Btw, many thanks for your Washington Nationals tip. What do you think of their chances in the play offs? Should we be laying off and if so, when?
I am wrestling with the lay-off conundrum myself, having continued to back them all season I am very very green but ought properly to take some profits (which will cover other, more painful, MLB bets, which you should be grateful I didn't advise to you).
Objectively, their chances are good; there is a more than fair chance they get home advantage through the National League playoffs, and I reckon they are the class of the NL, though the Dodgers have a very good 1-2 punch in Kershaw & Greinke.
The AL will have the home-field advantage in the World Series, and Oakland in particular are very good, though choking at the moment. So, putting all that together, the Nationals ought to be about 5/1 or 11/2 [to 100%] heading into the playoffs. (Paddy's 15/2 is more than fair for anyone wanting to get on board now).
Just a quick lunchtime posting following a thought I've had this morning.
Namely has Baroness Warsi had anything to say about Rotherham yet ?
Or is she yet another person who knew nothing about anything. Despite that is being Minster for Faith and Communities for the two years until her resignation, shadow minister for that issue for three years before the election, being big mates with Lord Ahmed of Rotherham and coming from a town only a few miles up the M1.
The value is the 60 bar. I doubt that Con are in with a shot here, but if they are then they and UKIP are going to split the 2010 Con vote in half and give Lab a chance of sneaking through the middle.
Here's an idea: can we just take away the religious opt-out for animals that aren't stunned before slaughter? That way, the sort of nutty Muslims that are purist about these things will have to go vegetarian or leave the country...
Stunning is the norm in Muslim slaughterhouses in Britain, as I understand it, after they were quietly lobbied by Elliott Morley when he was animal welfare minister (I believe there is one exception): people who run slaughterhouses are normally pragmatic businessmen rather than people big on religious purity. Elliott was unfortunately unable to persuade the much smaller number of schechita slaughterhouses.
That said, if we are actually concerned about animals rather than merely having a go at other religions, there is I suspect a great deal that could be done to make slaughterhouses less appalling (why not stun them on entrance to the site?), and a legal requirement for pre-stunning would probably be more acceptable even to people with strong religious views if they could see it was part of a general effort to reduce the terror level for the animals rather than merely a pot-shot at orthodox religious people.
If you want a compare and contrast over how to make muck to stick...
Tories non-attacks of Labour over Stafford NHS and now Rotherham child abuse scandal vs Labour on phone hacking.
When phone hacking went big Labour rolled out every attack dog on every media outlet hour after hour with their coordinated plan to ensure that Cameron / Tories get mentioned 1000's and 1000's of time. What Labour are good at is shaping a message so that people remember it, they keep it simple (even if it isn't true).
When the Tories do attempt to attack Labour, they so often come off with this weak unclear attack. It feels more like they are trying to debate at the Oxford Union than get through to the general public that take only a passing interest in politics and need to be screamed at to take notice.
It also helps that the likes of the BBC can't control themselves at any mention of Rupert Murdoch / bad news for Tories, where as they talk about burdle of proof etc when Labour involved e.g McAlpine vs PIE...shot their load without proper fact checking vs nothing for weeks despite piles of info.
I have also heard numerous extended pieces on Rotherham that have lasted 10-15 minutes and managed not a single mention of Labour being in power both locally and nationally.
If you want a compare and contrast over how to make muck to stick...
Tories non-attacks of Labour over Stafford NHS and now Rotherham child abuse scandal vs Labour on phone hacking.
When phone hacking went big Labour rolled out every attack dog on every media outlet hour after hour with their coordinated plan to ensure that Cameron / Tories get mentioned 1000's and 1000's of time. What Labour are good at is shaping a message so that people remember it, they keep it simple (even if it isn't true).
When the Tories do attempt to attack Labour, they so often come off with this weak unclear attack. It feels more like they are trying to debate at the Oxford Union than get through to the general public that take only a passing interest in politics and need to be screamed at to take notice.
It also helps that the likes of the BBC can't control themselves at any mention of Rupert Murdoch / bad news for Tories, where as they talk about burdle of proof etc when Labour involved e.g McAlpine vs PIE...shot their load without proper fact checking vs nothing for weeks despite piles of info.
I have also heard numerous extended pieces on Rotherham that have lasted 10-15 minutes and managed not a single mention of Labour being in power both locally and nationally.
If you want a compare and contrast over how to make muck to stick...
Tories non-attacks of Labour over Stafford NHS and now Rotherham child abuse scandal vs Labour on phone hacking.
When phone hacking went big Labour rolled out every attack dog on every media outlet hour after hour with their coordinated plan to ensure that Cameron / Tories get mentioned 1000's and 1000's of time. What Labour are good at is shaping a message so that people remember it, they keep it simple (even if it isn't true).
When the Tories do attempt to attack Labour, they so often come off with this weak unclear attack. It feels more like they are trying to debate at the Oxford Union than get through to the general public that take only a passing interest in politics and need to be screamed at to take notice.
It also helps that the likes of the BBC can't control themselves at any mention of Rupert Murdoch / bad news for Tories, where as they talk about burdle of proof etc when Labour involved e.g McAlpine vs PIE...shot their load without proper fact checking vs nothing for weeks despite piles of info.
I have also heard numerous extended pieces on Rotherham that have lasted 10-15 minutes and managed not a single mention of Labour being in power both locally and nationally.
Or perhaps the BBC feel phone hacking is of more import than systematic mass child rapes.
Thanks for the update. (For the uninitiated, TP tipped Washington Nationals for the World Series when the odds were 20/1.)
Naturally I have been following the Nats progress closely and have been persistently mystified that their odds always seemed on the generous side considering how well they are doing. The mismatch persists. In the absence of a truly outstanding team, you'd think any side (such as the Nats) that has virtually secured its play off place would be trading close to 7/1 but for some reason the bookies, and even Betfair, have reflected a more skeptical view of their chances.
I don't really understand it, but then baseball wouldn't exactly be my chosen subject on Mastermind.
If you want a compare and contrast over how to make muck to stick...
Tories non-attacks of Labour over Stafford NHS and now Rotherham child abuse scandal vs Labour on phone hacking.
When phone hacking went big Labour rolled out every attack dog on every media outlet hour after hour with their coordinated plan to ensure that Cameron / Tories get mentioned 1000's and 1000's of time. What Labour are good at is shaping a message so that people remember it, they keep it simple (even if it isn't true).
When the Tories do attempt to attack Labour, they so often come off with this weak unclear attack. It feels more like they are trying to debate at the Oxford Union than get through to the general public that take only a passing interest in politics and need to be screamed at to take notice.
It also helps that the likes of the BBC can't control themselves at any mention of Rupert Murdoch / bad news for Tories, where as they talk about burdle of proof etc when Labour involved e.g McAlpine vs PIE...shot their load without proper fact checking vs nothing for weeks despite piles of info.
I have also heard numerous extended pieces on Rotherham that have lasted 10-15 minutes and managed not a single mention of Labour being in power both locally and nationally.
The Tory party seems to have taken it upon itself to protect the Establishment and the cosy Westminster consensus. Every day that passes makes me more and more disgusted with them. They are approaching 50% of my utter loathing of the Labour traitors.
The value is the 60 bar. I doubt that Con are in with a shot here, but if they are then they and UKIP are going to split the 2010 Con vote in half and give Lab a chance of sneaking through the middle.
Really? You think Labour could top the required 30% in Clacton?
Thanks for the update. (For the uninitiated, TP tipped Washington Nationals for the World Series when the odds were 20/1.)
Naturally I have been following the Nats progress closely and have been persistently mystified that their odds always seemed on the generous side considering how well they are doing. The mismatch persists. In the absence of a truly outstanding team, you'd think any side (such as the Nats) that has virtually secured its play off place would be trading close to 7/1 but for some reason the bookies, and even Betfair, have reflected a more skeptical view of their chances.
