@isam Luckily I'm prevented from laying bets via blogposts.
Yes, the limits for some of these markets are relatively low. Experience has told me to be very pessimistic of our chances of making any money on the sorts of bets you mention. Especially from people betting anonymously in shops (sometimes because they would be even more restricted on-line). So we are cautious.
I expect the answer is to get a better political odds-compiler, but in the meantime, we prefer to limit our potential liabilities this way.
It's fair enough as it is one of the few markets in betting nowadays not traced from Betfair, but even allowing for that, it seemed odd to allow a £100 liability on next defector (when someone could have inside info) but only £50 on a under/over turnout market , where no one can know more than anyone else.
How about a compromise? You ask if I can be re opened by Ladbrokes as long as I play in relatively small size on politics and nothing else?
Sounds like a great "compromise"! Please can I be included too, shadsy?
@isam Luckily I'm prevented from laying bets via blogposts.
Yes, the limits for some of these markets are relatively low. Experience has told me to be very pessimistic of our chances of making any money on the sorts of bets you mention. Especially from people betting anonymously in shops (sometimes because they would be even more restricted on-line). So we are cautious.
I expect the answer is to get a better political odds-compiler, but in the meantime, we prefer to limit our potential liabilities this way.
It's fair enough as it is one of the few markets in betting nowadays not traced from Betfair, but even allowing for that, it seemed odd to allow a £100 liability on next defector (when someone could have inside info) but only £50 on a under/over turnout market , where no one can know more than anyone else.
How about a compromise? You ask if I can be re opened by Ladbrokes as long as I play in relatively small size on politics and nothing else?
Sounds like a great "compromise"! Please can I be included too, shadsy?
I'm a bit worried about the fact I'm not banned from Ladbrokes - Perhaps my account is on the "mug" list (It may well be, considering the number of losing hedges in there...)
That might be a slightly dangerous strategy if the price-shortening reflects a belief that Alex Salmond might stand for this seat (I can't really see any other reason why it should be shortening more now). The SNP did take it at a by-election in the last Parliament, so it would be quite a good one for him to think about, if he was going to try for a seat in a Yes stronghold.
James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous AllyPally I replied to you on the PT Sunil I replied to you on the PT Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."
The London space challenge sounds quite fun. You are of course right. Walk 5 minutes from the likes of Oxford Street/Covent Garden/British Museum and you are wandering up streets on your own.
My only 'avoid like the plague' spot is Camden on a Sunday, a horrific experience!
I think you'd struggle to find places anywhere within five minutes of Oxford street where you could walk for five minutes without seeing multiple people.
Walk North of Oxford Street on a weekend towards the BT Tower, i think you'd be pleasantly surprised. Yo u might also stumble across the Riding House Cafe which does the best breakfast in London IMHO.
To take a random street round there, here's Cleveland street on Google maps
The idea that you're walking around here without seeing people is nonsense.
As somebody who works 10 minutes from those locations and regularly walks through them during the week and weekends, I can assure you it is not nonsense at all.
That might be a slightly dangerous strategy if the price-shortening reflects a belief that Alex Salmond might stand for this seat (I can't really see any other reason why it should be shortening more now). The SNP did take it at a by-election in the last Parliament, so it would be quite a good one for him to think about, if he was going to try for a seat in a Yes stronghold.
Fair point, I took your advice about getting on the SNP at 33s though and think 5-2/1-4 is overdone.
Socrates - there are huge swathes of very central London that are routinely quiet and serene. It amazes me that you have the tourist's view of your own city. Talk a walk. Enjoy
I would ignore analysts' forecasts of oil price. I looked into this a few years ago and found a correlation of about 80% between the forecast and the oil price at that time, but a 0% correlation with the price for the forecast period.
I.e. a forecast made in April 2005 for the price of 2H2007 had an 80% correlation with the price of April 2005, but a 0% correlation with the price in 2H2007. Forecasters are actually forecasting today's price.
It may be there's some sound reason why they do this. Eg perhaps forecasting best practice is to start from today's price, estimate the effect of various supply and demand factors, compare them with the same factors today and alter the price away from the present situation accordingly to create your future price forecast. I don't know. I do know that the results are unimpressive.
This is partly why I think climate aeromancy is nonsense - to forecast CO2 you need to know emissions, to know emissions you need to know fuel use, and to know fuel use you need to know fuel price 100 years into the future. In fact nobody knows it 100 minutes into the future.
I was expecting a highly competitive market but it is looking as if the price is truly on a one way march down to 1.01. You have to think the 'internals' are pretty definitive or there are polls out there that just haven't been released.
Socrates - there are huge swathes of very central London that are routinely quiet and serene. It amazes me that you have the tourist's view of your own city. Talk a walk. Enjoy
"Quiet and serene" are relative terms. Serene relative to Picadilly Circus? Sure. Compared to towns in Surrey and Buckinghamshire? Not even close.
Good piece. Needs to be said over and over again. Labour = pure evil.
Are you suggesting that Labour favoured votes over the safety and well being of children?
Yes.
Labour operates on the basis of victim status points, whereby whether they hate you or support you depends on who you are at odds with.
If you're the police confronting miners they side with the miners. If you're the police confronting the Countryside Alliance they side with the police.
If you're a paedophile they side with the children unless you're a client voter in which case they side with the paedophile.
Socrates - you surprise me that you have clearly never walked around your own city. Sean and Ally are completely right. Seriously, you are wrong. Try it. No wonder you dislike your own city - you have never seen it
James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous AllyPally I replied to you on the PT Sunil I replied to you on the PT Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."
The London space challenge sounds quite fun. You are of course right. Walk 5 minutes from the likes of Oxford Street/Covent Garden/British Museum and you are wandering up streets on your own.
My only 'avoid like the plague' spot is Camden on a Sunday, a horrific experience!
I think you'd struggle to find places anywhere within five minutes of Oxford street where you could walk for five minutes without seeing multiple people.
Walk North of Oxford Street on a weekend towards the BT Tower, i think you'd be pleasantly surprised. Yo u might also stumble across the Riding House Cafe which does the best breakfast in London IMHO.
