politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB has a better than 36% chance of winning most votes on M

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB has a better than 36% chance of winning most votes on May 7th

To my mind this is an over-reaction to events in Scotland where the LAB collapse since the IndyRef amounts to only about 1% on overall GB vote shares. In terms of seats this is terrible for Team Miliband but in terms overall national vote shares it won’t have all that much impact.

Read the full story here

Indigo

First ?

Indigo

FPT:

NickPalmer said:

I've seen this come up in the context of rape charges, but really it's a general principle: if you're innocent till proven guilty, then that should cover protection of reputation. A possible exception would be if the person charged is suspected of multiple offences, and the police are seeking other witnesses - but then why do we exempt juveniles?

And yet there is no anonymity in rape cases for suspects despite YouGov finding that it is backed by 77% of the public. The problem of course being that if its even mentioned the sisterhood scream the house down with outrage and manhating. The Tories dropped a pledge to introduce anonymity for rape suspects to their shame, despite it being in the coalition agreement. But then again it was the Tories that repealed anonymity in 1988 after it was introduced by Labour in 1976. Disgraceful.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-10760239

MikeK

The SNP have a history of being kind to terrorists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_of_Abdelbaset_al-Megrahi

You will no doubt be astounded to know that Glasgow Council is controlled by SLAB, and very emphatically so.

The SNP Lefty make up is not very different from Labour, you might say they are bosom pals.

Life_ina_market_town

FPT

JosiasJessop said:

Getting in the blame game causes people to clam up and actively hinders getting to the truth.

The difficulty with this assertion is that injured parties have a right to damages for injuries, occasioned in accidents, caused by a negligent breach of a duty owed to them by defendants. It is the constitutional function of the ordinary courts to determine whether or not they are liable, and those courts operate under a system of open justice. Thus the 'blame game' is both necessary and expedient.

AlastairMeeks

This is a good bet.

I'm backing Ed Miliband as next Prime Minister, which additionally caters for Labour getting fewer votes but most seats and Labour getting fewer votes and seats but support from minor parties.

LogicalSong

Do we now refer to UKIP as "Carswell's Party"?

Indigo

LogicalSong said:

Do we now refer to UKIP as "Carswell's Party"?

It's an idea, we could call Labour "Cooper's Party", and the Tories "Paterson's Party", and I am sure we can think of someone for the LDs once we see who is left ;-)

PClipp

Life_ina_market_town said:

FPT

JosiasJessop said:

Getting in the blame game causes people to clam up and actively hinders getting to the truth.

The difficulty with this assertion is that injured parties have a right to damages for injuries, occasioned in accidents, caused by a negligent breach of a duty owed to them by defendants. It is the constitutional function of the ordinary courts to determine whether or not they are liable, and those courts operate under a system of open justice. Thus the 'blame game' is both necessary and expedient.

A good point, Mr Town. Though I have the feeling that the clarity of this is rather muddied by the rake-off that the lawyers get.

Do you think it would be a good idea for lawyers in such cases to be paid only the minimum wage?

MikeSmithson

LogicalSong said:

Do we now refer to UKIP as "Carswell's Party"?

I've just read Carswell’s impressive article in today's Mail on Sunday and he is, of course, the most senior member of his party in the Commons.

JosiasJessop

Life_ina_market_town said:

FPT

JosiasJessop said:

Getting in the blame game causes people to clam up and actively hinders getting to the truth.

The difficulty with this assertion is that injured parties have a right to damages for injuries, occasioned in accidents, caused by a negligent breach of a duty owed to them by defendants. It is the constitutional function of the ordinary courts to determine whether or not they are liable, and those courts operate under a system of open justice. Thus the 'blame game' is both necessary and expedient.

I responded in the previous thread:

There is a difference between letting concerned parties know the details, and broadcasting it unnecessarily to all and sundry just to satisfy sick curiosity. *If* the investigations show that a significant causal factor was the driver's actions, then yes, they should be able to name the driver in proceedings.

It is patently unjust to release someone's name to the public at this stage of this investigation without their permission, except if it is necessary for the investigation to release it.

NickPalmer

Indigo said:

FPT:

NickPalmer said:

I've seen this come up in the context of rape charges, but really it's a general principle: if you're innocent till proven guilty, then that should cover protection of reputation. A possible exception would be if the person charged is suspected of multiple offences, and the police are seeking other witnesses - but then why do we exempt juveniles?

And yet there is no anonymity in rape cases for suspects despite YouGov finding that it is backed by 77% of the public. The problem of course being that if its even mentioned the sisterhood scream the house down with outrage and manhating. The Tories dropped a pledge to introduce anonymity for rape suspects to their shame, despite it being in the coalition agreement. But then again it was the Tories that repealed anonymity in 1988 after it was introduced by Labour in 1976. Disgraceful.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-10760239

I'm glad you agree, but I think the outrage would be reasonable if the reform were limited to rape. I see no reason why I should be able to drag you through the press by claiming falsely that you beat me up any more than claiming falsely that you raped me. It's possible that rape generates more debatable allegations than other crimes, but the issue is the same - should people accused of something be the subject of lurid press before conviction?

I guess another exemption would be if conviction is impossible for practical reasons, e.g. the alleged offender is dead - we should be able to name Jimmy Saville.

AlastairMeeks

If defendants are given anonymity, then other victims of crimes may not come forward when they hear of charges. This is particularly relevant to sexual offences where similar fact evidence may be crucial.

Life_ina_market_town

JosiasJessop said:

I responded in the previous thread:

There is a difference between letting concerned parties know the details, and broadcasting it unnecessarily to all and sundry just to satisfy sick curiosity. *If* the investigations show that a significant causal factor was the driver's actions, then yes, they should be able to name the driver in proceedings.

