politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Scoping the scale and geography of Labour’s Scottish collap

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Scoping the scale and geography of Labour’s Scottish collapse – hopefully we’ll get some constituency polling this week

One of the big unknowns about GE2015 is how Labour is going to fare in Scotland where at GE2010 it retained 41 of the 59 Westminster seats. Clearly anything that could erode that total could have massive impact on the overall outcome.

Read the full story here

Tim_B

First!

dugarbandier

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/25/scotland-offered-total-control-income-tax-labour-u-turn

FrancisUrquhart

Disgraceful presenter on BBC, he has lost complete any sense of balance.

After he has squarely blamed everything that has occurred and is occurring on the police.

He is also totally unwilling to except the decision of the grand jury and letting the caller make disgraceful statements e.g. claiming the police officer killed the boy because "he ticked him off" without any sort of challenge i.e there is clearly absolutely no evidence that he killed the kid just because "he ticked him off".

Now has said word for word, well that is legal justice, but there isn't any social justice.

This is unbelievable. This isn't a guest or a 3rd party contributor, this is supposed to be the totally impartial, only report the facts, anchor.

Tim_B

FrancisUrquhart said:

Disgraceful presenter on BBC, he has lost complete any sense of balance.

After he has squarely blamed everything that has occurred and is occurring on the police.

He is also totally unwilling to except the decision of the grand jury and letting the caller make disgraceful statements e.g. claiming the police officer killed the boy because "he ticked him off" without any sort of challenge i.e there is clearly absolutely no evidence that he killed the kid just because "he ticked him off".

Now has said word for word, well that is legal justice, but there isn't any social justice.

This is unbelievable. This isn't a guest or a 3rd party contributor, this is supposed to be the totally impartial, only report the facts, anchor.

It was very noticeable in the questions after the announcement of the grand jury decision that the most hostile questions were from folks with British accents.

Brown's blood and DNA wrere found inside the police car and on Wilson's uniform. Translation - Brown attacked Wilson inside the car. African-American witnesses testified to this.

At some point Wilson had to defend himself. If you are threatened enough you can use deadly force.

I have been on a grand jury dealing with murder charges. I understand completely why they made this decision.

Wilson was questioned by the grand jury for 4 hours. On his own, with no counsel present. That was brave.

FrancisUrquhart

Tim. I noticed that. I do know who they were.

The thing is the media should do their job, look at all the evidence that is being released, digest it, check it, and actually process that rather than repeat (or let others repeat unchallenged) all the hearsay, the lies, and half truths.

I have yet to hear the BBC report the official account of events, based upon all the evidence provided to grand jury.

If there has been a cover-up, the evidence will fall apart, either via inconsistency or omission, but the evidence as presented is the officer was attacked by an individual who has just committed a robbery, that is not the gunning down of an innocent man just minding their own business.

MikeSmithson

FrancisUrquhart said:

Tim. I noticed that. I do know who they were.

The thing is the media should do their job, look at all the evidence that is being released, digest it, check it, and actually process that rather than repeat (or let others repeat unchallenged) all the hearsay, the lies, and half truths.

I have yet to hear the BBC report the official account of events, based upon all the evidence provided to grand jury.

If there has been a cover-up, the evidence will fall apart, either via inconsistency or omission, but the evidence as presented is the officer was attacked by an individual who has just committed a robbery, that is not the gunning down of an innocent man just minding their own business.

Your expectations of what the media does are simply unrealistic. Generally everything follows a narrative that might or might not be misleading. The pack always acts together as we see with the way Westminster journalism operates. A view is taken which quickly become established and there is sod all you can do to change it if it is wrong.

Thus it became established that "THE STORY" after Rochester was the Emily Thornberry one which was going to undermine Miliband. The polling now suggests otherwise but the media narrative will continue.

dugarbandier

Tim_B said:

At some point Wilson had to defend himself. If you are threatened enough you can use deadly force.

Wouldn't it be better to use tazers or some other means rather than firearms in these situations?

Tim_B

I have no idea who they were.

Grand juries operate in secret.

The object is simply to determine if there is a case to answer, and NOT to determine guilt or innocence.

If you as a witness or potential defendant, decide to testify before a grand jury, you're on your own. Normal evidential rules do not apply. No record is kept of testimony. Your attorney cannot be present.

Grand jury members can ask what they want and you can't take the 5th. Well you can, but it's likely to lead to a true bill (indictment).

When it was reported this afternoon that the networks had a statement from Wilson, and that he had not been asked to report, we knew what was going to happen.

asjohnstone

On topic, I don't see it really impacting the overall UK wide result, Nicola has already said she will not support a tory led administration. Vote SNP get PM Miliband.

It just depends on the size of the payment she extracts from him for confidence and supply. At the end of the day it'll not be that high, she has no cards to play having rued out the tories.

Tim_B

dugarbandier said:

Tim_B said:

At some point Wilson had to defend himself. If you are threatened enough you can use deadly force.

Wouldn't it be better to use tazers or some other means rather than firearms in these situations?

Brown was reaching for the officer's gun, allegedly. In such a case, trying to get the tazer out of its holster while he's going for your gun is somewhat crazy.

Tim_B

MikeSmithson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Tim. I noticed that. I do know who they were.

The thing is the media should do their job, look at all the evidence that is being released, digest it, check it, and actually process that rather than repeat (or let others repeat unchallenged) all the hearsay, the lies, and half truths.

I have yet to hear the BBC report the official account of events, based upon all the evidence provided to grand jury.

If there has been a cover-up, the evidence will fall apart, either via inconsistency or omission, but the evidence as presented is the officer was attacked by an individual who has just committed a robbery, that is not the gunning down of an innocent man just minding their own business.

Your expectations of what the media does are simply unrealistic. Generally everything follows a narrative that might or might not be misleading. The pack always acts together as we see with the way Westminster journalism operates. A view is taken which quickly become established and there is sod all you can do to change it if it is wrong.

Thus it became established that "THE STORY" after Rochester was the Emily Thornberry one which was going to undermine Miliband. The polling now suggests otherwise but the media narrative will continue.

I'm not sure that comparing the Emily Thornberry story to Officer Wilson's situation is entirely helpful.

Members of the Brown family are on TV and this has to be just awful for them.

Tim_B

Now we have demonstrations in Philadelphia, New York, and LA.

Commentators are making the point that all the signs are pre-printed.

Indigo

dugarbandier said:

Tim_B said:

At some point Wilson had to defend himself. If you are threatened enough you can use deadly force.

Wouldn't it be better to use tazers or some other means rather than firearms in these situations?

Probably not a great idea in that sort of closed space, you are likely to be in contact with your opponent. Check this for the significant problems with tasers and stun guns, especially in this context the problem of optimum range. http://www.quora.com/Is-it-a-good-idea-for-a-homeowner-to-carry-a-taser-against-a-potential-burglar

Tim_B

There were concerns about the Buffalo Bills being unable to practice due to the snow, and the game being moved to Detroit.

They beat the NY Jets 38-3.

Jets = Sopwith Camels with engine trouble.

dugarbandier

Tim_B said:

dugarbandier said:

Tim_B said:

At some point Wilson had to defend himself. If you are threatened enough you can use deadly force.

Wouldn't it be better to use tazers or some other means rather than firearms in these situations?

