I rather enjoyed Edward's speech - I thought it quite strong. It seemed to hint at policies on job security that may prove popular
What on earth is the point of hinting at things like that?
The speech was missing substance - it was just talk with no specifics. I know that he doesn't want to commit himself - but it is ludicrous to talk of problems without offering a clear explanation of what you believe the solution to be.
For a man who claims to do substance, it was very much an empty, image-based speech
It also won't do what he wants as all companies will do is be more reluctant to hire if they can't get rid of people as easily. Look to France to see where that sort of policy leads
There was already a one-year buffer period where people could be sacked for no good reason. That, under the Coalition, has been extended to two years. I'd venture that if a manager is unable to assess the ability of a worker in a year, it is him that should leave, not the worker
Are you claiming the laws around job security in France do not cause problems? Currently even after two years it is still pretty easy to get rid of people. What you would find is a lot of people instead if they brought in similar laws here would find themselves out of work after 1 year 11 months. From what I understand in France once you have been there a certain time it is almost impossible to get rid of you.
Why take the chance on keeping someone on unless they are so good at their job you don't want to let them go when you can just fire them before the time is up and get a replacement in. Those that are good enough but not outstanding will get the short end of that stick and ( I suspect that would cover a large portion of the workforce)
The calibre of mind on tonight's Question Time panel - Rod Liddle excepted - is even lower than that of the audience. And that's saying something. Who are these minnows?
Rod Liddle isn't anything to write home about either.
Roll on devo-max.
The sooner England is free, the better.
Amen to that.
Is this the same guy that was editor of the Today Program and IIRC cheated on his new wife?
What relevance does his private life have? I would prefer we more like France in this regard, than the puritanical United States
His job is his private life? Someone's private life can be revealing as to what sort of person they are. Hardly 'puritanical', merely more data to process.
Nonsense. Would you judge a married woman's political and leadership skills on the basis she enjoyed occasional sapphic relief?
TimB Obamacare was a compromise of mindboggling complexity to get through Congress, the essential principle, subsidised insurance was the same as it was in 2010 as was the complaint of some that there existing insurance would be affected, if those complaining disliked it so much they should have voted for Romney who ran on a clear anti Obamacare platform
I am not quite sure why the fate of Ched Evans is so exercising right-wingers.
After all, his fate is being decided by market forces.
Sheffield United can re-employ Ched -- but they will take a big hit in terms of support. That's their decision.
It is entirely up to an individual fan if he or she wishes to continue to support Sheffield United. That's his or her decision.
If enough people are not bothered, then Ched can return and play for Sheffield United. However, if -- as looks the case -- enough people are bothered, then it doesn't make financial sense for Sheffield United to employ him.
It's just pure 100 per cent Thatcherite market forces.
A poor attempt at a smear. Markets operate in a regulated environment - under the rule of law. its not a free for all. I am not sure that football has ever been about finances. A few short weeks ago Newcastle fans were hounding out Pardew. Sheffields decision is stuck between harmony and justice not money.
Some dimwit on QT just suggested that making a sandwich was a "skill".
He is seemingly the Welsh Labour first minister.
about par for most Welsh AMs
This is the problem with devolved assemblies with next to no powers, they only attract third rate politicians who couldn't get elected to places where what they do actually matters.
I know of Parish councils with more power than the Welsh Assembly!
scottish Mps could retire to Holyrood on Thurs And Fri for Scottish business - fire all the MSPs.
And leave English MPs to vote on English Laws? I could get on board with that.
Save the taxpayer a packet too..
Actually a reform of Westminster where the MPs meet for national issues 3 days a week and retire to their local assemblies for the other 2 might just be a way forward. It would, of course, need further work in terms of balancing representation - but it would do away with yet another layer of politicians suckling at the public teat.
Anyhow they'll just keep hoping something turns up/relaunching Dedward.
By the time he's 10 points adrift, it'll be too late to do anything other than sing the Red Flag as the waters close over them...
There's a lot of over reaction this evening to a margin of error poll that was taken largely before the speech anyway, so somewhat irrelevant. I have noticed on PB that when posters find a poll they like, they are vocal. When they see a poll they dislike, often silent. We should wait until Sunday before casting judgement, I should say.