It is patently unjust to release someone's name to the public at this stage of this investigation without their permission, except if it is necessary for the investigation to release it.

It is irrelevant what "investigations" may or may not show. If the relatives of the deceased or any other injured party choose to pursue an action in negligence against the driver (or anyone else), it is right and proper that as a defender, he should be identified and named.

JosiasJessop

Life_ina_market_town said:

JosiasJessop said:

I responded in the previous thread:

There is a difference between letting concerned parties know the details, and broadcasting it unnecessarily to all and sundry just to satisfy sick curiosity. *If* the investigations show that a significant causal factor was the driver's actions, then yes, they should be able to name the driver in proceedings.

It is patently unjust to release someone's name to the public at this stage of this investigation without their permission, except if it is necessary for the investigation to release it.

It is irrelevant what "investigations" may or may not show. If the relatives of the deceased or any other injured party choose to pursue an action in negligence against the driver (or anyone else), it is right and proper that as a defender, he should be identified and named.

Agreed. But that is not where we are at, unless you know something we do not?

As far as I am aware there are no current prosecutions pending against the driver, for negligence or anything else. Until there is, he should not be named unless he agrees to it.

EPG

I don't think worse of a person who has been wrongly accused of rape, compared to someone who has not. Why would a reasonable person do so?

calum

The Panelbase data table at the bottom of the SNP's write up is pretty interesting. It appears to show that around 42% of SLAB's 2011 supporters (equating to their current polling levels) view the SNP as the best way forward in Westminster. Not pleasant reading for Miliband/Murphy.

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/dec/poll-voters-trust-snp-stand-scotland

isam

Which Shrewdie flagged this bet up as value?! I thought they normally got a hat tip in the thread header...

SandyRentool

Indigo said:

LogicalSong said:

Do we now refer to UKIP as "Carswell's Party"?

It's an idea, we could call Labour "Cooper's Party", and the Tories "Paterson's Party", and I am sure we can think of someone for the LDs once we see who is left ;-)

The Tories are "Priti's Party", surely!

SandyRentool

"Tories most seats, Labour most votes" looked the most unlikely combination not so long ago, now it looks like a real possibility.

kle4

EPG said:

I don't think worse of a person who has been wrongly accused of rape, compared to someone who has not. Why would a reasonable person do so?

Because many people do not assume that because charges have been dropped or someone has been declared innocent at trial that the person is in fact innocent or wrongly accused. Many will assume that perhaps there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict, particularly if there is evidence of other unsavory activity. No smoke without fire as the saying goes.

Artist

So this is basically a bet against the law of swingback.

If Labour can squeeze the Greens and recover some ground in Scotland, that could edge their vote share up from their current total.

Life_ina_market_town

JosiasJessop said:

Agreed. But that is not where we are at, unless you know something we do not?

As far as I am aware there are no current prosecutions pending against the driver, for negligence or anything else. Until there is, he should not be named unless he agrees to it.

So whether the driver is named or not should simply depend on whether someone chooses to sue him, no matter how frivolous or vexatious the action? That seems an absurd way of deciding whether someone should be identified. In any event, it seems difficult to understand why anyone should have any expectation of privacy in respect of their participation in an incident of immense public interest which occurred in broad daylight in public and which caused several fatalities.

Flightpath

kle4 said:

EPG said:

I don't think worse of a person who has been wrongly accused of rape, compared to someone who has not. Why would a reasonable person do so?

Because many people do not assume that because charges have been dropped or someone has been declared innocent at trial that the person is in fact innocent or wrongly accused. Many will assume that perhaps there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict, particularly if there is evidence of other unsavory activity. No smoke without fire as the saying goes.

I hope if ever you are selected for jury duty you declare your prejudice.

MikeSmithson said:

LogicalSong said:

Do we now refer to UKIP as "Carswell's Party"?

I've just read Carswell’s impressive article in today's Mail on Sunday and he is, of course, the most senior member of his party in the Commons.

'inclusive he says. Sounds like what Carswell wants is to be is a centre right politician in the tory party with him in charge.

But according to the usual mantra what Carswell said -- ''Ukip MP Douglas Carswell calls on his party to be 'inclusive' and stop making racist remarks about immigrants '' - would turn kippers against him.

And of course how does a kipper, who only supports the party because he is intolerant, exclusive and racist, change his opinions? Telling supporters to keep quiet about their various shades of intolerance still makes them intolerant.

MikeSmithson

isam said:

Which Shrewdie flagged this bet up as value?! I thought they normally got a hat tip in the thread header...

Isam. I don't read most of the threads and I was not aware of that.

surbiton

SeanT said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

JosiasJessop said:

Agreed. But that is not where we are at, unless you know something we do not?

As far as I am aware there are no current prosecutions pending against the driver, for negligence or anything else. Until there is, he should not be named unless he agrees to it.

So whether the driver is named or not should simply depend on whether someone chooses to sue him, no matter how frivolous or vexatious the action? That seems an absurd way of deciding whether someone should be identified. In any event, it seems difficult to understand why anyone should have any expectation of privacy in respect of their participation in an incident of immense public interest which occurred in broad daylight in public and which caused several fatalities.

I can see why it is sensible to protect his identity for a few days, or even weeks, to let passions cool. But the policy of Glasgow Council is that his identity will be concealed for eternity: it will "never be revealed". Same goes for the two other binmen in the cabin!

This is bizarre, silly, and unfeasible, and gives rise to conspiracy theories.

If you cause an accident, however unwittingly, which kills six people, you can expect, eventually, to be identified in a free press; it is the public interest for people to know the truth about this horrible tragedy.

NOT the same topic:

What is your view regarding the identity of a man charged with rape ? Should that be revealed as it now ? What if he is found innocent ?

