Mr. Easterross, point of order: Byzantium can legitimately be considered Roman.
Point of order, sir!
There is no "legimately considered" qualification.
The Roman Empire did not come to and end until 1453. For over 2,000 years they (including the Monarchy and the Republic) they bestrode the world like a Colossus.
Well, it took them a few hundred years to properly get going. In 500 BC, it was a tiny region in Italy.
That was today poll (tweeted yesterday, I think), fieldwork on the 17th and 18th. We are waiting upon the details of tomorrows poll, which was tweeted tonight.
Nothing is happening, nothing will happen until late Autumn.
What do you think will happen in late autumn, out of interest?
I expect the shift towards the Conservatives will start then, and proceed gently as the election approaches. However, it may not be enough to avoid Labour Most Seats.
My estimate of probabilities:
Lab Maj: Very unlikely. It could happen, but only if there is some game-changing event, such as Ed M ditching Balls in favour of Darling (assuming Darling wants the job, which I rather doubt).
Con Maj: 20%
Con-led government (which includes Con Maj): 50%.
Wouldn't it have been quicker to say "I think it's 50/50"?
Their legal case might have been less than robust - but the politics of this are awful.
Only if you value witch-hunts more than you value natural justice...
On this one, it is the women who have been denied natural justice. And that reflects badly on the Lib Dem leadership.
Coming on top of their inability to deal with David Ward, it shows how weak they are.
Why do you insist on making a fool of yourself?
'Natural justice' is a right of defendants in quasi-judicial proceedings. Rennard was the defendant...
What reflects badly on the Libdem leadership (as I warned at the time) was them leaping head first to pre-judge and post-judge the outcome of the party's domestic tribunal, misconstruing the party's own rules, and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
Mr. Easterross, point of order: Byzantium can legitimately be considered Roman.
Point of order, sir!
There is no "legimately considered" qualification.
The Roman Empire did not come to and end until 1453. For over 2,000 years they (including the Monarchy and the Republic) they bestrode the world like a Colossus.
Well, it took them a few hundred years to properly get going. In 500 BC, it was a tiny region in Italy.
True, but "bestrode a tiny region in Italy like a Colossus" doesn't scan quite so well...
Mr. Easterross, point of order: Byzantium can legitimately be considered Roman.
Point of order, sir!
There is no "legimately considered" qualification.
The Roman Empire did not come to and end until 1453. For over 2,000 years they (including the Monarchy and the Republic) they bestrode the world like a Colossus.
Well, it took them a few hundred years to properly get going. In 500 BC, it was a tiny region in Italy.
True, but "bestrode a tiny region in Italy like a Colossus" doesn't scan quite so well...
You can use this pretty nifty site to track their progress:
The Liberal Democrats were plunged into crisis last night after former party president Lord Rennard was cleared of bringing the party into disrepute despite claims he groped a series of female activists.
In an extraordinary statement, officials said the Lib Dems had ‘decided not to proceed with the disciplinary process against him’.
Mr. Easterross, point of order: Byzantium can legitimately be considered Roman.
Point of order, sir!
There is no "legimately considered" qualification.
The Roman Empire did not come to and end until 1453. For over 2,000 years they (including the Monarchy and the Republic) they bestrode the world like a Colossus.
Well, it took them a few hundred years to properly get going. In 500 BC, it was a tiny region in Italy.
True, but "bestrode a tiny region in Italy like a Colossus" doesn't scan quite so well...
You can use this pretty nifty site to track their progress:
The Liberal Democrats were plunged into crisis last night after former party president Lord Rennard was cleared of bringing the party into disrepute despite claims he groped a series of female activists.
In an extraordinary statement, officials said the Lib Dems had ‘decided not to proceed with the disciplinary process against him’.
Mr. Easterross, point of order: Byzantium can legitimately be considered Roman.
Point of order, sir!
There is no "legimately considered" qualification.
The Roman Empire did not come to and end until 1453. For over 2,000 years they (including the Monarchy and the Republic) they bestrode the world like a Colossus.
Well, it took them a few hundred years to properly get going. In 500 BC, it was a tiny region in Italy.
True, but "bestrode a tiny region in Italy like a Colossus" doesn't scan quite so well...
You can use this pretty nifty site to track their progress:
The Liberal Democrats were plunged into crisis last night after former party president Lord Rennard was cleared of bringing the party into disrepute despite claims he groped a series of female activists.
In an extraordinary statement, officials said the Lib Dems had ‘decided not to proceed with the disciplinary process against him’.
The Liberal Democrats were plunged into crisis last night after former party president Lord Rennard was cleared of bringing the party into disrepute despite claims he groped a series of female activists.
In an extraordinary statement, officials said the Lib Dems had ‘decided not to proceed with the disciplinary process against him’.
Mr. Easterross, point of order: Byzantium can legitimately be considered Roman.
Point of order, sir!
There is no "legimately considered" qualification.
The Roman Empire did not come to and end until 1453. For over 2,000 years they (including the Monarchy and the Republic) they bestrode the world like a Colossus.
