Dockyard and its shipbuilding industry, I think I would place a modest wager on UKIP to come first.
Any sensible employer can make a distinction between youthful folly and something more worrying.
No. Many large institutions would filter out all applicants with a 'record' as an initial screen. Huge numbers would be affected in a manner which is manifestly unfair. Their whole career/life would blighted by a moment of madness as a 14 year old.
It's just plain wrong. Might as well tattoo 'potential criminal' on their forehead.
Spot on Mr. Anorak. I know a young lady who really, really wanted to be a nurse, had done well at school, passed all the interviews and aptitude tests, was accepted into training then the results of the CRB check came through - caution for petty shoplifting aged 13 - the offer of a training place was instantly withdrawn and no appeal possible. I got involved as a character reference and wrote to the potential employer. After my third letter I did get a reply, it was policy to reject anyone with a "criminal background" because of the potential risk to patients!
The reason for that sort of blanket bureaucratic rule is that if you let people use their discretion they will inevitably sometimes make mistakes, and it's the mistakes that create high-profile negative media coverage.
In psychology it is recognised that excessive risk aversion is very damaging to an individual, and this is an example of the way that also applies to society as a whole.
I'd like Mike Hancock to hold out to the next general election and then contest the seat as an independent. We'd have a five way marginal, which must be unprecedented in the modern era.
Who would you back if they were all 15-4 ?
It would be a bit of a lottery. I'd probably back everyone other than the Lib Dems and Mike Hancock if I played, but I might just sit it out.
Given Mike Hancock finished third in the council seat he'd held since 1973, and despite no LibDem standing against him, one would have to say that he has a negative personal vote in the constituency.
If he stood as an independent he'd get slaughtered (sub 10%), and I'd have to reckon the Conservatives would be clear favourite to win the seat (certainly better than evens).
I should have made a profit of about £100 on yesterday's matches by cashing out. Unfortunately I was greedy and ended up losing slightly.
Don't beat yourself up about it. Cashing out is overused and overated anyway. For three reasons I rarely do it:- 1) you pay another margin to do so aside from the original bet 2) you have a bet in the first place for excitement and interest mainly (well I do) so why stop that excitement or interest half way through an event. 3) to cash out means you are going against your original bet .If you thought it was a good thing to start with why the sudden change to think its a bad thing half way through?
Beeb on Hancock. No mention that the women involved was a vulnerable adult (or mentally ill, I'm afraid the finer distinctions are beyond me) - reported elsewhere and certainly a pertinent part of the story, I would have thought.
It would be a bit of a lottery. I'd probably back everyone other than the Lib Dems and Mike Hancock if I played, but I might just sit it out.
I'd have thought the LibDems and Mike Hancock would knock each other out of the contest, making it more like a 3-way marginal.
Incidentally Guido writes: "Team 2015 will have 200 activists in the constituency this weekend." I've no idea whether this is true, but, if it is, it suggests the Conservatives at least think a by-election might be on the cards. It would be an odd use of resources otherwise.
It is the 3rd time in 3 years that this story has been reported . The website Blue Guerilla has been forecasting a by election every few months for the last 3 years .
I'm afraid to say I'm one of that almost-half-of-Labour-supporters who think Ed should go. Even though I wasn't exactly impressed with him before, I thought there was probably more downside to him being forced out, but now I'm just convinced he's so hopeless that Labour are going to lose horribly next year with him at the helm. He's completely lost his confidence and judgement, he's an abysmal salesman of Labour's policies in this climate where a politician really needs to be a plain-speaker in order to get through to people, and he is way too cowardly to stand up and impose his will and policies on the Blairite wing of the party.
I should have made a profit of about £100 on yesterday's matches by cashing out. Unfortunately I was greedy and ended up losing slightly.