To take a random street round there, here's Cleveland street on Google maps
People seem to be misinterpreting my point. I'm not saying there aren't places in London that are quiet relative to the busy areas. I'm saying that there aren't places that are quiet compared to the quiet places of London of 15 years ago. And that, in another 15 years time, there won't be places that are quiet compared to the quiet places of London of today.
And of course, unless you're very wealthy, you have to pass through the horrendous places in your daily grind.
Socrates - there are huge swathes of very central London that are routinely quiet and serene. It amazes me that you have the tourist's view of your own city. Talk a walk. Enjoy
"Quiet and serene" are relative terms. Serene relative to Picadilly Circus? Sure. Compared to towns in Surrey and Buckinghamshire? Not even close.
Walk around the City at the weekend. It's certainly a lot quieter than most towns in Surrey and Bucks. The centre of London is a lot less crowded than it used ot be when people lived there as well as worked there.
In fact, London does not make the top 50 of most densely populated cities:
Socrates - you surprise me that you have clearly never walked around your own city. Sean and Ally are completely right. Seriously, you are wrong. Try it. No wonder you dislike your own city - you have never seen it
Please stop. I am cringeing so badly for you I think I am coming out in hives
Good post.Salmond looked a beaten man on QT for the simple reason he genuinely believed he would win because he was badly advised at the time.He should have listened to one of those defiled BBC public servants,John Curtice, who came out on top in assessment of the outcome-and a few here. Salmond may still be badly advised and may still be in recovery from the devastation of a life's work.
Socrates - you surprise me that you have clearly never walked around your own city. Sean and Ally are completely right. Seriously, you are wrong. Try it. No wonder you dislike your own city - you have never seen it
Please stop. I am cringeing so badly for you I think I am coming out in hives
Streets paved with gold, dancing chimney sweeps and Pearly Kings on every corner.
Socrates - there are huge swathes of very central London that are routinely quiet and serene. It amazes me that you have the tourist's view of your own city. Talk a walk. Enjoy
London is as busy or quiet as you make it I think, except tube commuters...
One thing when I was down there last, I knocked off the service charge that had been included in my bill and told them that the price of the two cokes was their tip.
Good post.Salmond looked a beaten man on QT for the simple reason he genuinely believed he would win because he was badly advised at the time.He should have listened to one of those defiled BBC public servants,John Curtice, who came out on top in assessment of the outcome-and a few here. Salmond may still be badly advised and may still be in recovery from the devastation of a life's work.
Did you watch the same QT as me. He looked as Salmondeque as normal with all his normal glib one-liners on show.
Mr T's point about the oil price is well made. Reports seem to be saying its going to stay like this for some time and go lower. I am sure its what many of us thought but the media seem shy of ramming it home to the SNP. For this reason alone it makes voting for them one of the most stupid things any Scotsman could think of doing since it has exposed the SNP for a huge set of bluffers and their prospectus as totally bogus. So why are Labour seen as being in trouble?
The oil price drop is also going to have huge ramifications for international politics. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Nigeria are entirely dependent on revenue from oil & gas for their basic functioning. The advantages of democracy over authoritarian regimes will become clear shortly.
Saudi Arabia can withstand falling oil prices more than any other oil producing nation on earth.
It puts the hurt on their competitor nations, in fact the fact that OPEC hasn't cut production is interesting in of itself. My guess would be they are happy to squeeze Russia with it's vast, but more expensive to get at reserves.
"Saudi Arabia's most high-profile billionaire and foreign investor, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, has.... described the idea of the kingdom tolerating lower prices below $100 per barrel as potentially "catastrophic" for the economy of Saudi Arabia"
Now here I must disagree with Mr T. If Saudi can increase prodiuction then it limts the downside to lower prices. It seems to me that the country that is well and truly rucked (after an independent Scotland) is Russia as per the explanation. Oil reserves have expanded, supply is up demand is down. I am reminded of the scene in The Master Blackmailer where a rather annoyed victim simply fills Charles Augustius Milverton full of lead and walks off with the incriminating evidence. Putin's attempted national policy of blackmail risks going the same way. Shame for all his kipper friends left crying in their beer.
James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous AllyPally I replied to you on the PT Sunil I replied to you on the PT Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."
The London space challenge sounds quite fun. You are of course right. Walk 5 minutes from the likes of Oxford Street/Covent Garden/British Museum and you are wandering up streets on your own.
My only 'avoid like the plague' spot is Camden on a Sunday, a horrific experience!
I think you'd struggle to find places anywhere within five minutes of Oxford street where you could walk for five minutes without seeing multiple people.
Walk North of Oxford Street on a weekend towards the BT Tower, i think you'd be pleasantly surprised. Yo u might also stumble across the Riding House Cafe which does the best breakfast in London IMHO.
To take a random street round there, here's Cleveland street on Google maps
My view is that no mainstream party values votes more than the lives of children and I would never accuse them of it. You?
No one could could look at the number of abused children, and how long their accusations were ignored, and not wonder if that was the case.
Something was clearly up, unless you consider what happened in Rotherham to be normal. Do you?
Child abuse has been endemic in the UK for centuries. And children have always been ignored when they claim it has happened to them. That is how paedophiles in schools, in the churches and now in the inner cities have always flourished. The reasons for turning a blind eye have varied. In Rotherham and elsewhere race was undoubtedly a factor. But the idea that prior to 1997 paedophilia was less common or that wickedly abused children were given more of a hearing when they made complaints is laughable.
Socrates - there are huge swathes of very central London that are routinely quiet and serene. It amazes me that you have the tourist's view of your own city. Talk a walk. Enjoy
"Quiet and serene" are relative terms. Serene relative to Picadilly Circus? Sure. Compared to towns in Surrey and Buckinghamshire? Not even close.
Walk around the City at the weekend. It's certainly a lot quieter than most towns in Surrey and Bucks. The centre of London is a lot less crowded than it used ot be when people lived there as well as worked there.
In fact, London does not make the top 50 of most densely populated cities:
Firstly, that's permanent residents, not including all the workers and tourists. Secondly, it's absurd to compare population densities over tiny areas compared to massive ones like London. Thirdly, we're doing well relative to Manila and Delhi? What a high bar!