Brown was reaching for the officer's gun, allegedly. In such a case, trying to get the tazer out of its holster while he's going for your gun is somewhat crazy.

hm, maybe so. but, in general, with all the technology in the world, can we not figure out some kind of sub-lethal weapon for use in such circumstances?

Indigo

dugarbandier said:

Tim_B said:

dugarbandier said:

Tim_B said:

At some point Wilson had to defend himself. If you are threatened enough you can use deadly force.

Wouldn't it be better to use tazers or some other means rather than firearms in these situations?

Brown was reaching for the officer's gun, allegedly. In such a case, trying to get the tazer out of its holster while he's going for your gun is somewhat crazy.

hm, maybe so. but, in general, with all the technology in the world, can we not figure out some kind of sub-lethal weapon for use in such circumstances?

Problem is, they were grappling, so there was contact, so anything electricity based it out, they were inside a car so incapacitant sprays are a bad idea. In any case if he is reaching for your gun if you either miss, or your sub-lethal doesn't take him out almost instantly, your dead.

"You just fulfilled the first rule of law enforcement: Make sure when your shift is over, you go home alive." - Jim Malone

Indigo

Obama has his finger on the pulse.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3QaU1_IcAAP3PV.jpg

FrancisUrquhart

In testimony, Darren Wilson says he struggled for gun w/ Brown: "Brown then yelled, 'you’re too much of a p***y to shoot me.'"

Tim_B

If you struggle for a cop's gun it's pretty much suicide by cop.

He's going to do what he has to do to defend himself, and deadly force is on the table.

It's not a perfect world.

RobD

Call me an idiot, but I don't get the point of grand juries. I thought the whole point of a trial was to decide whether or not a crime had been committed?

Indigo

RobD said:

Call me an idiot, but I don't get the point of grand juries. I thought the whole point of a trial was to decide whether or not a crime had been committed?

I might be wrong, but I get the impression they serve the same purpose as a magistrate's committal hearing in the UK, its where the man in the street (in the guise of a grand jury, or a Justice of the Peace) gets to decide if there is a case to answer before a "proper" court.

RobD

Indigo said:

RobD said:

Call me an idiot, but I don't get the point of grand juries. I thought the whole point of a trial was to decide whether or not a crime had been committed?

I might be wrong, but I get the impression they serve the same purpose as a magistrate's committal hearing in the UK, its where the man in the street (in the guise of a grand jury, or a Justice of the Peace) gets to decide if there is a case to answer before a "proper" court.

Reading on wikipedia (the fount of all knowledge), it states that this was abolished in 2012, and now it just goes to a pre-trial hearing at a crown court.

I realise my comment is poorly worded, I had meant to say I thought that the actual trial was where it was decided whether or not a crime was committed.

Socrates

Tim_B said:

If you struggle for a cop's gun it's pretty much suicide by cop.

He's going to do what he has to do to defend himself, and deadly force is on the table.

It's not a perfect world.

But the cop wasn't defending himself. Brown had run off and wasn't attacking the cop at the point of the shooting. Several witnesses said he had his hands up.

Socrates

Tim_B said:

Brown's blood and DNA wrere found inside the police car and on Wilson's uniform. Translation - Brown attacked Wilson inside the car.

Only if you have a completely biased interpretation of events. That finding is completely consistent with both accounts. Wilson said that Brown attacked him in the car and was punching him when Wilson shot him. Brown's friend said Wilson opened the door so close to them it bounced back on him and then Wilson grabbed Brown through the window, and when Brown tried to get away, Wilson shot him. In both cases the blood would splatter inside the car.

Indigo

Socrates said:

Tim_B said:

Brown's blood and DNA wrere found inside the police car and on Wilson's uniform. Translation - Brown attacked Wilson inside the car.

Only if you have a completely biased interpretation of events. That finding is completely consistent with both accounts. Wilson said that Brown attacked him in the car and was punching him when Wilson shot him. Brown's friend said Wilson opened the door so close to them it bounced back on him and then Wilson grabbed Brown through the window, and when Brown tried to get away, Wilson shot him. In both cases the blood would splatter inside the car.

A lot would come down to the extent and location of the spattering, and tbh we haven't seen that evidence, and the grand jury has.

Socrates

Indigo said:

Socrates said:

Tim_B said:

Brown's blood and DNA wrere found inside the police car and on Wilson's uniform. Translation - Brown attacked Wilson inside the car.

Only if you have a completely biased interpretation of events. That finding is completely consistent with both accounts. Wilson said that Brown attacked him in the car and was punching him when Wilson shot him. Brown's friend said Wilson opened the door so close to them it bounced back on him and then Wilson grabbed Brown through the window, and when Brown tried to get away, Wilson shot him. In both cases the blood would splatter inside the car.

A lot would come down to the extent and location of the spattering, and tbh we haven't seen that evidence, and the grand jury has.

Fair points, but the argument that TimB makes doesn't even hold if we accept Brown attacked Wilson. There was a point at which Brown ran off, and Wilson got out of his car, shot him in the back, and then when the guy turned around, shot him repeatedly in the front. Now, there are circumstances where that might be acceptable, but I find it stunning that it doesn't take a criminal trial to find out. Especially when multiple witnesses said Brown had his hands up and wasn't rushing Wilson.

Socrates

A harrowing story of a girl from Rotherham:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30152240

The key line in the article:

Campaigners have said Asian victims of sexual abuse are often forced to remain silent to protect what their families believe is their honour. They say it is a nationwide problem which is under-reported.

So why the hell is there not a nationwide police investigation? Why is there not a nationwide independent inquiry? There are thousands and thousands of victims.

Charles

Socrates said:

Indigo said:

Socrates said:

Tim_B said:

Brown's blood and DNA wrere found inside the police car and on Wilson's uniform. Translation - Brown attacked Wilson inside the car.

Only if you have a completely biased interpretation of events. That finding is completely consistent with both accounts. Wilson said that Brown attacked him in the car and was punching him when Wilson shot him. Brown's friend said Wilson opened the door so close to them it bounced back on him and then Wilson grabbed Brown through the window, and when Brown tried to get away, Wilson shot him. In both cases the blood would splatter inside the car.

A lot would come down to the extent and location of the spattering, and tbh we haven't seen that evidence, and the grand jury has.

Fair points, but the argument that TimB makes doesn't even hold if we accept Brown attacked Wilson. There was a point at which Brown ran off, and Wilson got out of his car, shot him in the back, and then when the guy turned around, shot him repeatedly in the front. Now, there are circumstances where that might be acceptable, but I find it stunning that it doesn't take a criminal trial to find out. Especially when multiple witnesses said Brown had his hands up and wasn't rushing Wilson.

Regardless of the facts, rioting and violence is not an appropriate response to an unwelcome decision by a grand jury.

Socrates

Charles said:

Socrates said:

Indigo said:

Socrates said:

Tim_B said:

Brown's blood and DNA wrere found inside the police car and on Wilson's uniform. Translation - Brown attacked Wilson inside the car.

Only if you have a completely biased interpretation of events. That finding is completely consistent with both accounts. Wilson said that Brown attacked him in the car and was punching him when Wilson shot him. Brown's friend said Wilson opened the door so close to them it bounced back on him and then Wilson grabbed Brown through the window, and when Brown tried to get away, Wilson shot him. In both cases the blood would splatter inside the car.