Dead Wood is among the better of the pun names, however. First time I have heard it. Sure beats Bliar and Shameron.
Deadwood dates from 1995 - refers to John Redwood's leadership challenge to John Major.
The Court of Public Opinion on Ched Evans is still in session on Twitter. Doesn't look like part of the Justice System to me.
Indeed. I didn't realise in Britain you were punished twice for the same crime.
Campaign for longer sentences, by all means, but campaigning against letting an ex-con get on with his life sounds awfully illiberal to me - and it's being spouted by liberals. The irony.
"Letting an ex-con get on with his life" is reasonable, if he is qualified to return to the same job he did before he went to prison. But Ched Evans is not qualified to be a top-level professional footballer, because an important part of that job is to be a role model for young people.
Aussie PM: "the ISIL death-cult that has declared war on the world..."
powerful and eloquent words
Good speech by the Leader of the Oppo as well.
I'm not sure we're as "welcoming" to Australians as we used to be though. Clamp downs on non-EU immigration have made it a lot harder for our friends from the Commonwealth.
The Court of Public Opinion on Ched Evans is still in session on Twitter. Doesn't look like part of the Justice System to me.
Indeed. I didn't realise in Britain you were punished twice for the same crime.
Campaign for longer sentences, by all means, but campaigning against letting an ex-con get on with his life sounds awfully illiberal to me - and it's being spouted by liberals. The irony.
"Letting an ex-con get on with his life" is reasonable, if he is qualified to return to the same job he did before he went to prison. But Ched Evans is not qualified to be a top-level professional footballer, because an important part of that job is to be a role model for young people.
Surely every job, done well, can be a role model to young people?
We must be role models to young people all of the time. What makes football a special case?
But Ched Evans is not qualified to be a top-level professional footballer, because an important part of that job is to be a role model for young people.
Not true in my opinion in the least.
It is true to say that certain sections of the media and general population think that is the case but I am pretty sure when selecting footballers to hire that clubs aren't asking themselves "Now which would be the better role model out of these candidates". Footballers are hired for one thing and one thing only. The ability to get people through the turnstiles or watching pay per view.
The role model thing does not come from the club only some of us and we shouldn't conflate that with "it's part of his job". I fully expect they will make a decision purely based on how much it will affect their bottom line and indeed if they thought his notoriety would boost their take would hire him back in a shot.
'The calibre of mind on tonight's Question Time panel - Rod Liddle excepted - is even lower than that of the audience. And that's saying something. Who are these minnows?'
The Court of Public Opinion on Ched Evans is still in session on Twitter. Doesn't look like part of the Justice System to me.
Indeed. I didn't realise in Britain you were punished twice for the same crime.
Campaign for longer sentences, by all means, but campaigning against letting an ex-con get on with his life sounds awfully illiberal to me - and it's being spouted by liberals. The irony.
"Letting an ex-con get on with his life" is reasonable, if he is qualified to return to the same job he did before he went to prison. But Ched Evans is not qualified to be a top-level professional footballer, because an important part of that job is to be a role model for young people.
The job is playing football - not some ill-defined concept of being a role model.
Why should the loud voices on Twitter and Tumblr be the ones who get to determine whether he can return to his former profession?
I don't see Trial by Social Media (and the rise of the Social Justice Warrior) as being anything other than a very bad thing for the Criminal Justice System.
I thought one of the key parts of our system was the hope that former prisoners can be reintegrated into society and to use their skills for the benefit of the wider community. The SJWs would probably insist that no convicted rapist ever be allowed to work again - and what good does that serve?
TimB Obamacare was a compromise of mindboggling complexity to get through Congress, the essential principle, subsidised insurance was the same as it was in 2010 as was the complaint of some that there existing insurance would be affected, if those complaining disliked it so much they should have voted for Romney who ran on a clear anti Obamacare platform
Trust me - I'm all too aware of what Obamacare is. I've followed it closely since the begining. I have actually read the entire bill. It is in many places delberately vague and obfuscating.
