big disparity in where PP and Ladbrokes have put their 5/6 either way lines on SNP seats - 25.5 for PP and 20.5 for lads- one of them is wrong!!
I reckon there's a disparity within Ladbrokes. SNP at 11/8 to win most seats in Scotland, but the over/under is 20.5. It's difficult to imagine them getting over 20 seats but not the most seats. Very narrow window of outcomes, to be honest.
Scotland has 59 seats,
Orkney and Shetland and most likely Ross, Skye and Lochaber are staying Lib Dem I'd guess
Probably Caithness, Sutherland too.
3 seats.
The Tories probably gain 2 (Dumfries & Galloway & Aberdeen, Kincardine) on a very good night there (Are there any I've missed ?) ... @TSE's prediction of Edinburgh South is fanciful I feel.
So that's 26.5 seats as the most seats "line", which is more or less in line with the 11-8 ?
On a very, very, very good night for the SNP I think Tories + Lib Dems struggle to get to anywhere near 18 which is the implied line you'd need for a straight pseudo-arb.
Or am I missing something big here ?
Tories winning Berwickshire?
Yes that's certainly possible.
A lot more possible than winning Dumfries I would imagine
My analysis is probably a bit hazy around the edges, but 5-6 and 11-8 is a 16% price difference, the main point is that I don't think the SNP/20.5/ahead of Labour prices of Ladbrokes are wrong
"Whereas in this case, the victim of a crime - a very serious crime - is facing the prospect of being prosecuted for reporting that crime."
Not much room for doubt there that you've made a judgement. No 'alleged', or 'possibly', or 'it is claimed that' or 'whilst we don't know the full facts, it might be that..'.
Oh dear: I forgot to put in the word "alleged" before crime. Really! I'm happy to plead guilty to that dreadful omission. I have not made up my mind as to whether she's right or not about what happened.
But I do think it a faintly absurd point for you to make TBH. People have been talking about Savile's crimes and the crimes in Rotherham and, even, the victims of historic child abuse, when in fact there have been no convictions in the case of Savile (for obvious reasons), very few in Rotherham and no or very few for historic child abuse or what is alleged to have happened. Those victims - whom La May is meeting - are not even described as "alleged victims". Everyone has made up their mind and come to judgment.
She reported a crime to the Italian police. She is now facing - apparently (since I've not seen the letter) - the prospect of being investigated and possibly prosecuted for reporting that crime.
And your answer to my question - now put twice - is what, exactly?
FPT: Richard Nabavi: You are talking, I'm sorry to say, rubbish on extradition. If we had remained opted out of the EAW, I've no doubt that we could have had appropriate extradition treaties with other EU countries. ...
I am sure he's a very nice person, but in my (albeit short) time here so far, I have never seen Richard Nabavi taken a position opposed to the current Conservative Party leadership. Ever. Which as far as I am concerned means despite his posts being erudite and written persuasively, they come with zero weight. I glaze over before I reach the end. I wouldn't even know if he was actually making a valid point, because I just wouldn't know where to start looking for it amongst the impeccably argued GCHQ endorsed tripe.
CCHQ surely? In respect of Mr Nabavi's views, I'd suggest that you simply haven't been here long enough. I don't know of any regular poster who (trivially identifiable astroturfers and trolls apart) who cleave entirely to a party line.
The only time I've ever read Richard disagreeing with the party line is when he has been challenged about always agreeing with the party line, and then he might come up with one or two examples on very trivial policies.
Richard you never got around to explaining why the snoopers charter and the investigative powers should lie with the executive rather than with the judiciary. Last time you avoided answering. Why was the enabling power held with the home secretary and not with magistrates?
Because magistrates are not security-cleared, and by definition secret surveillance is secret.
It doesn't seem like the hardest thing in the world to create a bunch of security-cleared judges.
Mr. Shadsy, I could be miles wrong, but I think the zeal of the converted (imagine forty thousand Scottish Carswells) will help the SNP a lot. They won't, I think, utterly sweep away Labour, but the SNP could take a huge bite out of their heartland, and may even have more seats than the reds.
Surely the protection of British liberty and freedom is worth more than being part of some club and Dave being popular in Europe.
For heaven's sake! You really think Cameron is wanting to be part of some club and popular in Europe?
I don't know what it is that makes people lose all sense of reality when Europe is mentioned.
Rather than invent daft theories to explain things, why not consider that I might actually be right, that the government has decided this is the least bad of the options available? By all means argue that they've got it wrong, but at least try to get your head round the idea that they might have considered the options and genuinely come to the conclusion which they say they have come to.
I think they have put administrative convenience above other considerations. I also believe that Cameron leads a government which does not value justice and the legal system and its importance and value in a free society governed by the rule of law highly or highly enough.
And one of the reasons for my conclusion on this is the choices Cameron has made e.g. Grayling as Justice Secretary, his dismissal of Dominic Grieve QC as A-G and his approach to judicial oversight over the executive.
Looking at today's Populus the 2010 Labour retention is down to 68% (populus's figures are gross so include 13% as saying don't knows for 2010 L, which is comparatively high) This is the lowest ever figure, for comparison the 2010 C retention was 66% (fairly typical). Six months ago the 2010 Labour retention was averaging 77%. Unlike C which has got 17% going to UKIP, Labour's 2010 vote retention is reducing by going a more to LD, Nats and a big increase in 2010 L now saying don't know (now up to 13%).
Whilst this is only one poll and a snapshot it is consistent with the trend in other recent Populus polls.
The other noticeable feature so far this month is a reduction in 2010 LD now saying don't know and an increase in 2010 LD retention. Perhaps the current Labour troubles are helping uncertain Libdems return home.
With YouGov, Labour's 2010 retention is down a bit this month with most of their loss going to Greens. Also the number of redLDs has decreased again and most of those have gone to Green.
Richard you never got around to explaining why the snoopers charter and the investigative powers should lie with the executive rather than with the judiciary. Last time you avoided answering. Why was the enabling power held with the home secretary and not with magistrates?
Because magistrates are not security-cleared, and by definition secret surveillance is secret.
OK, replace the word magistrates with top security cleared judges. Again the word convenience is a by-word for Tories trampling over our liberty.
FPT TCPoliticalBetting: NickPalmer, Noted that you think you will win next time and I agree. But, in the past you have said that voters opinions were largely settled in your canvassing and had made their minds up on the GE. I am trying to square that with the significant loss of about 1/4 of the Labour supporters in the past 12 months or so. Have you not seen any significant drop in Lab support? Or does your canvassing show significant drops for both of the main parties?
Yes and no. I can't judge shifts in opinion between Con and UKIP - in both cases the usual response is "No, not Labour" so we're none the wiser. I've certainly detected a shift of some WWC votes to UKIP, and have mentioned it here. It's not very marked in my patch because the Labour votes is unusually strongly middle-class - on the "thinking of your constituency" question, Ashcroft had us 18% ahead among AB voters and C1 voters, more than any other segment (C2 was 7%, DE 10%). Labour middle-class defections to UKIP are (subjective impression) virtually zero.
FPT JonnyJimmy: sorry, no, I try not to deal in individuals - haven't had a go at Cameron either.
One thing I don't understand about the grooming gang scandal is that this very website is frequently read by people working at the party HQs and parliament. The appallingness and the extensiveness of it must have at least partially penetrated the political bubble there. But what do such people do?
a) Read it and roll their eyes at people getting upset about thousands of uninvestigated rapes? b) Read it and nod silently in agreement but don't mention it to anyone else out of some desire not to ruffle feathers? c) Raise the issue with the highers ups but be told in no uncertain terms not to go public with it?