MarkHopkins

SeanT said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

JosiasJessop said:

Agreed. But that is not where we are at, unless you know something we do not?

As far as I am aware there are no current prosecutions pending against the driver, for negligence or anything else. Until there is, he should not be named unless he agrees to it.

So whether the driver is named or not should simply depend on whether someone chooses to sue him, no matter how frivolous or vexatious the action? That seems an absurd way of deciding whether someone should be identified. In any event, it seems difficult to understand why anyone should have any expectation of privacy in respect of their participation in an incident of immense public interest which occurred in broad daylight in public and which caused several fatalities.

I can see why it is sensible to protect his identity for a few days, or even weeks, to let passions cool. But the policy of Glasgow Council is that his identity will be concealed for eternity: it will "never be revealed". Same goes for the two other binmen in the cabin!

This is bizarre, silly, and unfeasible, and gives rise to conspiracy theories.

If you cause an accident, however unwittingly, which kills six people, you can expect, eventually, to be identified in a free press; it is the public interest for people to know the truth about this horrible tragedy.

Indeed. What if someone knows of a previous incident involving the driver? And they cannot report it, as the name is withheld.

surbiton

Life_ina_market_town said:

FPT

JosiasJessop said:

Getting in the blame game causes people to clam up and actively hinders getting to the truth.

The difficulty with this assertion is that injured parties have a right to damages for injuries, occasioned in accidents, caused by a negligent breach of a duty owed to them by defendants. It is the constitutional function of the ordinary courts to determine whether or not they are liable, and those courts operate under a system of open justice. Thus the 'blame game' is both necessary and expedient.

In some societies , it is called blood money !

Richard_Tyndall

Flightpath said:

kle4 said:

EPG said:

I don't think worse of a person who has been wrongly accused of rape, compared to someone who has not. Why would a reasonable person do so?

Because many people do not assume that because charges have been dropped or someone has been declared innocent at trial that the person is in fact innocent or wrongly accused. Many will assume that perhaps there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict, particularly if there is evidence of other unsavory activity. No smoke without fire as the saying goes.

I hope if ever you are selected for jury duty you declare your prejudice.

MikeSmithson said:

LogicalSong said:

Do we now refer to UKIP as "Carswell's Party"?

I've just read Carswell’s impressive article in today's Mail on Sunday and he is, of course, the most senior member of his party in the Commons.

'inclusive he says. Sounds like what Carswell wants is to be is a centre right politician in the tory party with him in charge.

But according to the usual mantra what Carswell said -- ''Ukip MP Douglas Carswell calls on his party to be 'inclusive' and stop making racist remarks about immigrants '' - would turn kippers against him.

And of course how does a kipper, who only supports the party because he is intolerant, exclusive and racist, change his opinions? Telling supporters to keep quiet about their various shades of intolerance still makes them intolerant.

No different to a Tory who only supports that party because he is intolerant, exclusive and racist. In fact those terms pretty much sum up the whole Tory immigration policy which says that out of work white people from the EU are welcome but hard working, well qualified non whites from anywhere else in the world are not welcome.

You support a party whose whole immigration policy is inherently racist.

surbiton

MikeSmithson said:

LogicalSong said:

Do we now refer to UKIP as "Carswell's Party"?

I've just read Carswell’s impressive article in today's Mail on Sunday and he is, of course, the most senior member of his party in the Commons.

I thought his "victory" speech on winning the by-election was also very good. How long can he and Farage be in the same party ?

JosiasJessop

Life_ina_market_town said:

JosiasJessop said:

Agreed. But that is not where we are at, unless you know something we do not?

As far as I am aware there are no current prosecutions pending against the driver, for negligence or anything else. Until there is, he should not be named unless he agrees to it.

So whether the driver is named or not should simply depend on whether someone chooses to sue him, no matter how frivolous or vexatious the action? That seems an absurd way of deciding whether someone should be identified. In any event, it seems difficult to understand why anyone should have any expectation of privacy in respect of their participation in an incident of immense public interest which occurred in broad daylight in public and which caused several fatalities.

"So whether the driver is named or not should simply depend on whether someone chooses to sue him, no matter how frivolous or vexatious the action? "

Yes, exactly. Don't name him unless there is a need to name him. After all, what interest is his name to me, or you?

"That seems an absurd way of deciding whether someone should be identified."

In your eyes. Others would see it as protecting the innocent.

Alanbrooke

Richard_Tyndall said:

Flightpath said:

kle4 said:

EPG said:

I don't think worse of a person who has been wrongly accused of rape, compared to someone who has not. Why would a reasonable person do so?

Because many people do not assume that because charges have been dropped or someone has been declared innocent at trial that the person is in fact innocent or wrongly accused. Many will assume that perhaps there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict, particularly if there is evidence of other unsavory activity. No smoke without fire as the saying goes.

I hope if ever you are selected for jury duty you declare your prejudice.

MikeSmithson said:

LogicalSong said:

Do we now refer to UKIP as "Carswell's Party"?

I've just read Carswell’s impressive article in today's Mail on Sunday and he is, of course, the most senior member of his party in the Commons.

'inclusive he says. Sounds like what Carswell wants is to be is a centre right politician in the tory party with him in charge.

But according to the usual mantra what Carswell said -- ''Ukip MP Douglas Carswell calls on his party to be 'inclusive' and stop making racist remarks about immigrants '' - would turn kippers against him.

And of course how does a kipper, who only supports the party because he is intolerant, exclusive and racist, change his opinions? Telling supporters to keep quiet about their various shades of intolerance still makes them intolerant.