I even posted on this site links to the Federal Register, when the estimates were posted after the bill was passed on the number of policies that would be cancelled.
In 2010 the bill passed even though a majority of the county didn't want it, having a vague feeling that it wasn't going to be good. You can't mandate much more insurance risks covered, and yet have lower costs. Everybody knows that.
In 2014 the mood of the country, in both domestic and foreign afffairs, was that 2/3 of the population felt the country was going in the wrong direction, and it was time to stop Obama. Obamacare was just one issue, along with the IRS, Benghazi, and all the rest.
Remember it took a year to get enough Democrats to vote for the bill to get it through the House.
The calibre of mind on tonight's Question Time panel - Rod Liddle excepted - is even lower than that of the audience. And that's saying something. Who are these minnows?
Rod Liddle isn't anything to write home about either.
Roll on devo-max.
The sooner England is free, the better.
Amen to that.
Is this the same guy that was editor of the Today Program and IIRC cheated on his new wife?
What relevance does his private life have? I would prefer we more like France in this regard, than the puritanical United States
His job is his private life? Someone's private life can be revealing as to what sort of person they are. Hardly 'puritanical', merely more data to process.
Nonsense. Would you judge a married woman's political and leadership skills on the basis she enjoyed occasional sapphic relief?
Following that logic, you would be against a sex offenders register then?
The Court of Public Opinion on Ched Evans is still in session on Twitter. Doesn't look like part of the Justice System to me.
Indeed. I didn't realise in Britain you were punished twice for the same crime.
Campaign for longer sentences, by all means, but campaigning against letting an ex-con get on with his life sounds awfully illiberal to me - and it's being spouted by liberals. The irony.
"Letting an ex-con get on with his life" is reasonable, if he is qualified to return to the same job he did before he went to prison. But Ched Evans is not qualified to be a top-level professional footballer, because an important part of that job is to be a role model for young people.
The job is playing football - not some ill-defined concept of being a role model.
Why should the loud voices on Twitter and Tumblr be the ones who get to determine whether he can return to his former profession?
I don't see Trial by Social Media (and the rise of the Social Justice Warrior) as being anything other than a very bad thing for the Criminal Justice System.
I thought one of the key parts of our system was the hope that former prisoners can be reintegrated into society and to use their skills for the benefit of the wider community. The SJWs would probably insist that no convicted rapist ever be allowed to work again - and what good does that serve?
Indeed while this may be an upopular view the clamour about "role models" is imo opinion nothing more than an excuse for poor parenting. "It wasn't my fault little Johnny murdered all his class mates, look at all these bad role models that society tolerates"
As a parent it is my job to teach my offspring right from wrong no one elses. If I cannot do that or am unwilling to do that and instead let him get those idea's from being stuck in front of a TV 24/7 then that is down to my poor parenting and no one else is to blame but me.
We see the same every day with demands about censoring the internet/tv/books etc
The Court of Public Opinion on Ched Evans is still in session on Twitter. Doesn't look like part of the Justice System to me.
Indeed. I didn't realise in Britain you were punished twice for the same crime.
Campaign for longer sentences, by all means, but campaigning against letting an ex-con get on with his life sounds awfully illiberal to me - and it's being spouted by liberals. The irony.
"Letting an ex-con get on with his life" is reasonable, if he is qualified to return to the same job he did before he went to prison. But Ched Evans is not qualified to be a top-level professional footballer, because an important part of that job is to be a role model for young people.
Surely every job, done well, can be a role model to young people?
We must be role models to young people all of the time. What makes football a special case?
(a) Football is a special case because teenagers and impressionable young people are disproportionately among its consumers; (b) Ched Evans is a special case because he has expressed no remorse. If he had admitted his guilt and apologised to his victim, I would not have any objections to him going back to the same job.
The Court of Public Opinion on Ched Evans is still in session on Twitter. Doesn't look like part of the Justice System to me.
Indeed. I didn't realise in Britain you were punished twice for the same crime.
Campaign for longer sentences, by all means, but campaigning against letting an ex-con get on with his life sounds awfully illiberal to me - and it's being spouted by liberals. The irony.
