politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Carswell seems to have had an impact on the GE2015 betting

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited August 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Carswell seems to have had an impact on the GE2015 betting markets but not Rotherham

GE2015 betting: LAB majority chances on Betfair move up 3 to nearly 35% following the Carswell defection to UKIP pic.twitter.com/mjfWZx9rwv

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,112
    edited August 2014
    Previous thread the Shortest thread in PB history?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Carswell: All's well that ends well !
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Why does Harry's results thread always get replaced after 10 comments?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,030
    AndyJS said:

    Why does Harry's results thread always get replaced after 10 comments?

    I think OGH wanted to record them for posterity.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited August 2014
    I often struggle to follow PBTories' line of thinking, but the idea that Labour would suffer a huge backlash because of Rotherham is particularly bizarre. Why, just because a small group in a local Labour party were appallingly negligent (like, sadly, so many people in authority have been towards sex-abuse victims over the years, irrespective of the race of the attackers), would that mean people would turn against the national party who had nothing to do with it? I don't grasp the logic of why anyone would make a link between this scandal and the national Labour Party at all.

    I see this going the same way as "Falkirkageddon".
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    On topic, it's quite hard to get voters to change their politics, but it's easier to switch them between different parties with overlapping politics.

    This shouldn't make much difference to the politics of the resulting government, because the MP they end up voting for has basically the same politics whichever way they jump, but it ends up deciding elections, because FPTP.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    Danny565 said:

    I often struggle to follow PBTories' line of thinking, but the idea that Labour would suffer a huge backlash because of Rotherham is particularly bizarre. Why, just because a small group in a local Labour party were appallingly negligent (like, sadly, so many people in authority have been towards sex-abuse victims over the years, irrespective of the race of the attackers), would that mean people would turn against the national party who had nothing to do with it? I don't grasp the logic of why anyone would make a link between this scandal and the national Labour Party at all.

    I see this going the same way as "Falkirkageddon".


    "Why, just because a small group in a local Labour party were appallingly negligent"

    That point just there is where you're going wrong.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Carswell - "Britain still run like it was under Tony Blair":

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100284393/clacton-calling/
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    edited August 2014
    SeanT said:

    Danny565 said:

    I often struggle to follow PBTories' line of thinking, but the idea that Labour would suffer a huge backlash because of Rotherham is particularly bizarre. Why, just because a small group in a local Labour party were appallingly negligent (like, sadly, so many people in authority have been towards sex-abuse victims over the years, irrespective of the race of the attackers), would that mean people would turn against the national party who had nothing to do with it?

    I see this going the same way as "Falkirkageddon".

    Nationally Rotherham is more likely to boost UKIP than harm Labour. But yes, it will be marginal - unless the scandal widens (quite possible).

    However in local northern politics I think Labour could be badly hit; indeed the prior thread, just aborted, might be showing the first evidence - a swing FROM Labour to the LDs, in a northern city.
    "Nationally Rotherham is more likely to boost UKIP than harm Labour"

    Dunno about that. People who are fixed centre-left but get crushed by what's been (and is being down up and down the country today) won't vote Ukip or Con they'll vote Lib.

    edit: so in order of electoral benefit - if the full scale of this is shown and they don't get away with pretending it was just one town - i'd say it would go: Lib, Ukip, Con, Respect
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    Floundering, here's a repeat from Harry's thread:

    The word "Asian" isn't very precise. Here is a list from the Wiki of Asian countries:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_in_Asia
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    "David Cameron...will do a deal...which persuades just enough people to vote to stay in." A Moron.

    A Moron who apart from being a moron doesn't understand the concept of democracy. He is perfectly well-placed in his new home.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited August 2014
    Danny565 said:

    I often struggle to follow PBTories' line of thinking, but the idea that Labour would suffer a huge backlash because of Rotherham is particularly bizarre. Why, just because a small group in a local Labour party were appallingly negligent (like, sadly, so many people in authority have been towards sex-abuse victims over the years, irrespective of the race of the attackers), would that mean people would turn against the national party who had nothing to do with it? I don't grasp the logic of why anyone would make a link between this scandal and the national Labour Party at all.

    If you've been reading the threads there's also a bigger ideological narrative around multiculturalism and political correctness. I can't really say as I don't have my finger on the pulse of working class voters in high-immigration areas in the north of England (I once tipped the BNP for a by-election, and they came sixth) but agree with it or not it's not obviously unsaleable.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,037
    I think Rotherham is an issue that may have longer term damage to Labour, Carswell came as a shock. If Dave has the balls to get Professor Jay to lead a nationwide inquiry on the subject that cwill be extremely unhelpful for Labour. Sadly I don't think Dave has the balls to order it and try and bring those savanges to justice.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    SeanT said:

    Danny565 said:

    I often struggle to follow PBTories' line of thinking, but the idea that Labour would suffer a huge backlash because of Rotherham is particularly bizarre. Why, just because a small group in a local Labour party were appallingly negligent (like, sadly, so many people in authority have been towards sex-abuse victims over the years, irrespective of the race of the attackers), would that mean people would turn against the national party who had nothing to do with it?

    I see this going the same way as "Falkirkageddon".

    Nationally Rotherham is more likely to boost UKIP than harm Labour. But yes, it will be marginal - unless the scandal widens (quite possible).

    However in local northern politics I think Labour could be badly hit; indeed the prior thread, just aborted, might be showing the first evidence - a swing FROM Labour to the LDs, in a northern city.
    I would agree that it could have some impact in Rotherham and areas nearby where people have been following the ins and the outs more closely.

    But nationally, would most people even be seeing this story as a political one at all? I'll admit I've not spoken to anyone "in the real world" about it, but I would personally suspect people just view it as the latest in a depressingly long line of sexual abuse not being treated seriously by the Establishment in general. Would most people (again, outside of Rotherham itself and nearby) even be aware that it was a Labour council in charge?
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited August 2014
    Socrates said:

    As Sean Fear says, we need to clean the stables:

    - A full inquiry covering all cities in the UK where this has happened
    - A full police investigation from an external police force in Rotherham, with concerns about "community sensitivity" thrown out the window
    - Fifty year sentences for child rape
    - An end to concurrent sentencing
    - An end to luxuries in prison for child rapists
    - A new criminal offence for those in positions of responsibility that fail to act on major crimes
    - An independent watchdog that can investigate people at all levels of government and ban them from public service for life in cases of gross negligence

    Taking your points in turn. (1) A full public inquiry would likely prejudice any potential criminal proceedings. If you want prosecutions, they will have to come first. Secondly, an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 cannot determine liability, and cannot compel persons to incriminate themselves.
    (2) Sentences for sex offenders have greatly increased in recent years. An automatic sentence of fifty years imprisonment for child rape would be arbitrary and lead to injustices. Should a seventeen year old with mental difficulties who raped a person of the same age without other aggravating factors receive such a sentence, for example?
    (3) I rather think child rapists would disagree about the supposedly luxurious conditions in Her Majesty's Prisons.
    (4) An public servant while acting as such who neglected to report serious criminality is already liable to be proceeded against and punished for misconduct in public office, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
    (5) We have enough useless quangos already.

    The sensible answer is to bring in a fresh set of eyes, with a view to instituting proceedings, and prosecute offenders to the full extent of the law.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    SeanT said:

    Danny565 said:

    I often struggle to follow PBTories' line of thinking, but the idea that Labour would suffer a huge backlash because of Rotherham is particularly bizarre. Why, just because a small group in a local Labour party were appallingly negligent (like, sadly, so many people in authority have been towards sex-abuse victims over the years, irrespective of the race of the attackers), would that mean people would turn against the national party who had nothing to do with it?

    I see this going the same way as "Falkirkageddon".

    Nationally Rotherham is more likely to boost UKIP than harm Labour. But yes, it will be marginal - unless the scandal widens (quite possible).

    However in local northern politics I think Labour could be badly hit; indeed the prior thread, just aborted, might be showing the first evidence - a swing FROM Labour to the LDs, in a northern city.
    I agree. Right now the popular mindset is "what an unspeakable episode has happened in this one northern town." But it will only take similar news in one other of the SEVENTEEN towns similar event shave happened in for the whole ugly truth to come spilling out. That's when it can make a national difference.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    SeanT said:

    MrJones said:

    SeanT said:

    Danny565 said:

    I often struggle to follow PBTories' line of thinking, but the idea that Labour would suffer a huge backlash because of Rotherham is particularly bizarre. Why, just because a small group in a local Labour party were appallingly negligent (like, sadly, so many people in authority have been towards sex-abuse victims over the years, irrespective of the race of the attackers), would that mean people would turn against the national party who had nothing to do with it?