I find the (lack of) reaction completely unfathomable.
Its probably mix of all three with the Lib Dems in section a, Labour in b and the Tories in c.
Chosen to match your prejudices no doubt. Maybe you should ask who could do something about it? Home Office or relevant local authorities I would guess.
The local authorities are the ones that have failed in the first place. It's madness to leave investigation of their own failures to the same organisations. You'll get a handful (like Rotherham) who face such political pressure they have to do something, but the vast majority will just keep quiet and hope it will blow over. Which it will. And thousands of children will be left exposed to such abuse.
I meant that one should hold the relevant Local Authorities responsible, not that one should "leave investigation of their own failures to the same organisations". There's a lot of this on PB, attacking what you thought a poster has said rather than what was actually said. It's a bit vexing ;-)
Salmond is very, very good. What we need to ask him is what it takes for him to join the UK.
Sadly his price will almost certainly be far too high (if there's a price at all).
All the regions though need to ask themselves the same question. The independent republic of Bognor Regis will no doubt have some great soundbites, but unless the Bognor-Regis-ites work out that the bigger picture is essentially bigger then their quest will be foiled.
Scotland's destiny is linked to one word - 'London'.
Wapping was almost indescribably deserted then. I remember walking up Garnet Street (where Alf got his name, apparently) then down Wapping High Street to the Tube, on winter mornings. It was so quiet I could hear my own footsteps echoing on the cobbles. A mist hung over everything, drifting off the river.
Now project forward that increase in crowdedness another twenty or thirty years. Can you imagine what those train stations will be like in rush hour? It will be like Mumbai Central in a lot of places like Victoria, King's Cross and London Bridge.
No. It won't be like Mumbai. Really. It won't.
In terms of levels of crowding, I'm talking. People are already packed shoulder-to-shoulder, chest-to-back on platforms and tubes in a lot of places, and that's with trains running every couple of minutes. There's going to be ten million plus people by 2030 on the same patch of land.
Public transport benefits from population density. If the existing tunnels are full, dig some more.
If I had built the Tube tunnels, I would have built them to 16ft diameter so that they can accommodate main-line size trains. More space for passengers and luggage. In 1904, the line from Drayton Park to Moorgate was built to such specs. Now it's part of the main-line network, of course.
I think it's a bit silly to send teeny, weeny Tube trains out to such places as Heathrow, West Ruislip, Epping, Hainault, Stanmore, Edgware, Mill Hill and Barnet.
used to have a girlfriend on the central line. we used to chuckle at "this is the anal (hainault) train"
One of our teachers at Ilford County claimed that one of his teachers pronounced it "High-No" (in a faux French way!)
Surely the protection of British liberty and freedom is worth more than being part of some club and Dave being popular in Europe.
For heaven's sake! You really think Cameron is wanting to be part of some club and popular in Europe?
I don't know what it is that makes people lose all sense of reality when Europe is mentioned.
Rather than invent daft theories to explain things, why not consider that I might actually be right, that the government has decided this is the least bad of the options available? By all means argue that they've got it wrong, but at least try to get your head round the idea that they might have considered the options and genuinely come to the conclusion which they say they have come to.
I think they have put administrative convenience above other considerations. I also believe that Cameron leads a government which does not value justice and the legal system and its importance and value in a free society governed by the rule of law highly or highly enough.
And one of the reasons for my conclusion on this is the choices Cameron has made e.g. Grayling as Justice Secretary, his dismissal of Dominic Grieve QC as A-G and his approach to judicial oversight over the executive.
Well it was under Cammo that the British Vishinsky was allowed to jail people for making "racist" tweets.
Dear voter. Are you simple? Well let me put this in words of one syllable
You have to remember that, for many of the people ed is looking to court, English may not be a first language.
And some of those who believe his claptrap must be pretty stupid too.
'The same rigged system that lets most people down allows a privileged few to grow ever more wealthy.'
Such as those dodging inheritance tax bills through deeds of variation.
'They believe the only answer for our public services is to hand them over to private firms — our NHS included.'
Hmm, could have sworn the previous Labour government set the ball rolling on this.
'Energy bills frozen until 2017'
Yup, locked at the higher rates. Well done.
What precisely is the objection to deeds of variation, compared to say ISAs? It is a very long-standing practice AFAIK and would be even commoner today if the concession on transferring unused IHT allowance to the second spouse had not been brought in. It does cost a little thought and a few hundred pounds, but that is pretty minor compared with the other costs of a decease and executry.
On Topic. LibDems gained a seat (and lost one) this week. I seem to remember that happened last week too. Are they recovering a bit at local level or is this just coincidence.
And how bad do you need to be before the Italians complain..?
@jamesmatesitv: Now some in the Italian press also having 2nd thoughts about Juncker. Headline: "This man is unfit to run Europe" http://t.co/pkgSj1eE5r
She reported a crime to the Italian police. She is now facing - apparently (since I've not seen the letter) - the prospect of being investigated and possibly prosecuted for reporting that crime.
Right, we're making some progress. According to a newspaper article, she says she reported this crime and has now received a letter, the exact significance of which we don't know (it might be a standard letter sent to all witnesses in Italy, for all I know). Is that a big scandal? I haven't a clue, and nor has anyone else here. We don't even know if this has the slightest relevance to the EAW.
And your answer to my question - now put twice - is what, exactly?
Your question is not, as I understand it, particularly about extradition, but about the problem (which applies in purely UK cases just as much) of how to ensure that women who have been victims of rape or lesser sexual attacks are not deterred from coming forward. That's a problem which successive governments, the police and the judiciary have been trying to grapple with, whilst at the same time acknowledging that unfounded accusations of rape are also a serious matter.
I don't particularly have any answer to this, although I would point out that it's not the Italian or UK authorities who have plastered this story over the newpapers. In that sense your question about what effect 'such behaviour by the authorities would have on victims of such crimes' is a bit odd: what behaviour? The only thing the UK authorities have done so far, as far as I can see, is say that they don't normally comment on extradition requests. As for the Italian authorites, I don't know: as I said, we don't know the facts.
Dear voter. Are you simple? Well let me put this in words of one syllable
You have to remember that, for many of the people ed is looking to court, English may not be a first language.
And some of those who believe his claptrap must be pretty stupid too.
'The same rigged system that lets most people down allows a privileged few to grow ever more wealthy.'
Such as those dodging inheritance tax bills through deeds of variation.
'They believe the only answer for our public services is to hand them over to private firms — our NHS included.'
Hmm, could have sworn the previous Labour government set the ball rolling on this.
'Energy bills frozen until 2017'
Yup, locked at the higher rates. Well done.
What precisely is the objection to deeds of variation, compared to say ISAs? It is a very long-standing practice AFAIK and would be even commoner today if the concession on transferring unused IHT allowance to the second spouse had not been brought in. It does cost a little thought and a few hundred pounds, but that is pretty minor compared with the other costs of a decease and executry.
The objection is he wants others to pay IHT while he himself doesn't. If he thinks IHT is a fair tax why didn't he pay it? If he thinks it's unfair why does he not abolish it?
Wapping was almost indescribably deserted then. I remember walking up Garnet Street (where Alf got his name, apparently) then down Wapping High Street to the Tube, on winter mornings. It was so quiet I could hear my own footsteps echoing on the cobbles. A mist hung over everything, drifting off the river.
Now project forward that increase in crowdedness another twenty or thirty years. Can you imagine what those train stations will be like in rush hour? It will be like Mumbai Central in a lot of places like Victoria, King's Cross and London Bridge.