Don't beat yourself up about it. Cashing out is overused and overated anyway. For three reasons I rarely do it:- 1) you pay another margin to do so aside from the original bet 2) you have a bet in the first place for excitement and interest mainly (well I do) so why stop that excitement or interest half way through an event. 3) to cash out means you are going against your original bet .If you thought it was a good thing to start with why the sudden change to think its a bad thing half way through?
I've only ever cashed out one bet with a traditional bookie, Swansea to go down £20 stake for £7.40 I think... Because unusually the cashout price actually beat the Betfair lay price.
I've "cashed out" my stake on England winning the WC today for a (very) modest profit if they win and no loss if they don't by use of Betfair.
I should have made a profit of about £100 on yesterday's matches by cashing out. Unfortunately I was greedy and ended up losing slightly.
Don't beat yourself up about it. Cashing out is overused and overated anyway. For three reasons I rarely do it:- 1) you pay another margin to do so aside from the original bet 2) you have a bet in the first place for excitement and interest mainly (well I do) so why stop that excitement or interest half way through an event. 3) to cash out means you are going against your original bet .If you thought it was a good thing to start with why the sudden change to think its a bad thing half way through?
I've only ever cashed out one bet with a traditional bookie, Swansea to go down £20 stake for £7.40 I think... Because unusually the cashout price actually beat the Betfair lay price.
I've "cashed out" my stake on England winning the WC today for a (very) modest profit if they win and no loss if they don't by use of Betfair.
Yes the England bet I sort of agree with you . They were underhyped at the start and probably overhyped now (especially as they have null points so far) Was neutral on England before Italy now have sold their total tournie goals at 5.6 on the spreads
I should have made a profit of about £100 on yesterday's matches by cashing out. Unfortunately I was greedy and ended up losing slightly.
Don't beat yourself up about it. Cashing out is overused and overated anyway. For three reasons I rarely do it:- 1) you pay another margin to do so aside from the original bet 2) you have a bet in the first place for excitement and interest mainly (well I do) so why stop that excitement or interest half way through an event. 3) to cash out means you are going against your original bet .If you thought it was a good thing to start with why the sudden change to think its a bad thing half way through?
It's all about timing. Cashing out is effectively a trading bet based on 'value' at a moment of time.
Take for example the Croatia/Brazil game, Now Croatia were 14/1 to win..which seemed great value for a fairly decent side, but when they went 1-0 up, damn right I cashed out then...and was right to do so!
I'm afraid to say I'm one of that almost-half-of-Labour-supporters who think Ed should go. Even though I wasn't exactly impressed with him before, I thought there was probably more downside to him being forced out, but now I'm just convinced he's so hopeless that Labour are going to lose horribly next year with him at the helm. He's completely lost his confidence and judgement, he's an abysmal salesman of Labour's policies in this climate where a politician really needs to be a plain-speaker in order to get through to people, and he is way too cowardly to stand up and impose his will and policies on the Blairite wing of the party.
I should have made a profit of about £100 on yesterday's matches by cashing out. Unfortunately I was greedy and ended up losing slightly.
Don't beat yourself up about it. Cashing out is overused and overated anyway. For three reasons I rarely do it:- 1) you pay another margin to do so aside from the original bet 2) you have a bet in the first place for excitement and interest mainly (well I do) so why stop that excitement or interest half way through an event. 3) to cash out means you are going against your original bet .If you thought it was a good thing to start with why the sudden change to think its a bad thing half way through?
It's all about timing. Cashing out is effectively a trading bet based on 'value' at a moment of time.
Take for example the Croatia/Brazil game, Now Croatia were 14/1 to win..which seemed great value for a fairly decent side, but when they went 1-0 up, damn right I cashed out then...and was right to do so!
Well yes you were right on this occasion but could have been 'wrong' if Fred hadn't dived. If you thought Croatia was a good thing at 14/1 pre match why did you think they were a bad thing when they went 1-nil up (therefore proving your pre match hunch that they were reasonably good?
The US Patent and Trademark Office has just cancelled the Washington Redskins trademark. That's a franchise valued at $1.7 billion just having one of its major assets blown out of the water. This could end up at the Supreme Court.