This is partly why I think climate aeromancy is nonsense - to forecast CO2 you need to know emissions, to know emissions you need to know fuel use, and to know fuel use you need to know fuel price 100 years into the future. In fact nobody knows it 100 minutes into the future.
Climate Scientists are not stupid and they do not claim to be able to predict future emissions - which will depend on our choices.
So they run the climate models several times with different scenarios of future emissions, which then illustrates what the future climate impact of our choices today will be.
The spectacle today of people denying the clear truth that much of central London is quiet falls into Tim's old category of "only on PB". MarkHopkins' post is my personal favourite so far
My view is that no mainstream party values votes more than the lives of children and I would never accuse them of it. You?
No one could could look at the number of abused children, and how long their accusations were ignored, and not wonder if that was the case.
Something was clearly up, unless you consider what happened in Rotherham to be normal. Do you?
Child abuse has been endemic in the UK for centuries. And children have always been ignored when they claim it has happened to them. That is how paedophiles in schools, in the churches and now in the inner cities have always flourished. The reasons for turning a blind eye have varied. In Rotherham and elsewhere race was undoubtedly a factor. But the idea that prior to 1997 paedophilia was less common or that wickedly abused children were given more of a hearing when they made complaints is laughable.
Name me one time before 1997 where 1400 kids got raped in one town in just a decade.
Good post.Salmond looked a beaten man on QT for the simple reason he genuinely believed he would win because he was badly advised at the time.He should have listened to one of those defiled BBC public servants,John Curtice, who came out on top in assessment of the outcome-and a few here. Salmond may still be badly advised and may still be in recovery from the devastation of a life's work.
Did you watch the same QT as me. He looked as Salmondeque as normal with all his normal glib one-liners on show.
Ye Salmond seemed to be on good form on the show, didn't look a beaten man at all. I think the Indy Ref defeat has hit him hard on a personal, not just political basis - it was his big dream that he came very close to delivering, but he will bounce back. I expect him to contest a winnable seat for the SNP (Gordon fits for all sorts of reasons) and win !
The spectacle today of people denying the clear truth that much of central London is quiet falls into Tim's old category of "only on PB". MarkHopkins' post is my personal favourite so far
tim once mocked the idea that there as mass child rape by Muslim grooming gangs as "only on PB" and the fantasy of racists.
My view is that no mainstream party values votes more than the lives of children and I would never accuse them of it. You?
No one could could look at the number of abused children, and how long their accusations were ignored, and not wonder if that was the case.
Something was clearly up, unless you consider what happened in Rotherham to be normal. Do you?
Child abuse has been endemic in the UK for centuries. And children have always been ignored when they claim it has happened to them. That is how paedophiles in schools, in the churches and now in the inner cities have always flourished. The reasons for turning a blind eye have varied. In Rotherham and elsewhere race was undoubtedly a factor. But the idea that prior to 1997 paedophilia was less common or that wickedly abused children were given more of a hearing when they made complaints is laughable.
The reason for turning a blind eye has been the same I think; kowtowing to people elevated into in a position of power, of whom criticism would open a can of worms for the whistleblower
My view is that no mainstream party values votes more than the lives of children and I would never accuse them of it. You?
No one could could look at the number of abused children, and how long their accusations were ignored, and not wonder if that was the case.
Something was clearly up, unless you consider what happened in Rotherham to be normal. Do you?
Child abuse has been endemic in the UK for centuries. And children have always been ignored when they claim it has happened to them. That is how paedophiles in schools, in the churches and now in the inner cities have always flourished. The reasons for turning a blind eye have varied. In Rotherham and elsewhere race was undoubtedly a factor. But the idea that prior to 1997 paedophilia was less common or that wickedly abused children were given more of a hearing when they made complaints is laughable.
Name me one time before 1997 where 1400 kids got raped in one town in just a decade.
My view is that no mainstream party values votes more than the lives of children and I would never accuse them of it. You?
No one could could look at the number of abused children, and how long their accusations were ignored, and not wonder if that was the case.
Something was clearly up, unless you consider what happened in Rotherham to be normal. Do you?
Child abuse has been endemic in the UK for centuries. And children have always been ignored when they claim it has happened to them. That is how paedophiles in schools, in the churches and now in the inner cities have always flourished. The reasons for turning a blind eye have varied. In Rotherham and elsewhere race was undoubtedly a factor. But the idea that prior to 1997 paedophilia was less common or that wickedly abused children were given more of a hearing when they made complaints is laughable.
Name me one time before 1997 where 1400 kids got raped in one town in just a decade.
Mr. Me, are you sure? The IPCC got its predictions unequivocally wrong, then increased their confidence in their own forecasts (I believe) from 90% to 95%.
Hard to take them seriously amidst the hubris and track record of just being wrong. The Chief Scientific Officer, about a decade ago, claimed that at the end of this century Antarctica would be the only habitable landmass. And then there was that joyous Independent article by one of the dubious fellows from East Anglia, who reckoned snow would become a rarity that children would almost never see. A few years later we had two arctic-style winters.
The hockey stick was a creation of mathematical alchemy, which leaves them with what?
And yes, temperatures have risen. Or fallen. Or stayed the same. Anyone can cherrypick the starting point on a graph. Most recently, they're flat, directly contrary to the predictions of those who believe in global warming.
It smacks of panic over SARS. Only this brand of politico-science gets politicians a bulletproof excuse to charge people more in taxes. It's added a small fortune to energy bills, and the dogma has imperilled our energy supplies due to true believers like Miliband and Davey being Energy Secretary (in fairness to Davey, he's not as bad as Miliband).
My view is that no mainstream party values votes more than the lives of children and I would never accuse them of it. You?
No one could could look at the number of abused children, and how long their accusations were ignored, and not wonder if that was the case.
Something was clearly up, unless you consider what happened in Rotherham to be normal. Do you?
Child abuse has been endemic in the UK for centuries. And children have always been ignored when they claim it has happened to them. That is how paedophiles in schools, in the churches and now in the inner cities have always flourished. The reasons for turning a blind eye have varied. In Rotherham and elsewhere race was undoubtedly a factor. But the idea that prior to 1997 paedophilia was less common or that wickedly abused children were given more of a hearing when they made complaints is laughable.
Name me one time before 1997 where 1400 kids got raped in one town in just a decade.