I don't really understand it, but then baseball wouldn't exactly be my chosen subject on Mastermind.
By necessity I've had to become a fan of baseball, I still can't get my head around how a game based on rounders is so popular.
The value is the 60 bar. I doubt that Con are in with a shot here, but if they are then they and UKIP are going to split the 2010 Con vote in half and give Lab a chance of sneaking through the middle.
Really? You think Labour could top the required 30% in Clacton?
Given Survation had Carswells personal vote at something like 22%, without ANY UKIP support added! I think we can safely write Labour off
Here's an idea: can we just take away the religious opt-out for animals that aren't stunned before slaughter? That way, the sort of nutty Muslims that are purist about these things will have to go vegetarian or leave the country...
Stunning is the norm in Muslim slaughterhouses in Britain, as I understand it, after they were quietly lobbied by Elliott Morley when he was animal welfare minister (I believe there is one exception): people who run slaughterhouses are normally pragmatic businessmen rather than people big on religious purity. Elliott was unfortunately unable to persuade the much smaller number of schechita slaughterhouses.
That said, if we are actually concerned about animals rather than merely having a go at other religions, there is I suspect a great deal that could be done to make slaughterhouses less appalling (why not stun them on entrance to the site?), and a legal requirement for pre-stunning would probably be more acceptable even to people with strong religious views if they could see it was part of a general effort to reduce the terror level for the animals rather than merely a pot-shot at orthodox religious people.
If there are common sense measures to improve animal welfare, I'm all for it. However, I hardly see how it's a pot-shot at orthodox religious people to simply remove their special privileges. Was it a pot-shot at white people to allow the blacks to vote in the Jim Crow south?
The value is the 60 bar. I doubt that Con are in with a shot here, but if they are then they and UKIP are going to split the 2010 Con vote in half and give Lab a chance of sneaking through the middle.
Really? You think Labour could top the required 30% in Clacton?
Given Survation had Carswells personal vote at something like 22%, without ANY UKIP support added! I think we can safely write Labour off
You can write the Conservatives off if Betfair is anything to go by too !
Naturally I have been following the Nats progress closely and have been persistently mystified that their odds always seemed on the generous side considering how well they are doing. The mismatch persists. In the absence of a truly outstanding team, you'd think any side (such as the Nats) that has virtually secured its play off place would be trading close to 7/1 but for some reason the bookies, and even Betfair, have reflected a more skeptical view of their chances.
I don't really understand it, but then baseball wouldn't exactly be my chosen subject on Mastermind.
http://www.fangraphs.com/coolstandings.aspx has them as 9/2 favourites, not unsurprisingly since the other 2 best teams (Angels & Athletics) are stuck in the same division, meaning one of them will face a wild card game just to make the playoffs proper.
But it's important to remember that baseball playoffs are called a crapshoot for a reason - part of the reason the season is so long is that on any given day it's pretty easy for one side to beat another. The best teams win 6/10 and the worst teams win 4/10, so a best-of-5/7 between two good teams isn't far off a toss-up.
Here's an idea: can we just take away the religious opt-out for animals that aren't stunned before slaughter? That way, the sort of nutty Muslims that are purist about these things will have to go vegetarian or leave the country...
Stunning is the norm in Muslim slaughterhouses in Britain, as I understand it, after they were quietly lobbied by Elliott Morley when he was animal welfare minister (I believe there is one exception): people who run slaughterhouses are normally pragmatic businessmen rather than people big on religious purity. Elliott was unfortunately unable to persuade the much smaller number of schechita slaughterhouses.
That said, if we are actually concerned about animals rather than merely having a go at other religions, there is I suspect a great deal that could be done to make slaughterhouses less appalling (why not stun them on entrance to the site?), and a legal requirement for pre-stunning would probably be more acceptable even to people with strong religious views if they could see it was part of a general effort to reduce the terror level for the animals rather than merely a pot-shot at orthodox religious people.
I seemed to remember that when this issue has been brought up again recently that things have changed a little.
One of the big drivers of increasing halal meat in the supply chain, is only in small part to do with appealing to Muslim customers directly, rather it is just much easier / cheaper to process everything in one so that is meets every bodies requirements (assuming you have no issue as a non-muslim for eating halal, which some do on religious grounds) go e.g. basically all New new lamb has been halal for ages, because they export around the world and just cheaper to do so.
You can argue if that is right or wrong, but I believe the driver is economics i.e its cheaper to have some bloke utter a few words and be able to export around the world, than run two slaughter houses.
However, when Morley was minister halal was far less widespread in UK, and I seemed to remember reading in recent reports that with the general growth in this approach of producing halal compliant meat, so was the use of un-stunned approach. One reason is cost and second is, some muslim / muslim countries demand un-stunned approach, so again it is the economics of appealing to as many people as possible.
I think this issue needs looking at again, as I'm not sure your statement based upon something that happened 10 years ago is quite as true anymore.
I do question the point of an opinion poll in Clacton of an established, if flouncing Carswell vs an empty seat. Will be more worthwhile once the Tories actually have someone as candidate....
Really? You think Labour could top the required 30% in Clacton?
Well, they reached 25% at the GE, plus there was a 13% LibDem share, so on paper they should easily be able to reach 30% in a by-election. I agree, though, that they probably won't.
Cooper attempting to position Rotherham as current government's fault.
This is all May's fault. It beggars belief the tories can be caught out on the back foot on this.
But that is the tory party today. Utterly cowed. Utterly confused. Utterly convinced labour are morally superior.
How on earth is this May's fault? I am no great fan of the current government but the idea that May is responsible for any of this is totally bizarre.
Outside of Rotherham, I don't think any single individual can be blamed. It's a collective blame that deserves to go to a political-media class that created a culture where any hint of anything that could possibly be construed as "racism" was used to ostracise and exclude people. It created a culture of fear that prevented rational political discussion or people looking into what they should have been looking into. Just look at the environment I was subjected to on this site (regularly called a bigot/racist, accused of "salivating over child abuse" etc) for trying to raise the alarm that we had a serious problem here. I'm rather thick-skinned, but I'm sure others that would have been put off from getting involved in the discussion due to the noxious environment caused by tim and others.
The value is the 60 bar. I doubt that Con are in with a shot here, but if they are then they and UKIP are going to split the 2010 Con vote in half and give Lab a chance of sneaking through the middle.
Really? You think Labour could top the required 30% in Clacton?
Given Survation had Carswells personal vote at something like 22%, without ANY UKIP support added! I think we can safely write Labour off
You can write the Conservatives off if Betfair is anything to go by too !
I do question the point of an opinion poll in Clacton of an established, if flouncing Carswell vs an empty seat. Will be more worthwhile once the Tories actually have someone as candidate....
I find it bizarre that the Conservatives have moved this so quickly: I would have thought (given how far they were behind in the opinion polls) that they would have benefited from an open primary and all the resulting publicity.
Cooper attempting to position Rotherham as current government's fault.
This is all May's fault. It beggars belief the tories can be caught out on the back foot on this.
But that is the tory party today. Utterly cowed. Utterly confused. Utterly convinced labour are morally superior.
How on earth is this May's fault? I am no great fan of the current government but the idea that May is responsible for any of this is totally bizarre.
Outside of Rotherham, I don't think any single individual can be blamed. It's a collective blame that deserves to go to a political-media class that created a culture where any hint of anything that could possibly be construed as "racism" was used to ostracise and exclude people. It created a culture of fear that prevented rational political discussion or people looking into what they should have been looking into. Just look at the environment I was subjected to on this site (regularly called a bigot/racist, accused of "salivating over child abuse" etc) for trying to raise the alarm that we had a serious problem here. I'm rather thick-skinned, but I'm sure others that would have been put off from getting involved in the discussion due to the noxious environment caused by tim and others.