    I see this going the same way as "Falkirkageddon".

    Nationally Rotherham is more likely to boost UKIP than harm Labour. But yes, it will be marginal - unless the scandal widens (quite possible).

    However in local northern politics I think Labour could be badly hit; indeed the prior thread, just aborted, might be showing the first evidence - a swing FROM Labour to the LDs, in a northern city.
    "Nationally Rotherham is more likely to boost UKIP than harm Labour"

    Dunno about that. People who are fixed centre-left but get crushed by what's been (and is being down up and down the country today) won't vote Ukip or Con they'll vote Lib.

    UKIP will get their increased support from former non-voters and the apathetic apolitical WWC, finally energised by anger.

    Funnily enough my new GF is from a WWC background, and she says all her family are former non voters - they NEVER vote - yet they are now firmly UKIP, and registered.

    That's Farage's market.



    I agree on that. I'm just saying this is potentially worse for Labour because on top of that a chunk of their centre-left voters could go to Lib as well.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    Danny565 said:

    I often struggle to follow PBTories' line of thinking, but the idea that Labour would suffer a huge backlash because of Rotherham is particularly bizarre. Why, just because a small group in a local Labour party were appallingly negligent (like, sadly, so many people in authority have been towards sex-abuse victims over the years, irrespective of the race of the attackers), would that mean people would turn against the national party who had nothing to do with it? I don't grasp the logic of why anyone would make a link between this scandal and the national Labour Party at all.

    I see this going the same way as "Falkirkageddon".

    That might be so. However, two points that might change matters: (1) if more Labour councils are implicated in this then it starts being nationwide and it's harder to avoid the connection being made i.e. - and somewhat crudely - "Labour cannot protect your children" might be what some might think.

    (2) If the Labour party nationally fails to condemn it or is seen as being too soft on the perpetrators and the relevant councils because they are Labour. That seems to me to be a dangerous perception for Labour to allow develop and, yet, that is what they appear to be doing by being relatively silent on this by comparison with, say, their outrage over Murdoch hacking.

    Labour really cannot afford to make it look as if they care more about the Steve Coogans and Sienna Millers of this world than poor anonymous girls from Rotherham or Rochdale or Oxford.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,970
    "indeed the prior thread, just aborted, might be showing the first evidence - a swing FROM Labour to the LDs, in a northern city."

    I had reason to visit Jesmond last week. My impression is that it's massively student area with most of the students on holiday. I could be wrong but it's very likely that the non student vote made the Lib Dems accptable again.

    (PS. Jesmond is quite nice in a Fulham..ish sort of way)
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    MaxPB said:

    I think Rotherham is an issue that may have longer term damage to Labour, Carswell came as a shock. If Dave has the balls to get Professor Jay to lead a nationwide inquiry on the subject that cwill be extremely unhelpful for Labour. Sadly I don't think Dave has the balls to order it and try and bring those savanges to justice.

    This is exactly why we need new parties to replace the establishment. It is shocking to me that it's even in question that Cameron won't order a national inquiry. Any decent normal Briton's reaction would be "well we must find out the full truth at once", but the instinct of every politician is "well this is something which must be managed carefully". As Carswell says, it's a small elite so distant in wealth and culture and mindset from the rest of the population. A revolution is needed.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    SeanT said:

    MrJones said:

    SeanT said:

    Danny565 said:

    I often struggle to follow PBTories' line of thinking, but the idea that Labour would suffer a huge backlash because of Rotherham is particularly bizarre. Why, just because a small group in a local Labour party were appallingly negligent (like, sadly, so many people in authority have been towards sex-abuse victims over the years, irrespective of the race of the attackers), would that mean people would turn against the national party who had nothing to do with it?

    I see this going the same way as "Falkirkageddon".

    Nationally Rotherham is more likely to boost UKIP than harm Labour. But yes, it will be marginal - unless the scandal widens (quite possible).

    However in local northern politics I think Labour could be badly hit; indeed the prior thread, just aborted, might be showing the first evidence - a swing FROM Labour to the LDs, in a northern city.
    "Nationally Rotherham is more likely to boost UKIP than harm Labour"

    Dunno about that. People who are fixed centre-left but get crushed by what's been (and is being down up and down the country today) won't vote Ukip or Con they'll vote Lib.

    UKIP will get their increased support from former non-voters and the apathetic apolitical WWC, finally energised by anger.

    Funnily enough my new GF is from a WWC background, and she says all her family are former non voters - they NEVER vote - yet they are now firmly UKIP, and registered.

    That's Farage's market.


    It's looking increasingly like UKIP could win about 20% of the vote in England outside London at the general election. That would be about 15% overall.

    Their current UKPR polling average rating is 14%:

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average-2
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited August 2014
    Roger said:

    "indeed the prior thread, just aborted, might be showing the first evidence - a swing FROM Labour to the LDs, in a northern city."

    I had reason to visit Jesmond last week. My impression is that it's massively student area with most of the students on holiday. I could be wrong but it's very likely that the non student vote made the Lib Dems accptable again.

    (PS. Jesmond is quite nice in a Fulham..ish sort of way)

    Your issue with Fulham being?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    edited August 2014
    Roger said:

    (PS. Jesmond is quite nice in a Fulham..ish sort of way)

    Dear God you have been out of the country a long time.
  • initforthemoneyinitforthemoney Posts: 736
    FPT Hurst Llama

    That example could work the other way around. 'I would have bothered to call [in the absence of such a scheme] but I didn't because I heard the threat level had been reduced.' You are probably correct that the government would get flak in your example but avoding flak is generally a justification for bad government policy.

    Anyway by binning the scheme we would probably gain more in economic activity through reduced fear among the paranoid than we would lose from the outside chance of it saving a life somewhere through some muddled thinking such as that in your example.

    If government is serious about the benefits of public participation in fighting teorrism (as per your example), then some kind of Harry Potter themed 'constant vigilance!' ad campaign would probably be more beneficial.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    AndyJS said:

    SeanT said:

    MrJones said:

    SeanT said:

    Danny565 said:

    I often struggle to follow PBTories' line of thinking, but the idea that Labour would suffer a huge backlash because of Rotherham is particularly bizarre. Why, just because a small group in a local Labour party were appallingly negligent (like, sadly, so many people in authority have been towards sex-abuse victims over the years, irrespective of the race of the attackers), would that mean people would turn against the national party who had nothing to do with it?

    I see this going the same way as "Falkirkageddon".

    Nationally Rotherham is more likely to boost UKIP than harm Labour. But yes, it will be marginal - unless the scandal widens (quite possible).

    However in local northern politics I think Labour could be badly hit; indeed the prior thread, just aborted, might be showing the first evidence - a swing FROM Labour to the LDs, in a northern city.
    "Nationally Rotherham is more likely to boost UKIP than harm Labour"

    Dunno about that. People who are fixed centre-left but get crushed by what's been (and is being down up and down the country today) won't vote Ukip or Con they'll vote Lib.

    UKIP will get their increased support from former non-voters and the apathetic apolitical WWC, finally energised by anger.

    Funnily enough my new GF is from a WWC background, and she says all her family are former non voters - they NEVER vote - yet they are now firmly UKIP, and registered.

    That's Farage's market.


    It's looking increasingly like UKIP could win about 20% of the vote in England outside London at the general election. That would be about 15% overall.

    Their current UKPR polling average rating is 14%:

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average-2
    And this is what the London elite fail to understand. To most English voters, supporting UKIP is becoming a very normal position that one in five people do. If you're working class, it's probably one in three. Yet the upper middle class in London know virtually nobody supporting UKIP - and the ones they do probably keep fairly quiet about it. The cultural disconnect in how they talk and think about them is stunning.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Life_ina_market_town said:

    Socrates said:

    As Sean Fear says, we need to clean the stables:

    - A full inquiry covering all cities in the UK where this has happened
    - A full police investigation from an external police force in Rotherham, with concerns about "community sensitivity" thrown out the window
    - Fifty year sentences for child rape
    - An end to concurrent sentencing
    - An end to luxuries in prison for child rapists
    - A new criminal offence for those in positions of responsibility that fail to act on major crimes
    - An independent watchdog that can investigate people at all levels of government and ban them from public service for life in cases of gross negligence

    Taking your points in turn. (1) A full public inquiry would likely prejudice any potential criminal proceedings. If you want prosecutions, they will have to come first. Secondly, an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 cannot determine liability, and cannot compel persons to incriminate themselves.
    (2) Sentences for sex offenders have greatly increased in recent years. An automatic sentence of fifty years imprisonment for child rape would be arbitrary and lead to injustices. Should a seventeen year old with mental difficulties who raped a person of the same age without other aggravating factors receive such a sentence, for example?
    (3) I rather think child rapists would disagree about the supposedly luxurious conditions in Her Majesty's Prisons.
    (4) An public servant while acting as such who neglected to report serious criminality is already liable to be proceeded against and punished for misconduct in public office, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
    (5) We have enough useless quangos already.