No. It won't be like Mumbai. Really. It won't.
In terms of levels of crowding, I'm talking. People are already packed shoulder-to-shoulder, chest-to-back on platforms and tubes in a lot of places, and that's with trains running every couple of minutes. There's going to be ten million plus people by 2030 on the same patch of land.
Public transport benefits from population density. If the existing tunnels are full, dig some more.
If I had built the Tube tunnels, I would have built them to 16ft diameter so that they can accommodate main-line size trains. More space for passengers and luggage. In 1904, the line from Drayton Park to Moorgate was built to such specs. Now it's part of the main-line network, of course.
I think it's a bit silly to send teeny, weeny Tube trains out to such places as Heathrow, West Ruislip, Epping, Hainault, Stanmore, Edgware, Mill Hill and Barnet.
As I think you know, the City Branch of the Northern Line had its tunnels widened after WW1, which they tried to do whilst keeping trains running. It would have been an amazing achievement if they'd managed it. ;-)
The Northern Line feels cramped enough at the best of times - it must have been horrendous in the smaller tunnels.
Occasionally people contemplate widening existing tube lines, but it'd probably be cheaper just to build new lines ...
Dear voter. Are you simple? Well let me put this in words of one syllable
You have to remember that, for many of the people ed is looking to court, English may not be a first language.
And some of those who believe his claptrap must be pretty stupid too.
'The same rigged system that lets most people down allows a privileged few to grow ever more wealthy.'
Such as those dodging inheritance tax bills through deeds of variation.
'They believe the only answer for our public services is to hand them over to private firms — our NHS included.'
Hmm, could have sworn the previous Labour government set the ball rolling on this.
'Energy bills frozen until 2017'
Yup, locked at the higher rates. Well done.
What precisely is the objection to deeds of variation, compared to say ISAs? It is a very long-standing practice AFAIK and would be even commoner today if the concession on transferring unused IHT allowance to the second spouse had not been brought in. It does cost a little thought and a few hundred pounds, but that is pretty minor compared with the other costs of a decease and executry.
The objection is he wants others to pay IHT while he himself doesn't. If he thinks IHT is a fair tax why didn't he pay it? If he thinks it's unfair why does he not abolish it?
Getting on to even more contentious ground, there's also a possibility that his father would have wanted them to pay IHT, given his political beliefs.
So this deed of variation could be seen as disrespecting the wishes of the deceased, rather than the normal tidying-up exercise resulting from poor tax planning.
Dear voter. Are you simple? Well let me put this in words of one syllable
You have to remember that, for many of the people ed is looking to court, English may not be a first language.
And some of those who believe his claptrap must be pretty stupid too.
'The same rigged system that lets most people down allows a privileged few to grow ever more wealthy.'
Such as those dodging inheritance tax bills through deeds of variation.
'They believe the only answer for our public services is to hand them over to private firms — our NHS included.'
Hmm, could have sworn the previous Labour government set the ball rolling on this.
'Energy bills frozen until 2017'
Yup, locked at the higher rates. Well done.
What precisely is the objection to deeds of variation, compared to say ISAs? It is a very long-standing practice AFAIK and would be even commoner today if the concession on transferring unused IHT allowance to the second spouse had not been brought in. It does cost a little thought and a few hundred pounds, but that is pretty minor compared with the other costs of a decease and executry.
The objection is he wants others to pay IHT while he himself doesn't. If he thinks IHT is a fair tax why didn't he pay it? If he thinks it's unfair why does he not abolish it?
But did he avoid it? {Edit}: have a look at the original article if you can find it. And look at the way in which the author cites the wills of the two family members involved which it is necessary to check to develop some sort of idea of the story involved. [I can't find it to check so have edited this response - am going by memory.]
Shakespeare stole lots of his plots from other authors. It hasn't done his reputation any harm.
My English teacher told me at school that there were something like 30? basic plots and essentially they were all done by the time of the Greeks or some such.
Shakespeare stole lots of his plots from other authors. It hasn't done his reputation any harm.
My English teacher told me at school that there were something like 30? basic plots and essentially they were all done by the time of the Greeks or some such.
Miss DiCanio, reminds me of a comment that Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect have (in the broadest terms) identical plots [world is facing apocalypse, it'd be super if you could stop it].
You can see exactly what headline the New York Times journalist had got in mind.
Hungary has pretty lousy politics, but it's a bit more complicated than just labelling it a dictatorship.
Big fan of Orban, knew his right hand man George Schopflin, based his political approach on Maggie Thatcher strategy of uniting business, patriots and social conservatives.
Since I'm often accused of being partisan, let me give credit to the last Labour government on this: they seem to have got this right. I really can't think of any better way it could be done.
Dear voter. Are you simple? Well let me put this in words of one syllable
You have to remember that, for many of the people ed is looking to court, English may not be a first language.
And some of those who believe his claptrap must be pretty stupid too.
'The same rigged system that lets most people down allows a privileged few to grow ever more wealthy.'
Such as those dodging inheritance tax bills through deeds of variation.
'They believe the only answer for our public services is to hand them over to private firms — our NHS included.'
Hmm, could have sworn the previous Labour government set the ball rolling on this.
'Energy bills frozen until 2017'
Yup, locked at the higher rates. Well done.
What precisely is the objection to deeds of variation, compared to say ISAs? It is a very long-standing practice AFAIK and would be even commoner today if the concession on transferring unused IHT allowance to the second spouse had not been brought in. It does cost a little thought and a few hundred pounds, but that is pretty minor compared with the other costs of a decease and executry.
The objection is he wants others to pay IHT while he himself doesn't. If he thinks IHT is a fair tax why didn't he pay it? If he thinks it's unfair why does he not abolish it?
Getting on to even more contentious ground, there's also a possibility that his father would have wanted them to pay IHT, given his political beliefs.
So this deed of variation could be seen as disrespecting the wishes of the deceased, rather than the normal tidying-up exercise resulting from poor tax planning.
Presumably Mr M pere didn't say so in the will - and it is [edit], absent instructions to the contrary, the duty of the executors to pay all tax properly due while at the same time maximising the output to the beneficiaries.
Miss DiCanio, reminds me of a comment that Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect have (in the broadest terms) identical plots [world is facing apocalypse, it'd be super if you could stop it].
I find Booker's classification of tragedy as a single plot slightly broad brush.
Err...no he didn't. We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by making The Vow. Devolution kicked off a chain of events that has only 1 endpoint over time. Independnce.
We are now obliged to offer Scotland the kitchen sink, and paid for by English taxpayers (free uni, free prescriptions, no English students, 20% higher public spend per capita, tax raising powers, more devolved matters, blah blah blah). This makes Scottish MPs in Westminsters a serious issue (yes the old WLQ). A huge and festering dispropportionality between Scotland and England now exists. At some point this will get fixed (ie if Dave wins the GE then we'll get EVFEL and a full constitutional convention that may conclude the only way to save the UK is a fully federal approach incl English Parliament). Imagine if a PM Redward passes some NHS/education/police horror with a majority smaller than the number of Scottish MPs.
But in creating England we will necessarily harmonise federal spend per capita. Barnett is a dead man walking. And imagnie the Scottish horror - we might get the Tories in power at some point again!
It's a Neverendum that will get excised only by a Yes vote at some point. It's going to run and run, possibly for decades - and it will ultimately destroy Scotland.
Since I'm often accused of being partisan, let me give credit to the last Labour government on this: they seem to have got this right. I really can't think of any better way it could be done.