I would say that in every year prior to 1997 more than that number of kids were being raped year in and year out in cities across the UK. Sadly, we do not know for certain because then - as now - most cases are not reported. This is what happened in Rotherham. I see no reason to believe it did not happen elsewhere. I also believe that the abuse there and elsewhere may well have been going on and ignored long before 1997.
James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous AllyPally I replied to you on the PT Sunil I replied to you on the PT Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."
The London space challenge sounds quite fun. You are of course right. Walk 5 minutes from the likes of Oxford Street/Covent Garden/British Museum and you are wandering up streets on your own.
My only 'avoid like the plague' spot is Camden on a Sunday, a horrific experience!
You should add Portobello on a Saturday to that list.
Socrates - there are huge swathes of very central London that are routinely quiet and serene. It amazes me that you have the tourist's view of your own city. Talk a walk. Enjoy
"Quiet and serene" are relative terms. Serene relative to Picadilly Circus? Sure. Compared to towns in Surrey and Buckinghamshire? Not even close.
Walk around the City at the weekend. It's certainly a lot quieter than most towns in Surrey and Bucks. The centre of London is a lot less crowded than it used ot be when people lived there as well as worked there.
In fact, London does not make the top 50 of most densely populated cities:
Firstly, that's permanent residents, not including all the workers and tourists. Secondly, it's absurd to compare population densities over tiny areas compared to massive ones like London. Thirdly, we're doing well relative to Manila and Delhi? What a high bar!
My hackles raise at the abuse of statistics inherent in comparing population densities by using administrative boundaries.
The way you would want to do it is to calculate the population density for each city at its densest point for a number of standard radii, such as 1, 2, 5, 10 km, etc.. It would also be useful to calculate population density at, say, 4am and 4pm, to look at the difference between resident and commuting population - but gathering statistics in such a way is a lot more difficult than using the existing figures from administrative boundaries.
Socrates - there are huge swathes of very central London that are routinely quiet and serene. It amazes me that you have the tourist's view of your own city. Talk a walk. Enjoy
"Quiet and serene" are relative terms. Serene relative to Picadilly Circus? Sure. Compared to towns in Surrey and Buckinghamshire? Not even close.
Walk around the City at the weekend. It's certainly a lot quieter than most towns in Surrey and Bucks. The centre of London is a lot less crowded than it used ot be when people lived there as well as worked there.
In fact, London does not make the top 50 of most densely populated cities:
Firstly, that's permanent residents, not including all the workers and tourists. Secondly, it's absurd to compare population densities over tiny areas compared to massive ones like London. Thirdly, we're doing well relative to Manila and Delhi? What a high bar!
Manila and Delhi aren't in Europe. London does not make the top 40 in Europe.
Saudi Arabia can withstand falling oil prices more than any other oil producing nation on earth.
It puts the hurt on their competitor nations, in fact the fact that OPEC hasn't cut production is interesting in of itself. My guess would be they are happy to squeeze Russia with it's vast, but more expensive to get at reserves.
"Saudi Arabia's most high-profile billionaire and foreign investor, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, has.... described the idea of the kingdom tolerating lower prices below $100 per barrel as potentially "catastrophic" for the economy of Saudi Arabia"
Now here I must disagree with Mr T. If Saudi can increase prodiuction then it limts the downside to lower prices. It seems to me that the country that is well and truly rucked (after an independent Scotland) is Russia as per the explanation. Oil reserves have expanded, supply is up demand is down. I am reminded of the scene in The Master Blackmailer where a rather annoyed victim simply fills Charles Augustius Milverton full of lead and walks off with the incriminating evidence. Putin's attempted national policy of blackmail risks going the same way. Shame for all his kipper friends left crying in their beer.
Russia has a modern diversified economy that saw very strong gains in productivity in the past ten years. Very much not dependent on oil and gas. Saudi Arabia can't tolerate oil prices at this level for long, they have no other industry nor source of revenue, nor can many other forms of extraction from deep seas to shale.
Strange post. In the real world the US has seriously alarmed the rest of the world, particularly China, lost standing in Europe, ensured Crimea's final reunion with the rest of Russia whilst Assad and Iran remain firmly in place with Israel isolated as ever.
And then there was that joyous Independent article by one of the dubious fellows from East Anglia, who reckoned snow would become a rarity that children would almost never see. A few years later we had two arctic-style winters.
He said snow would become rarer, which it did, and then when it did come it would be more severe - which it was.
James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous AllyPally I replied to you on the PT Sunil I replied to you on the PT Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."
The London space challenge sounds quite fun. You are of course right. Walk 5 minutes from the likes of Oxford Street/Covent Garden/British Museum and you are wandering up streets on your own.
My only 'avoid like the plague' spot is Camden on a Sunday, a horrific experience!
You should add Portobello on a Saturday to that list.
Good shout, and although its really obvious I'll add Notting Hill Carnival to that list. Potentially the worst Sunday I have ever experienced in London.
My view is that no mainstream party values votes more than the lives of children and I would never accuse them of it. You?
No one could could look at the number of abused children, and how long their accusations were ignored, and not wonder if that was the case.
Something was clearly up, unless you consider what happened in Rotherham to be normal. Do you?
Child abuse has been endemic in the UK for centuries. And children have always been ignored when they claim it has happened to them. That is how paedophiles in schools, in the churches and now in the inner cities have always flourished. The reasons for turning a blind eye have varied. In Rotherham and elsewhere race was undoubtedly a factor. But the idea that prior to 1997 paedophilia was less common or that wickedly abused children were given more of a hearing when they made complaints is laughable.
Name me one time before 1997 where 1400 kids got raped in one town in just a decade.
I would say that in every year prior to 1997 more than that number of kids were being raped year in and year out in cities across the UK. Sadly, we do not know for certain because then - as now - most cases are not reported. This is what happened in Rotherham. I see no reason to believe it did not happen elsewhere. I also believe that the abuse there and elsewhere may well have been going on and ignored long before 1997.
"We do not know for certain". Do you have any indications at all? Perhaps allegations that this was going on from credible sources? Perhaps a court case referenceing over a hundred victims in one English town?