And it's still going on. Pressure cooker, drum beats far off on the right, establishment seemingly forcing the electorate down that path. Dangerous times. Then again, f... The establishment
I do question the point of an opinion poll in Clacton of an established, if flouncing Carswell vs an empty seat. Will be more worthwhile once the Tories actually have someone as candidate....
I find it bizarre that the Conservatives have moved this so quickly: I would have thought (given how far they were behind in the opinion polls) that they would have benefited from an open primary and all the resulting publicity.
Gambling on having more time to heal the wound after/they are idiots
I do question the point of an opinion poll in Clacton of an established, if flouncing Carswell vs an empty seat. Will be more worthwhile once the Tories actually have someone as candidate....
I find it bizarre that the Conservatives have moved this so quickly: I would have thought (given how far they were behind in the opinion polls) that they would have benefited from an open primary and all the resulting publicity.
The logic is, they are going to lose the by-election no matter what (even Boris as the Tory candidate gets the dockside hooker treatment in Clacton) get it out of the way.
I find it bizarre that the Conservatives have moved this so quickly: I would have thought (given how far they were behind in the opinion polls) that they would have benefited from an open primary and all the resulting publicity.
I expect they want to get the pain over with so as to go back to concentrating on their message for the GE. The hope is that over the next few months voters will start getting real. Whether that is a valid hope or not remains to be seen.
And shortly after this, we heard about policemen who refused to prosecute the serious serial sexual abuse of 11-year-old girls because it was "consensual". (Although this might have been a proxy for "because the perpetrator is of a particular ethnic origin"). I ask you.
I'm not sure the consent issue is *quite* as clear as it sounds even in the Rotherham cases. There are no clear rules and laws, and those that seek to be clear are suffused in greyed boundaries.
If a victim of grooming claims vehemently that the subsequent sex/rape is consensual what are the authorities to do? What *can* they do?
If the girl is over 16 I believe such intercourse with consent would be fully legal. As far as I ca n tell there is nothing that could be done short of interventions based on the mental health / incapacity of the 'victim'.
If the 'groomer' and the 'victim' are both under 16 then it is even greyer.
Latest ARSE for the 2015 general election and JackW Dozen projections will be posted here at 9am.
Poor old Jack his mission in Edinburgh is not going to well, the bottom is falling out of his ARSE
KW posting for JackW
I'm sorry but I'm not aware what you're talking about?
Jack your pathetic kidding on you are not actually there is incredible. Not going to well up in Edinburgh is it.
KW for JackW.
Malcolm I don't know you and there's no need to be rude to me. Jack is not in Edinburgh and only briefly visited there a few weeks ago.
I don't know you and I fail to see how you think I am being rude. Just pointing out that he was in Edinburgh on business , things are not going well on his NO campaign and if you are not him , pass on my best wishes for the continued failure of his mission , he has only a few more weeks to suffer and we will find the ARSE'S do not have it.
KW for JackW.
In the small number of posts for JackW over the past few weeks I've made it clear to Pb that they are posted by me and not Jack but have been undertaken for him on his Pb account.
LOL, Better comedy from you than usual Jack, how is Edinburgh today.
FW for JackW.
You are a very rude individual. I have carefully explained to you the circumstances under which I have posted for Jack. I object to you calling me a liar when I have been open about my posts on Pb.
Whilst you are a very silly JACKW sock puppet. Go away and talk to some of your worshippers , they will fawn over you. I take it by your tantrum that things are getting worse in Edinburgh.
KW for JackW.
I object to your post very seriously. I didn't agree to post for Jack so people like you would abuse me.
Sorry Pb and to Mr Smithson but that's my lot here.
The value is the 60 bar. I doubt that Con are in with a shot here, but if they are then they and UKIP are going to split the 2010 Con vote in half and give Lab a chance of sneaking through the middle.
Really? You think Labour could top the required 30% in Clacton?
I think UKIP will soar effortlessly over the heads of the LibLabServatives borne aloft on the wings of beautiful angels, but in the possible world where they don't: In 2010 Lab (25%) + half of 2010 Lib (13%/2=6.5%) makes 32.5%, so that's the starting point. Plus it's a by-election, which makes things easier for opposition parties than a general election.
I do question the point of an opinion poll in Clacton of an established, if flouncing Carswell vs an empty seat. Will be more worthwhile once the Tories actually have someone as candidate....
I find it bizarre that the Conservatives have moved this so quickly: I would have thought (given how far they were behind in the opinion polls) that they would have benefited from an open primary and all the resulting publicity.
More time to recover from the tonking they are going to take.
From immigration stats to this latest Aysha case, from ISIS militants returning home to Rotherham and Clacton the UKIP manifesto/momentum is writing itself & rolling on.
I'm not sure the consent issue is *quite* as clear as it sounds even in the Rotherham cases. There are no clear rules and laws, and those that seek to be clear are suffused in greyed boundaries.
If a victim of grooming claims vehemently that the subsequent sex/rape is consensual what are the authorities to do? What *can* they do?
If the girl is over 16 I believe such intercourse with consent would be fully legal. As far as I ca n tell there is nothing that could be done short of interventions based on the mental health / incapacity of the 'victim'.
If the 'groomer' and the 'victim' are both under 16 then it is even greyer.
That argument rather falls down when you consider that most of the girls were in what is euphemistically called the 'care' of the local authority, i.e. the local authority was in loco parentis
Interesting. The people most affected by the post independence jobs bloodbath are those voting most enthusiastically for it. I guess they have no idea.
Latest ARSE for the 2015 general election and JackW Dozen projections will be posted here at 9am.
Poor old Jack his mission in Edinburgh is not going to well, the bottom is falling out of his ARSE
KW posting for JackW
I'm sorry but I'm not aware what you're talking about?
Jack your pathetic kidding on you are not actually there is incredible. Not going to well up in Edinburgh is it.
KW for JackW.
Malcolm I don't know you and there's no need to be rude to me. Jack is not in Edinburgh and only briefly visited there a few weeks ago.
I don't know you and I fail to see how you think I am being rude. Just pointing out that he was in Edinburgh on business , things are not going well on his NO campaign and if you are not him , pass on my best wishes for the continued failure of his mission , he has only a few more weeks to suffer and we will find the ARSE'S do not have it.
KW for JackW.
In the small number of posts for JackW over the past few weeks I've made it clear to Pb that they are posted by me and not Jack but have been undertaken for him on his Pb account.
LOL, Better comedy from you than usual Jack, how is Edinburgh today.
FW for JackW.
You are a very rude individual. I have carefully explained to you the circumstances under which I have posted for Jack. I object to you calling me a liar when I have been open about my posts on Pb.
Whilst you are a very silly JACKW sock puppet. Go away and talk to some of your worshippers , they will fawn over you. I take it by your tantrum that things are getting worse in Edinburgh.
KW for JackW.
I object to your post very seriously. I didn't agree to post for Jack so people like you would abuse me.
Sorry Pb and to Mr Smithson but that's my lot here.
Good you are just wasting bandwidth , goodbye.
Posts to this message board don't actually take up much bandwidth, it's why pictures are banned - they take up far more.
Interesting. The people most affected by the post independence jobs bloodbath are those voting most enthusiastically for it. I guess they have no idea.
Looks like the oldies will carry No over the line.
I do question the point of an opinion poll in Clacton of an established, if flouncing Carswell vs an empty seat. Will be more worthwhile once the Tories actually have someone as candidate....