A lot would come down to the extent and location of the spattering, and tbh we haven't seen that evidence, and the grand jury has.

Fair points, but the argument that TimB makes doesn't even hold if we accept Brown attacked Wilson. There was a point at which Brown ran off, and Wilson got out of his car, shot him in the back, and then when the guy turned around, shot him repeatedly in the front. Now, there are circumstances where that might be acceptable, but I find it stunning that it doesn't take a criminal trial to find out. Especially when multiple witnesses said Brown had his hands up and wasn't rushing Wilson.

Regardless of the facts, rioting and violence is not an appropriate response to an unwelcome decision by a grand jury.

Of course it isn't, but that wasn't what I was debating.

Indigo

Socrates said:

A harrowing story of a girl from Rotherham:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30152240

The key line in the article:

Campaigners have said Asian victims of sexual abuse are often forced to remain silent to protect what their families believe is their honour. They say it is a nationwide problem which is under-reported.

So why the hell is there not a nationwide police investigation? Why is there not a nationwide independent inquiry? There are thousands and thousands of victims.

What can you investigate if no one is talking? There was a similar story based in Birmingham a few days ago http://goo.gl/3uEP7I

Socrates

Indigo said:

Socrates said:

A harrowing story of a girl from Rotherham:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30152240

The key line in the article:

Campaigners have said Asian victims of sexual abuse are often forced to remain silent to protect what their families believe is their honour. They say it is a nationwide problem which is under-reported.

So why the hell is there not a nationwide police investigation? Why is there not a nationwide independent inquiry? There are thousands and thousands of victims.

What can you investigate if no one is talking? There was a similar story based in Birmingham a few days ago http://goo.gl/3uEP7I

"People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere."

It just makes me so angry. How can our leaders sleep at night while they do nothing about this?

Socrates

Putin funding France's neo-fascists:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-24/russias-big-bet-on-the-french-far-right

anotherDave

The Sunday Times YouGov included a 'your constituency' question.

Standard VI
Con 33%, Lab 33%, LD 7%, UKIP 16%

"Imagine your own local MP resigned and there was an immediate by-election in your seat. Which party would you vote for?"

Con 30%, Lab 32%, LD 9%, UKIP 18%

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/6au4g3f66s/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-211114.pdf

OldKingCole

Socrates said:

Indigo said:

Socrates said:

A harrowing story of a girl from Rotherham:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30152240

The key line in the article:

Campaigners have said Asian victims of sexual abuse are often forced to remain silent to protect what their families believe is their honour. They say it is a nationwide problem which is under-reported.

So why the hell is there not a nationwide police investigation? Why is there not a nationwide independent inquiry? There are thousands and thousands of victims.

What can you investigate if no one is talking? There was a similar story based in Birmingham a few days ago http://goo.gl/3uEP7I

"People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere."

It just makes me so angry. How can our leaders sleep at night while they do nothing about this?

So, what can be done? While a knee-jerk “something must be" is all very well, and, Socrates, I sympathise with your feelings, but what is to be done? Presumably it’s not still happening in Rochdale or Oxford? Or is it? Does prosecution, assuming adequate evidence can be found, deter others?
A lot of what “is being done” will, I suggest be under the radar. Police "talking to” apparrently mismatched, age-wise, couples or groups won’t get reported.

DavidL

Socrates said:

Putin funding France's neo-fascists:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-24/russias-big-bet-on-the-french-far-right

Changed days. They used to fund western Communist parties. Same result though. Still looking to disrupt western societies and buy a more sympathetic audience. Whilst I suspect that Bloomberg is on to something I don't believe Le Pen will accept for a moment that this is a Kremlin loan and there is plausible deniability.

As an aside, have we finally found a piece of business that UK banks did not want? Remarkable. Pre 2008 they were truly up for anything.

Socrates

OldKingCole said:

Socrates said:

Indigo said:

Socrates said:

A harrowing story of a girl from Rotherham:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30152240

The key line in the article:

Campaigners have said Asian victims of sexual abuse are often forced to remain silent to protect what their families believe is their honour. They say it is a nationwide problem which is under-reported.

So why the hell is there not a nationwide police investigation? Why is there not a nationwide independent inquiry? There are thousands and thousands of victims.

What can you investigate if no one is talking? There was a similar story based in Birmingham a few days ago http://goo.gl/3uEP7I

"People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere."

It just makes me so angry. How can our leaders sleep at night while they do nothing about this?

So, what can be done? While a knee-jerk “something must be" is all very well, and, Socrates, I sympathise with your feelings, but what is to be done? Presumably it’s not still happening in Rochdale or Oxford? Or is it? Does prosecution, assuming adequate evidence can be found, deter others?
A lot of what “is being done” will, I suggest be under the radar. Police "talking to” apparrently mismatched, age-wise, couples or groups won’t get reported.

- A national police investigation, led by the Metropolitan police, as was done with Yewtree.
- When that is completed, an independent inquiry into the full extent of child grooming, led by someone like Professor Jay

DavidL

Back on topic some constituency polling in Scotland would be helpful. I remain to be persuaded that this constituency polling is going to be particularly accurate, there are a lot of technical problems in getting a sample of 1000 that is balanced against the particular constituency, but given the scale of the movements reported in the Scotland wide polling this really should not matter too much. A 15% swing will give us a very good idea even if it is really somewhere between 10% and 20% in reality.

Evens on SLAB getting most Scottish seats still seems a hell of a bet to me. There are occasional earthquakes but that would be 2012 with stilts on. The SNP had a much, much better starting point as already the largest party before the Labour strongholds were washed away that time. Their starting point for Westminster is much lower and the "stop the tories" cry of SLAB much louder. This was behind Sturgeon's move ruling out any support for them.

OldKingCole

Socrates said:

OldKingCole said:

Socrates said:

Indigo said:

Socrates said:

A harrowing story of a girl from Rotherham:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30152240

The key line in the article:

Campaigners have said Asian victims of sexual abuse are often forced to remain silent to protect what their families believe is their honour. They say it is a nationwide problem which is under-reported.

So why the hell is there not a nationwide police investigation? Why is there not a nationwide independent inquiry? There are thousands and thousands of victims.

What can you investigate if no one is talking? There was a similar story based in Birmingham a few days ago http://goo.gl/3uEP7I

"People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere."

It just makes me so angry. How can our leaders sleep at night while they do nothing about this?

So, what can be done? While a knee-jerk “something must be" is all very well, and, Socrates, I sympathise with your feelings, but what is to be done? Presumably it’s not still happening in Rochdale or Oxford? Or is it? Does prosecution, assuming adequate evidence can be found, deter others?
A lot of what “is being done” will, I suggest be under the radar. Police "talking to” apparrently mismatched, age-wise, couples or groups won’t get reported.

- A national police investigation, led by the Metropolitan police, as was done with Yewtree.
- When that is completed, an independent inquiry into the full extent of child grooming, led by someone like Professor Jay

Could be. A “driven” Chief Constable in S Yorks might help.

Life_ina_market_town

Indigo said:

RobD said:

I might be wrong, but I get the impression they serve the same purpose as a magistrate's committal hearing in the UK, its where the man in the street (in the guise of a grand jury, or a Justice of the Peace) gets to decide if there is a case to answer before a "proper" court.