Well, it took them a few hundred years to properly get going. In 500 BC, it was a tiny region in Italy.
True, but "bestrode a tiny region in Italy like a Colossus" doesn't scan quite so well...
You can use this pretty nifty site to track their progress:
My time gets booked so quickly, it's crazy. I had a call today from the Canadians, for instance, trying to persuade me to spend 3 days in Prince Edward Island next June. But it's a Monday start, meaning I'd need to fly Sunday at best
I very much doubt that they took your advice. More likely is that they came to the same conclusions as you did, independently of your opinion, after several months of rubbing their one-and-a-half brain cells together.
If they had taken any notice of your advice, they would have ended these ridiculous proceedings ages ago and lifted the suspension straight away.
Mr. Easterross, point of order: Byzantium can legitimately be considered Roman.
Point of order, sir!
There is no "legimately considered" qualification.
The Roman Empire did not come to and end until 1453. For over 2,000 years they (including the Monarchy and the Republic) they bestrode the world like a Colossus.
Well, it took them a few hundred years to properly get going. In 500 BC, it was a tiny region in Italy.
True, but "bestrode a tiny region in Italy like a Colossus" doesn't scan quite so well...
You can use this pretty nifty site to track their progress:
My time gets booked so quickly, it's crazy. I had a call today from the Canadians, for instance, trying to persuade me to spend 3 days in Prince Edward Island next June. But it's a Monday start, meaning I'd need to fly Sunday at best
Well, something for the airport while you are waiting to take off! ;-)
The Liberal Democrats were plunged into crisis last night after former party president Lord Rennard was cleared of bringing the party into disrepute despite claims he groped a series of female activists.
In an extraordinary statement, officials said the Lib Dems had ‘decided not to proceed with the disciplinary process against him’.
They're changing the rules because everything went so well?
When in a hole stop digging...?
They can only change the rules with a 2/3rds majority of the members present and voting, so it's not a given.
Such a change, even if passed, would not retrospectively alter Rennard's position (obviously), not would it necessarily make it easier to pursue such cases in the future, since there was manifest confusion over Webster QC's comments.
Carlile QC was correct in saying that Webster QC found that the allegations against Rennard did not even come up to the balance of probabilities standard. So a reduction is the standard of proof would not have materially altered Rennard's outcome, even if the case were to be heard again.
[Worryingly, however, all the previous links to the LDs disiplinary rules are now dead links..!]
I very much doubt that they took your advice. More likely is that they came to the same conclusions as you did, independently of your opinion, after several months of rubbing their one-and-a-half brain cells together.
If they had taken any notice of your advice, they would have ended these ridiculous proceedings ages ago and lifted the suspension straight away.
There were some quite lively discussions on LibDem Voice, where I was in a minority of one. Who knows?
In fairness to @RodCrosby, whom I have disagreed with on divers issues before, he has been manifestly right about the handling of the Rennard allegations, as several others pointed out at the time.
Comments
"Update - Labour lead at 5
by YouGov in Politics
Tue August 19, 2014 6 a.m. BST "
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/19/update-labour-lead-5/
'Natural justice' is a right of defendants in quasi-judicial proceedings. Rennard was the defendant...
What reflects badly on the Libdem leadership (as I warned at the time) was them leaping head first to pre-judge and post-judge the outcome of the party's domestic tribunal, misconstruing the party's own rules, and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
http://geacron.com/home-en/
The Liberal Democrats were plunged into crisis last night after former party president Lord Rennard was cleared of bringing the party into disrepute despite claims he groped a series of female activists.
In an extraordinary statement, officials said the Lib Dems had ‘decided not to proceed with the disciplinary process against him’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2729364/Lib-Dems-let-Rennard-Former-president-return-Lords-cleared-bringing-party-disrepute.html#ixzz3At2B7WIg
a senior barrister..... has recommended that we make changes to the current criminal burden of proof and these changes will now be taken forward.
Nick Clegg
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-08-19/clegg-its-clear-women-felt-let-down-by-the-lib-dems/
They're changing the rules because everything went so well?
My time gets booked so quickly, it's crazy. I had a call today from the Canadians, for instance, trying to persuade me to spend 3 days in Prince Edward Island next June. But it's a Monday start, meaning I'd need to fly Sunday at best
If they had taken any notice of your advice, they would have ended these ridiculous proceedings ages ago and lifted the suspension straight away.
They can only change the rules with a 2/3rds majority of the members present and voting, so it's not a given.
Such a change, even if passed, would not retrospectively alter Rennard's position (obviously), not would it necessarily make it easier to pursue such cases in the future, since there was manifest confusion over Webster QC's comments.
Carlile QC was correct in saying that Webster QC found that the allegations against Rennard did not even come up to the balance of probabilities standard. So a reduction is the standard of proof would not have materially altered Rennard's outcome, even if the case were to be heard again.
[Worryingly, however, all the previous links to the LDs disiplinary rules are now dead links..!]