I find it bizarre that the Conservatives have moved this so quickly: I would have thought (given how far they were behind in the opinion polls) that they would have benefited from an open primary and all the resulting publicity.
More time to recover from the tonking they are going to take.
From immigration stats to this latest Aysha case, from ISIS militants returning home to Rotherham and Clacton the UKIP manifesto/momentum is writing itself & rolling on.
How many ISIS militants are actually returning home? And how many are returning because it turned out that fighting in the desert for Allah was actually shit?
I don't know the answer to these questions, but are we wasting large amounts of time on a very small group of people who might actually be newly disenchanted with radical Islam?
I do question the point of an opinion poll in Clacton of an established, if flouncing Carswell vs an empty seat. Will be more worthwhile once the Tories actually have someone as candidate....
I find it bizarre that the Conservatives have moved this so quickly: I would have thought (given how far they were behind in the opinion polls) that they would have benefited from an open primary and all the resulting publicity.
More time to recover from the tonking they are going to take.
From immigration stats to this latest Aysha case, from ISIS militants returning home to Rotherham and Clacton the UKIP manifesto/momentum is writing itself & rolling on.
And all the time the storm clouds gather. UKIP may end up being all that stands between this country and a silver tongued psychopath appearing from the right.
From immigration stats to this latest Aysha case, from ISIS militants returning home to Rotherham and Clacton the UKIP manifesto/momentum is writing itself & rolling on.
Is it? A manifesto requires something other than synchronized grumbling. Currently we don't know much about what UKIP propose, except that they don't want an EU referendum and they have made a couple of policy suggestions which would increase the deficit very substantially.
I do question the point of an opinion poll in Clacton of an established, if flouncing Carswell vs an empty seat. Will be more worthwhile once the Tories actually have someone as candidate....
I find it bizarre that the Conservatives have moved this so quickly: I would have thought (given how far they were behind in the opinion polls) that they would have benefited from an open primary and all the resulting publicity.
More time to recover from the tonking they are going to take.
From immigration stats to this latest Aysha case, from ISIS militants returning home to Rotherham and Clacton the UKIP manifesto/momentum is writing itself & rolling on.
How many ISIS militants are actually returning home? And how many are returning because it turned out that fighting in the desert for Allah was actually shit?
I don't know the answer to these questions, but are we wasting large amounts of time on a very small group of people who might actually be newly disenchanted with radical Islam?
The odd thing about this is that as well as stopping potential homicidal Islamic nutjobs from coming into the country, the papers also seem to want the government to take away the passports of ones who are already in the country to stop them leaving.
The value is the 60 bar. I doubt that Con are in with a shot here, but if they are then they and UKIP are going to split the 2010 Con vote in half and give Lab a chance of sneaking through the middle.
The CON price has now dropped to 6/1 (on extremely low volumes), but you are quite right: somebody is buying LAB at 65/1 which is probably perfectly sensible, IF you intend to trade out before polling day.
I do question the point of an opinion poll in Clacton of an established, if flouncing Carswell vs an empty seat. Will be more worthwhile once the Tories actually have someone as candidate....
I find it bizarre that the Conservatives have moved this so quickly: I would have thought (given how far they were behind in the opinion polls) that they would have benefited from an open primary and all the resulting publicity.
More time to recover from the tonking they are going to take.
from ISIS militants returning home to Rotherham and Clacton
I didn't realise that the latter was a hotbed of Islamic terrorism.
Why do you repeatedly lie about this? UKIP clearly have an official position of wanting an EU referendum. Just because they don't believe in your tactic of folding the entire party to get there, doesn't mean they oppose the goal.
The fact that you Tories are reduced to this crap shows how aimless you are as a party. The referendum is the entirety of your party's policy on both Europe and immigration.
Retweeted by Mike Smithson Paddy Power Politics @pppolitics 2m Odds suggest another Conservative MP defection to #UKIP is more likely than not: 11/10 None 7/4 One 5/2 Two or more http://pdy.pr/68ncvF
A couple of years ago UKIP was looked on as a broken down haywain. Now it's looked on as a band-wagon. Times have certainly changed.
You are a very rude individual. I have carefully explained to you the circumstances under which I have posted for Jack. I object to you calling me a liar when I have been open about my posts on Pb.
Whilst you are a very silly JACKW sock puppet. Go away and talk to some of your worshippers , they will fawn over you. I take it by your tantrum that things are getting worse in Edinburgh.
KW for JackW.
I object to your post very seriously. I didn't agree to post for Jack so people like you would abuse me.
Sorry Pb and to Mr Smithson but that's my lot here.
And shortly after this, we heard about policemen who refused to prosecute the serious serial sexual abuse of 11-year-old girls because it was "consensual". (Although this might have been a proxy for "because the perpetrator is of a particular ethnic origin"). I ask you.
I'm not sure the consent issue is *quite* as clear as it sounds even in the Rotherham cases. There are no clear rules and laws, and those that seek to be clear are suffused in greyed boundaries.
If a victim of grooming claims vehemently that the subsequent sex/rape is consensual what are the authorities to do? What *can* they do?
If the girl is over 16 I believe such intercourse with consent would be fully legal. As far as I ca n tell there is nothing that could be done short of interventions based on the mental health / incapacity of the 'victim'.
If the 'groomer' and the 'victim' are both under 16 then it is even greyer.
As far as I am aware, the age at which consent can be given is 14 legally, sex remaining a crime until age 16. Anyone under 14 and sex is statutory rape regardless of consent or otherwise. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong here
Why do you repeatedly lie about this? UKIP clearly have an official position of wanting an EU referendum. Just because they don't believe in your tactic of folding the entire party to get there, doesn't mean they oppose the goal.
The fact that you Tories are reduced to this crap shows how aimless you are as a party. The referendum is the entirety of your party's policy on both Europe and immigration.
You are fond of calling honest people liars, aren't you? It seems indeed to be a very common and very unattractive fault amongst Kippers.
Yes, I agree that in theory UKIP say they want a referendum, but in practice they are campaigning against one, and Kippers here, such as Sean Fear and Richard T, make no secret of the fact that they don't want a referendum in the next parliament. If they wanted one, they'd vote Tory.
Retweeted by Mike Smithson Paddy Power Politics @pppolitics 2m Odds suggest another Conservative MP defection to #UKIP is more likely than not: 11/10 None 7/4 One 5/2 Two or more http://pdy.pr/68ncvF
A couple of years ago UKIP was looked on as a broken down haywain. Now it's looked on as a band-wagon. Times have certainly changed.
Astonishingly good timing if before 18 September. Does someone want to cripple Cameron?
Evening Standard @standardnews 1h Parents of Ashya King to sue hospital and police over 'cruelty' claims http://bit.ly/1Cm2HyW pic.twitter.com/eZk6TCtB9i
Retweeted by Mike Smithson Paddy Power Politics @pppolitics 2m Odds suggest another Conservative MP defection to #UKIP is more likely than not: 11/10 None 7/4 One 5/2 Two or more http://pdy.pr/68ncvF
A couple of years ago UKIP was looked on as a broken down haywain. Now it's looked on as a band-wagon. Times have certainly changed.
Yes. The establishment has imploded, totally. Took 22 years but here we are.
Readers of the whole piece will be shocked -- shocked, I tell you -- to learn that Hodges goes on to forecast disaster for Ed Miliband: Labour is preparing a generational shift. When Miliband loses next year his successor will come from Labour’s 2010 intake. Chuka Umunna, Rachel Reeves, Tristram Hunt. At the moment they are unpolished diamonds. But they understand that in the four years since Labour was last in power politics has changed. And when the Miliband experiment is finally dispensed with, they know they have to ensure their party changes with it.