No different to a Tory who only supports that party because he is intolerant, exclusive and racist. In fact those terms pretty much sum up the whole Tory immigration policy which says that out of work white people from the EU are welcome but hard working, well qualified non whites from anywhere else in the world are not welcome.

You support a party whose whole immigration policy is inherently racist.

The article simply highlights Cameron's weaknesses as a party manager.

Socrates

Sweden's establishment parties show they would rather get together than allow any concessions to an anti-mass immigration party or allow the people to have their say in an election:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/27/us-sweden-politics-poll-idUSKBN0K505120141227

Socrates

Indigo said:

FPT:

NickPalmer said:

I've seen this come up in the context of rape charges, but really it's a general principle: if you're innocent till proven guilty, then that should cover protection of reputation. A possible exception would be if the person charged is suspected of multiple offences, and the police are seeking other witnesses - but then why do we exempt juveniles?

And yet there is no anonymity in rape cases for suspects despite YouGov finding that it is backed by 77% of the public. The problem of course being that if its even mentioned the sisterhood scream the house down with outrage and manhating. The Tories dropped a pledge to introduce anonymity for rape suspects to their shame, despite it being in the coalition agreement. But then again it was the Tories that repealed anonymity in 1988 after it was introduced by Labour in 1976. Disgraceful.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-10760239

Just another case of the Tories showing the difference between them and Labour is paper thin these days.

JosiasJessop

SeanT said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

JosiasJessop said:

Agreed. But that is not where we are at, unless you know something we do not?

As far as I am aware there are no current prosecutions pending against the driver, for negligence or anything else. Until there is, he should not be named unless he agrees to it.

So whether the driver is named or not should simply depend on whether someone chooses to sue him, no matter how frivolous or vexatious the action? That seems an absurd way of deciding whether someone should be identified. In any event, it seems difficult to understand why anyone should have any expectation of privacy in respect of their participation in an incident of immense public interest which occurred in broad daylight in public and which caused several fatalities.

I can see why it is sensible to protect his identity for a few days, or even weeks, to let passions cool. But the policy of Glasgow Council is that his identity will be concealed for eternity: it will "never be revealed". Same goes for the two other binmen in the cabin!

This is bizarre, silly, and unfeasible, and gives rise to conspiracy theories.

If you cause an accident, however unwittingly, which kills six people, you can expect, eventually, to be identified in a free press; it is the public interest for people to know the truth about this horrible tragedy.

Naming him will only cause more conspiracy theories. It's the way conspiracy theorists work. The more information they have, the more they perversely twist it. We see it enough on this site.

"If you cause an accident,"

You are assuming he 'caused' the accident. That has yet to be ascertained. It may have been a mechanical failure as far as I'm aware at the moment.

"It is the public interest for people to know the truth about this horrible tragedy."

The driver's identity may (or may not) be relevant to the truth.

Morris_Dancer

Good evening, everyone.

Incidentally, Top Gear starts at 8pm, so there's minimal overlap with Homeland.

Mr. Socrates, indeed, Mr. Max mentioned that on the previous thread. I don't think UKIP will do well enough for a comparable situation to occur here next time, or even in 2019-20. But it might one day.

isam

Richard_Tyndall said:

Flightpath said:

kle4 said:

EPG said:

I don't think worse of a person who has been wrongly accused of rape, compared to someone who has not. Why would a reasonable person do so?

Because many people do not assume that because charges have been dropped or someone has been declared innocent at trial that the person is in fact innocent or wrongly accused. Many will assume that perhaps there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict, particularly if there is evidence of other unsavory activity. No smoke without fire as the saying goes.

I hope if ever you are selected for jury duty you declare your prejudice.

MikeSmithson said:

LogicalSong said:

Do we now refer to UKIP as "Carswell's Party"?

I've just read Carswell’s impressive article in today's Mail on Sunday and he is, of course, the most senior member of his party in the Commons.

'inclusive he says. Sounds like what Carswell wants is to be is a centre right politician in the tory party with him in charge.

But according to the usual mantra what Carswell said -- ''Ukip MP Douglas Carswell calls on his party to be 'inclusive' and stop making racist remarks about immigrants '' - would turn kippers against him.

And of course how does a kipper, who only supports the party because he is intolerant, exclusive and racist, change his opinions? Telling supporters to keep quiet about their various shades of intolerance still makes them intolerant.

No different to a Tory who only supports that party because he is intolerant, exclusive and racist. In fact those terms pretty much sum up the whole Tory immigration policy which says that out of work white people from the EU are welcome but hard working, well qualified non whites from anywhere else in the world are not welcome.

You support a party whose whole immigration policy is inherently racist.

If there were such a thing as a white supremacist party in the UK, their immigration policy would probably be to exclude easy immigration from Africa & Asia, and allow free movement from countries that are predominantly white..

The only party with an immigration policy they would have a problem with would be UKIP

Life_ina_market_town

JosiasJessop said:

"So whether the driver is named or not should simply depend on whether someone chooses to sue him, no matter how frivolous or vexatious the action? "

Yes, exactly. Don't name him unless there is a need to name him. After all, what interest is his name to me, or you?

"That seems an absurd way of deciding whether someone should be identified."

In your eyes. Others would see it as protecting the innocent.

The time when "need" (quare who is to be the judge of this) governs whether or not the press report something will be a black day for freedom of speech. Your solution has nothing whatever to do with "protecting the innocent". The mere fact that someone is sued does not mean they are liable in delict. You have, therefore, already accepted that innocent parties may well be identified. In any event, to identify the driver of a vehicle involved in a fatal accident does not impute responsibility, whether criminal or delictual, to the driver. It is simply a statement of fact.

Socrates

SeanT said:

JosiasJessop said:

Naming him will only cause more conspiracy theories. It's the way conspiracy theorists work. The more information they have, the more they perversely twist it. We see it enough on this site.