Can't see a by-election in Portsmouth South. Mike Hancock has no political future, so why shouldn't he still get his pay for another year effectively (in his view).
He's never seemed to care about his honour in the past.
I should have made a profit of about £100 on yesterday's matches by cashing out. Unfortunately I was greedy and ended up losing slightly.
Don't beat yourself up about it. Cashing out is overused and overated anyway. For three reasons I rarely do it:- 1) you pay another margin to do so aside from the original bet 2) you have a bet in the first place for excitement and interest mainly (well I do) so why stop that excitement or interest half way through an event. 3) to cash out means you are going against your original bet .If you thought it was a good thing to start with why the sudden change to think its a bad thing half way through?
It's all about timing. Cashing out is effectively a trading bet based on 'value' at a moment of time.
Take for example the Croatia/Brazil game, Now Croatia were 14/1 to win..which seemed great value for a fairly decent side, but when they went 1-0 up, damn right I cashed out then...and was right to do so!
Well yes you were right on this occasion but could have been 'wrong' if Fred hadn't dived. If you thought Croatia was a good thing at 14/1 pre match why did you think they were a bad thing when they went 1-nil up (therefore proving your pre match hunch that they were reasonably good?
Because to be honest I'm a naturally cautious person really, and if I can see a way to get all green, I probably will.
But I understand your reasoning, and maybe for example I should have looked at the odds for Croatia to score first, rather than for the win. (although they would have been considerably less than 14/1).
I'm afraid to say I'm one of that almost-half-of-Labour-supporters who think Ed should go. Even though I wasn't exactly impressed with him before, I thought there was probably more downside to him being forced out, but now I'm just convinced he's so hopeless that Labour are going to lose horribly next year with him at the helm. He's completely lost his confidence and judgement, he's an abysmal salesman of Labour's policies in this climate where a politician really needs to be a plain-speaker in order to get through to people, and he is way too cowardly to stand up and impose his will and policies on the Blairite wing of the party.
Mr. 565,
I don't for one moment doubt your sincerity and I don't deny that it would be healthy to have an alternative vision of how the country might proceed. However, I do question this sentence,
"he is way too cowardly to stand up and impose his will and policies"
What fecking policies? Actually I'll re-phrase that, "What coherent policies that would make sense to anyone other than a mentally challenged marmoset?"
Can't see a by-election in Portsmouth South. Mike Hancock has no political future, so why shouldn't he still get his pay for another year effectively (in his view).
He's never seemed to care about his honour in the past.
Another reason for him not to resign is his (ex) party can't put pressure on him. There is no reason for him to even go to the Commons if he doesn't want to.
Pity we don't have a sensible power of recall.......
Beeb on Hancock. No mention that the women involved was a vulnerable adult (or mentally ill, I'm afraid the finer distinctions are beyond me) - reported elsewhere and certainly a pertinent part of the story, I would have thought.
Was there also an issue of special responsibility? She was a constituent of his but also if vulnerable then in a sense the responsibility of the council social work dept, etc. etc., and as Hancock was a councillor ...
Mr. Observer, I read a few weeks or months ago about controversy flaring up over the redskins name (apparently it's seen by some as a term of racial abuse for [I think this is the PC term] native Americans).
I think you're right about it becoming a significant legal battle.
Sounds a little like the yid army stuff at Tottenham, except that it's the official name/brand.
I should have made a profit of about £100 on yesterday's matches by cashing out. Unfortunately I was greedy and ended up losing slightly.
Don't beat yourself up about it. Cashing out is overused and overated anyway. For three reasons I rarely do it:- 1) you pay another margin to do so aside from the original bet 2) you have a bet in the first place for excitement and interest mainly (well I do) so why stop that excitement or interest half way through an event. 3) to cash out means you are going against your original bet .If you thought it was a good thing to start with why the sudden change to think its a bad thing half way through?