Evening Standard @standardnews 1h Parents of Ashya King to sue hospital and police over 'cruelty' claims http://bit.ly/1Cm2HyW pic.twitter.com/eZk6TCtB9i
Good! I hope they win.
Oh dear - their focus now needs to be on their child and the rest of the family. None of this will achieve anything.
Hodges is all over the place. He says the Tories' problem is that they're out of touch with the British public, but then criticises the Right's desire to move towards "isolationism" and "Fifties-style social puritanism", by which he presumably means, euroscepticism and reduced immigration. Both are positions widely supported by the British public.
Why do you repeatedly lie about this? UKIP clearly have an official position of wanting an EU referendum. Just because they don't believe in your tactic of folding the entire party to get there, doesn't mean they oppose the goal.
The fact that you Tories are reduced to this crap shows how aimless you are as a party. The referendum is the entirety of your party's policy on both Europe and immigration.
You are fond of calling honest people liars, aren't you? It seems indeed to be a very common and very unattractive fault amongst Kippers.
Yes, I agree that in theory UKIP say they want a referendum, but in practice they are campaigning against one, and Kippers here, such as Sean Fear and Richard T, make no secret of the fact that they don't want a referendum in the next parliament. If they wanted one, they'd vote Tory.
How's that different from you calling anyone who disagrees with Cameron mentally deficient ?
His libertarianism might be the missing piece in the Kipper jigsaw, it remains to be seen what influence he can have in this regard
But most UKIP voters want the exact opposite of libertarianism (both socially and economically).
And that's what is missing to make them unstoppable. Personal freedom to act, kiss, live, worship and dress for example as you wish without interference from the State or citizens in return for your choices not preventing another exercising their freedom. Basic human right and decency. Game, set and match
So the Ashcroft Clacton poll is as expected - but I expect the Tories to get much closer than these polls suggest which does mean some help for the blues in the expectations management area perhaps if they get relatively close.
The empty seat which is the Tory candidate is on 24% - then you note this from Lord A's poll and I see the outcome being much closer.... but clearly UKIP are strong faves to win.
"More than two-thirds (68 per cent) of those who intend to vote UKIP said a large part of their decision was that they have “the best candidate locally”."
And that's what is missing to make them unstoppable. Personal freedom to act, kiss, live, worship and dress for example as you wish without interference from the State or citizens in return for your choices not preventing another exercising their freedom. Basic human right and decency. Game, set and match
Hmm, not so sure about that. A lot of UKIP support (not all, I accept) comes from people who are quite authoritarian. The same is true of supporters of all the other parties; genuine libertarian views are relatively unusual. The Economist article puts it very well:
Like all political outfits, UKIP is a coalition. It is a partnership of right-wing shire Tories and white, ageing working-class voters disillusioned with Labour. The instincts of these two groups differ in various areas, but they are united by a preference for authoritarian and nationalist policies. Yet a smaller “third UKIP” also exists: Thatcherite and libertarian, comprising much of the party’s youth and some of its younger parliamentary candidates
Why do you repeatedly lie about this? UKIP clearly have an official position of wanting an EU referendum. Just because they don't believe in your tactic of folding the entire party to get there, doesn't mean they oppose the goal.
The fact that you Tories are reduced to this crap shows how aimless you are as a party. The referendum is the entirety of your party's policy on both Europe and immigration.
You are fond of calling honest people liars, aren't you? It seems indeed to be a very common and very unattractive fault amongst Kippers.
Yes, I agree that in theory UKIP say they want a referendum, but in practice they are campaigning against one, and Kippers here, such as Sean Fear and Richard T, make no secret of the fact that they don't want a referendum in the next parliament. If they wanted one, they'd vote Tory.
I accuse people of lying when they know full well what they're saying is not true. As you know here.
So Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall, two of many UKIP supporters on here, should be the people we base UKIP's views on, rather than, say, the official position of the party and of their sitting MP? That's just absurd.
Besides, it's not even correct. I believe Richard and Sean would both happily have a referendum held in the next parliament on a fair basis. They just don't want it under what they regard as unfair circumstances. So their opposition is not to a referendum or to the timing, their opposition is to the context.
Your entire logic is based on the idea that all small party supporters should vote for one of the big two if they share a single major policy. It's obviously stupid, and you know it's obviously stupid. But you keep on repeating it because it's all you've got. Your party is rudderless on these issues. It has nothing to say on what it would renegotiate in the EU and nothing to say on how it would reduce immigration. All you're left with is the contorted logic of saying "if my opponents were serious they'd fold themselves up and join us".
And shortly after this, we heard about policemen who refused to prosecute the serious serial sexual abuse of 11-year-old girls because it was "consensual". (Although this might have been a proxy for "because the perpetrator is of a particular ethnic origin"). I ask you.
I'm not sure the consent issue is *quite* as clear as it sounds even in the Rotherham cases. There are no clear rules and laws, and those that seek to be clear are suffused in greyed boundaries.
If a victim of grooming claims vehemently that the subsequent sex/rape is consensual what are the authorities to do? What *can* they do?
If the girl is over 16 I believe such intercourse with consent would be fully legal. As far as I ca n tell there is nothing that could be done short of interventions based on the mental health / incapacity of the 'victim'.
If the 'groomer' and the 'victim' are both under 16 then it is even greyer.
As far as I am aware, the age at which consent can be given is 14 legally, sex remaining a crime until age 16. Anyone under 14 and sex is statutory rape regardless of consent or otherwise. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong here
I think you are wrong on the age - see my second link. In the UK it has been 16 since 1885.
AFAIK Offences are treated differently for alleged victims 16 and over, 13-15, and under 13, and also depending on the age of the alleged perpetrator.
Professionals providing 'advice services' are treated as an exemption from criminal liability in law.
Statutory Rape is an American term and I'd say unhelpful.
Interesting facts about the Rotherham cover-up are trickling out.
Anne Cryer telling the Labour party and Ken years ago, yet being ignored and shunned. Gordon and Tony in denial mode. Simon Danczuk making a fuss now (and to be fair, he's only been an MP since 2010) and blighting his career. For Labour, an inconvenient truth.
For the LDs, they wouldn't want to know.
Why then didn't the Conservative Party look into it? Fear of being called racist when they were on a detox programme. Especially if Nick Griffin was running with it.
So for all three parties, truth was irrelevant. All that counted was individual and party advantage. And that probably means nothing major will be done.
Good lord - the sniping between the kippers and the tories is almost as bad as MalcG and Carlotta. it's so mind-blowingly boring and unproductive. I love this site for it's quick polling info and some of the contributions but lately it's been on a downward spiral.
And shortly after this, we heard about policemen who refused to prosecute the serious serial sexual abuse of 11-year-old girls because it was "consensual". (Although this might have been a proxy for "because the perpetrator is of a particular ethnic origin"). I ask you.
I'm not sure the consent issue is *quite* as clear as it sounds even in the Rotherham cases. There are no clear rules and laws, and those that seek to be clear are suffused in greyed boundaries.
If a victim of grooming claims vehemently that the subsequent sex/rape is consensual what are the authorities to do? What *can* they do?
If the girl is over 16 I believe such intercourse with consent would be fully legal. As far as I ca n tell there is nothing that could be done short of interventions based on the mental health / incapacity of the 'victim'.
If the 'groomer' and the 'victim' are both under 16 then it is even greyer.
As far as I am aware, the age at which consent can be given is 14 legally, sex remaining a crime until age 16. Anyone under 14 and sex is statutory rape regardless of consent or otherwise. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong here
I think you are wrong on the age - see my second link. In the UK it has been 16 since 1885.
AFAIK Offences are treated differently for alleged victims 16 and over, 13-15, and under 13, and also depending on the age of the alleged perpetrator.
Professionals providing 'advice services' are treated as an exemption from criminal liability in law.