    The sensible answer is to bring in a fresh set of eyes, with a view to instituting proceedings, and prosecute offenders to the full extent of the law.
    And how would can we get those prosecutions nationally? The corrupt police forces that have failed to do it so far can not be trusted.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    Socrates said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Rotherham is an issue that may have longer term damage to Labour, Carswell came as a shock. If Dave has the balls to get Professor Jay to lead a nationwide inquiry on the subject that cwill be extremely unhelpful for Labour. Sadly I don't think Dave has the balls to order it and try and bring those savanges to justice.

    This is exactly why we need new parties to replace the establishment. It is shocking to me that it's even in question that Cameron won't order a national inquiry. Any decent normal Briton's reaction would be "well we must find out the full truth at once", but the instinct of every politician is "well this is something which must be managed carefully". As Carswell says, it's a small elite so distant in wealth and culture and mindset from the rest of the population. A revolution is needed.

    The Con response is the weirdest of the lot. Unless they still don't get the scale of what's been done in all the same sort of areas around the country this is not only a UXB for Labour it's located precisely under the nomenklatura who run the public sector so politically it's a perfect storm from the Con point of view and yet they do and say the absolute minimum possible.

    I assume it's the threat of some mutually assured destruction but maybe it's just cos anything that happens outside their 30% of the country might as well be on Mars.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    Socrates said:

    AndyJS said:

    SeanT said:

    MrJones said:

    SeanT said:

    Danny565 said:

    I often struggle to follow PBTories' line of thinking, but the idea that Labour would suffer a huge backla

    Nationally Rotherham is more likely to boost UKIP than harm Labour. But yes, it will be marginal - unless the scandal widens (quite possible).

    However in local northern politics I think Labour could be badly hit; indeed the prior thread, just aborted, might be showing the first evidence - a swing FROM Labour to the LDs, in a northern city.
    "Nationally Rotherham is more likely to boost UKIP than harm Labour"

    Dunno about that. People who are fixed centre-left but get crushed by what's been (and is being down up and down the country today) won't vote Ukip or Con they'll vote Lib.

    U


    It's looking increasingly like UKIP could win about 20% of the vote in England outside London at the general election. That would be about 15% overall.

    Their current UKPR polling average rating is 14%:

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average-2
    And this is what the London elite fail to understand. To most English voters, supporting UKIP is becoming a very normal position that one in five people do. If you're working class, it's probably one in three. Yet the upper middle class in London know virtually nobody supporting UKIP - and the ones they do probably keep fairly quiet about it. The cultural disconnect in how they talk and think about them is stunning.
    It's just that UKIP has captured the Zeitgeist, which is fair enough for them but what are their policies which would prevent, eg. Rotherham? There is a difficulty that all roads lead to the darker days of eg. the NF (apologies but the invocation of the racist parties of yesteryear is a bugbear of mine and until UKIP doesn something to address it, eg. in their election literature, I will not drop it - note this is a long long way from saying that anyone on hear is racist, sadly to have to say it).

    What particular laws could it have passed or will it pass? OK we get the PC gone mad factor in Rotherham but the more I read the more it was the institutions who didn't value those poor girls and didn't think they were worthy of protection.

    So the challenge for UKIP is to portray themselves as the party of the underclass which element of their approach would be welcome. But it will be a very nuanced position they will have to adopt and despite operators like Carswell, I'm not sure they're up to it. They may, if they provoke an anti-UKIP reaction, achieve precisely the opposite of what they purport to want.

    Out of interest has NFarage or any Kipper made a statement on Rotherham?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,970
    MD FPPT.

    I think you slightly misinterpreted my post. Do you believe that Cameron would have described the turkey shoot in Gaza as fair enough if the women and children being turned to rubble were middle class French or German or the city being pulverised was a European city?
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    edited August 2014
    TOPPING said:


    It's just that UKIP has captured the Zeitgeist, which is fair enough for them but what are their policies which would prevent, eg. Rotherham? There is a difficulty that all roads lead to the darker days of eg. the NF (apologies but the invocation of the racist parties of yesteryear is a bugbear of mine and until UKIP doesn something to address it, eg. in their election literature, I will not drop it - note this is a long long way from saying that anyone on hear is racist, sadly to have to say it).

    What particular laws could it have passed or will it pass? OK we get the PC gone mad factor in Rotherham but the more I read the more it was the institutions who didn't value those poor girls and didn't think they were worthy of protection.

    So the challenge for UKIP is to portray themselves as the party of the underclass which element of their approach would be welcome. But it will be a very nuanced position they will have to adopt and despite operators like Carswell, I'm not sure they're up to it. They may, if they provoke an anti-UKIP reaction, achieve precisely the opposite of what they purport to want.

    Out of interest has NFarage or any Kipper made a statement on Rotherham?

    "but what are their policies which would prevent, eg. Rotherham?"

    1) Arrest and prosecute rapists regardless of their ethnicity.

    2) More generally, apply the law without a PC filter.

    pretty simple, doesn't need any new laws (except maybe one for people who do apply a PC filter to crimes or the reporting of crimes - even then it's just perverting the course of justice in a new form)


    edit: that might do the trick actually, few senior plod and council people charged with perverting the course of justice

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Neil Hamilton confirms he is to apply to be on the UKIP shortlist for Boston & Skegness:

    http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Neil-Hamilton-applies-Boston-Skegness-UKIP/story-22847102-detail/story.html
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    Life_ina_market_town said:

    Socrates said:

    As Sean Fear says, we need to clean the stables:

    - A full inquiry covering all cities in the UK where this has happened
    - A full police investigation from an external police force in Rotherham, with concerns about "community sensitivity" thrown out the window
    - Fifty year sentences for child rape
    - An end to concurrent sentencing
    - An end to luxuries in prison for child rapists
    - A new criminal offence for those in positions of responsibility that fail to act on major crimes
    - An independent watchdog that can investigate people at all levels of government and ban them from public service for life in cases of gross negligence

    Taking your points in turn. (1) A full public inquiry would likely prejudice any potential criminal proceedings. If you want prosecutions, they will have to come first. Secondly, an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 cannot determine liability, and cannot compel persons to incriminate themselves.
    (2) Sentences for sex offenders have greatly increased in recent years. An automatic sentence of fifty years imprisonment for child rape would be arbitrary and lead to injustices. Should a seventeen year old with mental difficulties who raped a person of the same age without other aggravating factors receive such a sentence, for example?
    (3) I rather think child rapists would disagree about the supposedly luxurious conditions in Her Majesty's Prisons.
    (4) An public servant while acting as such who neglected to report serious criminality is already liable to be proceeded against and punished for misconduct in public office, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
    (5) We have enough useless quangos already.

    The sensible answer is to bring in a fresh set of eyes, with a view to instituting proceedings, and prosecute offenders to the full extent of the law.
    I was very disappointed to learn on a previous thread that you're not at the bar. The posting style reminds me of a frustrated provincial criminal bar barrister....
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    FPT
    I am not sure its a good idea for Boris to seek an earlier return than the next GE as long as he is Mayor and also to look to a non London seat as long as he is Mayor.
    As it is its fairly understandable for him to look to a London seat within a relatively short space to when his tenure as Mayor runs out.
    If he runs at Clacton and loses but then goes back to his original seat then he looks to be grabbing and opportunist.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Roger, that does neglect the concrete used not for infrastructure but tunnels into Israel, and rockets fired at Israel, deliberately cited in civilian areas to maximise the potential for collateral damage.

    I sympathise greatly with the innocent people of Palestine. I have no sympathy for Hamas.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    MrJones said:

    Socrates said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Rotherham is an issue that may have longer term damage to Labour, Carswell came as a shock. If Dave has the balls to get Professor Jay to lead a nationwide inquiry on the subject that cwill be extremely unhelpful for Labour. Sadly I don't think Dave has the balls to order it and try and bring those savanges to justice.

    This is exactly why we need new parties to replace the establishment. It is shocking to me that it's even in question that Cameron won't order a national inquiry. Any decent normal Briton's reaction would be "well we must find out the full truth at once", but the instinct of every politician is "well this is something which must be managed carefully". As Carswell says, it's a small elite so distant in wealth and culture and mindset from the rest of the population. A revolution is needed.

    The Con response is the weirdest of the lot. Unless they still don't get the scale of what's been done in all the same sort of areas around the country this is not only a UXB for Labour it's located precisely under the nomenklatura who run the public sector so politically it's a perfect storm from the Con point of view and yet they do and say the absolute minimum possible.