Dear voter. Are you simple? Well let me put this in words of one syllable
You have to remember that, for many of the people ed is looking to court, English may not be a first language.
And some of those who believe his claptrap must be pretty stupid too.
'The same rigged system that lets most people down allows a privileged few to grow ever more wealthy.'
Such as those dodging inheritance tax bills through deeds of variation.
'They believe the only answer for our public services is to hand them over to private firms — our NHS included.'
Hmm, could have sworn the previous Labour government set the ball rolling on this.
'Energy bills frozen until 2017'
Yup, locked at the higher rates. Well done.
What precisely is the objection to deeds of variation, compared to say ISAs? It is a very long-standing practice AFAIK and would be even commoner today if the concession on transferring unused IHT allowance to the second spouse had not been brought in. It does cost a little thought and a few hundred pounds, but that is pretty minor compared with the other costs of a decease and executry.
The objection is he wants others to pay IHT while he himself doesn't. If he thinks IHT is a fair tax why didn't he pay it? If he thinks it's unfair why does he not abolish it?
Getting on to even more contentious ground, there's also a possibility that his father would have wanted them to pay IHT, given his political beliefs.
So this deed of variation could be seen as disrespecting the wishes of the deceased, rather than the normal tidying-up exercise resulting from poor tax planning.
Presumably Mr M pere didn't say so in the will - and it is [edit], absent instructions to the contrary, the duty of the executors to pay all tax properly due while at the same time maximising the output to the beneficiaries.
There's something very odd about this story.
Yes, I have a sense that either the original story didn't stack up 100% or something's being held back deliberately. But it's dangerous territory for Ed either way as it's sure to be reheated by the press. The Tories will probably want to steer clear.
Shakespeare stole lots of his plots from other authors. It hasn't done his reputation any harm.
My English teacher told me at school that there were something like 30? basic plots and essentially they were all done by the time of the Greeks or some such.
Shakespeare stole lots of his plots from other authors. It hasn't done his reputation any harm.
My English teacher told me at school that there were something like 30? basic plots and essentially they were all done by the time of the Greeks or some such.
Afternoon all and if Queen Edith's is not in fact in the Cambridge seat but in Andrew Lansley's seat, could someone please notify the LibDem high command who were tweeting their congratulations to Julian Huppert and the Cambridge Assoc this morning.
Since I'm often accused of being partisan, let me give credit to the last Labour government on this: they seem to have got this right. I really can't think of any better way it could be done.
And yet ultimate power lies with the executive.
No, ultimate power lies with parliament, which could change the groundrules if it wished to.
Incidentally the current government has further strengthened the oversight in the Justice and Security Act 2013, which gives the Intelligence and Security Committee a more powerful role. (As an aside, there has been a general strengthening of parliamentary committees in this parliament).
We've come a hell of a long way from the old system where the government didn't even admit that the security services existed. So much for the 'traditional civil liberties' of the past!
“Inheritance Tax is a voluntary Tax paid by those who distrust their heirs more than they dislike the Tax man”, Roy Jenkins MP, former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
He should have added, "or are too ill, confused, naive or secretive to seek advice."
Err...no he didn't. We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by making The Vow. Devolution kicked off a chain of events that has only 1 endpoint over time. Independnce.
We are now obliged to offer Scotland the kitchen sink, and paid for by English taxpayers (free uni, free prescriptions, no English students, 20% higher public spend per capita, tax raising powers, more devolved matters, blah blah blah). This makes Scottish MPs in Westminsters a serious issue (yes the old WLQ). A huge and festering dispropportionality between Scotland and England now exists. At some point this will get fixed (ie if Dave wins the GE then we'll get EVFEL and a full constitutional convention that may conclude the only way to save the UK is a fully federal approach incl English Parliament). Imagine if a PM Redward passes some NHS/education/police horror with a majority smaller than the number of Scottish MPs.
But in creating England we will necessarily harmonise federal spend per capita. Barnett is a dead man walking. And imagnie the Scottish horror - we might get the Tories in power at some point again!
It's a Neverendum that will get excised only by a Yes vote at some point. It's going to run and run, possibly for decades - and it will ultimately destroy Scotland.
But if it had not been for the Vow the referendum would habe been lost by the Unionists, remember.
She reported a crime to the Italian police. She is now facing - apparently (since I've not seen the letter) - the prospect of being investigated and possibly prosecuted for reporting that crime.
Right, we're making some progress. According to a newspaper article, she says she reported this crime and has now received a letter, the exact significance of which we don't know (it might be a standard letter sent to all witnesses in Italy, for all I know). Is that a big scandal? I haven't a clue, and nor has anyone else here. We don't even know if this has the slightest relevance to the EAW.
And your answer to my question - now put twice - is what, exactly?
Your question is not, as I understand it, particularly about extradition, but about the problem (which applies in purely UK cases just as much) of how to ensure that women who have been victims of rape or lesser sexual attacks are not deterred from coming forward. That's a problem which successive governments, the police and the judiciary have been trying to grapple with, whilst at the same time acknowledging that unfounded accusations of rape are also a serious matter.
I don't particularly have any answer to this, although I would point out that it's not the Italian or UK authorities who have plastered this story over the newpapers. In that sense your question about what effect 'such behaviour by the authorities would have on victims of such crimes' is a bit odd: what behaviour? The only thing the UK authorities have done so far, as far as I can see, is say that they don't normally comment on extradition requests. As for the Italian authorites, I don't know: as I said, we don't know the facts.
Let's assume that this letter was written to this woman as a witness. I do have a clue about what can happen to witnesses in Italian trials. And it is not pretty. It is one reason why I think that pretending that there is an equivalence between the judicial systems in EU countries (the underlying assumption behind the EAW) is nonsense on stilts.
My question wasn't about the authorities plastering it over the newspapers but about the effect on an alleged victim. Of a particularly unpleasant crime. We have tried to do a lot in this country to treat the victims of sexual crimes better than we used to. Even so it is a horrible experience and sometimes it can go tragically wrong. Where such a person gets involved in a foreign proceeding, we have limited our ability to do this. I find this troubling.
You can see exactly what headline the New York Times journalist had got in mind.
Hungary has pretty lousy politics, but it's a bit more complicated than just labelling it a dictatorship.
Big fan of Orban, knew his right hand man George Schopflin, based his political approach on Maggie Thatcher strategy of uniting business, patriots and social conservatives.
The same left who knowingly lied to the electorate prior to an election and then gloated about it. Fidesz learns from Maggie, the Hungarian Comms from Labour.
Dear voter. Are you simple? Well let me put this in words of one syllable
You have to remember that, for many of the people ed is looking to court, English may not be a first language.
And some of those who believe his claptrap must be pretty stupid too.
'The same rigged system that lets most people down allows a privileged few to grow ever more wealthy.'
Such as those dodging inheritance tax bills through deeds of variation.
'They believe the only answer for our public services is to hand them over to private firms — our NHS included.'
Hmm, could have sworn the previous Labour government set the ball rolling on this.
'Energy bills frozen until 2017'
Yup, locked at the higher rates. Well done.
What precisely is the objection to deeds of variation, compared to say ISAs? It is a very long-standing practice AFAIK and would be even commoner today if the concession on transferring unused IHT allowance to the second spouse had not been brought in. It does cost a little thought and a few hundred pounds, but that is pretty minor compared with the other costs of a decease and executry.
Most people would class Miliband as rich, in fact relative to the wealth of the population as a whole he is an extremely rich individual.
Why shouldn't *he* pay *his* fair share?
Or should only those even wealthier than him be obliged to do so?