Committal hearings have been abolished. Where a prosecutor charges a person with, or obtains a summons charging an indictable only offence, the magistrates are required to send the case for trial to the Crown Court under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s. 51. If is then for the defence to persuade a Judge of the Crown Court that the case against them should be dismissed under para 2 of schedule 3 to the 1998 Act. If the Judge accedes to that application, proceedings may only be brought by preferring a voluntary bill of indictment against the accused with the consent and at the direction of a Judge of the High Court.

@DavidL may be able to explain the position in Scotland.

Indigo

OldKingCole said:

Socrates said:

OldKingCole said:

Socrates said:

Indigo said:

Socrates said:

A harrowing story of a girl from Rotherham:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30152240

The key line in the article:

Campaigners have said Asian victims of sexual abuse are often forced to remain silent to protect what their families believe is their honour. They say it is a nationwide problem which is under-reported.

So why the hell is there not a nationwide police investigation? Why is there not a nationwide independent inquiry? There are thousands and thousands of victims.

What can you investigate if no one is talking? There was a similar story based in Birmingham a few days ago http://goo.gl/3uEP7I

"People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere."

It just makes me so angry. How can our leaders sleep at night while they do nothing about this?

So, what can be done? While a knee-jerk “something must be" is all very well, and, Socrates, I sympathise with your feelings, but what is to be done? Presumably it’s not still happening in Rochdale or Oxford? Or is it? Does prosecution, assuming adequate evidence can be found, deter others?
A lot of what “is being done” will, I suggest be under the radar. Police "talking to” apparrently mismatched, age-wise, couples or groups won’t get reported.

- A national police investigation, led by the Metropolitan police, as was done with Yewtree.
- When that is completed, an independent inquiry into the full extent of child grooming, led by someone like Professor Jay

Could be. A “driven” Chief Constable in S Yorks might help.

Over half the people accused by Yewtree were acquitted, I am not sure we want to see that scaled up by a couple of orders of magnitude, it would be a political firestorm for one thing, and would probably ruin a couple of thousand lives as collateral damage for another.

Indigo

Life_ina_market_town said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

I might be wrong, but I get the impression they serve the same purpose as a magistrate's committal hearing in the UK, its where the man in the street (in the guise of a grand jury, or a Justice of the Peace) gets to decide if there is a case to answer before a "proper" court.

Committal hearings have been abolished. Where a prosecutor charges a person with, or obtains a summons charging an indictable only offence, the magistrates are required to send the case for trial to the Crown Court under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s. 51. If is then for the defence to persuade a Judge of the Crown Court that the case against them should be dismissed under para 2 of schedule 3 to the 1998 Act. If the Judge accedes to that application, proceedings may only be brought by preferring a voluntary bill of indictment against the accused with the consent and at the direction of a Judge of the High Court.

@DavidL may be able to explain the position in Scotland.

Seems rather sad to remove the layman from the justice system, a committal by a JP gave some defense to accusations about stitch ups by the criminal justice systems

TOPPING

Charles said:

Socrates said:

Indigo said:

Socrates said:

Tim_B said:

Brown's blood and DNA wrere found inside the police car and on Wilson's uniform. Translation - Brown attacked Wilson inside the car.

Only if you have a completely biased interpretation of events. That finding is completely consistent with both accounts. Wilson said that Brown attacked him in the car and was punching him when Wilson shot him. Brown's friend said Wilson opened the door so close to them it bounced back on him and then Wilson grabbed Brown through the window, and when Brown tried to get away, Wilson shot him. In both cases the blood would splatter inside the car.

A lot would come down to the extent and location of the spattering, and tbh we haven't seen that evidence, and the grand jury has.

Fair points, but the argument that TimB makes doesn't even hold if we accept Brown attacked Wilson. There was a point at which Brown ran off, and Wilson got out of his car, shot him in the back, and then when the guy turned around, shot him repeatedly in the front. Now, there are circumstances where that might be acceptable, but I find it stunning that it doesn't take a criminal trial to find out. Especially when multiple witnesses said Brown had his hands up and wasn't rushing Wilson.

Regardless of the facts, rioting and violence is not an appropriate response to an unwelcome decision by a grand jury.

Not wishing to reignite the Duggan debate, but they weren't rioting because of a grand jury decision but because the decision indicated to them that the police/society is prejudiced against black people in their opinion and the grand jury decision has been a catalyst.

Although many on here see things as simple criminality (yo @Socrates‌), these behaviours are usually about power. Or lack or abuse of it.

Bobajob_

Mike is right. In fact the media and its "narrative" are getting further and further away from the narrative of the public, it would seem. Emily Thornbery was just one example - the ludicrous misread of the Klass War stuff was another.

FalseFlag

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

Socrates said:

Indigo said:

Socrates said:

Tim_B said:

Brown's blood and DNA wrere found inside the police car and on Wilson's uniform. Translation - Brown attacked Wilson inside the car.

Only if you have a completely biased interpretation of events. That finding is completely consistent with both accounts. Wilson said that Brown attacked him in the car and was punching him when Wilson shot him. Brown's friend said Wilson opened the door so close to them it bounced back on him and then Wilson grabbed Brown through the window, and when Brown tried to get away, Wilson shot him. In both cases the blood would splatter inside the car.

A lot would come down to the extent and location of the spattering, and tbh we haven't seen that evidence, and the grand jury has.

Fair points, but the argument that TimB makes doesn't even hold if we accept Brown attacked Wilson. There was a point at which Brown ran off, and Wilson got out of his car, shot him in the back, and then when the guy turned around, shot him repeatedly in the front. Now, there are circumstances where that might be acceptable, but I find it stunning that it doesn't take a criminal trial to find out. Especially when multiple witnesses said Brown had his hands up and wasn't rushing Wilson.

Regardless of the facts, rioting and violence is not an appropriate response to an unwelcome decision by a grand jury.

Not wishing to reignite the Duggan debate, but they weren't rioting because of a grand jury decision but because the decision indicated to them that the police/society is prejudiced against black people in their opinion and the grand jury decision has been a catalyst.

Although many on here see things as simple criminality (yo @Socrates‌), these behaviours are usually about power. Or lack or abuse of it.

They were rioting because they wanted free tings.

BenM

I really really hope the Tories maintain this Micawber like strategy of waiting for an anti Ed epiphany in the electorate to turn up!

FalseFlag

Socrates said:

Putin funding France's neo-fascists:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-24/russias-big-bet-on-the-french-far-right

A drop in the ocean compared to what the US spends.

FalseFlag

Socrates said:

Tim_B said:

If you struggle for a cop's gun it's pretty much suicide by cop.

He's going to do what he has to do to defend himself, and deadly force is on the table.

It's not a perfect world.

But the cop wasn't defending himself. Brown had run off and wasn't attacking the cop at the point of the shooting. Several witnesses said he had his hands up.

The cop was defending himself which is why not even Holder can prosecute him.
http://www.vdare.com/posts/wapo-black-witnesses-evidence-largely-back-officer-in-ferguson-police-shooting

RobD

BenM said:

I really really hope the Tories maintain this Micawber like strategy of waiting for an anti Ed epiphany in the electorate to turn up!