"If you cause an accident,"

You are assuming he 'caused' the accident. That has yet to be ascertained. It may have been a mechanical failure as far as I'm aware at the moment.

"It is the public interest for people to know the truth about this horrible tragedy."

The driver's identity may (or may not) be relevant to the truth.

By your logic the public should never be told anything, ever, lest they twist it into a conspiracy theory, maybe about Muslim grooming or Westminster expenses scandals.

Idiot.

There's a big chunk of establishment opinion, widespread among certain types of Lib Dems, Tories and Labourites, who believe in a very hierarchical society where our betters control the flow of information to prevent the plebs forming opinions they dislike. The same people generally believe that the government should also have open access to even private information of the masses, without warrants or even probable cause.

Socrates

@Richard_Tyndall

Flightpath is a not particularly bright troll, who spends most of his time just smearing UKIP as racist without evidence. It's best just to ignore him.

JohnLilburne

Flightpath said:

kle4 said:

EPG said:

I don't think worse of a person who has been wrongly accused of rape, compared to someone who has not. Why would a reasonable person do so?

Because many people do not assume that because charges have been dropped or someone has been declared innocent at trial that the person is in fact innocent or wrongly accused. Many will assume that perhaps there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict, particularly if there is evidence of other unsavory activity. No smoke without fire as the saying goes.

I hope if ever you are selected for jury duty you declare your prejudice.

Why would that be a problem? It would be quite reasonable for a juror to believe that someone is probably (on the balance of probabilities) guilty, but acquit on the basis that the prosecution has failed to demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt.

TheWatcher

Socrates said:

SeanT said:

JosiasJessop said:

Naming him will only cause more conspiracy theories. It's the way conspiracy theorists work. The more information they have, the more they perversely twist it. We see it enough on this site.

"If you cause an accident,"

You are assuming he 'caused' the accident. That has yet to be ascertained. It may have been a mechanical failure as far as I'm aware at the moment.

"It is the public interest for people to know the truth about this horrible tragedy."

The driver's identity may (or may not) be relevant to the truth.

By your logic the public should never be told anything, ever, lest they twist it into a conspiracy theory, maybe about Muslim grooming or Westminster expenses scandals.

Idiot.

There's a big chunk of establishment opinion, widespread among certain types of Lib Dems, Tories and Labourites, who believe in a very hierarchical society where our betters control the flow of information to prevent the plebs forming opinions they dislike. The same people generally believe that the government should also have open access to even private information of the masses, without warrants or even probable cause.

Remind me. Did Farage ever publish his expenses as promised, or is that information 'controlled'?

JohnLilburne

JosiasJessop said:

SeanT said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

JosiasJessop said:

Agreed. But that is not where we are at, unless you know something we do not?

As far as I am aware there are no current prosecutions pending against the driver, for negligence or anything else. Until there is, he should not be named unless he agrees to it.

So whether the driver is named or not should simply depend on whether someone chooses to sue him, no matter how frivolous or vexatious the action? That seems an absurd way of deciding whether someone should be identified. In any event, it seems difficult to understand why anyone should have any expectation of privacy in respect of their participation in an incident of immense public interest which occurred in broad daylight in public and which caused several fatalities.

I can see why it is sensible to protect his identity for a few days, or even weeks, to let passions cool. But the policy of Glasgow Council is that his identity will be concealed for eternity: it will "never be revealed". Same goes for the two other binmen in the cabin!

This is bizarre, silly, and unfeasible, and gives rise to conspiracy theories.

If you cause an accident, however unwittingly, which kills six people, you can expect, eventually, to be identified in a free press; it is the public interest for people to know the truth about this horrible tragedy.

Naming him will only cause more conspiracy theories. It's the way conspiracy theorists work. The more information they have, the more they perversely twist it. We see it enough on this site.

"If you cause an accident,"

You are assuming he 'caused' the accident. That has yet to be ascertained. It may have been a mechanical failure as far as I'm aware at the moment.

He did, in a motor insurance definition of "caused".

In any case, it happened in a public place. How can you try to withhold information about something that happened in a public place? Someone might have recognised him. If you do something in a public place, you should assume it is in the public domain (whether that act is voluntary or not).

JosiasJessop

SeanT said:

JosiasJessop said:

SeanT said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

JosiasJessop said:

Agreed. But that is not where we are at, unless you know something we do not?

As far as I am aware there are no current prosecutions pending against the driver, for negligence or anything else. Until there is, he should not be named unless he agrees to it.

So whether the driver is named or not should simply depend on whether someone chooses to sue him, no matter how frivolous or vexatious the action? That seems an absurd way of deciding whether someone should be identified. In any event, it seems difficult to understand why anyone should have any expectation of privacy in respect of their participation in an incident of immense public interest which occurred in broad daylight in public and which caused several fatalities.

I can see why it is sensible to protect his identity for a few days, or even weeks, to let passions cool. But the policy of Glasgow Council is that his identity will be concealed for eternity: it will "never be revealed". Same goes for the two other binmen in the cabin!

This is bizarre, silly, and unfeasible, and gives rise to conspiracy theories.

If you cause an accident, however unwittingly, which kills six people, you can expect, eventually, to be identified in a free press; it is the public interest for people to know the truth about this horrible tragedy.

Naming him will only cause more conspiracy theories. It's the way conspiracy theorists work. The more information they have, the more they perversely twist it. We see it enough on this site.

"If you cause an accident,"

You are assuming he 'caused' the accident. That has yet to be ascertained. It may have been a mechanical failure as far as I'm aware at the moment.

"It is the public interest for people to know the truth about this horrible tragedy."

The driver's identity may (or may not) be relevant to the truth.