    I assume it's the threat of some mutually assured destruction but maybe it's just cos anything that happens outside their 30% of the country might as well be on Mars.

    Or else the situation is really so bad, that they're having a problem working out how to reveal the truth without a total breakdown of order, and lynchings on every street corner.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Cameron and Miliband's attitude to UKIP voters is they're a nuisance who should just disappear as quickly as possible.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,030
    AndyJS said:

    Cameron and Miliband's attitude to UKIP voters is they're a nuisance who should just disappear as quickly as possible.

    They probably think the same of each other :')
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    Socrates said:

    And how would can we get those prosecutions nationally? The corrupt police forces that have failed to do it so far can not be trusted.

    I wonder if the solution lies in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The Attorney General could make special regulations under section 8(1) of the 1985 Act requiring a report by every chief constable to be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions about these cases. The Director of Public Prosecutions could then appoint a senior QC as a prosecutor (who is not a member of the CPS) under section 5 of the Act to take over the conduct of such proceedings. It would be as close to an American "special prosecutor" as the law would allow. The problem with corrupt police is intractable, and the solution may lie in the Northern Irish model.
    SeanT said:

    Agreed (if by offenders you mean the rapists and the agencies that ignored/indulged them).

    However, depressingly, what you suggest is most unlikely to happen. Maybe nothing will happen, except claims for compensation, which will no doubt be covered by us, the taxpayer.

    A wretched business.

    I do of course believe that those public officials who neglected their duties and thereby failed to prevent offending should be prosecuted. The problem, as ever, is that social workers were asked to investigate. They will always blame a "culture" that has no legal personality, rather than individuals. The CPS also seems to have an aversion to prosecuting public officials other than corrupt politicians and those friendly with the wrong sorts of newspapers. It is a hopeless organisation, but what could replace it?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Socrates said:

    Life_ina_market_town said:

    Socrates said:

    As Sean Fear says, we need to clean the stables:

    - A full inquiry covering all cities in the UK where this has happened
    - A full police investigation from an external police force in Rotherham, with concerns about "community sensitivity" thrown out the window
    - Fifty year sentences for child rape
    - An end to concurrent sentencing
    - An end to luxuries in prison for child rapists
    - A new criminal offence for those in positions of responsibility that fail to act on major crimes
    - An independent watchdog that can investigate people at all levels of government and ban them from public service for life in cases of gross negligence

    Taking your points in turn. (1) A full public inquiry would likely prejudice any potential criminal proceedings. If you want prosecutions, they will have to come first. Secondly, an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 cannot determine liability, and cannot compel persons to incriminate themselves.
    (2) Sentences for sex offenders have greatly increased in recent years. An automatic sentence of fifty years imprisonment for child rape would be arbitrary and lead to injustices. Should a seventeen year old with mental difficulties who raped a person of the same age without other aggravating factors receive such a sentence, for example?
    (3) I rather think child rapists would disagree about the supposedly luxurious conditions in Her Majesty's Prisons.
    (4) An public servant while acting as such who neglected to report serious criminality is already liable to be proceeded against and punished for misconduct in public office, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
    (5) We have enough useless quangos already.

    The sensible answer is to bring in a fresh set of eyes, with a view to instituting proceedings, and prosecute offenders to the full extent of the law.
    And how would can we get those prosecutions nationally? The corrupt police forces that have failed to do it so far can not be trusted.
    FPT – Re: first white honour murder.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155823/Social-workers-hid-fact-knew-teenage-mother-risk-sex-grooming-gangs-SIX-YEARS-brutally-murdered.html

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    MrJones said:

    TOPPING said:


    It's just that UKIP has captured the Zeitgeist, which is fair enough for them but what are their policies which would prevent, eg. Rotherham? There is a difficulty that all roads lead to the darker days of eg. the NF (apologies but the invocation of the racist parties of yesteryear is a bugbear of mine and until UKIP doesn something to address it, eg. in their election literature, I will not drop it - note this is a long long way from saying that anyone on hear is racist, sadly to have to say it).

    What particular laws could it have passed or will it pass? OK we get the PC gone mad factor in Rotherham but the more I read the more it was the institutions who didn't value those poor girls and didn't think they were worthy of protection.

    So the challenge for UKIP is to portray themselves as the party of the underclass which element of their approach would be welcome. But it will be a very nuanced position they will have to adopt and despite operators like Carswell, I'm not sure they're up to it. They may, if they provoke an anti-UKIP reaction, achieve precisely the opposite of what they purport to want.

    Out of interest has NFarage or any Kipper made a statement on Rotherham?

    "but what are their policies which would prevent, eg. Rotherham?"

    1) Arrest and prosecute rapists regardless of their ethnicity.

    2) More generally, apply the law without a PC filter.

    pretty simple, doesn't need any new laws (except maybe one for people who do apply a PC filter to crimes or the reporting of crimes - even then it's just perverting the course of justice in a new form)


    edit: that might do the trick actually, few senior plod and council people charged with perverting the course of justice

    Hmm so UKIP could do nothing more than the existing parties. Or do UKIP laws have special "non-contravention" properties that would see offences disappear once they had been deemed unlawful by NIgel (or, soon, Douglas)?
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    TOPPING said:

    MrJones said:

    TOPPING said:


    It's just that UKIP has captured the Zeitgeist, which is fair enough for them but what are their policies which would prevent, eg. Rotherham? There is a difficulty that all roads lead to the darker days of eg. the NF (apologies but the invocation of the racist parties of yesteryear is a bugbear of mine and until UKIP doesn something to address it, eg. in their election literature, I will not drop it - note this is a long long way from saying that anyone on hear is racist, sadly to have to say it).

    What particular laws could it have passed or will it pass? OK we get the PC gone mad factor in Rotherham but the more I read the more it was the institutions who didn't value those poor girls and didn't think they were worthy of protection.

    So the challenge for UKIP is to portray themselves as the party of the underclass which element of their approach would be welcome. But it will be a very nuanced position they will have to adopt and despite operators like Carswell, I'm not sure they're up to it. They may, if they provoke an anti-UKIP reaction, achieve precisely the opposite of what they purport to want.

    Out of interest has NFarage or any Kipper made a statement on Rotherham?

    "but what are their policies which would prevent, eg. Rotherham?"

    1) Arrest and prosecute rapists regardless of their ethnicity.

    2) More generally, apply the law without a PC filter.

    pretty simple, doesn't need any new laws (except maybe one for people who do apply a PC filter to crimes or the reporting of crimes - even then it's just perverting the course of justice in a new form)


    edit: that might do the trick actually, few senior plod and council people charged with perverting the course of justice

    Hmm so UKIP could do nothing more than the existing parties. Or do UKIP laws have special "non-contravention" properties that would see offences disappear once they had been deemed unlawful by NIgel (or, soon, Douglas)?

    "could do" and "would do"

    just one letter different

    Who knows if Ukip "would" do anything either but since the Times first broke the story the Tories - like Labour - haven't shown any intention of doing anything about this even they though they "could".

  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    AndyJS said:

    Neil Hamilton confirms he is to apply to be on the UKIP shortlist for Boston & Skegness:

    http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Neil-Hamilton-applies-Boston-Skegness-UKIP/story-22847102-detail/story.html

    Neil 'Cash for questions' Hamilton? I often wonder about UKIP's wisdom in taking him on board.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    MrJones said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrJones said:

    TOPPING said:


    It's just that UKIP has captured the Zeitgeist, which is fair enough for them but what are their policies which would prevent, eg. Rotherham? There is a difficulty that all roads lead to the darker days of eg. the NF (apologies but the invocation of the racist parties of yesteryear is a bugbear of mine and until UKIP doesn something to address it, eg. in their election literature, I will not drop it - note this is a long long way from saying that anyone on hear is racist, sadly to have to say it).

    What particular laws could it have passed or will it pass? OK we get the PC gone mad factor in Rotherham but the more I read the more it was the institutions who didn't value those poor girls and didn't think they were worthy of protection.

    So the challenge for UKIP is to portray themselves as the party of the underclass which element of their approach would be welcome. But it will be a very nuanced position they will have to adopt and despite operators like Carswell, I'm not sure they're up to it. They may, if they provoke an anti-UKIP reaction, achieve precisely the opposite of what they purport to want.

    Out of interest has NFarage or any Kipper made a statement on Rotherham?

    "but what are their policies which would prevent, eg. Rotherham?"

    1) Arrest and prosecute rapists regardless of their ethnicity.