Statutory Rape is an American term and I'd say unhelpful.
Excuse the Americanism, I'm no law expert, although I do dislike the US intensely so I'm ashamed of myself! Ok, that sort of fits what I understood to be fair, I think I may have misinterpreted. Not an area I'm particularly keen to be an expert in as it were!
I do question the point of an opinion poll in Clacton of an established, if flouncing Carswell vs an empty seat. Will be more worthwhile once the Tories actually have someone as candidate....
I find it bizarre that the Conservatives have moved this so quickly: I would have thought (given how far they were behind in the opinion polls) that they would have benefited from an open primary and all the resulting publicity.
More time to recover from the tonking they are going to take.
From immigration stats to this latest Aysha case, from ISIS militants returning home to Rotherham and Clacton the UKIP manifesto/momentum is writing itself & rolling on.
How many ISIS militants are actually returning home? And how many are returning because it turned out that fighting in the desert for Allah was actually shit?
I don't know the answer to these questions, but are we wasting large amounts of time on a very small group of people who might actually be newly disenchanted with radical Islam?
The odd thing about this ... the papers also seem to want the government to take away the passports of ones who are already in the country to stop them leaving.
That might incentivise the truly committed to change their nationality in order to pursue that goal. Not a bad thing.
Good lord - the sniping between the kippers and the tories is almost as bad as MalcG and Carlotta. it's so mind-blowingly boring and unproductive. I love this site for it's quick polling info and some of the contributions but lately it's been on a downward spiral.
It's on a downward a spiral because the Cameroons have little comfort bar hoping the abyss might be a little further away than they hope. I can't quite remember who said it but PB is a straw poll with those on the up infesting the site and those on the down quietly drifting off.
Clacton - two questions. 1. How much of the local tory party will support Carswell. Tory organisation is usually good in their seats, is it not? 2. How will the voters react to an 'unnecessary' election? It's not usually popular.
Your entire logic is based on the idea that all small party supporters should vote for one of the big two if they share a single major policy. It's obviously stupid, and you know it's obviously stupid. But you keep on repeating it because it's all you've got. Your party is rudderless on these issues. It has nothing to say on what it would renegotiate in the EU and nothing to say on how it would reduce immigration. All you're left with is the contorted logic of saying "if my opponents were serious they'd fold themselves up and join us".
My entire position is based on a cool assessment of the reality. UKIP is helping Labour and may well put Ed Miliband into No 10. That's great if you share Ed Miliband's worldview, but I don't, and nor do those who support UKIP.
The argument which is put forward by the Kippers (apparently sincerely, at least in some cases) is that this is a price worth paying because a few years of Miliband will cause the Conservative Party to collapse and merge with UKIP, and this new coalition (which used to be called the 'Conservative Party' when Hague and IDS ran it) will triumphantly storm to victory, perhaps as early as 2020. The very best you can say about that is that it is unbelievably high-risk as a strategy. A more realistic assessment is that it is cloud-cuckoo-land, which will lead to a decade or more of disunity and a disastrous Labour government which we won't be able to shift, even though it will be very unpopular.
It's not as though we haven't seen the same thing before on the other side of the electoral divide, with the SDP. So you can't say I'm scaremongering on no evidence. I am speaking from experience (happy experience in the case of the SDP, of course).
UKIP nailed on to win Clacton at the by-election and, I should think, at the GE.
Last price matched on Betfair [UKIP No Seats market] was 6.6. Anything under 10 would be a bit of a gift, imo, even allowing for the 7 month wait to collect.
Your entire logic is based on the idea that all small party supporters should vote for one of the big two if they share a single major policy. It's obviously stupid, and you know it's obviously stupid. But you keep on repeating it because it's all you've got. Your party is rudderless on these issues. It has nothing to say on what it would renegotiate in the EU and nothing to say on how it would reduce immigration. All you're left with is the contorted logic of saying "if my opponents were serious they'd fold themselves up and join us".
My entire position is based on a cool assessment of the reality. UKIP is helping Labour and may well put Ed Miliband into No 10. That's great if you share Ed Miliband's worldview, but I don't, and nor do those who support UKIP.
The argument which is put forward by the Kippers (apparently sincerely, at least in some cases) is that this is a price worth paying because a few years of Miliband will cause the Conservative Party to collapse and merge with UKIP, and this new coalition (which used to be called the 'Conservative Party' when Hague and IDS ran it) will triumphantly storm to victory, perhaps as early as 2020. The very best you can say about that is that it is unbelievably high-risk as a strategy. A more realistic assessment is that it is cloud-cuckoo-land, which will lead to a decade or more of disunity and a disastrous Labour government which we won't be able to shift, even though it will be very unpopular.
It's not as though we haven't seen the same thing before on the other side of the electoral divide, with the SDP. So you can't say I'm scaremongering on no evidence. I am speaking from experience (happy experience in the case of the SDP, of course).
Your entire position is based on scaring people to vote for Cameron.
And since people aren't scared it's a losing hand.
My entire position is based on a cool assessment of the reality. UKIP is helping Labour and may well put Ed Miliband into No 10. That's great if you share Ed Miliband's worldview, but I don't, and nor do those who support UKIP. .
Except, according to Lord A's Clacton poll, a quarter of UKIP voters WOULD rather have Ed as PM rather than Dave. And the proportion would be even higher if they were asked to choose between a Labour govt or the Tories, since it's well-established Ed runs far behind his party.
My entire position is based on a cool assessment of the reality. UKIP is helping Labour and may well put Ed Miliband into No 10. That's great if you share Ed Miliband's worldview, but I don't, and nor do those who support UKIP. .
Except, according to Lord A's Clacton poll, a quarter of UKIP voters WOULD rather have Ed as PM rather than Dave.
Gives them more time to keep the anti EU fight going.
Why would they want a referendum in a year or two that they'll likely lose?
Your entire logic is based on the idea that all small party supporters should vote for one of the big two if they share a single major policy. It's obviously stupid, and you know it's obviously stupid. But you keep on repeating it because it's all you've got. Your party is rudderless on these issues. It has nothing to say on what it would renegotiate in the EU and nothing to say on how it would reduce immigration. All you're left with is the contorted logic of saying "if my opponents were serious they'd fold themselves up and join us".
My entire position is based on a cool assessment of the reality. UKIP is helping Labour and may well put Ed Miliband into No 10. That's great if you share Ed Miliband's worldview, but I don't, and nor do those who support UKIP.
The argument which is put forward by the Kippers (apparently sincerely, at least in some cases) is that this is a price worth paying because a few years of Miliband will cause the Conservative Party to collapse and merge with UKIP, and this new coalition (which used to be called the 'Conservative Party' when Hague and IDS ran it) will triumphantly storm to victory, perhaps as early as 2020. The very best you can say about that is that it is unbelievably high-risk as a strategy. A more realistic assessment is that it is cloud-cuckoo-land, which will lead to a decade or more of disunity and a disastrous Labour government which we won't be able to shift, even though it will be very unpopular.
It's not as though we haven't seen the same thing before on the other side of the electoral divide, with the SDP. So you can't say I'm scaremongering on no evidence. I am speaking from experience (happy experience in the case of the SDP, of course).
Your entire position is based on the idea that no-one should ever vote for a party outside the big two. It's a view, but it's one that plenty of people disagree with. Should Cameron somehow amazingly get in, you'd repeat the view again the next time, as Cameron always shallowly places himself just slightly to the right of Miliband. Well we're not standing for it any more. We're voting for a party that actually represents our views. If you want our votes back then you can try appealing to us. It's not hard, because our views are, in most cases, the views of the vast majority of your own activists and voters.