@PickardJE: Yesterday Miliband's speech said he would cut the deficit. This new pledge list doesn't mention deficit at all https://t.co/0HKqZiWp47
I don't think Ed has forgotten anything - It is quite clear he intends to avoid mentioning anything to do with the UK economy or deficit from now until next May - I hope Aunty doesn't let him off the hook, unlike the lead up to 2010.
@Mary_Galbraith: Stewart Hosie got 55.5% of vote for SNP deputy. Keith Brown got 44.4%. Expect Brown to claim he won #the45
Just spluttered all over my computer. Excellent.
But my thoughts, FWIW , about Scotland are that the Unionist parties have some major problems because the No vote is in danger of splitting 3, well 2.5, ways allowing the Yes minority to come through the middle.
Take a seat like East Dumbartonshire. At the last election Jo Swinson won that seat for the Lib Dems with 18.5K with Labour on 16K, the Tories on 7K and the SNP on 5K. The seat voted roughly 60% no, 40% yes.
On current polling Jo Swinson, popular MP as she is, is toast. But she will get a residual vote. Labour's vote on recent polling is likely to go down and the Tories will, as per tradition, go nowhere fast. What is going to happen to the SNP? If they can hold that 40%, or even 3/4 of it, they have a chance of taking the seat with the Unionist vote split 3 ways.
Inverness is another example and there are many more.
Having thought about it I have decided that being a Unionist is the most important thing to my political makeup. I may well vote Labour in Dundee West, I would go to Inverness to support Danny Alexander against Salmond and I will look to help the Tories in both Angus and Perth and North Perthshire. I think a lot of the 55%, to coin a phrase, need to start thinking seriously about this.
Should Jo get a chance to stand as the Lib Dem and Unionist candidate? Should the tories stand at all or endorse her? It is harder for Labour because they will fancy their chances of picking up the seat. Should Labour stand in Perth where they have no chance but could draw away 7K Unionist votes (or more likely 5K given how many Labour supporters voted yes) from the Tory candidate? Who is the enemy here?
I have heard rumours of an attempt to create a non denominational Unionist movement in Scotland, a sort of continuation of BT. It is a worthy idea but it needs the parties on the ground to think what is the most important thing for Scotland's future. And a three way split of the Unionist vote is not the answer.
Dear voter. Are you simple? Well let me put this in words of one syllable
You have to remember that, for many of the people ed is looking to court, English may not be a first language.
And some of those who believe his claptrap must be pretty stupid too.
'The same rigged system that lets most people down allows a privileged few to grow ever more wealthy.'
Such as those dodging inheritance tax bills through deeds of variation.
'They believe the only answer for our public services is to hand them over to private firms — our NHS included.'
Hmm, could have sworn the previous Labour government set the ball rolling on this.
'Energy bills frozen until 2017'
Yup, locked at the higher rates. Well done.
What precisely is the objection to deeds of variation, compared to say ISAs? It is a very long-standing practice AFAIK and would be even commoner today if the concession on transferring unused IHT allowance to the second spouse had not been brought in. It does cost a little thought and a few hundred pounds, but that is pretty minor compared with the other costs of a decease and executry.
The objection is he wants others to pay IHT while he himself doesn't. If he thinks IHT is a fair tax why didn't he pay it? If he thinks it's unfair why does he not abolish it?
Getting on to even more contentious ground, there's also a possibility that his father would have wanted them to pay IHT, given his political beliefs.
So this deed of variation could be seen as disrespecting the wishes of the deceased, rather than the normal tidying-up exercise resulting from poor tax planning.
Presumably Mr M pere didn't say so in the will - and it is [edit], absent instructions to the contrary, the duty of the executors to pay all tax properly due while at the same time maximising the output to the beneficiaries.
There's something very odd about this story.
Why haven't Ed and BananaMan come clean on their non-IHT paying status?
Are they hiding anything? After all, they'd scream blue murder of others doing the same. Has Ed ever even been asked about this? Why not?
Err...no he didn't. We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by making The Vow. Devolution kicked off a chain of events that has only 1 endpoint over time. Independnce.
We are now obliged to offer Scotland the kitchen sink, and paid for by English taxpayers (free uni, free prescriptions, no English students, 20% higher public spend per capita, tax raising powers, more devolved matters, blah blah blah). This makes Scottish MPs in Westminsters a serious issue (yes the old WLQ). A huge and festering dispropportionality between Scotland and England now exists. At some point this will get fixed (ie if Dave wins the GE then we'll get EVFEL and a full constitutional convention that may conclude the only way to save the UK is a fully federal approach incl English Parliament). Imagine if a PM Redward passes some NHS/education/police horror with a majority smaller than the number of Scottish MPs.
But in creating England we will necessarily harmonise federal spend per capita. Barnett is a dead man walking. And imagnie the Scottish horror - we might get the Tories in power at some point again!
It's a Neverendum that will get excised only by a Yes vote at some point. It's going to run and run, possibly for decades - and it will ultimately destroy Scotland.
But if it had not been for the Vow the referendum would habe been lost by the Unionists, remember.
I very very much doubt that. A bit of Gordon Brown self aggrandisement. A majority of Scots clearly realise their country is not viable as an independent entity becasue of the currency issues and dependence on financial services / oil to fund an overly generous welfare state - they'd be bankrupt in short order. Westminster panicked. Cupid stunts.
Dear voter. Are you simple? Well let me put this in words of one syllable
You have to remember that, for many of the people ed is looking to court, English may not be a first language.
And some of those who believe his claptrap must be pretty stupid too.
'The same rigged system that lets most people down allows a privileged few to grow ever more wealthy.'
Such as those dodging inheritance tax bills through deeds of variation.
'They believe the only answer for our public services is to hand them over to private firms — our NHS included.'
Hmm, could have sworn the previous Labour government set the ball rolling on this.
'Energy bills frozen until 2017'
Yup, locked at the higher rates. Well done.
What precisely is the objection to deeds of variation, compared to say ISAs? It is a very long-standing practice AFAIK and would be even commoner today if the concession on transferring unused IHT allowance to the second spouse had not been brought in. It does cost a little thought and a few hundred pounds, but that is pretty minor compared with the other costs of a decease and executry.
The objection is he wants others to pay IHT while he himself doesn't. If he thinks IHT is a fair tax why didn't he pay it? If he thinks it's unfair why does he not abolish it?
Does he want people to stop using Deeds of Variation or has he decried them as a tax avoidance scheme/loophole in the past rather than legitimate tax planning?
Dear voter. Are you simple? Well let me put this in words of one syllable
You have to remember that, for many of the people ed is looking to court, English may not be a first language.
And some of those who believe his claptrap must be pretty stupid too.
'The same rigged system that lets most people down allows a privileged few to grow ever more wealthy.'
Such as those dodging inheritance tax bills through deeds of variation.
'They believe the only answer for our public services is to hand them over to private firms — our NHS included.'
Hmm, could have sworn the previous Labour government set the ball rolling on this.
'Energy bills frozen until 2017'
Yup, locked at the higher rates. Well done.
What precisely is the objection to deeds of variation, compared to say ISAs? It is a very long-standing practice AFAIK and would be even commoner today if the concession on transferring unused IHT allowance to the second spouse had not been brought in. It does cost a little thought and a few hundred pounds, but that is pretty minor compared with the other costs of a decease and executry.
Most people would class Miliband as rich, in fact relative to the wealth of the population as a whole he is an extremely rich individual.
Why shouldn't *he* pay *his* fair share?
Or should only those even wealthier than him be obliged to do so?