Ed is Crap has been priced in by the electorate, you just have to look at his approval ratings!

Indigo

BenM said:

I really really hope the Tories maintain this Micawber like strategy of waiting for an anti Ed epiphany in the electorate to turn up!

Its already occurred, check out Lord A in todays papers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11251270/Voters-do-not-believe-Ed-Miliband-will-be-Prime-Minister.html

Only a fifth of voters believe that Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister after the election, according to polling carried out by the Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft.

Lord Ashcroft’s polling showed that the Labour party are on course to win a majority, despite most voters believing that David Cameron will continue as Prime Minister after May.

The polling showed that the Labour party is now five points ahead of the Conservatives, suggesting that the resignation of Emily Thornberry last week did not harm the party.

However, 59 per cent of voters thought that Mr Cameron would remain Prime Minister.

“Though all outcomes seem possible, most voters just do not think Mr Miliband will reach Downing Street,” said Lord Ashcroft. “That in itself could be an indicator of whether they will ultimately be prepared to put him there.”

Bobajob_

Talking of narratives, is the Sun soon to abandon Toryism for ranting Kippery? Its aughable Danifesto with the plonker who owned the Emily van might suggest so.

Edin_Rokz

Acronyms : I do realise that the use of SLAB for Scottish Labour is an easy/lazy way to write, but it always confuses me for seconds when, north of the border, it means Scottish Legal Aid Board.

Perhaps OGH should have a Chrimbo competition for the most inappropriate acronyms that can be printed legally.

malcolmg

asjohnstone said:

On topic, I don't see it really impacting the overall UK wide result, Nicola has already said she will not support a tory led administration. Vote SNP get PM Miliband.

It just depends on the size of the payment she extracts from him for confidence and supply. At the end of the day it'll not be that high, she has no cards to play having rued out the tories.

LOL, yes sure to be a freebie

weejonnie

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

Socrates said:

Indigo said:

Socrates said:

Tim_B said:

Brown's blood and DNA wrere found inside the police car and on Wilson's uniform. Translation - Brown attacked Wilson inside the car.

Only if you have a completely biased interpretation of events. That finding is completely consistent with both accounts. Wilson said that Brown attacked him in the car and was punching him when Wilson shot him. Brown's friend said Wilson opened the door so close to them it bounced back on him and then Wilson grabbed Brown through the window, and when Brown tried to get away, Wilson shot him. In both cases the blood would splatter inside the car.

A lot would come down to the extent and location of the spattering, and tbh we haven't seen that evidence, and the grand jury has.

Fair points, but the argument that TimB makes doesn't even hold if we accept Brown attacked Wilson. There was a point at which Brown ran off, and Wilson got out of his car, shot him in the back, and then when the guy turned around, shot him repeatedly in the front. Now, there are circumstances where that might be acceptable, but I find it stunning that it doesn't take a criminal trial to find out. Especially when multiple witnesses said Brown had his hands up and wasn't rushing Wilson.

Regardless of the facts, rioting and violence is not an appropriate response to an unwelcome decision by a grand jury.

Not wishing to reignite the Duggan debate, but they weren't rioting because of a grand jury decision but because the decision indicated to them that the police/society is prejudiced against black people in their opinion and the grand jury decision has been a catalyst.

Although many on here see things as simple criminality (yo @Socrates‌), these behaviours are usually about power. Or lack or abuse of it.

The trouble is that many black people are brought up in an atmosphere of prejudice, fostered on them by black political leaders for their own ends. Most shootings are black on black for instance.

RobD

Bobajob_ said:

Talking of narratives, is the Sun soon to abandon Toryism for ranting Kippery? Its aughable Danifesto with the plonker who owned the Emily van might suggest so.

Good to see you haven't lost access to this account yet! :')

OldKingCole

Indigo said:

OldKingCole said:

Socrates said:

OldKingCole said:

Socrates said:

Indigo said:

Socrates said:

A harrowing story of a girl from Rotherham:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30152240

The key line in the article:

Campaigners have said Asian victims of sexual abuse are often forced to remain silent to protect what their families believe is their honour. They say it is a nationwide problem which is under-reported.

So why the hell is there not a nationwide police investigation? Why is there not a nationwide independent inquiry? There are thousands and thousands of victims.

What can you investigate if no one is talking? There was a similar story based in Birmingham a few days ago http://goo.gl/3uEP7I

"People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere."

It just makes me so angry. How can our leaders sleep at night while they do nothing about this?

So, what can be done? While a knee-jerk “something must be" is all very well, and, Socrates, I sympathise with your feelings, but what is to be done? Presumably it’s not still happening in Rochdale or Oxford? Or is it? Does prosecution, assuming adequate evidence can be found, deter others?
A lot of what “is being done” will, I suggest be under the radar. Police "talking to” apparrently mismatched, age-wise, couples or groups won’t get reported.

- A national police investigation, led by the Metropolitan police, as was done with Yewtree.
- When that is completed, an independent inquiry into the full extent of child grooming, led by someone like Professor Jay

Could be. A “driven” Chief Constable in S Yorks might help.

Over half the people accused by Yewtree were acquitted, I am not sure we want to see that scaled up by a couple of orders of magnitude, it would be a political firestorm for one thing, and would probably ruin a couple of thousand lives as collateral damage for another.

Quite. As I posted upthread, what is this something that should be done?. Socrates made a suggestion, yoiu’vce pointed out the problems. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it!

Bobajob_

RobD said:

BenM said:

I really really hope the Tories maintain this Micawber like strategy of waiting for an anti Ed epiphany in the electorate to turn up!

Ed is Crap has been priced in by the electorate, you just have to look at his approval ratings!

I think that is kinda of Ben's point. You strike me as a sensible bloke - are you seeing the limitations of the "ner ner Ed is crap" strategy?

FalseFlag

Tim_B said:

MikeSmithson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Tim. I noticed that. I do know who they were.

The thing is the media should do their job, look at all the evidence that is being released, digest it, check it, and actually process that rather than repeat (or let others repeat unchallenged) all the hearsay, the lies, and half truths.

I have yet to hear the BBC report the official account of events, based upon all the evidence provided to grand jury.

If there has been a cover-up, the evidence will fall apart, either via inconsistency or omission, but the evidence as presented is the officer was attacked by an individual who has just committed a robbery, that is not the gunning down of an innocent man just minding their own business.

Your expectations of what the media does are simply unrealistic. Generally everything follows a narrative that might or might not be misleading. The pack always acts together as we see with the way Westminster journalism operates. A view is taken which quickly become established and there is sod all you can do to change it if it is wrong.

Thus it became established that "THE STORY" after Rochester was the Emily Thornberry one which was going to undermine Miliband. The polling now suggests otherwise but the media narrative will continue.

I'm not sure that comparing the Emily Thornberry story to Officer Wilson's situation is entirely helpful.

Members of the Brown family are on TV and this has to be just awful for them.

Have they settled the argument as to who gets the money from the merchandise they are flogging?

http://www.westernjournalism.com/argument-heats-ferguson-resulting-huge-argument/

RobD

Bobajob_ said:

RobD said:

BenM said:

I really really hope the Tories maintain this Micawber like strategy of waiting for an anti Ed epiphany in the electorate to turn up!