"Letting an ex-con get on with his life" is reasonable, if he is qualified to return to the same job he did before he went to prison. But Ched Evans is not qualified to be a top-level professional footballer, because an important part of that job is to be a role model for young people.
Surely every job, done well, can be a role model to young people?
We must be role models to young people all of the time. What makes football a special case?
(a) Football is a special case because teenagers and impressionable young people are disproportionately among its consumers; (b) Ched Evans is a special case because he has expressed no remorse. If he had admitted his guilt and apologised to his victim, I would not have any objections to him going back to the same job.
(a) - that is irrelevant. You are creating a special case because it suits your view of the situation.
(b) - he maintains that he is innocent - and so it would be wrong (in his eyes) to admit his guilt and issue an apology. Should he be subject to an additional punishment because of this?
The Court of Public Opinion on Ched Evans is still in session on Twitter. Doesn't look like part of the Justice System to me.
Indeed. I didn't realise in Britain you were punished twice for the same crime.
Campaign for longer sentences, by all means, but campaigning against letting an ex-con get on with his life sounds awfully illiberal to me - and it's being spouted by liberals. The irony.
"Letting an ex-con get on with his life" is reasonable, if he is qualified to return to the same job he did before he went to prison. But Ched Evans is not qualified to be a top-level professional footballer, because an important part of that job is to be a role model for young people.
Surely every job, done well, can be a role model to young people?
We must be role models to young people all of the time. What makes football a special case?
(a) Football is a special case because teenagers and impressionable young people are disproportionately among its consumers; (b) Ched Evans is a special case because he has expressed no remorse. If he had admitted his guilt and apologised to his victim, I would not have any objections to him going back to the same job.
Maybe he hasn't admitted his guilt because he was wrongly convicted? You hear about people being wrongly convicted quite regularly. We just don't know, do we?
Btw, if teenagers and young people are potentially so impressionable why on earth is there a growing movement to give 16-year-olds the vote?!
The Court of Public Opinion on Ched Evans is still in session on Twitter. Doesn't look like part of the Justice System to me.
Indeed. I didn't realise in Britain you were punished twice for the same crime.
Campaign for longer sentences, by all means, but campaigning against letting an ex-con get on with his life sounds awfully illiberal to me - and it's being spouted by liberals. The irony.
"Letting an ex-con get on with his life" is reasonable, if he is qualified to return to the same job he did before he went to prison. But Ched Evans is not qualified to be a top-level professional footballer, because an important part of that job is to be a role model for young people.
Surely every job, done well, can be a role model to young people?
We must be role models to young people all of the time. What makes football a special case?
(a) Football is a special case because teenagers and impressionable young people are disproportionately among its consumers; (b) Ched Evans is a special case because he has expressed no remorse. If he had admitted his guilt and apologised to his victim, I would not have any objections to him going back to the same job.
If you think modern footballers are, when viewed collectively, 'role models' - whether or not they have been convicted or a criminal offence - you must have a fairly stunted idea of what constitutes showing a good example...
Beckham, marginally perhaps, the exception which proves this rule.
I can't stand football or footballers, as you may gather.
(b) - he maintains that he is innocent - and so it would be wrong (in his eyes) to admit his guilt and issue an apology. Should he be subject to an additional punishment because of this?
The remedy for that is to have his conviction quashed. Unless that happens, yes.
The Court of Public Opinion on Ched Evans is still in session on Twitter. Doesn't look like part of the Justice System to me.
Indeed. I didn't realise in Britain you were punished twice for the same crime.
Campaign for longer sentences, by all means, but campaigning against letting an ex-con get on with his life sounds awfully illiberal to me - and it's being spouted by liberals. The irony.
"Letting an ex-con get on with his life" is reasonable, if he is qualified to return to the same job he did before he went to prison. But Ched Evans is not qualified to be a top-level professional footballer, because an important part of that job is to be a role model for young people.
Surely every job, done well, can be a role model to young people?
We must be role models to young people all of the time. What makes football a special case?