    2) More generally, apply the law without a PC filter.

    pretty simple, doesn't need any new laws (except maybe one for people who do apply a PC filter to crimes or the reporting of crimes - even then it's just perverting the course of justice in a new form)


    edit: that might do the trick actually, few senior plod and council people charged with perverting the course of justice

    Hmm so UKIP could do nothing more than the existing parties. Or do UKIP laws have special "non-contravention" properties that would see offences disappear once they had been deemed unlawful by NIgel (or, soon, Douglas)?

    "could do" and "would do"

    just one letter different

    Who knows if Ukip "would" do anything either but since the Times first broke the story the Tories - like Labour - haven't shown any intention of doing anything about this even they though they "could".

    Don't disagree but it is fraught with danger for both parties, which is not to say they should have done nothing. We are seasoned political geeks on here so I don't need to articulate the respective dangers but each, as far as I can see, has so far said: we trust the process, the individuals tasked to maintain that process have fallen short and we think they should resign.

    Neither party has so far involved themselves in the process. I can't see how UKIP could (have).
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited August 2014
    TheWatcher said:

    AndyJS said:

    Neil Hamilton confirms he is to apply to be on the UKIP shortlist for Boston & Skegness:

    http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Neil-Hamilton-applies-Boston-Skegness-UKIP/story-22847102-detail/story.html

    Neil 'Cash for questions' Hamilton? I often wonder about UKIP's wisdom in taking him on board.
    Will voters care that much about an issue from more than 20 years ago? Cash for questions seems like small beer compared to more recent scandals. Like Rotherham. Or Stafford.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,894
    @Topping, Socrates
    There's a lot more middle class support for UKIP than you might imagine. Very few are actually going to vote for them as things stand, but they're far from off the radar. Big immigration figures, the impotency of the British government in European discussions, and just a bit of old-fashioned xenophobia really could propel UKIP to the fore.

    Carswell's speech yesterday summed things up I think. All parties need to really think about what the UK's relationship with Europe should be. Only the LDs have a sensible approach - the fact that they'll get killed for it is, I grant you, a little unfortunate.

    Cameron really needs to take a stance. He's put it off for too long, and irrespective of how it plays politically he simply has to make it clear to the other EU leaders that the UK isn't happy with the status quo.

    Ed needs to agree to a referendum. A mutual, and minimal shopping list could then be agreed. Even the LDs want some change.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    TOPPING said:


    Don't disagree but it is fraught with danger for both parties, which is not to say they should have done nothing. We are seasoned political geeks on here so I don't need to articulate the respective dangers but each, as far as I can see, has so far said: we trust the process, the individuals tasked to maintain that process have fallen short and we think they should resign.

    Neither party has so far involved themselves in the process. I can't see how UKIP could (have).


    You don't think there's things in Jay's report that would constitute perverting the course of justice?

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. JS, the past can seem quaint. Remember when the billion pounds Labour wasted on the Millennium Dome seemed like a lot of money?

    It's less than one percent of the annual deficit.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Politician and taxi driver with a dodgy past.

    Milton Keynes mayor (LD) resigns over rape by a taxi driver.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-28983417

    Why not something similar by the honourable Rotherham Councillors?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,970
    Watcher

    "Your issue with Fulham being?"


    I like Fulham! Lots of cafes and bistros mostly not part of a chain
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    MrJones said:

    TOPPING said:


    Don't disagree but it is fraught with danger for both parties, which is not to say they should have done nothing. We are seasoned political geeks on here so I don't need to articulate the respective dangers but each, as far as I can see, has so far said: we trust the process, the individuals tasked to maintain that process have fallen short and we think they should resign.

    Neither party has so far involved themselves in the process. I can't see how UKIP could (have).


    You don't think there's things in Jay's report that would constitute perverting the course of justice?

    Haven't read it but I can't believe it hasn't been gone through with a fine toothed comb to see if there are any grounds or recommendations for prosecution. It would be the get-out-of-jail-free card.

  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    TOPPING said:

    MrJones said:

    TOPPING said:


    Don't disagree but it is fraught with danger for both parties, which is not to say they should have done nothing. We are seasoned political geeks on here so I don't need to articulate the respective dangers but each, as far as I can see, has so far said: we trust the process, the individuals tasked to maintain that process have fallen short and we think they should resign.

    Neither party has so far involved themselves in the process. I can't see how UKIP could (have).


    You don't think there's things in Jay's report that would constitute perverting the course of justice?

    Haven't read it but I can't believe it hasn't been gone through with a fine toothed comb to see if there are any grounds or recommendations for prosecution. It would be the get-out-of-jail-free card.


    dolphins
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,894
    @MD

    Hiding things in plain sight is a well known trick. Not the wisest and cleverest thing when it comes to financial matters.

    Every man, woman and child pays something like £1 per year for the interest on the debt for Millenium Tent.

    I look forward to perpetually spending another of my hard earned pounds on Ed's soon-to-be-announced New-New-Labour Caravan Park. It really will stun the world.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    MrJones said:

    TOPPING said:

    MrJones said:

    TOPPING said:


    Don't disagree but it is fraught with danger for both parties, which is not to say they should have done nothing. We are seasoned political geeks on here so I don't need to articulate the respective dangers but each, as far as I can see, has so far said: we trust the process, the individuals tasked to maintain that process have fallen short and we think they should resign.

    Neither party has so far involved themselves in the process. I can't see how UKIP could (have).


    You don't think there's things in Jay's report that would constitute perverting the course of justice?

    Haven't read it but I can't believe it hasn't been gone through with a fine toothed comb to see if there are any grounds or recommendations for prosecution. It would be the get-out-of-jail-free card.


    dolphins
    Surrealist joke? Sorry, don't get it.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited August 2014
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. JS, the past can seem quaint. Remember when the billion pounds Labour wasted on the Millennium Dome seemed like a lot of money?

    It's less than one percent of the annual deficit.

    I don't claim it to be an original thought, but I've often thought the future can in some ways be defined as that which makes the present seem quaint no matter how un-quaint it seems at the time.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    edited August 2014
    What could really be a problem for the political classes is if there's another serious terrorist outrage in this country carried out by people from the same group from which the Rotherham rapists came.

    There was an interesting article recently by an MEP (who was himself of Pakistani heritage) who said that if senior people in his community did not speak up and against what had been happening people would end up thinking that all Pakistani men were potential rapists or terrorists.

    He also said that shame was what often prevented this sort of public gesture not that people were not against it and appalled by it. Whereas I think that others see silence not as a sign of shame but complicity. It is the difference between a culture which values "honour" i.e. the appearance of things almost above anything else and ours where it is not really the way we look at it, expecting some sort of public acceptance of guilt. (Though the weaselly pretend-apologies we have seen in recent days are not, frankly, in any sense edifying or better.)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Miss Cyclefree, people may compare the outrage of thousands of nutcases marching against the terrible evil of cartoons they dislike with the lack thereof about 1,400 rapes. Or the Gaza protests versus nothing over this.

    I'm quite surprised there appear to have been no reprisals whatsoever. Yet.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    Hmm ... when the Yanks had trouble with a police force that found itself infiltrated, they brought in Elliot Ness and the Untouchables. I don't think we're at that point yet, but perhaps a force of specialists to ignore the Guardian bed-wetters and other apologists for political correctness.

    Not totally serious, but even now, some people underestimate the shock and anger this has caused. Yasmin A-B and the Rotherham Asian Youth forum being exceptions.

    I had a lot of time for Kinnock (despite all his faults). He did take on Militant when necessary. I can't see Ed (softy Walter) doing that. And Cameron talks the talk rather than walking the walk.

    I fear this will all gradually settle down into a vague sense of unease otherwise something far-reaching is done. And Ukip will be in Government (and deserve to be).
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    SeanT said:

    Finally - something.

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/news/rotherham/

    Is it too much to hope that our once proud parliament, the Mother of Parliaments, can do what everyone else has failed to do - and hold some people responsible?

    *timidly hopes*

    Same couple were called before the Home Affairs Committee to explain Rotherham failure to deal with child grooming... 8th January 2013, just reading the transcript...

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/68/130108a.htm
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    Was the Cameron and May announcement re security fears designed to move the media from talking about UKIP/Carswell ? I am sure neither would use such fear to change the media focus, for party political reasons.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited August 2014
    Commons Select Committee.

    "Committee calls in Rotherham Chief Executive and Strategic Director to account for child sexual exploitation failures

    Following the appalling picture revealed by the Jay report into sexual exploitation of children in Rotherham the Communities and Local Government Committee has today called senior officers at Rotherham Council to Westminster to account for the management failures that allowed this abuse to go unchallenged for years. The officers being called are Martin Kimber, Chief Executive, and Joyce Thacker, Strategic Director of Children and Young People’s Services."