Ed is Crap has been priced in by the electorate, you just have to look at his approval ratings!

I think that is kinda of Ben's point. You strike me as a sensible bloke - are you seeing the limitations of the "ner ner Ed is crap" strategy?

I think it'll have a significant effect on people as they are about to put their X on the ballot paper.

Bobajob_

Well due to technical reasons my friend The Last Boy Scout has sadly hung up his badge, for now. He has a expedition to go on and may be some time!

[Deleted User]

Us righties need to be a bit moderate in our expectations for May. Ed is indeed beyond crap. Unfortunately the polling shows that in the seats that count his party is doing OK. Unless or until that changes (or the polls are just wrong) then Dave is going to struggle to return to No.10. In which case we are going to witness the most awful hapless destructive premiership of modern times.

Socrates

OldKingCole said:

Socrates said:

OldKingCole said:

Socrates said:

Indigo said:

Socrates said:

A harrowing story of a girl from Rotherham:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30152240

The key line in the article:

Campaigners have said Asian victims of sexual abuse are often forced to remain silent to protect what their families believe is their honour. They say it is a nationwide problem which is under-reported.

So why the hell is there not a nationwide police investigation? Why is there not a nationwide independent inquiry? There are thousands and thousands of victims.

What can you investigate if no one is talking? There was a similar story based in Birmingham a few days ago http://goo.gl/3uEP7I

"People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere."

It just makes me so angry. How can our leaders sleep at night while they do nothing about this?

So, what can be done? While a knee-jerk “something must be" is all very well, and, Socrates, I sympathise with your feelings, but what is to be done? Presumably it’s not still happening in Rochdale or Oxford? Or is it? Does prosecution, assuming adequate evidence can be found, deter others?
A lot of what “is being done” will, I suggest be under the radar. Police "talking to” apparrently mismatched, age-wise, couples or groups won’t get reported.

- A national police investigation, led by the Metropolitan police, as was done with Yewtree.
- When that is completed, an independent inquiry into the full extent of child grooming, led by someone like Professor Jay

Could be. A “driven” Chief Constable in S Yorks might help.

It needs to be national. There will almost certainly be Rotherham-situations in individual police areas that haven't been looked into at all. In other situations there might be a push from someone centrally, but ownership is left with local forces/councils who are more concerned with covering up their own failures than getting to the bottom of this. It's not good enough. The scale of this abuse is so jaw-dropping that we need a determined investigation that covers the entire country.

RobD

Bobajob_ said:

Well due to technical reasons my friend The Last Boy Scout has sadly hung up his badge, for now. He has a expedition to go on and may be some time!

Heh, you certainly know how to troll us on here

NickPalmer

Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting:
57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles"
19% "best policies"
6% "best leaders".

http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/2f2b265625d76a6704b08093c652fd79.html

That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.

We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.

Indigo

Patrick said:

Us righties need to be a bit moderate in our expectations for May. Ed is indeed beyond crap. Unfortunately the polling shows that in the seats that count his party is doing OK. Unless or until that changes (or the polls are just wrong) then Dave is going to struggle to return to No.10. In which case we are going to witness the most awful hapless destructive premiership of modern times.

Worth reviewing "The Night The Government Fell" again, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WRVVdGQcN0 about the 1979 Vote of Confidence that brought Thatcher in, we might well see history repeat itself in 2-3 years.

RobD

Indigo said:

Patrick said:

Us righties need to be a bit moderate in our expectations for May. Ed is indeed beyond crap. Unfortunately the polling shows that in the seats that count his party is doing OK. Unless or until that changes (or the polls are just wrong) then Dave is going to struggle to return to No.10. In which case we are going to witness the most awful hapless destructive premiership of modern times.

Worth reviewing "The Night The Government Fell" again, www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WRVVdGQcN0 about the 1979 Vote of Confidence that brought Thatcher in, we might well see history repeat itself in 2-3 years.

Great clip, I do enjoy watching/listening to it. Shame there were no cameras in the chamber back then.

Indigo

NickPalmer said:

Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting:
57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles"
19% "best policies"
6% "best leaders".

http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/2f2b265625d76a6704b08093c652fd79.html

That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.

We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.

Well exactly, I mean anyone that voted for Dave just because they liked his promise on immigration was stone out of luck! But then again anyone that voted for him because they though the parties conservatism reflected their general view was moderately out of luck as well!

Alistair

So an unarmed man just completely out of the blue dove in through a police car window and went straight for a police officer's gun? Really?

RobD

NickPalmer said:

Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting:
57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles"
19% "best policies"
6% "best leaders".

http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/2f2b265625d76a6704b08093c652fd79.html

That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.

We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.

I suppose it depends how much the voters weight each factor, if it was almost 50/50, then leadership could be just as important as ideas/policies.

BenM

Indigo said:

BenM said:

I really really hope the Tories maintain this Micawber like strategy of waiting for an anti Ed epiphany in the electorate to turn up!

Its already occurred, check out Lord A in todays papers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11251270/Voters-do-not-believe-Ed-Miliband-will-be-Prime-Minister.html

Only a fifth of voters believe that Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister after the election, according to polling carried out by the Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft.

Lord Ashcroft’s polling showed that the Labour party are on course to win a majority, despite most voters believing that David Cameron will continue as Prime Minister after May.

The polling showed that the Labour party is now five points ahead of the Conservatives, suggesting that the resignation of Emily Thornberry last week did not harm the party.

However, 59 per cent of voters thought that Mr Cameron would remain Prime Minister.

“Though all outcomes seem possible, most voters just do not think Mr Miliband will reach Downing Street,” said Lord Ashcroft. “That in itself could be an indicator of whether they will ultimately be prepared to put him there.”

I think we dealt with this yesterday. Part of that will be all the hot air blown up by the RW press every time Ed farts, and part of that is due to a lack of understanding of how the electoral system works.

RobD

Alistair said:

So an unarmed man just completely out of the blue dove in through a police car window and went straight for a police officer's gun? Really?

Not judging the case, but people do stupid things.

RobD

BenM said:

Indigo said:

BenM said:

I really really hope the Tories maintain this Micawber like strategy of waiting for an anti Ed epiphany in the electorate to turn up!

Its already occurred, check out Lord A in todays papers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11251270/Voters-do-not-believe-Ed-Miliband-will-be-Prime-Minister.html

Only a fifth of voters believe that Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister after the election, according to polling carried out by the Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft.

Lord Ashcroft’s polling showed that the Labour party are on course to win a majority, despite most voters believing that David Cameron will continue as Prime Minister after May.

The polling showed that the Labour party is now five points ahead of the Conservatives, suggesting that the resignation of Emily Thornberry last week did not harm the party.

However, 59 per cent of voters thought that Mr Cameron would remain Prime Minister.

“Though all outcomes seem possible, most voters just do not think Mr Miliband will reach Downing Street,” said Lord Ashcroft. “That in itself could be an indicator of whether they will ultimately be prepared to put him there.”

I think we dealt with this yesterday. Part of that will be all the hot air blown up by the RW press every time Ed farts, and part of that is due to a lack of understanding of how the electoral system works.

A genuine question, is there any polling evidence for your last statement?

BenM

Bobajob_ said:

Mike is right. In fact the media and its "narrative" are getting further and further away from the narrative of the public, it would seem. Emily Thornbery was just one example - the ludicrous misread of the Klass War stuff was another.