(a) Football is a special case because teenagers and impressionable young people are disproportionately among its consumers; (b) Ched Evans is a special case because he has expressed no remorse. If he had admitted his guilt and apologised to his victim, I would not have any objections to him going back to the same job.
If you think modern footballers are, when viewed collectively, 'role models' - whether or not they have been convicted or a criminal offence - you must have a fairly stunted idea of what constitutes showing a good example...
Beckham, marginally perhaps, the exception which proves this rule.
I can't stand football or footballers, as you may gather.
Indeed I almost take the reverse view that a so called "role model" going of the rails is a good thing. It opens up a good opportunity to discuss such topics with your children in a more natural way than sitting them down for a "Son this is why rape is not a good thing" discussion
In the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice tomorrow, at ten o'clock, before Sir Brian Leveson P, Jay & Lewis JJ:
Applications for permission to claim judicial review and for interim relief: CO/5204/2014 The Queen on the application of Wheeler v Office of The Prime Minister
Two points arise for consideration: (1) In Wheeler (No.1) [2008] 2 CMLR 57 , Owen J granted permission to claim on much weaker grounds. The question for the Divisional Court is simply whether the grounds of challenge to the government's decision are arguable. (2) If permission to claim is granted by the Divisional Court, the question of interim relief is generally determined on the balance of convenience to the parties, not on strength of their cases. Wheeler's challenge seems misplaced, but it is not hopeless. We shall see what the Divisional Court decide tomorrow. Interestingly, Lewis J was counsel for the Speaker of the House of Commons in Wheeler (No.1)...
In the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice tomorrow, at ten o'clock, before Sir Brian Leveson P, Jay & Lewis JJ:
Applications for permission to claim judicial review and for interim relief: CO/5204/2014 The Queen on the application of Wheeler v Office of The Prime Minister
Two points arise for consideration: (1) In Wheeler (No.1) [2008] 2 CMLR 57 , Owen J granted permission to claim on much weaker grounds. The question for the Divisional Court is simply whether the grounds of challenge to the government's decision are arguable. (2) If permission to claim is granted by the Divisional Court, the question of interim relief is generally determined on the balance of convenience to the parties, not on strength of their cases. Wheeler's challenge seems misplaced, but it is not hopeless. We shall see what the Divisional Court decide tomorrow. Interestingly, Lewis J was counsel for the Speaker of the House of Commons in Wheeler (No.1...
(b) - he maintains that he is innocent - and so it would be wrong (in his eyes) to admit his guilt and issue an apology. Should he be subject to an additional punishment because of this?
The remedy for that is to have his conviction quashed. Unless that happens, yes.
Then you have a very perverted view of the Criminal Justice System.
He has served the custodial part of his sentence and has been released on licence. It is surely up to the Probation Service and potential employers to consider what is the most appropriate course of action with regards to his return to paid employment.
It is not up to people on the internet to pass additional sentences.
I would much rather he continue to protest his innocence than he make an apology that he doesn't mean in order to satisfy some condition that you (or others) deem appropriate.
At the moment, he has sought the help from his union to be able to train in a professional environment in order that he can regain his fitness and seek employment in his chosen career.
If you consider that he might pose a continued threat, I, for one, would much prefer he do that with a professional set-up than try to do it through unregulated access to non-professional teams/clubs/sporting facilities.
Being punished twice for the same crime is something that I cannot and will not support.
Essentially the American Cyanamid principles apply, but there are some special considerations for public authorities. The court must assess whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of interim measures and choose the course which in all circumstances appears to offer the best prospect that an eventual injustice can be avoided or minimised (R. v Secretary of State for Transport, Ex parte Factortame (No.2) [1991] 1 AC 603, 661 et seq., per Lord Goff of Chieveley (HL); National Commercial Bank Ltd v Olint Corporation Ltd [2009] UKPC 16 at [16]-[18]).
The calibre of mind on tonight's Question Time panel - Rod Liddle excepted - is even lower than that of the audience. And that's saying something. Who are these minnows?
"Home rule for Wales" got one clap.
Even worse than last week? Goodness.