It's all about timing. Cashing out is effectively a trading bet based on 'value' at a moment of time.
Take for example the Croatia/Brazil game, Now Croatia were 14/1 to win..which seemed great value for a fairly decent side, but when they went 1-0 up, damn right I cashed out then...and was right to do so!
Well yes you were right on this occasion but could have been 'wrong' if Fred hadn't dived. If you thought Croatia was a good thing at 14/1 pre match why did you think they were a bad thing when they went 1-nil up (therefore proving your pre match hunch that they were reasonably good?
Because to be honest I'm a naturally cautious person really, and if I can see a way to get all green, I probably will.
But I understand your reasoning, and maybe for example I should have looked at the odds for Croatia to score first, rather than for the win. (although they would have been considerably less than 14/1).
Yes I think its the caution and not wanting to 'lose' that makes people 'trade' or 'cash out' . I personally want value for money for a bet win or lose (in terms of entertainment as much as value in terms of odds) and therefore want to be 'on' all 90 minutes of a football match so I tend to stake small (so no fear of losing it ) and let it ride!!
I should have made a profit of about £100 on yesterday's matches by cashing out. Unfortunately I was greedy and ended up losing slightly.
Don't beat yourself up about it. Cashing out is overused and overated anyway. For three reasons I rarely do it:- 1) you pay another margin to do so aside from the original bet 2) you have a bet in the first place for excitement and interest mainly (well I do) so why stop that excitement or interest half way through an event. 3) to cash out means you are going against your original bet .If you thought it was a good thing to start with why the sudden change to think its a bad thing half way through?
It's all about timing. Cashing out is effectively a trading bet based on 'value' at a moment of time.
Take for example the Croatia/Brazil game, Now Croatia were 14/1 to win..which seemed great value for a fairly decent side, but when they went 1-0 up, damn right I cashed out then...and was right to do so!
Well yes you were right on this occasion but could have been 'wrong' if Fred hadn't dived. If you thought Croatia was a good thing at 14/1 pre match why did you think they were a bad thing when they went 1-nil up (therefore proving your pre match hunch that they were reasonably good?
Because to be honest I'm a naturally cautious person really, and if I can see a way to get all green, I probably will.
But I understand your reasoning, and maybe for example I should have looked at the odds for Croatia to score first, rather than for the win. (although they would have been considerably less than 14/1).
When Croatia were 1-0 up they would have been 2-1 maybe to win ?
I'm guessing you'd cashed out for 5 * Stake or so ?
Mr. Away, I used to bet in-play on tennis and F1, but found it too stressful, and (especially for F1) it robbed the events of enjoyment. I usually go for hedging instead for F1 (there's been a little less of that this year but that's partly because I really like the Ladbrokes betting without Hamilton/Rosberg each way bets and partly because lots of bets I've gone for have been short odds) and just let tennis bets win or lose.
The time to cash out is obviously when the outsider scores first in a match, but it's difficult not to just hang on for a few extra minutes because the potential profit rises so quickly.
Mr. Away, I used to bet in-play on tennis and F1, but found it too stressful, and (especially for F1) it robbed the events of enjoyment. I usually go for hedging instead for F1 (there's been a little less of that this year but that's partly because I really like the Ladbrokes betting without Hamilton/Rosberg each way bets and partly because lots of bets I've gone for have been short odds) and just let tennis bets win or lose.
yes another reason I rarely 'trade' is that it can seem too much like work . Wheras sticking a bet on pre match and letting it ride means you can have your eyes on the sport in question and your hands on a beer!!
Comments
In golf, football, rugby union, cricket, rugby league, hockey, Commonwealth Games we are home nations. The Olympics is bloody odd.
Of course we do - but we show that by explaining what we've done and what we've learnt and why we can and should be trusted now not by hiding. That makes me suspicious that someone has not really learnt the lessons. Any sensible employer can make a distinction between youthful folly and something more worrying. But some youthful misbehaviour is indicative of a person without a moral compass and why should the employer - and his other employees let alone those to whom he/she provides a service - be put at risk of employing such a person because he was not told?