By your logic the public should never be told anything, ever, lest they twist it into a conspiracy theory, maybe about Muslim grooming or Westminster expenses scandals.

Idiot.

Sorry you think I'm being an idiot.

My logic is nothing of the sort, as should be obvious.

Socrates

Morris_Dancer said:

Good evening, everyone.

Incidentally, Top Gear starts at 8pm, so there's minimal overlap with Homeland.

Mr. Socrates, indeed, Mr. Max mentioned that on the previous thread. I don't think UKIP will do well enough for a comparable situation to occur here next time, or even in 2019-20. But it might one day.

No wonder Cameron likes the Swedish political parties so much. Since the beginning of civilisation there has been a struggle between those who want a hierarchical society and those who want an egalitarian one. The British and Swedish political establishment believe elections are something that should be professionally managed to give legitimacy to their pre-existing plans, rather than a way to get a genuine measure of public opinion.

Socrates

TheWatcher said:

Socrates said:

SeanT said:

JosiasJessop said:

Naming him will only cause more conspiracy theories. It's the way conspiracy theorists work. The more information they have, the more they perversely twist it. We see it enough on this site.

"If you cause an accident,"

You are assuming he 'caused' the accident. That has yet to be ascertained. It may have been a mechanical failure as far as I'm aware at the moment.

"It is the public interest for people to know the truth about this horrible tragedy."

The driver's identity may (or may not) be relevant to the truth.

By your logic the public should never be told anything, ever, lest they twist it into a conspiracy theory, maybe about Muslim grooming or Westminster expenses scandals.

Idiot.

There's a big chunk of establishment opinion, widespread among certain types of Lib Dems, Tories and Labourites, who believe in a very hierarchical society where our betters control the flow of information to prevent the plebs forming opinions they dislike. The same people generally believe that the government should also have open access to even private information of the masses, without warrants or even probable cause.

Remind me. Did Farage ever publish his expenses as promised, or is that information 'controlled'?

MEPs don't have expenses. They have allowances.

Life_ina_market_town

SeanT said:

I really don't know about anonymity. Ideally there should be no anonymity for anyone - plaintiffs or defendants. But given that plaintiffs have been awarded anonymity there needs to be some balance on the other side. However we have the problem that antifrank points out - whereby anonymity can prevent other victims coming forward when they see their own assailant charged.

My idea would be provisional anonymity. Most defendants would have their identity protected (up to conviction) but the police would be able to request that anonymity is lifted if they believe it would help build a case, or bring other victims forward, and judges would generally be expected to agree to this request.

This is incoherent. It does not follow that merely because one of the parties' witness is entitled to anonymity that the other party should also be entitled to anonymity in a criminal trial. Indictments are preferred in the name of the Crown (not of the complainant). There is an overwhelming public interest in open justice. The general rule is, and should be that defendants are identified. There is no reason why defendants in sex cases but not those of serious violence should be entitled to anonymity until conviction.

As for the notion that the defendant's anonymity should be provisional, this seems inconsistent with the professed aim of parity between complainant and defendant (which for the reasons given has no application). It is well established that the mere fact a defendant is acquitted is insufficient to justify lifting the complainant's anonymity. If parity is the aim, then it must follow that the mere fact of conviction cannot justify lifting the defendant's putative anonymity.

JosiasJessop

Life_ina_market_town said:

JosiasJessop said:

"So whether the driver is named or not should simply depend on whether someone chooses to sue him, no matter how frivolous or vexatious the action? "

Yes, exactly. Don't name him unless there is a need to name him. After all, what interest is his name to me, or you?

"That seems an absurd way of deciding whether someone should be identified."

In your eyes. Others would see it as protecting the innocent.

The time when "need" (quare who is to be the judge of this) governs whether or not the press report something will be a black day for freedom of speech. Your solution has nothing whatever to do with "protecting the innocent". The mere fact that someone is sued does not mean they are liable in delict. You have, therefore, already accepted that innocent parties may well be identified. In any event, to identify the driver of a vehicle involved in a fatal accident does not impute responsibility, whether criminal or delictual, to the driver. It is simply a statement of fact.

If the media and public had a goods track record of reporting and behaving responsibly with such information, I might agree.

Sadly they do not.

What interest is it to you, or I, of the man's name if he has done nothing wrong? Yet if he is named people will judge him guilty, as we have seen so many times before.

Would satisfying the public's sick curiosity be worth a man's suicide, for instance?

GeoffM

SeanT said:

I was (as you know) falsely accused of rape. At the time (1987) my identity was protected by law; nonetheless I identified myself, and wrote articles about my experience.

I really don't know about anonymity. Ideally there should be no anonymity for anyone - plaintiffs or defendants. But given that plaintiffs have been awarded anonymity there needs to be some balance on the other side. However we have the problem that antifrank points out - whereby anonymity can prevent other victims coming forward when they see their own assailant charged.

My idea would be provisional anonymity. Most defendants would have their identity protected (up to conviction) but the police would be able to request that anonymity is lifted if they believe it would help build a case, or bring other victims forward, and judges would generally be expected to agree to this request.

Ooh, I'm so mature these days.

Where @antifrank's argument fails is that one sided anonymity also prevents other (usually) men finding out that they should come forward as witnesses to testify that (usually) she has a history of making wild and fantastical accusations of imagined sexual assault.

Anonymity should be two-sided or not at all. If there are other offences to uncover then that is what the Police are for, not Facebook.

Socrates

JosiasJessop said:

Sorry you think I'm being an idiot.

My logic is nothing of the sort, as should be obvious.

Your logic is completely idiotic. "The public shouldn't be provided with information, because then they might form conclusions we disagree with" is completely antithetical to a free, open society. There might be good reasons to protect the accused's anonymity in controversial cases but your argument wasn't one of them.