The rightwing media that is.

The Guardian and Indy have had some very good leaders and general debate about proper issues of late.

The Right is eating itself because it has no self control.

HYUFD

Labour now to agree to give Scotland full control of income tax ahead of Smith Cssion report on Thursday and Murphy to back 50% top tax rate opposed by SNP

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/25/scotland-offered-total-control-income-tax-labour-u-turn

FalseFlag

Alistair said:

So an unarmed man just completely out of the blue dove in through a police car window and went straight for a police officer's gun? Really?

So a cop just publicly executed someone in the middle of the street?

A wanted felon, multiple witnesses, forensics, all meaningless to you? I bet you thought Zimmerman was the bad guy too.

http://www.unz.com/isteve/shamelessness-2/
All about getting the black vote out for the Dems.

Easterross

Morning all and I do hope Scotland provides the greatest shocks in May to make up for the non-action of 2010. Yesterday it was announced Cllr Drew Hendry, SNP leader of Highland Council is to take on Danny Alexander so it will be a michtie fecht indeed.

Last night's YouGov Scottish split would be very interesting if replicated in May.
SNP 40%
LABOUR 29%
TORIES 21%
GREEN 7%
UKIP 2%
LIBDEMS 1%

RobD

BenM said:

Bobajob_ said:

Mike is right. In fact the media and its "narrative" are getting further and further away from the narrative of the public, it would seem. Emily Thornbery was just one example - the ludicrous misread of the Klass War stuff was another.

The rightwing media that is.

The Guardian and Indy have had some very good leaders and general debate about proper issues of late.

The Right is eating itself because it has no self control.

Didn't the Guardian also critisise Thornberry

Financier

Indigo said:

Patrick said:

Us righties need to be a bit moderate in our expectations for May. Ed is indeed beyond crap. Unfortunately the polling shows that in the seats that count his party is doing OK. Unless or until that changes (or the polls are just wrong) then Dave is going to struggle to return to No.10. In which case we are going to witness the most awful hapless destructive premiership of modern times.

Worth reviewing "The Night The Government Fell" again, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WRVVdGQcN0 about the 1979 Vote of Confidence that brought Thatcher in, we might well see history repeat itself in 2-3 years.

If EdM becomes PM then he will want to stay the full 5 years as he knows that it will be his last chance of power. However he could leave a country more divided than ever, without having solved any of the economic or social problems due to intense and continuous prevarication. It could lead to civil unrest in various parts of the UK for differing reasons.

AndyJS

"In 1951 Britain had about twenty thousand non-white citizens."

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n22/ross-mckibbin/labour-vanishes

Financier

Easterross said:

Morning all and I do hope Scotland provides the greatest shocks in May to make up for the non-action of 2010. Yesterday it was announced Cllr Drew Hendry, SNP leader of Highland Council is to take on Danny Alexander so it will be a michtie fecht indeed.

Last night's YouGov Scottish split would be very interesting if replicated in May.
SNP 40%
LABOUR 29%
TORIES 21%
GREEN 7%
UKIP 2%
LIBDEMS 1%

As the Libdems are on the lowest rung of the ladder - would that be a wipe-out in Scotland?

In general in the UK, it would appear that the LDs are losing the argument for their continued existence as they are being pushed out by UKIP from one side and the Greens from the other side. Has anyone heard of a good reason from the LDs as to why they should continue to exist after 2015?

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Whoever would've predicted Labour doing better than the Conservatives in England whilst simultaneously being at risk of a Caledonian catastrophe?

Alistair

FalseFlag said:

Alistair said:

So an unarmed man just completely out of the blue dove in through a police car window and went straight for a police officer's gun? Really?

So a cop just publicly executed someone in the middle of the street?

A wanted felon, multiple witnesses, forensics, all meaningless to you? I bet you thought Zimmerman was the bad guy too.

http://www.unz.com/isteve/shamelessness-2/
All about getting the black vote out for the Dems.

Yes, America totally doesn't have a history of unarmed black men being shot by the police without repercussion. This is all just a conspiracy to drum up votes.

AndyJS

Indigo said:

Socrates said:

A harrowing story of a girl from Rotherham:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30152240

The key line in the article:

Campaigners have said Asian victims of sexual abuse are often forced to remain silent to protect what their families believe is their honour. They say it is a nationwide problem which is under-reported.

So why the hell is there not a nationwide police investigation? Why is there not a nationwide independent inquiry? There are thousands and thousands of victims.

What can you investigate if no one is talking? There was a similar story based in Birmingham a few days ago http://goo.gl/3uEP7I

Hang on, there are plenty of crimes which are investigated despite the fact that "no one is talking" about them.

Indigo

Financier said:

If EdM becomes PM then he will want to stay the full 5 years as he knows that it will be his last chance of power. However he could leave a country more divided than ever, without having solved any of the economic or social problems due to intense and continuous prevarication. It could lead to civil unrest in various parts of the UK for differing reasons.

He will almost certainly be in a coalition, so the question is can he hold his coalition together for 5 years, also if he flails around too much he will lose by elections which might whittle away a thin majority as it did for Callaghan.

HYUFD

Financier As a centrist balance to Labour and the Tories is Clegg's main argument so they are not just pushed by the Greens or UKIP

isam

No surprise to me

Southfields (@mysouthfields)
25/11/2014 05:57
YouGov finds working class ‘prefers UKIP to Labour’ @wrssharp @Gail_McDade
thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/polit…

nigel4england

NickPalmer said:

Really very interesting Times Red Box poll on what motivates people in voting:
57% "party reflecting my ideals and principles"
19% "best policies"
6% "best leaders".

http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/2f2b265625d76a6704b08093c652fd79.html

That sums up the Tory problem. By focusing their message on "our leader is less bad than the other leader", they appeal at most to the 6%, while looking ever-nastier to the 57%.

We politics nerds would probably prefer 100% on "best policies". But in a way the voters are right - it's difficult to predict what issues will come up over 5 years, and voting for the party you feel best reflects your general view may be safer than voting for X because you like their plans on council tax or whatever.

The Labour message is vote for us because we are not the Tories, is that not the same thing?

FalseFlag

Alistair said:

FalseFlag said:

Alistair said:

So an unarmed man just completely out of the blue dove in through a police car window and went straight for a police officer's gun? Really?

So a cop just publicly executed someone in the middle of the street?

A wanted felon, multiple witnesses, forensics, all meaningless to you? I bet you thought Zimmerman was the bad guy too.

http://www.unz.com/isteve/shamelessness-2/
All about getting the black vote out for the Dems.

Yes, America totally doesn't have a history of unarmed black men being shot by the police without repercussion. This is all just a conspiracy to drum up votes.

Examples please. Over 90% of interracial crime in the US is committed by blacks against whites.

Rodney King, Duke Lacrosse case, George Zimmerman, all media manipulated narratives where courts found the opposite to that presented.

TOPPING

isam said:

No surprise to me

Southfields (@mysouthfields)
25/11/2014 05:57
YouGov finds working class ‘prefers UKIP to Labour’ @wrssharp @Gail_McDade
thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/polit…

b&&&&&&ks to Southfields - what do they think in Islington S & Finsbury??