Because the 'fair share' is only what remains after all reliefs, exemptions and variations envisaged by Parliament have been exploited to their fullest extent...
n. History Group @ConHistGrp RT @KatyScholesSKY: My political fact of the day: between 1931-51 the constituency of Broxtowe was represented by an MP named Seymour Cocks
My question wasn't about the authorities plastering it over the newspapers but about the effect on an alleged victim. Of a particularly unpleasant crime. We have tried to do a lot in this country to treat the victims of sexual crimes better than we used to. Even so it is a horrible experience and sometimes it can go tragically wrong. Where such a person gets involved in a foreign proceeding, we have limited our ability to do this. I find this troubling.
I don't disagree with you on any of that, and as I said earlier I'm no fan of the EAW (or indeed the extradition treaty with the US). However, we have to deal with the situation as it is, and your points might be equally true for any rape trial in Italy where the victim was a British citizen. The answer would seem to lie in campaigning for more sensitive handling of such cases throughout Europe.
I have heard rumours of an attempt to create a non denominational Unionist movement in Scotland, a sort of continuation of BT. It is a worthy idea but it needs the parties on the ground to think what is the most important thing for Scotland's future. And a three way split of the Unionist vote is not the answer.
That's political suicide for Labour, they' are already hemorrhaging vote due to the perception they were in bed with the Conservatives during the referendum campaign - to actually enter a formal alliance with them would kill them dead.
Dear voter. Are you simple? Well let me put this in words of one syllable
You have to remember that, for many of the people ed is looking to court, English may not be a first language.
And some of those who believe his claptrap must be pretty stupid too.
'The same rigged system that lets most people down allows a privileged few to grow ever more wealthy.'
Such as those dodging inheritance tax bills through deeds of variation.
'They believe the only answer for our public services is to hand them over to private firms — our NHS included.'
Hmm, could have sworn the previous Labour government set the ball rolling on this.
'Energy bills frozen until 2017'
Yup, locked at the higher rates. Well done.
What precisely is the objection to deeds of variation, compared to say ISAs? It is a very long-standing practice AFAIK and would be even commoner today if the concession on transferring unused IHT allowance to the second spouse had not been brought in. It does cost a little thought and a few hundred pounds, but that is pretty minor compared with the other costs of a decease and executry.
Most people would class Miliband as rich, in fact relative to the wealth of the population as a whole he is an extremely rich individual.
Why shouldn't *he* pay *his* fair share?
Or should only those even wealthier than him be obliged to do so?
Because the 'fair share' is only what remains after all reliefs, exemptions and variations envisaged by Parliament have been exploited to their fullest extent...
Just like the *evil* corporations and everyone else with some common sense when it comes to money then?
Dear voter. Are you simple? Well let me put this in words of one syllable
You have to remember that, for many of the people ed is looking to court, English may not be a first language.
And some of those who believe his claptrap must be pretty stupid too.
'The same rigged system that lets most people down allows a privileged few to grow ever more wealthy.'
Such as those dodging inheritance tax bills through deeds of variation.
'They believe the only answer for our public services is to hand them over to private firms — our NHS included.'
Hmm, could have sworn the previous Labour government set the ball rolling on this.
'Energy bills frozen until 2017'
Yup, locked at the higher rates. Well done.
What precisely is the objection to deeds of variation, compared to say ISAs? It is a very long-standing practice AFAIK and would be even commoner today if the concession on transferring unused IHT allowance to the second spouse had not been brought in. It does cost a little thought and a few hundred pounds, but that is pretty minor compared with the other costs of a decease and executry.
The objection is he wants others to pay IHT while he himself doesn't. If he thinks IHT is a fair tax why didn't he pay it? If he thinks it's unfair why does he not abolish it?
Getting on to even more contentious ground, there's also a possibility that his father would have wanted them to pay IHT, given his political beliefs.
So this deed of variation could be seen as disrespecting the wishes of the deceased, rather than the normal tidying-up exercise resulting from poor tax planning.
Presumably Mr M pere didn't say so in the will - and it is [edit], absent instructions to the contrary, the duty of the executors to pay all tax properly due while at the same time maximising the output to the beneficiaries.
There's something very odd about this story.
It's a shame that Ralph's lifelong passionate Marxism wasn't respected on his passing and his property seized by the state.
Didn't Baldwin leave most of his estate to the Government to help pay off the national debt? I think that there is a specific account at the bank of England for that purpose?
I have heard rumours of an attempt to create a non denominational Unionist movement in Scotland, a sort of continuation of BT. It is a worthy idea but it needs the parties on the ground to think what is the most important thing for Scotland's future. And a three way split of the Unionist vote is not the answer.
That's political suicide for Labour, they' are already hemorrhaging vote due to the perception they were in bed with the Conservatives during the referendum campaign - to actually enter a formal alliance with them would kill them dead.
I agree that is a problem. This grouping, I understand, is not to be connected with any particular party but that didn't stop BT damaging Labour big time. But Labour have some hard choices to face too. The risk of Scotland going independent has not, unfortunately, gone away. And they have far, far more to lose in Scotland than the Tories do.
I have heard rumours of an attempt to create a non denominational Unionist movement in Scotland, a sort of continuation of BT. It is a worthy idea but it needs the parties on the ground to think what is the most important thing for Scotland's future. And a three way split of the Unionist vote is not the answer.
That's political suicide for Labour, they' are already hemorrhaging vote due to the perception they were in bed with the Conservatives during the referendum campaign - to actually enter a formal alliance with them would kill them dead.
Err...no he didn't. We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by making The Vow. Devolution kicked off a chain of events that has only 1 endpoint over time. Independnce.
We are now obliged to offer Scotland the kitchen sink, and paid for by English taxpayers (free uni, free prescriptions, no English students, 20% higher public spend per capita, tax raising powers, more devolved matters, blah blah blah). This makes Scottish MPs in Westminsters a serious issue (yes the old WLQ). A huge and festering dispropportionality between Scotland and England now exists. At some point this will get fixed (ie if Dave wins the GE then we'll get EVFEL and a full constitutional convention that may conclude the only way to save the UK is a fully federal approach incl English Parliament). Imagine if a PM Redward passes some NHS/education/police horror with a majority smaller than the number of Scottish MPs.
But in creating England we will necessarily harmonise federal spend per capita. Barnett is a dead man walking. And imagnie the Scottish horror - we might get the Tories in power at some point again!
It's a Neverendum that will get excised only by a Yes vote at some point. It's going to run and run, possibly for decades - and it will ultimately destroy Scotland.
But if it had not been for the Vow the referendum would habe been lost by the Unionists, remember.
I very very much doubt that. A bit of Gordon Brown self aggrandisement. A majority of Scots clearly realise their country is not viable as an independent entity becasue of the currency issues and dependence on financial services / oil to fund an overly generous welfare state - they'd be bankrupt in short order. Westminster panicked. Cupid stunts.
Some of us discussed it at the time in view of the Yougov (I think) polling which seemed to show that the Vow had had a significant effect on enough of a margin of No vs Yes voters to have had a decisive effect, arguably. Not that we'll ever know. But why otherwise would they have done it at all??
I have heard rumours of an attempt to create a non denominational Unionist movement in Scotland, a sort of continuation of BT. It is a worthy idea but it needs the parties on the ground to think what is the most important thing for Scotland's future. And a three way split of the Unionist vote is not the answer.
That's political suicide for Labour, they' are already hemorrhaging vote due to the perception they were in bed with the Conservatives during the referendum campaign - to actually enter a formal alliance with them would kill them dead.