    Well it's a start, but surprised the BBC has made no mention of this.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    SeanT said:

    MrJones said:

    SeanT said:

    Danny565 said:

    I often struggle to follow PBTories' line of thinking, but the idea that Labour would suffer a huge backlash because of Rotherham is particularly bizarre. Why, just because a small group in a local Labour party were appallingly negligent (like, sadly, so many people in authority have been towards sex-abuse victims over the years, irrespective of the race of the attackers), would that mean people would turn against the national party who had nothing to do with it?

    I see this going the same way as "Falkirkageddon".

    Nationally Rotherham is more likely to boost UKIP than harm Labour. But yes, it will be marginal - unless the scandal widens (quite possible).

    However in local northern politics I think Labour could be badly hit; indeed the prior thread, just aborted, might be showing the first evidence - a swing FROM Labour to the LDs, in a northern city.
    "Nationally Rotherham is more likely to boost UKIP than harm Labour"

    Dunno about that. People who are fixed centre-left but get crushed by what's been (and is being down up and down the country today) won't vote Ukip or Con they'll vote Lib.

    UKIP will get their increased support from former non-voters and the apathetic apolitical WWC, finally energised by anger.

    Funnily enough my new GF is from a WWC background, and she says all her family are former non voters - they NEVER vote - yet they are now firmly UKIP, and registered.

    That's Farage's market.


    "they NEVER vote" = LOSERS
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. StClare, was Thacker the cretin who refused to let children be adopted by a couple who were UKIP members?
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806
    Omnium said:

    @Topping, Socrates
    There's a lot more middle class support for UKIP than you might imagine. Very few are actually going to vote for them as things stand, but they're far from off the radar. Big immigration figures, the impotency of the British government in European discussions, and just a bit of old-fashioned xenophobia really could propel UKIP to the fore.

    Carswell's speech yesterday summed things up I think. All parties need to really think about what the UK's relationship with Europe should be. Only the LDs have a sensible approach - the fact that they'll get killed for it is, I grant you, a little unfortunate.

    Cameron really needs to take a stance. He's put it off for too long, and irrespective of how it plays politically he simply has to make it clear to the other EU leaders that the UK isn't happy with the status quo.

    Ed needs to agree to a referendum. A mutual, and minimal shopping list could then be agreed. Even the LDs want some change.

    I would have thought that it was pretty obvious that Cameron is not happy with the status quo in the EU. Perhaps he should shout it louder, or perhaps he thinks that megaphone diplomacy will not help him in his dealings with other EU leaders.

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    AndyJS said:

    TheWatcher said:

    AndyJS said:

    Neil Hamilton confirms he is to apply to be on the UKIP shortlist for Boston & Skegness:

    http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Neil-Hamilton-applies-Boston-Skegness-UKIP/story-22847102-detail/story.html

    Neil 'Cash for questions' Hamilton? I often wonder about UKIP's wisdom in taking him on board.
    Will voters care that much about an issue from more than 20 years ago? Cash for questions seems like small beer compared to more recent scandals. Like Rotherham. Or Stafford.
    What happened in Stafford ?
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Cyclefree said:

    What could really be a problem for the political classes is if there's another serious terrorist outrage in this country carried out by people from the same group from which the Rotherham rapists came.

    I'd hope that the fact that that has already happened is already really a problem for the political classes.

    And at risk of sounding like a Kipper I'd like to see serious organised crime with an Islamic element being defined as a specific remit of the National Crime Agency.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    edited August 2014
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Miss Cyclefree, people may compare the outrage of thousands of nutcases marching against the terrible evil of cartoons they dislike with the lack thereof about 1,400 rapes. Or the Gaza protests versus nothing over this.

    I'm quite surprised there appear to have been no reprisals whatsoever. Yet.

    I think people are making comparisons. No-one (no-one sensible anyway) wants reprisals.

    But they do want those responsible caught and brought to justice - not empty words about "learning lessons".

    And they want the government to deal adequately with the terrorists who threaten us - not statements saying that there is a terrible threat, all these ghastly people have come back but we can't do anything about it.

    All they see is posturing and insincerity. And a failure by the state to fulfill its most basic functions: a system of justice and the provision of security.

    Maybe it will carry on like this or maybe, one day, something will happen; people will react and there will be some appalling revenge riot or something.

    I bloody well hope not. But the utter feebleness and desperate looking away from the facts by those in charge does not make me hopeful.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    The entire approach of Rotherham council to allegedly sweep things under the carpet is, sadly for them, now completely out of date thanks to Twitter, etc. Rotherham's "problems" started in 1997, Twitter started in 2006.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    AndyJS said:

    Cameron and Miliband's attitude to UKIP voters is they're a nuisance who should just disappear as quickly as possible.

    How many of these UKIP "voters" will actually vote ?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    SimonStClare,

    "The officers being called are Martin Kimber, Chief Executive, and Joyce Thacker, Strategic Director of Children and Young People’s Services."

    Well, she should be good entertainment. She could start by explaining that she took the adopted kids off Ukip parents so there would be more for the Pakistani-heritage community to exploit. Though I expect she may be a little more circumspect now.

    But yes, I sympathise with the Muslim Youth Forum who find themselves having to apologise for other's failings.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited August 2014
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. StClare, was Thacker the cretin who refused to let children be adopted by a couple who were UKIP members?

    Good evening Mr Morris, you have a good memory - yes, Joyce Thacker has the duel distinction of not only presiding over the confiscation of happy foster children from adoptive parents based entirely on their political beliefs, but also for her refusal to stand down in the wake of this latest scandal to hit Rotherham.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    surbiton said:

    AndyJS said:

    TheWatcher said:

    AndyJS said:

    Neil Hamilton confirms he is to apply to be on the UKIP shortlist for Boston & Skegness:

    http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Neil-Hamilton-applies-Boston-Skegness-UKIP/story-22847102-detail/story.html

    Neil 'Cash for questions' Hamilton? I often wonder about UKIP's wisdom in taking him on board.
    Will voters care that much about an issue from more than 20 years ago? Cash for questions seems like small beer compared to more recent scandals. Like Rotherham. Or Stafford.
    What happened in Stafford ?
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Hospital_scandal
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. StClare, one needs a good memory to correct the innumerable mistakes Mr. Eagles makes when attempting to refer to classical history ;)

    Miss Cyclefree, quite agree. Justice must be done and be seen to be done. Shaun Wright must go.

    But the perpetrators, assuming *all* the evidence hasn't been shredded, must be caught and held to account.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited August 2014
    AndyJS said:

    surbiton said:

    AndyJS said:

    TheWatcher said:

    AndyJS said:

    Neil Hamilton confirms he is to apply to be on the UKIP shortlist for Boston & Skegness:

    http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Neil-Hamilton-applies-Boston-Skegness-UKIP/story-22847102-detail/story.html

    Neil 'Cash for questions' Hamilton? I often wonder about UKIP's wisdom in taking him on board.
    Will voters care that much about an issue from more than 20 years ago? Cash for questions seems like small beer compared to more recent scandals. Like Rotherham. Or Stafford.
    What happened in Stafford ?
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Hospital_scandal
    I don't know how to put this. Any NHS story, however bad, is good for Labour and bad for the Tories.

    The Tories are welcome to raise Stafford [ tragic though it was ]. Health will always help Labour. Like defence only helps right wing parties.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    MrJones said:

    TOPPING said:


    Don't disagree but it is fraught with danger for both parties, which is not to say they should have done nothing. We are seasoned political geeks on here so I don't need to articulate the respective dangers but each, as far as I can see, has so far said: we trust the process, the individuals tasked to maintain that process have fallen short and we think they should resign.

    Neither party has so far involved themselves in the process. I can't see how UKIP could (have).


    You don't think there's things in Jay's report that would constitute perverting the course of justice?

    Just saw on the previous thread someone else already mentioned perverting the course of justice as a possible mechanism.

  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    As per comments below, recommend reading the transcript of the Home Affairs Select Committee grilling of Martin Kimber and Joyce Thacker in January 2013...

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/68/130108a.htm
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    hucks67 said:

    Was the Cameron and May announcement re security fears designed to move the media from talking about UKIP/Carswell ? I am sure neither would use such fear to change the media focus, for party political reasons.

    It was actually quite funny ! Raise level to "serious" and acknowledging there was no credible intelligence !