You are correct that abuse has gone on for many years in many cases and it's a scandal. But these cases are unprecedented in so many rapes happening in such a small area over such a small timeframe.
James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous AllyPally I replied to you on the PT Sunil I replied to you on the PT Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."
The London space challenge sounds quite fun. You are of course right. Walk 5 minutes from the likes of Oxford Street/Covent Garden/British Museum and you are wandering up streets on your own.
My only 'avoid like the plague' spot is Camden on a Sunday, a horrific experience!
You should add Portobello on a Saturday to that list.
My new year's resolution each year is not to set foot on Oxford Street.
Socrates - there are huge swathes of very central London that are routinely quiet and serene. It amazes me that you have the tourist's view of your own city. Talk a walk. Enjoy
"Quiet and serene" are relative terms. Serene relative to Picadilly Circus? Sure. Compared to towns in Surrey and Buckinghamshire? Not even close.
Walk around the City at the weekend. It's certainly a lot quieter than most towns in Surrey and Bucks. The centre of London is a lot less crowded than it used ot be when people lived there as well as worked there.
In fact, London does not make the top 50 of most densely populated cities:
Firstly, that's permanent residents, not including all the workers and tourists. Secondly, it's absurd to compare population densities over tiny areas compared to massive ones like London. Thirdly, we're doing well relative to Manila and Delhi? What a high bar!
Manila and Delhi aren't in Europe. London does not make the top 40 in Europe.
How many of those cities have 661* railway stations like London does? That's more than one station per sq. mile of administrative territory (607 sq. miles in Greater London's case).
*according to Sunil on Sunday criteria, which are slightly different from "official" sources
"According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."
Mr. Me, are you sure? The IPCC got its predictions unequivocally wrong, then increased their confidence in their own forecasts (I believe) from 90% to 95%.
Hard to take them seriously amidst the hubris and track record of just being wrong. The Chief Scientific Officer, about a decade ago, claimed that at the end of this century Antarctica would be the only habitable landmass. And then there was that joyous Independent article by one of the dubious fellows from East Anglia, who reckoned snow would become a rarity that children would almost never see. A few years later we had two arctic-style winters.
The hockey stick was a creation of mathematical alchemy, which leaves them with what?
And yes, temperatures have risen. Or fallen. Or stayed the same. Anyone can cherrypick the starting point on a graph. Most recently, they're flat, directly contrary to the predictions of those who believe in global warming.
It smacks of panic over SARS. Only this brand of politico-science gets politicians a bulletproof excuse to charge people more in taxes. It's added a small fortune to energy bills, and the dogma has imperilled our energy supplies due to true believers like Miliband and Davey being Energy Secretary (in fairness to Davey, he's not as bad as Miliband).
Mr Dancer, we've been over all these things on here a number of times before and suffice it to say that there is not the room in this comment box to do our disagreement justice. In person, when one could draw some diagrams, it would perhaps be different.
However, everything you say has nothing to do with the point in question - that climate scientists do not claim to be able to predict future carbon dioxide concentrations, and so produce a range of predictions of future climate for a range of possible future carbon dioxide concentrations. Thus Mr Bond's objection to climate science on that basis was wholly erroneous.
My view is that no mainstream party values votes more than the lives of children and I would never accuse them of it. You?
No one could could look at the number of abused children, and how long their accusations were ignored, and not wonder if that was the case.
Something was clearly up, unless you consider what happened in Rotherham to be normal. Do you?
Child abuse has been endemic in the UK for centuries. And children have always been ignored when they claim it has happened to them. That is how paedophiles in schools, in the churches and now in the inner cities have always flourished. The reasons for turning a blind eye have varied. In Rotherham and elsewhere race was undoubtedly a factor. But the idea that prior to 1997 paedophilia was less common or that wickedly abused children were given more of a hearing when they made complaints is laughable.
Name me one time before 1997 where 1400 kids got raped in one town in just a decade.
Fair point. I accept it may have been worse in Victorian-era London. Are there any examples from the last century?
It wasn't something that nice people talked about (cf the Roman Catholic church). My own take on this is that it is healthy that it is now being talked about, because I expect the incidence in past decades was no lower than at present.
Again, this is not an area where I'm going to be putting the necessary google searches in at work.
Mr T's point about the oil price is well made. Reports seem to be saying its going to stay like this for some time and go lower. I am sure its what many of us thought but the media seem shy of ramming it home to the SNP. For this reason alone it makes voting for them one of the most stupid things any Scotsman could think of doing since it has exposed the SNP for a huge set of bluffers and their prospectus as totally bogus. So why are Labour seen as being in trouble?
The oil price drop is also going to have huge ramifications for international politics. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Nigeria are entirely dependent on revenue from oil & gas for their basic functioning. The advantages of democracy over authoritarian regimes will become clear shortly.
Saudi Arabia can withstand falling oil prices more than any other oil producing nation on earth.
It puts the hurt on their competitor nations, in fact the fact that OPEC hasn't cut production is interesting in of itself. My guess would be they are happy to squeeze Russia with it's vast, but more expensive to get at reserves.
"Saudi Arabia's most high-profile billionaire and foreign investor, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, has.... described the idea of the kingdom tolerating lower prices below $100 per barrel as potentially "catastrophic" for the economy of Saudi Arabia"
Now here I must disagree with Mr T. If Saudi can increase prodiuction then it limts the downside to lower prices. It seems to me that the country that is well and truly rucked (after an independent Scotland) is Russia as per the explanation. Oil reserves have expanded, supply is up demand is down. I am reminded of the scene in The Master Blackmailer where a rather annoyed victim simply fills Charles Augustius Milverton full of lead and walks off with the incriminating evidence. Putin's attempted national policy of blackmail risks going the same way. Shame for all his kipper friends left crying in their beer.
Venezuela is the country that's going to be the most immediately hurt as they are already an economic basket case. Russia has a bit of a buffer (as in cash reserves not ability to continue at this price point) before things start to bite.
"According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."
"Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said."
So he went with 20 years when the correct answer was 10.
My view is that no mainstream party values votes more than the lives of children and I would never accuse them of it. You?
Some on here have posited that racism is the worst crime ever. Yes, worse than murder, rape and child abuse. Given what happened in Rotherham one has to wonder if this really is the view of the metropolitan elite. And yes, only one party was involved in the Rotherham saga.