But in effect it would be the Tories leaving the field clear in most seats since the number of winnable seats from their perspective can be counted on the fingers of one hand (which has lost most of its fingers).
FPT: Richard Nabavi: You are talking, I'm sorry to say, rubbish on extradition. If we had remained opted out of the EAW, I've no doubt that we could have had appropriate extradition treaties with other EU countries.
And, if not, well we'd have survived. But at least it would have meant that British citizens would enjoy the advantages of British criminal law.
And I'm well aware that it would also mean that we could not pursue people who fled abroad. But, as you put it, governing is about choosing. And May should have chosen to put the interests of the British first.
Whereas in this case, the victim of a crime - a very serious crime - is facing the prospect of being prosecuted for reporting that crime. Given the very strong efforts that are being made to encourage the victims of sexual abuse to come forward, what message do you think such a case sends out?
There are lots of cases where someone charged with rape is acquitted. It does not follow that the victim is then prosecuted for making a false allegation. Such a reaction would be absurd and contrary to the public interest. It is only in the most serious of cases that such action is even contemplated by the CPS. And as you will be aware there was the very recent tragic case of a young woman who killed herself when faced with exactly that prospect.
May should tell the Italian Justice Minister that we are not going to extradite the victims of rape, that we expect the Italian police to investigate this crime thoroughly and that it is only if there is evidence which would justify the CPS here bringing a charge of obstructing the course of justice (taking into account the public interest in doing so etc) - to be tested by the CPS here according the British criminal legal standards - will we even contemplate extradition.
Wouldn't Europe's criminals all hide here to avoid the legal process in their own country?
They might. Better border controls would help. And we could have extradition treaties with the individual countries.
The EAW would be a lot better if the country seeking the extradition had to show a prima facie case for the charge being made, which was essentially the law before the EAW was invented. It meant that if the evidence was non-existent or worthless or the offence did not exist under English law then there would be no extradition. It provided some protection against wholly unfounded, frivolous or malicious extradition requests. But this basic element of justice has been sacrificed for administrative convenience. I think that a bad thing.
How can we have better border controls whilst being part of Europe and its free movement of people?
n. History Group @ConHistGrp RT @KatyScholesSKY: My political fact of the day: between 1931-51 the constituency of Broxtowe was represented by an MP named Seymour Cocks
Bart: Is Seymour there? Moe: Yes, Seymour who. Bart: Seymour, surname Cocks. Moe: Let me check... [calls] Phone call for Seymour. Seymour Cocks. here?
"France has risked a major diplomatic row with the UK after a senior government figure likened David Cameron to far-Right leader Marine Le Pen, saying his handling of a row over whether Britain should pay a £1.7 billion bill was “nationalistic” and “Byzantine”. The French figure, who is close to President Francois Hollande, said that the Prime Minister had displayed “no European solidarity” when he hit out against the budget bill demanded by the EU because of the success of Britain’s economy."
"France has risked a major diplomatic row with the UK after a senior government figure likened David Cameron to far-Right leader Marine Le Pen, saying his handling of a row over whether Britain should pay a £1.7 billion bill was “nationalistic” and “Byzantine”. The French figure, who is close to President Francois Hollande, said that the Prime Minister had displayed “no European solidarity” when he hit out against the budget bill demanded by the EU because of the success of Britain’s economy."
And we all know that the French would never have coughed up that sort of cash if it had been demanded of them - they are seasoned in the art of ignoring EU demands.
"Italy was hit by strikes, violent demonstrations and protests against refugees on Friday as anger and frustration towards soaring unemployment and the enduring economic crisis exploded onto the streets."
n. History Group @ConHistGrp RT @KatyScholesSKY: My political fact of the day: between 1931-51 the constituency of Broxtowe was represented by an MP named Seymour Cocks
Bart: Is Seymour there? Moe: Yes, Seymour who. Bart: Seymour, surname Cocks. Moe: Let me check... [calls] Phone call for Seymour. Seymour Cocks. here?
One thing I don't understand about the grooming gang scandal is that this very website is frequently read by people working at the party HQs and parliament. The appallingness and the extensiveness of it must have at least partially penetrated the political bubble there. But what do such people do?
a) Read it and roll their eyes at people getting upset about thousands of uninvestigated rapes? b) Read it and nod silently in agreement but don't mention it to anyone else out of some desire not to ruffle feathers? c) Raise the issue with the highers ups but be told in no uncertain terms not to go public with it?
I find the (lack of) reaction completely unfathomable.
Its probably mix of all three with the Lib Dems in section a, Labour in b and the Tories in c.
Chosen to match your prejudices no doubt. Maybe you should ask who could do something about it? Home Office or relevant local authorities I would guess.
The local authorities are the ones that have failed in the first place. It's madness to leave investigation of their own failures to the same organisations. You'll get a handful (like Rotherham) who face such political pressure they have to do something, but the vast majority will just keep quiet and hope it will blow over. Which it will. And thousands of children will be left exposed to such abuse.
I meant that one should hold the relevant Local Authorities responsible, not that one should "leave investigation of their own failures to the same organisations". There's a lot of this on PB, attacking what you thought a poster has said rather than what was actually said. It's a bit vexing ;-)
At what point during my post did I attack your post? I merely added objective and insightful additional commentary.
Comments
But I do think it a faintly absurd point for you to make TBH. People have been talking about Savile's crimes and the crimes in Rotherham and, even, the victims of historic child abuse, when in fact there have been no convictions in the case of Savile (for obvious reasons), very few in Rotherham and no or very few for historic child abuse or what is alleged to have happened. Those victims - whom La May is meeting - are not even described as "alleged victims". Everyone has made up their mind and come to judgment.
She reported a crime to the Italian police. She is now facing - apparently (since I've not seen the letter) - the prospect of being investigated and possibly prosecuted for reporting that crime.
And your answer to my question - now put twice - is what, exactly?
http://politicalbookie.com/2014/11/14/will-the-snp-overtake-labour-in-scotland/
And one of the reasons for my conclusion on this is the choices Cameron has made e.g. Grayling as Justice Secretary, his dismissal of Dominic Grieve QC as A-G and his approach to judicial oversight over the executive.
'The same rigged system that lets most people down allows a privileged few to grow ever more wealthy.'
Such as those dodging inheritance tax bills through deeds of variation.
'They believe the only answer for our public services is to hand them over to private firms — our NHS included.'
Hmm, could have sworn the previous Labour government set the ball rolling on this.
'Energy bills frozen until 2017'
Yup, locked at the higher rates. Well done.
Yes and no. I can't judge shifts in opinion between Con and UKIP - in both cases the usual response is "No, not Labour" so we're none the wiser. I've certainly detected a shift of some WWC votes to UKIP, and have mentioned it here. It's not very marked in my patch because the Labour votes is unusually strongly middle-class - on the "thinking of your constituency" question, Ashcroft had us 18% ahead among AB voters and C1 voters, more than any other segment (C2 was 7%, DE 10%). Labour middle-class defections to UKIP are (subjective impression) virtually zero.
FPT JonnyJimmy: sorry, no, I try not to deal in individuals - haven't had a go at Cameron either.
There's a lot of this on PB, attacking what you thought a poster has said rather than what was actually said. It's a bit vexing ;-)
Sadly his price will almost certainly be far too high (if there's a price at all).
All the regions though need to ask themselves the same question. The independent republic of Bognor Regis will no doubt have some great soundbites, but unless the Bognor-Regis-ites work out that the bigger picture is essentially bigger then their quest will be foiled.
Scotland's destiny is linked to one word - 'London'.