    Wolf ! Wolf !
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    AndyJS said:

    TheWatcher said:

    AndyJS said:

    Neil Hamilton confirms he is to apply to be on the UKIP shortlist for Boston & Skegness:

    http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Neil-Hamilton-applies-Boston-Skegness-UKIP/story-22847102-detail/story.html

    Neil 'Cash for questions' Hamilton? I often wonder about UKIP's wisdom in taking him on board.
    Will voters care that much about an issue from more than 20 years ago? Cash for questions seems like small beer compared to more recent scandals. Like Rotherham. Or Stafford.
    Neil Hamilton is still regarded as a political joke (or that is how the media will portray it).
    The formidable Christine would be a much better choice imo.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,894
    perdix said:


    I would have thought that it was pretty obvious that Cameron is not happy with the status quo in the EU. Perhaps he should shout it louder, or perhaps he thinks that megaphone diplomacy will not help him in his dealings with other EU leaders.

    Carswell essentially said that Cameron didn't care, and was just a career politician. There's some truth there I feel. Cameron isn't a brave leader - the really tough stuff that he's done has been Osborne's work. He knows this, and unfortunately the EU leaders know this.

    Cameron needs to find the courage, and lead. If he does that he has the potential to shape the UK, if he doesn't he'll be a rather dull footnote.

    If Labour win in 2015 the last sentence applies too - just Ed in the frame.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    F1: ex-Caterham workers bring legal action against their former team:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/28987492

    I wonder if Caterham will end up being rebranded, given Fernandes is no longer involved.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    One of the things that ought to be done is an order from Pickles and/or Morgan to every council and social services in the country that all files relating to children or individuals connected to them or suspected of mistreating / abusing or otherwise harming them, however far they go back, must be immediately preserved and that the normal process of shredding / destruction must stop and that any officer failing to comply with this instruction will face disciplinary proceedings.

    That way we at least preserve the evidence should anyone be arsed actually to carry out an inquiry.

    Note that it was said that social workers noted down the car registration numbers of cars picking up girls. If that info is still available it would give police a start in tracking down more of the perpetrators.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,030
    surbiton said:

    hucks67 said:

    Was the Cameron and May announcement re security fears designed to move the media from talking about UKIP/Carswell ? I am sure neither would use such fear to change the media focus, for party political reasons.

    It was actually quite funny ! Raise level to "serious" and acknowledging there was no credible intelligence !

    Wolf ! Wolf !
    If there were credible evidence of an attack the level would be 'critical'. This is warning that an attack is likely, but no evidence to suggest one is imminent. I think it is a pretty fair assessment that the world has got a bit more dangerous in the past 12 months.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Link to H of C Committee re Rotherham.

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/news/rotherham/
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    MrJones said:

    Socrates said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Rotherham is an issue that may have longer term damage to Labour, Carswell came as a shock. If Dave has the balls to get Professor Jay to lead a nationwide inquiry on the subject that cwill be extremely unhelpful for Labour. Sadly I don't think Dave has the balls to order it and try and bring those savanges to justice.

    This is exactly why we need new parties to replace the establishment. It is shocking to me that it's even in question that Cameron won't order a national inquiry. Any decent normal Briton's reaction would be "well we must find out the full truth at once", but the instinct of every politician is "well this is something which must be managed carefully". As Carswell says, it's a small elite so distant in wealth and culture and mindset from the rest of the population. A revolution is needed.

    The Con response is the weirdest of the lot. Unless they still don't get the scale of what's been done in all the same sort of areas around the country this is not only a UXB for Labour it's located precisely under the nomenklatura who run the public sector so politically it's a perfect storm from the Con point of view and yet they do and say the absolute minimum possible.

    I assume it's the threat of some mutually assured destruction but maybe it's just cos anything that happens outside their 30% of the country might as well be on Mars.

    Remember that we already have Tim Fortescue, a Tory whip, admitting that he helped Tory MPs with problems with "little boys".

    I think that bunch of Public School boarders have more skeletons in the closet than are in my local graveyard.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    surbiton said:

    hucks67 said:

    Was the Cameron and May announcement re security fears designed to move the media from talking about UKIP/Carswell ? I am sure neither would use such fear to change the media focus, for party political reasons.

    It was actually quite funny ! Raise level to "serious" and acknowledging there was no credible intelligence !

    Wolf ! Wolf !
    JTAC which makes these assessments is independent of government (and was set up in 2003, not by this government), and what May said was that an attack was highly likely but that there was no intelligence to suggest that it was imminent;"no credible intelligence" is slightly different from that, and not what she said
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    Rexel56,

    Brilliant - she never ceases to amaze. For example ... "when we talk about victims we are talking about young people who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation, not necessarily victims of sexual exploitation. They are two very distinct things."

    So it never really happened?
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    AndyJS said:

    The entire approach of Rotherham council to allegedly sweep things under the carpet is, sadly for them, now completely out of date thanks to Twitter, etc. Rotherham's "problems" started in 1997, Twitter started in 2006.

    I think you are denying credit where it's due.

    Fora such as this and newspaper should credit as well.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    "I think that bunch of Public School boarders have more skeletons in the closet than are in my local graveyard."

    So that's more than 1,400 at a conservative estimate?
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    CD13 said:

    Rexel56,

    Brilliant - she never ceases to amaze. For example ... "when we talk about victims we are talking about young people who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation, not necessarily victims of sexual exploitation. They are two very distinct things."

    So it never really happened?

    Just reading the conclusions and recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee on Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming...

    ... turns out that the findings of this weeks report were pretty much covered in the HAC report 18 months ago, one difference being an estimate of 600 victims in Rotherham rather than 1,400...

    ... So one question, why is this getting the attention it is now but didn't in 2013? Is it the higher number, is it the clarity of the report, is it the more lurid detail, is it a more febrile atmosphere?

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/68/6808.htm
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    This - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/11/rotherhams-political-commissars-reinforce-the-need-for-a-free-press/ - is worth rereading in the light of what we now know about Rotherham.

    It also reinforces my view that one of the political consequences of this is that the Leveson proposals should be junked altogether, precisely because having them in place would have prevented the story coming out.

    Whether that is one of the consequences I don't know. I feel very gloomy indeed about whether anything good will come out of this whole ghastly mess for anyone: no real justice for the victims, perpetrators still free, people in charge not being made accountable and us denied knowledge of what is happening in our country. Above all, if we don't deal with it, other girls, other children will be abused and harmed.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Ninoinoz said:

    MrJones said:

    Socrates said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Rotherham is an issue that may have longer term damage to Labour, Carswell came as a shock. If Dave has the balls to get Professor Jay to lead a nationwide inquiry on the subject that cwill be extremely unhelpful for Labour. Sadly I don't think Dave has the balls to order it and try and bring those savanges to justice.

    This is exactly why we need new parties to replace the establishment. It is shocking to me that it's even in question that Cameron won't order a national inquiry. Any decent normal Briton's reaction would be "well we must find out the full truth at once", but the instinct of every politician is "well this is something which must be managed carefully". As Carswell says, it's a small elite so distant in wealth and culture and mindset from the rest of the population. A revolution is needed.

    The Con response is the weirdest of the lot. Unless they still don't get the scale of what's been done in all the same sort of areas around the country this is not only a UXB for Labour it's located precisely under the nomenklatura who run the public sector so politically it's a perfect storm from the Con point of view and yet they do and say the absolute minimum possible.

    I assume it's the threat of some mutually assured destruction but maybe it's just cos anything that happens outside their 30% of the country might as well be on Mars.

    Remember that we already have Tim Fortescue, a Tory whip, admitting that he helped Tory MPs with problems with "little boys".

    I think that bunch of Public School boarders have more skeletons in the closet than are in my local graveyard.
    It is the case that at some single-sex male boarding schools there is a certain amount of sexual activity between boys aged variously 13-18. Very little or none of this activity could remotely be called paedophile, and it would be very unusual to prosecute for any breach of age of consent rules. From an informal survey of a wide range of cases I would say that almost everyone involved reverts on leaving to the sexuality they would have had anyway.

    It is also the case that many adult men join the Roman catholic priesthood as a lifelong career choice because of the opportunities it offers for the sexual abuse of children decades junior to them.

    Please expand the point you were making.

  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    Rexel56 said:

    CD13 said:

    Rexel56,

    Brilliant - she never ceases to amaze. For example ... "when we talk about victims we are talking about young people who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation, not necessarily victims of sexual exploitation. They are two very distinct things."

    So it never really happened?

    Just reading the conclusions and recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee on Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming...

    ... turns out that the findings of this weeks report were pretty much covered in the HAC report 18 months ago, one difference being an estimate of 600 victims in Rotherham rather than 1,400...

    ... So one question, why is this getting the attention it is now but didn't in 2013? Is it the higher number, is it the clarity of the report, is it the more lurid detail, is it a more febrile atmosphere?