It's in Romford in a fortnight, I might try and get tickets
Any event in the fair home county of Essex deserves a strong billing
**Sunil stops short of typing "Actually, Romford is now in Greater London" **
The Sun Says SO now we know. Nigel Farage will prop up an Ed Miliband government if Labour gives Ukip an in-out referendum on Europe. A bit like, er, the one you’d get under a Tory Government in 2017.
Ukip would do this despite Miliband now being the most disliked major party leader in history.
Britain doesn’t want him. His own party doesn’t either. But we might all get him by the quirks of our election system and with Farage’s help getting him over the line.
It’s hard to argue now that a Ukip vote ISN’T a vote for Labour.
Not just because it splits the right-wing vote and lets Miliband in the back door. But because Farage is ready to hand him the key.
The Conservatives’ national prospects are looking up. On November 12th a poll by Ipsos MORI gave them a three-point lead over the Labour Party, their largest in any by the firm since 2010. They may not be on track for a workable majority at next May’s general election; for that, says Stephen Fisher of Oxford University, they would need to be at least five points ahead by this point. But they have a good chance (from recent polls, he puts it at 56%) of emerging with the largest number of MPs.
The Conservatives’ national prospects are looking up. On November 12th a poll by Ipsos MORI gave them a three-point lead over the Labour Party, their largest in any by the firm since 2010. They may not be on track for a workable majority at next May’s general election; for that, says Stephen Fisher of Oxford University, they would need to be at least five points ahead by this point. But they have a good chance (from recent polls, he puts it at 56%) of emerging with the largest number of MPs.
The Sun Says SO now we know. Nigel Farage will prop up an Ed Miliband government if Labour gives Ukip an in-out referendum on Europe. A bit like, er, the one you’d get under a Tory Government in 2017.
Ukip would do this despite Miliband now being the most disliked major party leader in history.
Britain doesn’t want him. His own party doesn’t either. But we might all get him by the quirks of our election system and with Farage’s help getting him over the line.
It’s hard to argue now that a Ukip vote ISN’T a vote for Labour.
Not just because it splits the right-wing vote and lets Miliband in the back door. But because Farage is ready to hand him the key.
Interesting......its unlike the Sun to take a line it thinks will be unpopular with its readers......
More disingenuous b*llocks from The Sun. If Miliband gets more seats than Cameron, and especially if he gets a higher percentage of the vote than Cameron then Britain manifestly would want him (within the limitations of our current electoral system) rather than Cameron. It would be even less democratic for Farage to chose to do a deal with the second party rather than the first. Its another case of if you dont like the system, campaign to change it, rather than bitching about people behaving properly under the current system
The Sun Says SO now we know. Nigel Farage will prop up an Ed Miliband government if Labour gives Ukip an in-out referendum on Europe. A bit like, er, the one you’d get under a Tory Government in 2017.
Ukip would do this despite Miliband now being the most disliked major party leader in history.
Britain doesn’t want him. His own party doesn’t either. But we might all get him by the quirks of our election system and with Farage’s help getting him over the line.
It’s hard to argue now that a Ukip vote ISN’T a vote for Labour.
Not just because it splits the right-wing vote and lets Miliband in the back door. But because Farage is ready to hand him the key.
Interesting......its unlike the Sun to take a line it thinks will be unpopular with its readers......
More disingenuous b*llocks from The Sun. If Miliband gets more seats than Cameron, and especially if he gets a higher percentage of the vote than Cameron then Britain manifestly would want him (within the limitations of our current electoral system) rather than Cameron. It would be even less democratic for Farage to chose to do a deal with the second party rather than the first. Its another case of if you dont like the system, campaign to change it, rather than bitching about people behaving properly under the current system
'Behaving properly' includes the incumbent PM remaining in office (whatever the votes/seats, if the result is indeterminate) and ascertaining if there is a basis for continuity of government.
Just like Brown in 2010, Heath in 1974, Baldwin in 1923, Asquith in 1910, etc...
The Sun Says SO now we know. Nigel Farage will prop up an Ed Miliband government if Labour gives Ukip an in-out referendum on Europe. A bit like, er, the one you’d get under a Tory Government in 2017.