I see the lovely unionists , Carlotta, Charles and Davidl were supporting thugs beating up women as just being unfortunate last night and suggesting the unconscious pregnant woman was faking. How very unionist.
I see the lovely unionists , Carlotta, Charles and Davidl were supporting thugs beating up women as just being unfortunate last night and suggesting the unconscious pregnant woman was faking. How very unionist.
That is not true.
Please withdraw and apologise.
go read your comments, they were not condemning what was an assault by a thug on a pregnant woman. It was a cosy unionist chat about her pretending etc. how nasty YES is blah blah
I've condemed it previously. The debate was whether it was a premediated attack or an accidental strike in a more generalised struggle.
In any event that is not the same as "supporting thugs beating up women" which, frankly, is an actionable accusation.
Why do you repeatedly lie about this? UKIP clearly have an official position of wanting an EU referendum. Just because they don't believe in your tactic of folding the entire party to get there, doesn't mean they oppose the goal.
The fact that you Tories are reduced to this crap shows how aimless you are as a party. The referendum is the entirety of your party's policy on both Europe and immigration.
You are fond of calling honest people liars, aren't you? It seems indeed to be a very common and very unattractive fault amongst Kippers.
Yes, I agree that in theory UKIP say they want a referendum, but in practice they are campaigning against one, and Kippers here, such as Sean Fear and Richard T, make no secret of the fact that they don't want a referendum in the next parliament. If they wanted one, they'd vote Tory.
I accuse people of lying when they know full well what they're saying is not true. As you know here.
So Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall, two of many UKIP supporters on here, should be the people we base UKIP's views on, rather than, say, the official position of the party and of their sitting MP? That's just absurd.
Besides, it's not even correct. I believe Richard and Sean would both happily have a referendum held in the next parliament on a fair basis. They just don't want it under what they regard as unfair circumstances. So their opposition is not to a referendum or to the timing, their opposition is to the context.
Your entire logic is based on the idea that all small party supporters should vote for one of the big two if they share a single major policy. It's obviously stupid, and you know it's obviously stupid. But you keep on repeating it because it's all you've got. Your party is rudderless on these issues. It has nothing to say on what it would renegotiate in the EU and nothing to say on how it would reduce immigration. All you're left with is the contorted logic of saying "if my opponents were serious they'd fold themselves up and join us".
Exactly right Socrates.
The idea that I should be taken as representative of mainstream UKIP opinion given how much time I spend criticizing Farage is rather amusing. Mind you, as you point out, Richard N never was much one for logic if it got in the way of supporting his party.
Why do you repeatedly lie about this? UKIP clearly have an official position of wanting an EU referendum. Just because they don't believe in your tactic of folding the entire party to get there, doesn't mean they oppose the goal.
The fact that you Tories are reduced to this crap shows how aimless you are as a party. The referendum is the entirety of your party's policy on both Europe and immigration.
You are fond of calling honest people liars, aren't you? It seems indeed to be a very common and very unattractive fault amongst Kippers.
Yes, I agree that in theory UKIP say they want a referendum, but in practice they are campaigning against one, and Kippers here, such as Sean Fear and Richard T, make no secret of the fact that they don't want a referendum in the next parliament. If they wanted one, they'd vote Tory.
I accuse people of lying when they know full well what they're saying is not true. As you know here.
So Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall, two of many UKIP supporters on here, should be the people we base UKIP's views on, rather than, say, the official position of the party and of their sitting MP? That's just absurd.
Besides, it's not even correct. I believe Richard and Sean would both happily have a referendum held in the next parliament on a fair basis. They just don't want it under what they regard as unfair circumstances. So their opposition is not to a referendum or to the timing, their opposition is to the context.
Your entire logic is based on the idea that all small party supporters should vote for one of the big two if they share a single major policy. It's obviously stupid, and you know it's obviously stupid. But you keep on repeating it because it's all you've got. Your party is rudderless on these issues. It has nothing to say on what it would renegotiate in the EU and nothing to say on how it would reduce immigration. All you're left with is the contorted logic of saying "if my opponents were serious they'd fold themselves up and join us".
Exactly right Socrates.
The idea that I should be taken as representative of mainstream UKIP opinion given how much time I spend criticizing Farage is rather amusing. Mind you, as you point out, Richard N never was much one for logic if it got in the way of supporting his party.
So what would be the context in which a referendum in the next parliament could be thought "fair"? And why as things stand would it be "unfair"?
Comments
Rotherham report 'reduced me to tears', says MP who exposed abuse decade ago
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/30/rotherham-girls-could-have-been-spared-ann-cryer?CMP=twt_gu
Objectively, their chances are good; there is a more than fair chance they get home advantage through the National League playoffs, and I reckon they are the class of the NL, though the Dodgers have a very good 1-2 punch in Kershaw & Greinke.
The AL will have the home-field advantage in the World Series, and Oakland in particular are very good, though choking at the moment. So, putting all that together, the Nationals ought to be about 5/1 or 11/2 [to 100%] heading into the playoffs. (Paddy's 15/2 is more than fair for anyone wanting to get on board now).
http://www.oddschecker.com/baseball/mlb/world-series/winner
That said, if we are actually concerned about animals rather than merely having a go at other religions, there is I suspect a great deal that could be done to make slaughterhouses less appalling (why not stun them on entrance to the site?), and a legal requirement for pre-stunning would probably be more acceptable even to people with strong religious views if they could see it was part of a general effort to reduce the terror level for the animals rather than merely a pot-shot at orthodox religious people.
Tories non-attacks of Labour over Stafford NHS and now Rotherham child abuse scandal vs Labour on phone hacking.
When phone hacking went big Labour rolled out every attack dog on every media outlet hour after hour with their coordinated plan to ensure that Cameron / Tories get mentioned 1000's and 1000's of time. What Labour are good at is shaping a message so that people remember it, they keep it simple (even if it isn't true).
When the Tories do attempt to attack Labour, they so often come off with this weak unclear attack. It feels more like they are trying to debate at the Oxford Union than get through to the general public that take only a passing interest in politics and need to be screamed at to take notice.
It also helps that the likes of the BBC can't control themselves at any mention of Rupert Murdoch / bad news for Tories, where as they talk about burdle of proof etc when Labour involved e.g McAlpine vs PIE...shot their load without proper fact checking vs nothing for weeks despite piles of info.
I have also heard numerous extended pieces on Rotherham that have lasted 10-15 minutes and managed not a single mention of Labour being in power both locally and nationally.
However Lord A doesn't normally send out embargoed copies of his poll, nor does he bet on his own polls until they're out in the public domain.
Last price matched: 1.1
Con last matched 9.8
Looks to be a foregone conclusion.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/02/outsource-child-protection-young-people-risk-rotherham
So tell me Meg, how and why does child protection not work in Rotherham.
Thanks for the update. (For the uninitiated, TP tipped Washington Nationals for the World Series when the odds were 20/1.)
Naturally I have been following the Nats progress closely and have been persistently mystified that their odds always seemed on the generous side considering how well they are doing. The mismatch persists. In the absence of a truly outstanding team, you'd think any side (such as the Nats) that has virtually secured its play off place would be trading close to 7/1 but for some reason the bookies, and even Betfair, have reflected a more skeptical view of their chances.
I don't really understand it, but then baseball wouldn't exactly be my chosen subject on Mastermind.
Every day that passes makes me more and more disgusted with them. They are approaching 50% of my utter loathing of the Labour traitors.
http://youtu.be/XINZI3lc4Ag
But it's important to remember that baseball playoffs are called a crapshoot for a reason - part of the reason the season is so long is that on any given day it's pretty easy for one side to beat another. The best teams win 6/10 and the worst teams win 4/10, so a best-of-5/7 between two good teams isn't far off a toss-up.