HYUFD

David Laws - George Osborne's public spending plans a 'suicide note'
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/28/george-osborne-public-spending-plans-political-suicide-note-says-david-laws

Carnyx

SeanT said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

JosiasJessop said:

"So whether the driver is named or not should simply depend on whether someone chooses to sue him, no matter how frivolous or vexatious the action? "

Yes, exactly. Don't name him unless there is a need to name him. After all, what interest is his name to me, or you?

"That seems an absurd way of deciding whether someone should be identified."

In your eyes. Others would see it as protecting the innocent.

The time when "need" (quare who is to be the judge of this) governs whether or not the press report something will be a black day for freedom of speech. Your solution has nothing whatever to do with "protecting the innocent". The mere fact that someone is sued does not mean they are liable in delict. You have, therefore, already accepted that innocent parties may well be identified. In any event, to identify the driver of a vehicle involved in a fatal accident does not impute responsibility, whether criminal or delictual, to the driver. It is simply a statement of fact.

As a point of (Scots) law, can this omerta be legally enforced? If a paper gets hold of the name (surely not that hard) and prints it, would anyone be able to stop the editor, or prosecute him afterwards?

I can't see how. But IANAL.

The point I made earlier about Scots newspapers being able to ignore English interdicts (etc) would seem to apply in reverse. Unless Glasgow Council took out one in London as well as Scotland - but neither is in any case being suggested even by the Scotsman article. As I sald also, all it says is that Glasgow Council is not releasing the driver's name. So at the moment it is more a case of the newspapers putting in a FoI(S)Act application - at which they will get the equivalent of two fingers and an 'awa an bile yer heid' as it constitutes staff personal information, no?

Life_ina_market_town

SeanT said:

As a point of (Scots) law, can this omerta be legally enforced? If a paper gets hold of the name (surely not that hard) and prints it, would anyone be able to stop the editor, or prosecute him afterwards?

I can't see how. But IANAL.

In English law, there might be liability under the principle in Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57, for publication of a statement that is unjustified and that the defendant intends to cause or is reckless about causing physical or psychiatric injury to the claimant. The Supreme Court has recently granted permission to appeal in OPO v MLA, from a judgment of the Court of Appeal ([2014] EWCA Civ 1277). The issue in that case is whether liability attaches only to false words targeted at an individual, or may apply to publication of true words to the world which might result in harm if a particular individual reads it. Different principles may apply in Scotland.

There might also be a Convention Rights claim (which would certainly be justiciable in Scotland). Articles 2 and 8 ECHR would be the most likely contenders.

TheWatcher

Socrates said:

TheWatcher said:

Socrates said:

SeanT said:

JosiasJessop said:

Naming him will only cause more conspiracy theories. It's the way conspiracy theorists work. The more information they have, the more they perversely twist it. We see it enough on this site.

"If you cause an accident,"

You are assuming he 'caused' the accident. That has yet to be ascertained. It may have been a mechanical failure as far as I'm aware at the moment.

"It is the public interest for people to know the truth about this horrible tragedy."

The driver's identity may (or may not) be relevant to the truth.

By your logic the public should never be told anything, ever, lest they twist it into a conspiracy theory, maybe about Muslim grooming or Westminster expenses scandals.

Idiot.

There's a big chunk of establishment opinion, widespread among certain types of Lib Dems, Tories and Labourites, who believe in a very hierarchical society where our betters control the flow of information to prevent the plebs forming opinions they dislike. The same people generally believe that the government should also have open access to even private information of the masses, without warrants or even probable cause.

Remind me. Did Farage ever publish his expenses as promised, or is that information 'controlled'?

MEPs don't have expenses. They have allowances.

I recollect Farage offered to publish a breakdown of how his allowances were spent, but nothing's happened. Funny that.

SquareRoot

Socrates said:

@Richard_Tyndall

Flightpath is a not particularly bright troll, who spends most of his time just smearing UKIP as racist without evidence. It's best just to ignore him.

Socrates is a not particularly bright troll, who spends most of his time just smearing the EU and anything UKIP don't like without evidence (evidence available if required). It's best just to ignore him

Richard_Tyndall

SquareRoot said:

Socrates said:

@Richard_Tyndall

Flightpath is a not particularly bright troll, who spends most of his time just smearing UKIP as racist without evidence. It's best just to ignore him.

Socrates is a not particularly bright troll, who spends most of his time just smearing the EU and anything UKIP don't like without evidence (evidence available if required). It's best just to ignore him

Nope, I think Socrates won that one hands down.

isam

MikeSmithson said:

isam said:

Which Shrewdie flagged this bet up as value?! I thought they normally got a hat tip in the thread header...

Isam. I don't read most of the threads and I was not aware of that.

Oh, ok.. well anyway I think you are right, it seems like a good value bet

Life_ina_market_town

JosiasJessop said:

If the media and public had a goods track record of reporting and behaving responsibly with such information, I might agree.

Sadly they do not.

What interest is it to you, or I, of the man's name if he has done nothing wrong? Yet if he is named people will judge him guilty, as we have seen so many times before.

Would satisfying the public's sick curiosity be worth a man's suicide, for instance?

The fallacy of this approach is twofold. Firstly, it does not follow from the fact that some people may draw wholly unreasonable or capricious conclusions from a statement that it should not be published if a reasonable man would not draw such imputations. Secondly, you seem to think freedom of speech is a wholly instrumental value, which should be governed by whether individuals have a "need" or "interest" (presumably to be judged by an organ of the state) rather than a substantive value, where it is presumed that information can be published unless its publication is otherwise unlawful. There is no 'sick curiosity' (as you put it) in knowing the identities of those involved in fatal accidents of substantive public interest.