Ukip would do this despite Miliband now being the most disliked major party leader in history.
Britain doesn’t want him. His own party doesn’t either. But we might all get him by the quirks of our election system and with Farage’s help getting him over the line.
It’s hard to argue now that a Ukip vote ISN’T a vote for Labour.
Not just because it splits the right-wing vote and lets Miliband in the back door. But because Farage is ready to hand him the key.
Interesting......its unlike the Sun to take a line it thinks will be unpopular with its readers......
More disingenuous b*llocks from The Sun. If Miliband gets more seats than Cameron, and especially if he gets a higher percentage of the vote than Cameron then Britain manifestly would want him (within the limitations of our current electoral system) rather than Cameron. It would be even less democratic for Farage to chose to do a deal with the second party rather than the first. Its another case of if you dont like the system, campaign to change it, rather than bitching about people behaving properly under the current system
'Behaving properly' includes the incumbent PM remaining in office (whatever the votes/seats, if the result is indeterminate) and ascertaining if there is a basis for continuity of government.
Just like Brown in 2010, Heath in 1974, Baldwin in 1923, Asquith in 1910, etc...
Indeed if Cameron fell a few votes short and decided to got for an C&S/DevoUltra/EV4EL deal with the SNP it would get interesting, the SNP would I assume not support Cameron's 2017 referendum line, but Farage would have to row in behind it or look stupid, and depending on the numbers a few sceptics from other parties might be enough to push it over the line.
"Livingstone told the audience to find out the home addresses of the Government commissioners sent in to run the council and "make their lives intolerable." As you will remember, intimidation is already one of the main charges against Rahman's supporters."
Weasel Words alert. As discussed here last week, this issue now seems to have got to the commons. The mealy-mouthed PR-speak answer from the BRC is a disgrace, think I will be sending my contributions to MSF in future.
An early day motion tabled by the Tory MP Philip Davies and backed by Sir Peter Bottomley, the former employment minister, and others, argues that Mr Barkley’s views on marriage had been “expressed reasonably, in his own time, and were in no way connected with his work for the Red Cross”.
“Orchestrated actions like this inevitably divert us from our humanitarian mission. “Tragically it has taken up vital staff time and resources away from our international mission and in the UK.”
She added: "We have said repeatedly that we respect the right of individuals to hold personal views so long as this does not affect their ability to deliver our services impartially to all who need our help, as enshrined in our fundamental principles.
"Where there are serious concerns the British Red Cross has no option but to act.
Comments
Why take the chance on keeping someone on unless they are so good at their job you don't want to let them go when you can just fire them before the time is up and get a replacement in. Those that are good enough but not outstanding will get the short end of that stick and ( I suspect that would cover a large portion of the workforce)
Markets operate in a regulated environment - under the rule of law. its not a free for all.
I am not sure that football has ever been about finances. A few short weeks ago Newcastle fans were hounding out Pardew. Sheffields decision is stuck between harmony and justice not money.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pm-assails-malcontent-redwood-1588458.html
I'm not sure we're as "welcoming" to Australians as we used to be though. Clamp downs on non-EU immigration have made it a lot harder for our friends from the Commonwealth.
We must be role models to young people all of the time. What makes football a special case?
It is true to say that certain sections of the media and general population think that is the case but I am pretty sure when selecting footballers to hire that clubs aren't asking themselves "Now which would be the better role model out of these candidates". Footballers are hired for one thing and one thing only. The ability to get people through the turnstiles or watching pay per view.
The role model thing does not come from the club only some of us and we shouldn't conflate that with "it's part of his job". I fully expect they will make a decision purely based on how much it will affect their bottom line and indeed if they thought his notoriety would boost their take would hire him back in a shot.
'The calibre of mind on tonight's Question Time panel - Rod Liddle excepted - is even lower than that of the audience. And that's saying something. Who are these minnows?'
Play school from Cardiff,absolutely pathetic.
Why should the loud voices on Twitter and Tumblr be the ones who get to determine whether he can return to his former profession?