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/68/6808.htm

    Someone in Rotherham leaked internal minutes showing the council and police knew all about it before the Times.

    If they hadn't done that then the Rotherham inquiry would never have happened and the political class would have been a step nearer to getting away with it.

  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    RobD said:

    surbiton said:

    hucks67 said:

    Was the Cameron and May announcement re security fears designed to move the media from talking about UKIP/Carswell ? I am sure neither would use such fear to change the media focus, for party political reasons.

    It was actually quite funny ! Raise level to "serious" and acknowledging there was no credible intelligence !

    Wolf ! Wolf !
    If there were credible evidence of an attack the level would be 'critical'. This is warning that an attack is likely, but no evidence to suggest one is imminent. I think it is a pretty fair assessment that the world has got a bit more dangerous in the past 12 months.
    Not to mention we have NATO rocking up next week. Which is something of a target.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,030
    MrJones said:

    Rexel56 said:

    CD13 said:

    Rexel56,

    Brilliant - she never ceases to amaze. For example ... "when we talk about victims we are talking about young people who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation, not necessarily victims of sexual exploitation. They are two very distinct things."

    So it never really happened?

    Just reading the conclusions and recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee on Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming...

    ... turns out that the findings of this weeks report were pretty much covered in the HAC report 18 months ago, one difference being an estimate of 600 victims in Rotherham rather than 1,400...

    ... So one question, why is this getting the attention it is now but didn't in 2013? Is it the higher number, is it the clarity of the report, is it the more lurid detail, is it a more febrile atmosphere?

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/68/6808.htm

    Someone in Rotherham leaked internal minutes showing the council and police knew all about it before the Times.

    If they hadn't done that then the Rotherham inquiry would never have happened and the political class would have been a step nearer to getting away with it.

    Where is this?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited August 2014
    Ed Miliband talks to press or lets someone read out a press release.

    http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/labour-leader-ed-miliband-speaks-out-on-rotherham-abuse-scandal-1-6813523

    but did he take questions?
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    Ishmael_X said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    MrJones said:

    Socrates said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think Rotherham is an issue that may have longer term damage to Labour, Carswell came as a shock. If Dave has the balls to get Professor Jay to lead a nationwide inquiry on the subject that cwill be extremely unhelpful for Labour. Sadly I don't think Dave has the balls to order it and try and bring those savanges to justice.

    This is exactly why we need new parties to replace the establishment. It is shocking to me that it's even in question that Cameron won't order a national inquiry. Any decent normal Briton's reaction would be "well we must find out the full truth at once", but the instinct of every politician is "well this is something which must be managed carefully". As Carswell says, it's a small elite so distant in wealth and culture and mindset from the rest of the population. A revolution is needed.

    The Con response is the weirdest of the lot. Unless they still don't get the scale of what's been done in all the same sort of areas around the country this is not only a UXB for Labour it's located precisely under the nomenklatura who run the public sector so politically it's a perfect storm from the Con point of view and yet they do and say the absolute minimum possible.

    I assume it's the threat of some mutually assured destruction but maybe it's just cos anything that happens outside their 30% of the country might as well be on Mars.

    Remember that we already have Tim Fortescue, a Tory whip, admitting that he helped Tory MPs with problems with "little boys".

    I think that bunch of Public School boarders have more skeletons in the closet than are in my local graveyard.
    It is the case that at some single-sex male boarding schools there is a certain amount of sexual activity between boys aged variously 13-18. Very little or none of this activity could remotely be called paedophile, and it would be very unusual to prosecute for any breach of age of consent rules. From an informal survey of a wide range of cases I would say that almost everyone involved reverts on leaving to the sexuality they would have had anyway.

    It is also the case that many adult men join the Roman catholic priesthood as a lifelong career choice because of the opportunities it offers for the sexual abuse of children decades junior to them.

    Please expand the point you were making.

    Insert classic Catholic Church response here: the boys were just too appealing....
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    edited August 2014
    perdix said:

    Omnium said:

    @Topping, Socrates
    There's a lot more middle class support for UKIP than you might imagine. Very few are actually going to vote for them as things stand, but they're far from off the radar. Big immigration figures, the impotency of the British government in European discussions, and just a bit of old-fashioned xenophobia really could propel UKIP to the fore.

    Carswell's speech yesterday summed things up I think. All parties need to really think about what the UK's relationship with Europe should be. Only the LDs have a sensible approach - the fact that they'll get killed for it is, I grant you, a little unfortunate.

    Cameron really needs to take a stance. He's put it off for too long, and irrespective of how it plays politically he simply has to make it clear to the other EU leaders that the UK isn't happy with the status quo.

    Ed needs to agree to a referendum. A mutual, and minimal shopping list could then be agreed. Even the LDs want some change.

    I would have thought that it was pretty obvious that Cameron is not happy with the status quo in the EU. Perhaps he should shout it louder, or perhaps he thinks that megaphone diplomacy will not help him in his dealings with other EU leaders.

    Cameron is only unhappy with the status quo for as long as it is an issue which threatens his chances of winning in 2015. No one seriously thinks that if it didn't have the potential to derail his aim to be PM after next May he would have any concerns about it at all.

    His concern with the EU and its influence over the UK stretches exactly as far as its potential to cause him problems with his own MPs and the voters.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,935
    surbiton said:

    AndyJS said:

    surbiton said:

    AndyJS said:

    TheWatcher said:

    AndyJS said:

    Neil Hamilton confirms he is to apply to be on the UKIP shortlist for Boston & Skegness:

    http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Neil-Hamilton-applies-Boston-Skegness-UKIP/story-22847102-detail/story.html

    Neil 'Cash for questions' Hamilton? I often wonder about UKIP's wisdom in taking him on board.
    Will voters care that much about an issue from more than 20 years ago? Cash for questions seems like small beer compared to more recent scandals. Like Rotherham. Or Stafford.
    What happened in Stafford ?
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Hospital_scandal
    I don't know how to put this. Any NHS story, however bad, is good for Labour and bad for the Tories.

    The Tories are welcome to raise Stafford [ tragic though it was ]. Health will always help Labour. Like defence only helps right wing parties.
    Have you any idea how grotesque that sounds? "Yeah, we can preside over old dears drinking their flower water so as not to die of dehydration. We can have mass deaths on our watch due to neglect. So what? Our voters still think the sun shines out of our arse on the NHS....."

  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    RobD said:

    MrJones said:

    Rexel56 said:

    CD13 said:

    Rexel56,

    Brilliant - she never ceases to amaze. For example ... "when we talk about victims we are talking about young people who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation, not necessarily victims of sexual exploitation. They are two very distinct things."

    So it never really happened?

    Just reading the conclusions and recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee on Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming...

    ... turns out that the findings of this weeks report were pretty much covered in the HAC report 18 months ago, one difference being an estimate of 600 victims in Rotherham rather than 1,400...

    ... So one question, why is this getting the attention it is now but didn't in 2013? Is it the higher number, is it the clarity of the report, is it the more lurid detail, is it a more febrile atmosphere?

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/68/6808.htm

    Someone in Rotherham leaked internal minutes showing the council and police knew all about it before the Times.

    If they hadn't done that then the Rotherham inquiry would never have happened and the political class would have been a step nearer to getting away with it.

    Where is this?

    It was in the the Times at the time. I'm only assuming it was the thing that forced the local Rotherham inquiry on top of the HoC's non-inquiry.

    It was also on here

    http://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/

    I'll try and find an exact link.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Quite.
    MarqueeMark said:

    surbiton said:

    AndyJS said:

    surbiton said:

    AndyJS said:

    TheWatcher said:

    AndyJS said:

    Neil Hamilton confirms he is to apply to be on the UKIP shortlist for Boston & Skegness:

    http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Neil-Hamilton-applies-Boston-Skegness-UKIP/story-22847102-detail/story.html

    Neil 'Cash for questions' Hamilton? I often wonder about UKIP's wisdom in taking him on board.
    Will voters care that much about an issue from more than 20 years ago? Cash for questions seems like small beer compared to more recent scandals. Like Rotherham. Or Stafford.
    What happened in Stafford ?
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Hospital_scandal
    I don't know how to put this. Any NHS story, however bad, is good for Labour and bad for the Tories.

    The Tories are welcome to raise Stafford [ tragic though it was ]. Health will always help Labour. Like defence only helps right wing parties.
    Have you any idea how grotesque that sounds? "Yeah, we can preside over old dears drinking their flower water so as not to die of dehydration. We can have mass deaths on our watch due to neglect. So what? Our voters still think the sun shines out of our arse on the NHS....."

  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 1,019
    Surbiton's view that a PM's comments about raising the threat level are quite funny really is grotesque.
This discussion has been closed.