One of the big drivers of increasing halal meat in the supply chain, is only in small part to do with appealing to Muslim customers directly, rather it is just much easier / cheaper to process everything in one so that is meets every bodies requirements (assuming you have no issue as a non-muslim for eating halal, which some do on religious grounds) go e.g. basically all New new lamb has been halal for ages, because they export around the world and just cheaper to do so.
You can argue if that is right or wrong, but I believe the driver is economics i.e its cheaper to have some bloke utter a few words and be able to export around the world, than run two slaughter houses.
However, when Morley was minister halal was far less widespread in UK, and I seemed to remember reading in recent reports that with the general growth in this approach of producing halal compliant meat, so was the use of un-stunned approach. One reason is cost and second is, some muslim / muslim countries demand un-stunned approach, so again it is the economics of appealing to as many people as possible.
I think this issue needs looking at again, as I'm not sure your statement based upon something that happened 10 years ago is quite as true anymore.
Pressure cooker, drum beats far off on the right, establishment seemingly forcing the electorate down that path.
Dangerous times.
Then again, f... The establishment
For years we have had professionals facilitating sexual activity amongst the underaged, eg by providing free condoms or advice without telling parents.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4086914.pdf
If a victim of grooming claims vehemently that the subsequent sex/rape is consensual what are the authorities to do? What *can* they do?
If the girl is over 16 I believe such intercourse with consent would be fully legal. As far as I ca n tell there is nothing that could be done short of interventions based on the mental health / incapacity of the 'victim'.
If the 'groomer' and the 'victim' are both under 16 then it is even greyer.
Write ups in this area of law are curiously disempowering to girls:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/advice/factfile_az/age_of_consent
From immigration stats to this latest Aysha case, from ISIS militants returning home to Rotherham and Clacton the UKIP manifesto/momentum is writing itself & rolling on.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100284881/as-the-right-commits-suicide-the-future-may-belong-to-the-left-after-all/
And how many are returning because it turned out that fighting in the desert for Allah was actually shit?
I don't know the answer to these questions, but are we wasting large amounts of time on a very small group of people who might actually be newly disenchanted with radical Islam?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/08/douglas-carswell
Elizabeth Warren, it will be.
The fact that you Tories are reduced to this crap shows how aimless you are as a party. The referendum is the entirety of your party's policy on both Europe and immigration.
Paddy Power Politics @pppolitics 2m
Odds suggest another Conservative MP defection to #UKIP is more likely than not:
11/10 None
7/4 One
5/2 Two or more
http://pdy.pr/68ncvF
A couple of years ago UKIP was looked on as a broken down haywain. Now it's looked on as a band-wagon. Times have certainly changed.
Anyone under 14 and sex is statutory rape regardless of consent or otherwise.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong here
Yes, I agree that in theory UKIP say they want a referendum, but in practice they are campaigning against one, and Kippers here, such as Sean Fear and Richard T, make no secret of the fact that they don't want a referendum in the next parliament. If they wanted one, they'd vote Tory.
Parents of Ashya King to sue hospital and police over 'cruelty' claims http://bit.ly/1Cm2HyW pic.twitter.com/eZk6TCtB9i
Good! I hope they win.
National Socialists?
(it's a joke, before someone starts a flame war)
Or invades Poland?
Do you think that's attractive Richard ?
The empty seat which is the Tory candidate is on 24% - then you note this from Lord A's poll and I see the outcome being much closer.... but clearly UKIP are strong faves to win.
"More than two-thirds (68 per cent) of those who intend to vote UKIP said a large part of their decision was that they have “the best candidate locally”."
Like all political outfits, UKIP is a coalition. It is a partnership of right-wing shire Tories and white, ageing working-class voters disillusioned with Labour. The instincts of these two groups differ in various areas, but they are united by a preference for authoritarian and nationalist policies. Yet a smaller “third UKIP” also exists: Thatcherite and libertarian, comprising much of the party’s youth and some of its younger parliamentary candidates
Mark Senior.
So Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall, two of many UKIP supporters on here, should be the people we base UKIP's views on, rather than, say, the official position of the party and of their sitting MP? That's just absurd.
Besides, it's not even correct. I believe Richard and Sean would both happily have a referendum held in the next parliament on a fair basis. They just don't want it under what they regard as unfair circumstances. So their opposition is not to a referendum or to the timing, their opposition is to the context.
Your entire logic is based on the idea that all small party supporters should vote for one of the big two if they share a single major policy. It's obviously stupid, and you know it's obviously stupid. But you keep on repeating it because it's all you've got. Your party is rudderless on these issues. It has nothing to say on what it would renegotiate in the EU and nothing to say on how it would reduce immigration. All you're left with is the contorted logic of saying "if my opponents were serious they'd fold themselves up and join us".
AFAIK Offences are treated differently for alleged victims 16 and over, 13-15, and under 13, and also depending on the age of the alleged perpetrator.
Professionals providing 'advice services' are treated as an exemption from criminal liability in law.
Statutory Rape is an American term and I'd say unhelpful.
Would be a massive confidence boost for UKIP.
Anne Cryer telling the Labour party and Ken years ago, yet being ignored and shunned. Gordon and Tony in denial mode. Simon Danczuk making a fuss now (and to be fair, he's only been an MP since 2010) and blighting his career. For Labour, an inconvenient truth.
For the LDs, they wouldn't want to know.
Why then didn't the Conservative Party look into it? Fear of being called racist when they were on a detox programme. Especially if Nick Griffin was running with it.
So for all three parties, truth was irrelevant. All that counted was individual and party advantage. And that probably means nothing major will be done.
I must go down to the sea again...............
Ok, that sort of fits what I understood to be fair, I think I may have misinterpreted. Not an area I'm particularly keen to be an expert in as it were!
37% of conservative voters say they are voting Tory because they have the best candidate
Who's he then?
To be fair, it ought to be 'to stop the left'. That's the only reason left to vote blue
1. How much of the local tory party will support Carswell. Tory organisation is usually good in their seats, is it not?
2. How will the voters react to an 'unnecessary' election? It's not usually popular.
The argument which is put forward by the Kippers (apparently sincerely, at least in some cases) is that this is a price worth paying because a few years of Miliband will cause the Conservative Party to collapse and merge with UKIP, and this new coalition (which used to be called the 'Conservative Party' when Hague and IDS ran it) will triumphantly storm to victory, perhaps as early as 2020. The very best you can say about that is that it is unbelievably high-risk as a strategy. A more realistic assessment is that it is cloud-cuckoo-land, which will lead to a decade or more of disunity and a disastrous Labour government which we won't be able to shift, even though it will be very unpopular.
It's not as though we haven't seen the same thing before on the other side of the electoral divide, with the SDP. So you can't say I'm scaremongering on no evidence. I am speaking from experience (happy experience in the case of the SDP, of course).
http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/clacton-tories-on-douglas-carswell-traitor-snake-he-betrayed-us-he-needs-to-pay/
UKIP nailed on to win Clacton at the by-election and, I should think, at the GE.
Last price matched on Betfair [UKIP No Seats market] was 6.6. Anything under 10 would be a bit of a gift, imo, even allowing for the 7 month wait to collect.
And since people aren't scared it's a losing hand.
(GWAA)
Why would they want a referendum in a year or two that they'll likely lose?
Please withdraw and apologise. I've condemed it previously. The debate was whether it was a premediated attack or an accidental strike in a more generalised struggle.
In any event that is not the same as "supporting thugs beating up women" which, frankly, is an actionable accusation.
Please withdraw and apologise.
The idea that I should be taken as representative of mainstream UKIP opinion given how much time I spend criticizing Farage is rather amusing. Mind you, as you point out, Richard N never was much one for logic if it got in the way of supporting his party.