It is only relatively recently that juvenile cautions have been disclosable at all. The new ruling would seem just to take us back to the common sense position that used to exist.
God I hate our obsession with one celebrity family sometimes.
I was fined for breach of the peace in London many years ago, what lesson did I learn?
I learned that the Met Police were happy to commit perjury in court, and of course the judge had the notion that police officers never lie.
News shouldn't always be about depressing things . Nobody would read it eventually. I rather think it would be a good idea to have a news feed only about uplifting things
It's just plain wrong. Might as well tattoo 'potential criminal' on their forehead.
#1 for that honour goes to Uruguay's chocolate spread
I find it odd that the BBC is so left-leaning in virtually every area, except for the monarchy, which they are incredibly enthusiastic for.
This is all by-the-by, as 'yes' will secure less than 40% of the vote.
This is the true worth of the Royal Family, a happy story to take our minds off the mistakes and madness in the world around us.
Drug companies handing out a bribe?.... Look the little prince is walking!
It's why my late father, though a Justice of the Peace, was never allowed to sit on the bench.
He assumed that the defendants word was the equal of a police officers, and that more evidence might be required.
This is apparently against the spirit of justice.
Anyway you will have no need to disclose formally your conviction at a job interview. Any interviewer would just need to coax it out of you with a 'aren't the police and our courts wonderful' and give you the rope so as to speak!!
Mr. T, would the Lib Dems backing a referendum actually matter? Not just because they said they wanted one on Lisbon, then reneged like lying shysters, and opposed the In/Out vote some Conservative backbenchers wanted even after it was in the Lib Dem manifesto.
The reason it probably doesn't matter is that the Lib Dems hope of government is through coalition. It's almost impossible for them to be able to pick and choose which party to play with. So, if it's the blues then a vote would be needed or there's no chance of a deal (even if Cameron wanted to, he'd be unable to go without a vote as the backbenchers would murder him), and if it's the reds then the Lib Dems can just use their 'solemn promise' of a referendum as a bargaining chip for giving one bit of England special super minority status or somesuch bullshit.
According to guido
Will that admission create a vacancy in Portsmouth?
Only Tory MP's, Bullingdon boys, and the well off are fitted up by the police?
Those drunken Scouse gits were guilty everything the police accused them of?
I see now where you are coming from.......though it looks a lot like a slime pit, and you have left a trail.
Put it this way: if someone under the age of 18 had a string of cautions - not just one - but dozens, how willing would you be to employ that person as a teller in a bankor in a shop at the age of 19? How happy would you feel if you were not told, employed them and then discovered that they stole money from your or your clients?
I'd get rid of football and golf.
I may be wrong, but it appeared to me that you were suggesting that if I was found guilty on one policeman's, word, that it followed that I am lying now?
If this was not so, I apologise
It won't give any more details, as I was shown the photos in confidence, but one branch of a political party thought it a great idea to host a Jimmy Saville-themed party a couple of weeks ago (it wasn't UKIP).
However, as with mass surveillance, the needless harm done to others outweighs it by orders of magnitude (in my opinion).
My whole politics is shaped by being anti- state databases and excessive regulation
What's Hancock done?
Has he been a naughty boy?
Should change leader before next GE -net agree among VI:
Cameron: -70
Clegg: -18
Miliband: -4
Which party most clear & united about its policies - among VI:
Con: 61
Lab: 40
LibD: 20
UKIP: 56
The subject of police and their actions is a touchy subject for me.
While the majority of those I have met over the years have been decent people doing a difficult job, I have come across a few of the "bad apples".
Would the LibDems get more votes in 2015 if they renamed themselves the Jimmy Saville Party?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-131518/Police-arresting-deaf-man-signing.html
"Michael Phuprate said he had tried to explain that his brother was deaf and dumb, but the officer told him: 'Do you think I am stupid?'