"According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."
James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous AllyPally I replied to you on the PT Sunil I replied to you on the PT Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."
The London space challenge sounds quite fun. You are of course right. Walk 5 minutes from the likes of Oxford Street/Covent Garden/British Museum and you are wandering up streets on your own.
My only 'avoid like the plague' spot is Camden on a Sunday, a horrific experience!
You should add Portobello on a Saturday to that list.
Good shout, and although its really obvious I'll add Notting Hill Carnival to that list. Potentially the worst Sunday I have ever experienced in London.
I always leave town - as do most of the residents of Notting Hill, incidentally - to avoid the Carnival...
James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous AllyPally I replied to you on the PT Sunil I replied to you on the PT Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."
The London space challenge sounds quite fun. You are of course right. Walk 5 minutes from the likes of Oxford Street/Covent Garden/British Museum and you are wandering up streets on your own.
My only 'avoid like the plague' spot is Camden on a Sunday, a horrific experience!
You should add Portobello on a Saturday to that list.
Good shout, and although its really obvious I'll add Notting Hill Carnival to that list. Potentially the worst Sunday I have ever experienced in London.
I always leave town - as do most of the residents of Notting Hill, incidentally - to avoid the Carnival...
But I thought such cultural diversity made mass immigration worth it...
James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous AllyPally I replied to you on the PT Sunil I replied to you on the PT Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."
The London space challenge sounds quite fun. You are of course right. Walk 5 minutes from the likes of Oxford Street/Covent Garden/British Museum and you are wandering up streets on your own.
My only 'avoid like the plague' spot is Camden on a Sunday, a horrific experience!
You should add Portobello on a Saturday to that list.
My new year's resolution each year is not to set foot on Oxford Street.
On a good year I get to September...
I wish. Sadly I have meetings in Keppel Street, which force me to use Tottenham Court Road tube station.
Mr. Alistair, 2009-10, and 2010-11 were both immensely cold, and that's disregarding milder but still snowy winters.
Or, twice enormously wrong, to be more concise.
The idea children will have no idea about snow, which was what the article suggested (it included mention of children using a simulation to feel 'real cold') is nonsense, and has been proven to be so.
"He expressed enthusiasm to learn more about his religion of his birth. We parted with a promise to ring each other's people. Two days later he was all over the papers, knocking back a bacon sandwich."
The repercussions of #baconsarnie-gate are still reverberating around Golders Green...!
This is partly why I think climate aeromancy is nonsense - to forecast CO2 you need to know emissions, to know emissions you need to know fuel use, and to know fuel use you need to know fuel price 100 years into the future. In fact nobody knows it 100 minutes into the future.
Climate Scientists are not stupid and they do not claim to be able to predict future emissions - which will depend on our choices.
So they run the climate models several times with different scenarios of future emissions, which then illustrates what the future climate impact of our choices today will be.
Ah climate science. Otherwise known as politics masquerading as science. You know the result you want and then use the data to prove this. 110% of scientists are 115.955555% sure you know.
Luckily the great climate scam is being seen for what it is. A scam.
The spectacle today of people denying the clear truth that much of central London is quiet falls into Tim's old category of "only on PB". MarkHopkins' post is my personal favourite so far
tim once mocked the idea that there as mass child rape by Muslim grooming gangs as "only on PB" and the fantasy of racists.
Well, he was reading from the Labour HQ script. Shout the r-word and shut down debate. Even get Vishinsky's political commissars at the CPS to persecute (sic) the BNP leader for suggesting something similar.
"According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."
"Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said."
So he went with 20 years when the correct answer was 10.
The CRU? I guess they will just doctor their results if, as has been so far, their prediction is wrong.
Mr. Alistair, 2009-10, and 2010-11 were both immensely cold, and that's disregarding milder but still snowy winters.
Or, twice enormously wrong, to be more concise.
The idea children will have no idea about snow, which was what the article suggested (it included mention of children using a simulation to feel 'real cold') is nonsense, and has been proven to be so.
70 under-age kids - mostly from children's homes - working as prostitutes on the streets of Nottingham in 1998. As a snapshot that is around the same as what was found in Rotherham - the 1,400 kids over 10 years being an extrapolation of that.
"A leading expert in prostitution said yesterday that the study showed that there may be two or three times more child sex workers in Britain than previously thought." "He added that the problem had been "massively" underestimated and attacked the authorities for ignoring the proven links between children's homes and prostitution."
Mr. Alistair, 2009-10, and 2010-11 were both immensely cold, and that's disregarding milder but still snowy winters.
I know 09-10 was cold, it was so cold the hydraulic fluid froze in the points on the Glasgow-Edinburgh train line and I was stuck in Edinburgh. But it being apocalyptically cold is kind of a hint that things are not normal.
Not fond of properly cold winters, not least because the path outside the front door turns into a bloody ice rink.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Alistair, we've had very cold winters in the past, through all human history. Magically attributing any notably unusual weather to man's activities is as human-centric as the old Church view that the sun orbits Earth because we're so tremendously important.
This is partly why I think climate aeromancy is nonsense - to forecast CO2 you need to know emissions, to know emissions you need to know fuel use, and to know fuel use you need to know fuel price 100 years into the future. In fact nobody knows it 100 minutes into the future.
Climate Scientists are not stupid and they do not claim to be able to predict future emissions - which will depend on our choices.
So they run the climate models several times with different scenarios of future emissions, which then illustrates what the future climate impact of our choices today will be.
Ah climate science. Otherwise known as politics masquerading as science. You know the result you want and then use the data to prove this. 110% of scientists are 115.955555% sure you know.
Luckily the great climate scam is being seen for what it is. A scam.
Perhaps someone should have told the Met Office who've just slipped Cray £97 Million towards a new computer.
'The improved forecasts, according to the Met Office, could deliver an estimated £2bn in socio-economic benefits, including more advance warning of floods, less air travel disruption, more secure decision-making for renewable energy investments, and efficient planning for the impacts of climate change.'
"According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."
Not fond of properly cold winters, not least because the path outside the front door turns into a bloody ice rink.