Ninoinoz

RobD said:

Bobajob_ said:

RobD said:

BenM said:

I really really hope the Tories maintain this Micawber like strategy of waiting for an anti Ed epiphany in the electorate to turn up!

Ed is Crap has been priced in by the electorate, you just have to look at his approval ratings!

I think that is kinda of Ben's point. You strike me as a sensible bloke - are you seeing the limitations of the "ner ner Ed is crap" strategy?

I think it'll have a significant effect on people as they are about to put their X on the ballot paper.

You live in Doncaster, then?

Otherwise, in the polling booth, they will be staring at their local candidates when they make that decision.

Richard_Tyndall

On the Ferguson case, an American friend just commented the following:

"If you had the choice of timing to announce a decision that people are going to have issues with and potentially riot, would you chose 9 PM or 9 AM?"

It does seem rather idiotic to make the announcement after dark in such an inflammatory situation.

Indigo

Ninoinoz said:

RobD said:

Bobajob_ said:

RobD said:

BenM said:

I really really hope the Tories maintain this Micawber like strategy of waiting for an anti Ed epiphany in the electorate to turn up!

Ed is Crap has been priced in by the electorate, you just have to look at his approval ratings!

I think that is kinda of Ben's point. You strike me as a sensible bloke - are you seeing the limitations of the "ner ner Ed is crap" strategy?

I think it'll have a significant effect on people as they are about to put their X on the ballot paper.

You live in Doncaster, then?

Otherwise, in the polling booth, they will be staring at their local candidates when they make that decision.

But they will have four weeks of car crashes during the campaign ringing in their ears ;-)

Socrates

FalseFlag said:

Alistair said:

So an unarmed man just completely out of the blue dove in through a police car window and went straight for a police officer's gun? Really?

So a cop just publicly executed someone in the middle of the street?

A wanted felon, multiple witnesses, forensics, all meaningless to you? I bet you thought Zimmerman was the bad guy too.

http://www.unz.com/isteve/shamelessness-2/
All about getting the black vote out for the Dems.

Most of the "multiple witnesses" said Brown was 20 feet away, with his hands up, and not rushing the cop. The forensics of Wilson's injuries showed that he had a small bruise on his face, inconsistent with the belief that the next punch would knock him out, and completely inconsistent with the fractured eye socket injury leaked by the police department in the days after the killing.

The fact you claim the beating of Rodney King was all completely legitimate behaviour shows how ridiculous your bias is here. Let's just have a look at that video again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW1ZDIXiuS4

You're about as objective on how the US police deal with black men as you are on Russia's annexation of parts of Ukraine.

Financier

HYUFD said:

Financier As a centrist balance to Labour and the Tories is Clegg's main argument so they are not just pushed by the Greens or UKIP

But the policy vacuum in the centre leaves the LDs even more exposed as they espouse policies that are often against the wishes and priorities of the electorate - or are the LDs on a self-destruct mission.

RobD

Ninoinoz said:

RobD said:

Bobajob_ said:

RobD said:

BenM said:

I really really hope the Tories maintain this Micawber like strategy of waiting for an anti Ed epiphany in the electorate to turn up!

Ed is Crap has been priced in by the electorate, you just have to look at his approval ratings!

I think that is kinda of Ben's point. You strike me as a sensible bloke - are you seeing the limitations of the "ner ner Ed is crap" strategy?

I think it'll have a significant effect on people as they are about to put their X on the ballot paper.

You live in Doncaster, then?

Otherwise, in the polling booth, they will be staring at their local candidates when they make that decision.

I think you give the public too little credit. Electing Labour MPs will get a Labour government led by Ed Miliband.

Bob__Sykes

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Whoever would've predicted Labour doing better than the Conservatives in England whilst simultaneously being at risk of a Caledonian catastrophe?

Of course, Labour is only ahead of the Tories in England because UKIP has stolen so many Tory votes. Disgruntled (and never was a word more appropriate as a descriptor) Tories, too thick to work out that they didn't actually win power in 2010 so can't just implement a Con Home wishlist, haven't switched to Labour, they've gone to Farage.

Without UKIP, the Tories would probably be over 40%.

Though that of course would have precipitated the end of Ed....

As it is, UKIP will do more damage to the Tories than the SNP will to Scottish Labour. Hence Ed will be a PM with a majority next May. The closer it gets, the more certain it becomes.

RobD

Richard_Tyndall said:

On the Ferguson case, an American friend just commented the following:

"If you had the choice of timing to announce a decision that people are going to have issues with and potentially riot, would you chose 9 PM or 9 AM?"

It does seem rather idiotic to make the announcement after dark in such an inflammatory situation.

Apparently, the schools asked for it to be later so that children would be home from school safely.

Pulpstar

anotherDave said:

The Sunday Times YouGov included a 'your constituency' question.

Standard VI
Con 33%, Lab 33%, LD 7%, UKIP 16%

"Imagine your own local MP resigned and there was an immediate by-election in your seat. Which party would you vote for?"

Con 30%, Lab 32%, LD 9%, UKIP 18%

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/6au4g3f66s/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-211114.pdf

The "Your constituency" question is correct.

Financier

Indigo said:

Financier said:

If EdM becomes PM then he will want to stay the full 5 years as he knows that it will be his last chance of power. However he could leave a country more divided than ever, without having solved any of the economic or social problems due to intense and continuous prevarication. It could lead to civil unrest in various parts of the UK for differing reasons.

He will almost certainly be in a coalition, so the question is can he hold his coalition together for 5 years, also if he flails around too much he will lose by elections which might whittle away a thin majority as it did for Callaghan.

By-elections have to happen and are very unpredictable. However, the UK cannot afford to stand still regarding its economic health (which includes benefits and tax), its trading position, the impact of immigration, uplifting education, implementing better health measures whilst at the same time cutting state/local costs.

I just do not see EdM doing any of these things to leave the UK in a better place in 2020, especially if he is in a coalition - he just does not have a clue.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sykes, that's certainly a plausible result. If it occurred, it'd be interesting to observe the reaction of the Conservatives (regarding leadership) and ex-Con voters who went for UKIP.

FalseFlag

Socrates said:

FalseFlag said:

Alistair said:

So an unarmed man just completely out of the blue dove in through a police car window and went straight for a police officer's gun? Really?

So a cop just publicly executed someone in the middle of the street?

A wanted felon, multiple witnesses, forensics, all meaningless to you? I bet you thought Zimmerman was the bad guy too.

http://www.unz.com/isteve/shamelessness-2/
All about getting the black vote out for the Dems.

Most of the "multiple witnesses" said Brown was 20 feet away, with his hands up, and not rushing the cop. The forensics of Wilson's injuries showed that he had a small bruise on his face, inconsistent with the belief that the next punch would knock him out, and completely inconsistent with the fractured eye socket injury leaked by the police department in the days after the killing.

The fact you claim the beating of Rodney King was all completely legitimate behaviour shows how ridiculous your bias is here. Let's just have a look at that video again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW1ZDIXiuS4

You're about as objective on how the US police deal with black men as you are on Russia's annexation of parts of Ukraine.

No the witnesses did not say that and no the forensics did not support Brown's story. Just accept the verdict of the justice system.

Rodney King.
http://www.vdare.com/posts/how-the-media-ginned-up-the-rodney-king-case