He then pointed out that his brother was unable to communicate with the police officers because they were holding his arms.
'I told him that if he released his arms he would be able to answer, but the officer refused."
To avoid libelling him, I'd like to ask posters to mindful of what they write.
WRT Hancock, there really seems to be something in the water in Hampshire, what with him, Mike Keith-Smith, Cllr Tony McCarthy, Caroline Noakes, Chris Huhne, Stephen Milligan, and Mark Oaten.
http://www.itnsource.com/en/shotlist/ITN/1984/06/13/AS130684015/?s=portsmouth south 1984
I see what you are getting at and one of the problems is the gross misuse of cautions that grew up from the late 1990s (anything to keep people out of the courts and the prison system, whilst still allowing the Old Bill to fiddle their figures for detected offences). However, I think I'd take the view that the balance of risk between lives ruined and money stolen (how many young people with "dozens of cautions" would even apply for any job, let alone one in a bank) leans in favour of keeping juvenile cautions confidential.
As an aside, do banks and shops have access to the Criminal Records these days? They never used to and so would not any attempt to find out about a criminal history rely on an abuse of the subject access provisions under the Data Protection Acts?
It was, of course, hyperbole to suggest that the shadow cabinet resembles Mos Eisley spaceport.
As partial amends, fresh from Mt. Anecdote, my Mum, a lifelong Labour voter believes that Ed is wierd. Case closed, I believe. On the other hand, she's still going to vote Labour, so there's lessons for all of us here.
No, I can't see past a shellacking for Aus either.
Ed is crap is PM less than 11 months to go
Incidentally Guido writes: "Team 2015 will have 200 activists in the constituency this weekend." I've no idea whether this is true, but, if it is, it suggests the Conservatives at least think a by-election might be on the cards. It would be an odd use of resources otherwise.
Edit: I'm thinking General Election... By Election would probably be the kippers
In psychology it is recognised that excessive risk aversion is very damaging to an individual, and this is an example of the way that also applies to society as a whole.
"African firm is selling pepper-spray bullet firing drones"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27902634
Both result in Ed is Crap is PM (LT 11 months to go)
If he stood as an independent he'd get slaughtered (sub 10%), and I'd have to reckon the Conservatives would be clear favourite to win the seat (certainly better than evens).
1) you pay another margin to do so aside from the original bet
2) you have a bet in the first place for excitement and interest mainly (well I do) so why stop that excitement or interest half way through an event.
3) to cash out means you are going against your original bet .If you thought it was a good thing to start with why the sudden change to think its a bad thing half way through?
Beeb on Hancock. No mention that the women involved was a vulnerable adult (or mentally ill, I'm afraid the finer distinctions are beyond me) - reported elsewhere and certainly a pertinent part of the story, I would have thought.
I've "cashed out" my stake on England winning the WC today for a (very) modest profit if they win and no loss if they don't by use of Betfair.
Take for example the Croatia/Brazil game, Now Croatia were 14/1 to win..which seemed great value for a fairly decent side, but when they went 1-0 up, damn right I cashed out then...and was right to do so!
He's never seemed to care about his honour in the past.
But I understand your reasoning, and maybe for example I should have looked at the odds for Croatia to score first, rather than for the win. (although they would have been considerably less than 14/1).
I don't for one moment doubt your sincerity and I don't deny that it would be healthy to have an alternative vision of how the country might proceed. However, I do question this sentence,
"he is way too cowardly to stand up and impose his will and policies"
What fecking policies? Actually I'll re-phrase that, "What coherent policies that would make sense to anyone other than a mentally challenged marmoset?"
There is no reason for him to even go to the Commons if he doesn't want to.
Pity we don't have a sensible power of recall.......
I think you're right about it becoming a significant legal battle.
Sounds a little like the yid army stuff at Tottenham, except that it's the official name/brand.
I'm guessing you'd cashed out for 5 * Stake or so ?