The street at my old property was North South aligned with high buildings either side - it got about 30 mins of sun a day, just enough to melt the latest layer of snowfall and then refreeze, upon the snowfall of 10-11 it slowly converted into a sheet of ice 4 inches thick. This was both road and pavement. It was still in place one week after nearby streets had melted away to nothing. The road developed amazing ice potholes once it finally started to break up.
Mr. Alistair, aye, similar things happened near me. On fields with thick snow it wasn't too bad, because beneath a thin layer of ice there was enough snow for sound footing. On the street it was a bloody nightmare.
Indeed. We could dispute who or what renders or rendered the above groups 'untouchable' in the eyes of the law.
In the case of Pakistani muslims, however, the answer is clear. It was labour policy.
Then how come the Oxford cases occurred, when the relevant children's services were run by a Conservative council?
Because the Tories are just as bad at giving into the cult of "community sensitivity" as Labour. Same reason why the Tory-led government isn't launching anything at the national level to investigate these crimes. They don't want to draw attention to crime when it's Pakistani-descent people doing it, preferring to risk much of the stuff going uncovered.
It's all evidence that we are led by an intellectually and morally corrupt elite that need to be replaced, and that anyone with a conscience should vote UKIP.
James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous AllyPally I replied to you on the PT Sunil I replied to you on the PT Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."
The London space challenge sounds quite fun. You are of course right. Walk 5 minutes from the likes of Oxford Street/Covent Garden/British Museum and you are wandering up streets on your own.
My only 'avoid like the plague' spot is Camden on a Sunday, a horrific experience!
You should add Portobello on a Saturday to that list.
Good shout, and although its really obvious I'll add Notting Hill Carnival to that list. Potentially the worst Sunday I have ever experienced in London.
I always leave town - as do most of the residents of Notting Hill, incidentally - to avoid the Carnival...
But I thought such cultural diversity made mass immigration worth it...
The joys of cultural diversity. Possibly why 600k white Londoners left between 2001 and 2011. Presumably this includes some trendy types moving in so real number moving out would be higher.
Obama still great, he is, well he will be, you just see...The piece just oozes please, please, please, Obama, please be a great man. And Carter a great man...Bush, dog painter...No mention of Barry on the golf course more than Bush etc.
Obama is failure, his ratings are as bad as any President has been.
Gun control, just lip service. Foreign policy, disaster. Guantanamo Bay still open. Healthcare bill, something needed to be done, but it is a mess. A variety of scandals that the media, who are run by people related to his inner circle, not properly investigated.
Comments
Indeed. Socrates would have a much better impression of his own city, were he to walk around it once in a while
So I'm in clover.
London that are routinely quiet and serene. It amazes me that you have the tourist's view of your own city. Talk a walk. Enjoy
I.e. a forecast made in April 2005 for the price of 2H2007 had an 80% correlation with the price of April 2005, but a 0% correlation with the price in 2H2007. Forecasters are actually forecasting today's price.
It may be there's some sound reason why they do this. Eg perhaps forecasting best practice is to start from today's price, estimate the effect of various supply and demand factors, compare them with the same factors today and alter the price away from the present situation accordingly to create your future price forecast. I don't know. I do know that the results are unimpressive.
This is partly why I think climate aeromancy is nonsense - to forecast CO2 you need to know emissions, to know emissions you need to know fuel use, and to know fuel use you need to know fuel price 100 years into the future. In fact nobody knows it 100 minutes into the future.
I was expecting a highly competitive market but it is looking as if the price is truly on a one way march down to 1.01. You have to think the 'internals' are pretty definitive or there are polls out there that just haven't been released.
What's your opinion on the matter Angry Bob?
Labour operates on the basis of victim status points, whereby whether they hate you or support you depends on who you are at odds with.
If you're the police confronting miners they side with the miners. If you're the police confronting the Countryside Alliance they side with the police.
If you're a paedophile they side with the children unless you're a client voter in which case they side with the paedophile.
My view is that no mainstream party values votes more than the lives of children and I would never accuse them of it. You?
If you're a white English middle class person working in the private sector, labour sides with whoever is against you.
Something was clearly up, unless you consider what happened in Rotherham to be normal. Do you?
http://tinyurl.com/krglagc
People seem to be misinterpreting my point. I'm not saying there aren't places in London that are quiet relative to the busy areas. I'm saying that there aren't places that are quiet compared to the quiet places of London of 15 years ago. And that, in another 15 years time, there won't be places that are quiet compared to the quiet places of London of today.
And of course, unless you're very wealthy, you have to pass through the horrendous places in your daily grind.
In fact, London does not make the top 50 of most densely populated cities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density
Even in Europe it does not make the top 40:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_cities_proper_by_population_density
Salmond may still be badly advised and may still be in recovery from the devastation of a life's work.
http://standpointmag.co.uk/with-prejudice-november-14-labour-lost-me-maureen-lipman-ed-miliband
The website keeps crashing for some reason. Must have been hard for her as a life-long socialist to take that money from BT after it was privatised.
One thing when I was down there last, I knocked off the service charge that had been included in my bill and told them that the price of the two cokes was their tip.
Oil reserves have expanded, supply is up demand is down.
I am reminded of the scene in The Master Blackmailer where a rather annoyed victim simply fills Charles Augustius Milverton full of lead and walks off with the incriminating evidence. Putin's attempted national policy of blackmail risks going the same way. Shame for all his kipper friends left crying in their beer.
Falling oil prices and a declining, aging (drunken) population will do for Putin's mad dreams
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-13/oil-prices-are-hurting-russias-economy
That was taken in August and, by the look of it, lunchtime.
Not everyone wants peace and quiet. Some see the bucolic charms of the countryside as the stability of the graveyard.
So they run the climate models several times with different scenarios of future emissions, which then illustrates what the future climate impact of our choices today will be.
See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_scenario
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/neil-findlay-enters-race-for-scottish-labour-leader.1414586502
Current approx. odds .Murphy 8/13 Findlay 13/8 Boyak 13-2.
Teachers, priests, celebrities...
Apparently I've got to fix 2 p/w now.