I don't see Trial by Social Media (and the rise of the Social Justice Warrior) as being anything other than a very bad thing for the Criminal Justice System.
I thought one of the key parts of our system was the hope that former prisoners can be reintegrated into society and to use their skills for the benefit of the wider community. The SJWs would probably insist that no convicted rapist ever be allowed to work again - and what good does that serve?
I even posted on this site links to the Federal Register, when the estimates were posted after the bill was passed on the number of policies that would be cancelled.
In 2010 the bill passed even though a majority of the county didn't want it, having a vague feeling that it wasn't going to be good. You can't mandate much more insurance risks covered, and yet have lower costs. Everybody knows that.
In 2014 the mood of the country, in both domestic and foreign afffairs, was that 2/3 of the population felt the country was going in the wrong direction, and it was time to stop Obama. Obamacare was just one issue, along with the IRS, Benghazi, and all the rest.
Remember it took a year to get enough Democrats to vote for the bill to get it through the House.
As a parent it is my job to teach my offspring right from wrong no one elses. If I cannot do that or am unwilling to do that and instead let him get those idea's from being stuck in front of a TV 24/7 then that is down to my poor parenting and no one else is to blame but me.
We see the same every day with demands about censoring the internet/tv/books etc
I didn't rate him much 5 years ago, but he's grown into the office he holds...
Poor Ed will be slaughtered.
[disclosure: I've only voted Tory once, in 1997]
(b) - he maintains that he is innocent - and so it would be wrong (in his eyes) to admit his guilt and issue an apology. Should he be subject to an additional punishment because of this?
Btw, if teenagers and young people are potentially so impressionable why on earth is there a growing movement to give 16-year-olds the vote?!
Beckham, marginally perhaps, the exception which proves this rule.
I can't stand football or footballers, as you may gather.
Injunctive relief on the American Cyanamid test?
He has served the custodial part of his sentence and has been released on licence. It is surely up to the Probation Service and potential employers to consider what is the most appropriate course of action with regards to his return to paid employment.
It is not up to people on the internet to pass additional sentences.
I would much rather he continue to protest his innocence than he make an apology that he doesn't mean in order to satisfy some condition that you (or others) deem appropriate.
At the moment, he has sought the help from his union to be able to train in a professional environment in order that he can regain his fitness and seek employment in his chosen career.
If you consider that he might pose a continued threat, I, for one, would much prefer he do that with a professional set-up than try to do it through unregulated access to non-professional teams/clubs/sporting facilities.
Being punished twice for the same crime is something that I cannot and will not support.
- D'Oh!
SO now we know. Nigel Farage will prop up an Ed Miliband government if Labour gives Ukip an in-out referendum on Europe.
A bit like, er, the one you’d get under a Tory Government in 2017.
Ukip would do this despite Miliband now being the most disliked major party leader in history.
Britain doesn’t want him. His own party doesn’t either. But we might all get him by the quirks of our election system and with Farage’s help getting him over the line.
It’s hard to argue now that a Ukip vote ISN’T a vote for Labour.
Not just because it splits the right-wing vote and lets Miliband in the back door. But because Farage is ready to hand him the key.
Is that really what his fans had in mind?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_says/6090033/The-Sun-says.html
Interesting......its unlike the Sun to take a line it thinks will be unpopular with its readers......
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21632629-win-next-general-election-conservatives-must-hold-their-nerve-keep-calm-and-carry The name rings a bell....
I think Mr. Fisher is sticking his neck out...
(^_-)
[Poor Dedward...]
BTW "Deadwood" dates from the 1995 Sun headline "Redwood vs Deadwood", when John Redwood challenged John Major for the Tory leadership...
Just like Brown in 2010, Heath in 1974, Baldwin in 1923, Asquith in 1910, etc...
"Livingstone told the audience to find out the home addresses of the Government commissioners sent in to run the council and "make their lives intolerable." As you will remember, intimidation is already one of the main charges against Rahman's supporters."
Disgraceful.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11229306/Pressure-mounts-on-Red-Cross-over-elderly-volunteer-axed-after-gay-marriage-protest.html