Expect Brown to claim he won #the45
Well it was under Cammo that the British Vishinsky was allowed to jail people for making "racist" tweets.
@JohnRentoul: "This widening inequality is no accident": EdM. https://t.co/vapYWj0k1w Nor is it true http://t.co/hiHvoIdGSo
@wallaceme: @JohnRentoul note yesterday he said the rich pay zero tax. In today's version he said the rich "seem" to pay zero tax...
LibDems gained a seat (and lost one) this week. I seem to remember that happened last week too. Are they recovering a bit at local level or is this just coincidence.
@jamesmatesitv: Now some in the Italian press also having 2nd thoughts about Juncker. Headline: "This man is unfit to run Europe" http://t.co/pkgSj1eE5r
I don't particularly have any answer to this, although I would point out that it's not the Italian or UK authorities who have plastered this story over the newpapers. In that sense your question about what effect 'such behaviour by the authorities would have on victims of such crimes' is a bit odd: what behaviour? The only thing the UK authorities have done so far, as far as I can see, is say that they don't normally comment on extradition requests. As for the Italian authorites, I don't know: as I said, we don't know the facts.
If he thinks IHT is a fair tax why didn't he pay it? If he thinks it's unfair why does he not abolish it?
The Northern Line feels cramped enough at the best of times - it must have been horrendous in the smaller tunnels.
Occasionally people contemplate widening existing tube lines, but it'd probably be cheaper just to build new lines ...
So this deed of variation could be seen as disrespecting the wishes of the deceased, rather than the normal tidying-up exercise resulting from poor tax planning.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots
'Such as those dodging inheritance tax bills through deeds of variation.'
Wait till the campaign proper gets going,the press are not going to let go,particularly when they hear the zero zero crap every day.
The reason the ex Communists hate him so much is he actually de-politicised the courts and the media (http://www.vdare.com/articles/viktor-orban-and-the-national-question-in-hungary). Of course the left had no problem when Hungary was led by a Commie secret police agent (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lovas1.html).
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/about-us/how-mi5-is-governed/oversight/judicial-oversight/interception-of-communications-commissioner.html
Since I'm often accused of being partisan, let me give credit to the last Labour government on this: they seem to have got this right. I really can't think of any better way it could be done.
There's something very odd about this story.
We are now obliged to offer Scotland the kitchen sink, and paid for by English taxpayers (free uni, free prescriptions, no English students, 20% higher public spend per capita, tax raising powers, more devolved matters, blah blah blah). This makes Scottish MPs in Westminsters a serious issue (yes the old WLQ). A huge and festering dispropportionality between Scotland and England now exists. At some point this will get fixed (ie if Dave wins the GE then we'll get EVFEL and a full constitutional convention that may conclude the only way to save the UK is a fully federal approach incl English Parliament). Imagine if a PM Redward passes some NHS/education/police horror with a majority smaller than the number of Scottish MPs.
But in creating England we will necessarily harmonise federal spend per capita. Barnett is a dead man walking. And imagnie the Scottish horror - we might get the Tories in power at some point again!
It's a Neverendum that will get excised only by a Yes vote at some point. It's going to run and run, possibly for decades - and it will ultimately destroy Scotland.
Casablanca, which contained them all...
@PickardJE: Yesterday Miliband's speech said he would cut the deficit. This new pledge list doesn't mention deficit at all https://t.co/0HKqZiWp47
Incidentally the current government has further strengthened the oversight in the Justice and Security Act 2013, which gives the Intelligence and Security Committee a more powerful role. (As an aside, there has been a general strengthening of parliamentary committees in this parliament).
We've come a hell of a long way from the old system where the government didn't even admit that the security services existed. So much for the 'traditional civil liberties' of the past!
But Len supports anyone but Jim...
It's David and Ed take 2
He should have added, "or are too ill, confused, naive or secretive to seek advice."
This is often where a DOV comes in handy...
My question wasn't about the authorities plastering it over the newspapers but about the effect on an alleged victim. Of a particularly unpleasant crime. We have tried to do a lot in this country to treat the victims of sexual crimes better than we used to. Even so it is a horrible experience and sometimes it can go tragically wrong. Where such a person gets involved in a foreign proceeding, we have limited our ability to do this. I find this troubling.
The same left who knowingly lied to the electorate prior to an election and then gloated about it. Fidesz learns from Maggie, the Hungarian Comms from Labour.
Why shouldn't *he* pay *his* fair share?
Or should only those even wealthier than him be obliged to do so?
But my thoughts, FWIW , about Scotland are that the Unionist parties have some major problems because the No vote is in danger of splitting 3, well 2.5, ways allowing the Yes minority to come through the middle.
Take a seat like East Dumbartonshire. At the last election Jo Swinson won that seat for the Lib Dems with 18.5K with Labour on 16K, the Tories on 7K and the SNP on 5K. The seat voted roughly 60% no, 40% yes.
On current polling Jo Swinson, popular MP as she is, is toast. But she will get a residual vote. Labour's vote on recent polling is likely to go down and the Tories will, as per tradition, go nowhere fast. What is going to happen to the SNP? If they can hold that 40%, or even 3/4 of it, they have a chance of taking the seat with the Unionist vote split 3 ways.
Inverness is another example and there are many more.
Having thought about it I have decided that being a Unionist is the most important thing to my political makeup. I may well vote Labour in Dundee West, I would go to Inverness to support Danny Alexander against Salmond and I will look to help the Tories in both Angus and Perth and North Perthshire. I think a lot of the 55%, to coin a phrase, need to start thinking seriously about this.
Should Jo get a chance to stand as the Lib Dem and Unionist candidate? Should the tories stand at all or endorse her? It is harder for Labour because they will fancy their chances of picking up the seat. Should Labour stand in Perth where they have no chance but could draw away 7K Unionist votes (or more likely 5K given how many Labour supporters voted yes) from the Tory candidate? Who is the enemy here?
I have heard rumours of an attempt to create a non denominational Unionist movement in Scotland, a sort of continuation of BT. It is a worthy idea but it needs the parties on the ground to think what is the most important thing for Scotland's future. And a three way split of the Unionist vote is not the answer.
Why haven't Ed and BananaMan come clean on their non-IHT paying status?
Are they hiding anything? After all, they'd scream blue murder of others doing the same. Has Ed ever even been asked about this? Why not?
n. History Group @ConHistGrp
RT @KatyScholesSKY: My political fact of the day: between 1931-51 the constituency of Broxtowe was represented by an MP named Seymour Cocks
Moe: Yes, Seymour who.
Bart: Seymour, surname Cocks.
Moe: Let me check... [calls] Phone call for Seymour. Seymour Cocks. here?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11231248/France-compares-David-Cameron-to-far-Right-leader-following-his-fury-at-the-EU-budget.html
"France has risked a major diplomatic row with the UK after a senior government figure likened David Cameron to far-Right leader Marine Le Pen, saying his handling of a row over whether Britain should pay a £1.7 billion bill was “nationalistic” and “Byzantine”.
The French figure, who is close to President Francois Hollande, said that the Prime Minister had displayed “no European solidarity” when he hit out against the budget bill demanded by the EU because of the success of Britain’s economy."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11230833/Nicola-Sturgeon-puts-second-referendum-at-top-of-agenda.html
Shocked. Shocked I say.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11231773/Italy-protests-erupt-across-the-country.html
"Italy was hit by strikes, violent demonstrations and protests against refugees on Friday as anger and frustration towards soaring unemployment and the enduring economic crisis exploded onto the streets."
new thread