1.6 Euro on the home team within minutes...
Hard to take them seriously amidst the hubris and track record of just being wrong. The Chief Scientific Officer, about a decade ago, claimed that at the end of this century Antarctica would be the only habitable landmass. And then there was that joyous Independent article by one of the dubious fellows from East Anglia, who reckoned snow would become a rarity that children would almost never see. A few years later we had two arctic-style winters.
The hockey stick was a creation of mathematical alchemy, which leaves them with what?
And yes, temperatures have risen. Or fallen. Or stayed the same. Anyone can cherrypick the starting point on a graph. Most recently, they're flat, directly contrary to the predictions of those who believe in global warming.
It smacks of panic over SARS. Only this brand of politico-science gets politicians a bulletproof excuse to charge people more in taxes. It's added a small fortune to energy bills, and the dogma has imperilled our energy supplies due to true believers like Miliband and Davey being Energy Secretary (in fairness to Davey, he's not as bad as Miliband).
Compare and contract with the wails about illegal economic migrants in the Med.
If someone links the Url I might.
Indeed. We could dispute who or what renders or rendered the above groups 'untouchable' in the eyes of the law.
In the case of Pakistani muslims, however, the answer is clear. It was labour policy.
The way you would want to do it is to calculate the population density for each city at its densest point for a number of standard radii, such as 1, 2, 5, 10 km, etc.. It would also be useful to calculate population density at, say, 4am and 4pm, to look at the difference between resident and commuting population - but gathering statistics in such a way is a lot more difficult than using the existing figures from administrative boundaries.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2014/04/11/dying-russias-birth-rate-is-now-higher-than-americas/
Russia has a modern diversified economy that saw very strong gains in productivity in the past ten years. Very much not dependent on oil and gas. Saudi Arabia can't tolerate oil prices at this level for long, they have no other industry nor source of revenue, nor can many other forms of extraction from deep seas to shale.
Strange post. In the real world the US has seriously alarmed the rest of the world, particularly China, lost standing in Europe, ensured Crimea's final reunion with the rest of Russia whilst Assad and Iran remain firmly in place with Israel isolated as ever.
You are correct that abuse has gone on for many years in many cases and it's a scandal. But these cases are unprecedented in so many rapes happening in such a small area over such a small timeframe.
http://order-order.com/2014/10/29/lipman-leaves-labour/
On a good year I get to September...
*according to Sunil on Sunday criteria, which are slightly different from "official" sources
"According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
However, everything you say has nothing to do with the point in question - that climate scientists do not claim to be able to predict future carbon dioxide concentrations, and so produce a range of predictions of future climate for a range of possible future carbon dioxide concentrations. Thus Mr Bond's objection to climate science on that basis was wholly erroneous.
Again, this is not an area where I'm going to be putting the necessary google searches in at work.
Don't take my word for it. These vile accusations are from....er......labour politicians....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2739367/Labour-accused-turning-blind-eye-abuse-Three-senior-figures-say-politically-correct-brigade-ignored-warnings-fear-inflaming-community-tensions.html
http://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/new-homes/london/westminster/190-strand
2 bed mansions available - nice compact size of less than 1,000 sq foot.
"Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said."
So he went with 20 years when the correct answer was 10.
Some on here have posited that racism is the worst crime ever. Yes, worse than murder, rape and child abuse. Given what happened in Rotherham one has to wonder if this really is the view of the metropolitan elite. And yes, only one party was involved in the Rotherham saga.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/498257341863964672
Or, twice enormously wrong, to be more concise.
The idea children will have no idea about snow, which was what the article suggested (it included mention of children using a simulation to feel 'real cold') is nonsense, and has been proven to be so.
Edited extra bit: Dr. Spyn, well quite.
The repercussions of #baconsarnie-gate are still reverberating around Golders Green...!
Ah climate science. Otherwise known as politics masquerading as science. You know the result you want and then use the data to prove this. 110% of scientists are 115.955555% sure you know.
Luckily the great climate scam is being seen for what it is. A scam.
Well, he was reading from the Labour HQ script. Shout the r-word and shut down debate. Even get Vishinsky's political commissars at the CPS to persecute (sic) the BNP leader for suggesting something similar.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Great_Britain_Snowy.jpg
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/more-children-than-ever-working-as-prostitutes-on-britains-streets-1168361.html
70 under-age kids - mostly from children's homes - working as prostitutes on the streets of Nottingham in 1998. As a snapshot that is around the same as what was found in Rotherham - the 1,400 kids over 10 years being an extrapolation of that.
"A leading expert in prostitution said yesterday that the study showed that there may be two or three times more child sex workers in Britain than previously thought."
"He added that the problem had been "massively" underestimated and attacked the authorities for ignoring the proven links between children's homes and prostitution."
There's also this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/child-abuse-scandal--the-bryn-estyn-home-wasnt-fit-for-children--it--has-made-my-life-since-leaving-a-complete-misery-1306165.html
The longer the issue has been ignored the more flagrant and heinous the crimes have become.
Not fond of properly cold winters, not least because the path outside the front door turns into a bloody ice rink.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Alistair, we've had very cold winters in the past, through all human history. Magically attributing any notably unusual weather to man's activities is as human-centric as the old Church view that the sun orbits Earth because we're so tremendously important.
'The improved forecasts, according to the Met Office, could deliver an estimated £2bn in socio-economic benefits, including more advance warning of floods, less air travel disruption, more secure decision-making for renewable energy investments, and efficient planning for the impacts of climate change.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29789208
It's all evidence that we are led by an intellectually and morally corrupt elite that need to be replaced, and that anyone with a conscience should vote UKIP.
However, don't say I'm not kind to you-
http://www.bet365.com/home/FlashGen4/WebConsoleApp.asp?&cb=10880723861
The joys of cultural diversity. Possibly why 600k white Londoners left between 2001 and 2011. Presumably this includes some trendy types moving in so real number moving out would be higher.
Obama still great, he is, well he will be, you just see...The piece just oozes please, please, please, Obama, please be a great man. And Carter a great man...Bush, dog painter...No mention of Barry on the golf course more than Bush etc.
Obama is failure, his ratings are as bad as any President has been.
Gun control, just lip service. Foreign policy, disaster. Guantanamo Bay still open. Healthcare bill, something needed to be done, but it is a mess. A variety of scandals that the media, who are run by people related to his inner circle, not properly investigated.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29815432