The suicide point has some value to it, but would it justify a refusal to publish the name of the Chief Executive Officer of a bank that went bust and had to be bailed out at public expense, albeit the person in question had been committed no crime, tort or breach of contract? I rather think not.

EPG

Socrates said:

Sweden's establishment parties show they would rather get together than allow any concessions to an anti-mass immigration party or allow the people to have their say in an election:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/27/us-sweden-politics-poll-idUSKBN0K505120141227

So what? It just means anti-immigrants post-neo-Nazis can't get a majority of those who represent the Swedish people to appease them. Sorry, but that's democracy - though I am aware that racists have often tried to circumvent that annoyingly bourgeois construct.

HYUFD

How Labour blocked Miliband from taking a bigger role in No campaign in favour of Brown and how Cameron would have resigned if it was Yes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11311537/Revealed-Out-of-touch-Ed-Miliband-was-barred-from-appearing-at-final-rally-against-Scottish-independence.html

Bruce Anderson's offers a controversial view on how the Tories should resist full devomax and if necessary have a second referendum excluding 16-18 year olds and ensuring No regions remain in the Union if a Yes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11314336/England-must-be-resolute-and-save-the-Scots-from-self-destruction.html

Luckyguy1983

JosiasJessop said:

SeanT said:

JosiasJessop said:

SeanT said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

JosiasJessop said:

Agreed. But that is not where we are at, unless you know something we do not?

As far as I am aware there are no current prosecutions pending against the driver, for negligence or anything else. Until there is, he should not be named unless he agrees to it.

So whether the driver is named or not should simply depend on whether someone chooses to sue him, no matter how frivolous or vexatious the action? That seems an absurd way of deciding whether someone should be identified. In any event, it seems difficult to understand why anyone should have any expectation of privacy in respect of their participation in an incident of immense public interest which occurred in broad daylight in public and which caused several fatalities.

I can see why it is sensible to protect his identity for a few days, or even weeks, to let passions cool. But the policy of Glasgow Council is that his identity will be concealed for eternity: it will "never be revealed". Same goes for the two other binmen in the cabin!

This is bizarre, silly, and unfeasible, and gives rise to conspiracy theories.

If you cause an accident, however unwittingly, which kills six people, you can expect, eventually, to be identified in a free press; it is the public interest for people to know the truth about this horrible tragedy.

Naming him will only cause more conspiracy theories. It's the way conspiracy theorists work. The more information they have, the more they perversely twist it. We see it enough on this site.

"If you cause an accident,"

You are assuming he 'caused' the accident. That has yet to be ascertained. It may have been a mechanical failure as far as I'm aware at the moment.

"It is the public interest for people to know the truth about this horrible tragedy."

The driver's identity may (or may not) be relevant to the truth.

By your logic the public should never be told anything, ever, lest they twist it into a conspiracy theory, maybe about Muslim grooming or Westminster expenses scandals.

Idiot.

Sorry you think I'm being an idiot.

My logic is nothing of the sort, as should be obvious.

Your logic is self evidently tripe. More facts being in the public domain cannot but harm an inaccurate conspiracy theory. They can only add weight to an accurate one.

NickPalmer

SeanT said:

surbiton said:

SeanT said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

JosiasJessop said:

Agreed. But that is not where we are at, unless you know something we do not?

As far as I am aware there are no current prosecutions pending against the driver, for negligence or anything else. Until there is, he should not be named unless he agrees to it.

So whether the driver is named or not should simply depend on whether someone chooses to sue him, no matter how frivolous or vexatious the action? That seems an absurd way of deciding whether someone should be identified. In any event, it seems difficult to understand why anyone should have any expectation of privacy in respect of their participation in an incident of immense public interest which occurred in broad daylight in public and which caused several fatalities.

I can see why it is sensible to protect his identity for a few days, or even weeks, to let passions cool. But the policy of Glasgow Council is that his identity will be concealed for eternity: it will "never be revealed". Same goes for the two other binmen in the cabin!

This is bizarre, silly, and unfeasible, and gives rise to conspiracy theories.

If you cause an accident, however unwittingly, which kills six people, you can expect, eventually, to be identified in a free press; it is the public interest for people to know the truth about this horrible tragedy.

NOT the same topic:

What is your view regarding the identity of a man charged with rape ? Should that be revealed as it now ? What if he is found innocent ?

I was (as you know) falsely accused of rape. At the time (1987) my identity was protected by law; nonetheless I identified myself, and wrote articles about my experience.

I really don't know about anonymity. Ideally there should be no anonymity for anyone - plaintiffs or defendants. But given that plaintiffs have been awarded anonymity there needs to be some balance on the other side. However we have the problem that antifrank points out - whereby anonymity can prevent other victims coming forward when they see their own assailant charged.

My idea would be provisional anonymity. Most defendants would have their identity protected (up to conviction) but the police would be able to request that anonymity is lifted if they believe it would help build a case, or bring other victims forward, and judges would generally be expected to agree to this request.

Ooh, I'm so mature these days.

Seems a reasonable compromise. If I get in, I might propose it as a PMB (not just for rape, though - same principle applies to defendants generally).

Unlikely allies 'r' us.

HYUFD

Sir John Major tipped to lead talks on EU
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11314404/People-diary-Sir-John-Major-tipped-to-lead-talks-on-EU.html

JosiasJessop

Luckyguy1983 said:

<
Your logic is self evidently tripe. More facts being in the public domain cannot but harm an inaccurate conspiracy theory. They can only add weight to an accurate one.

Nope: the web is filled with sites where people ignore evidence that goes against their pet conspiracy theory, and only use evidence that suits them. As you well know.

As an aside: would you be in favour of details of full injuries (including pictures) of all victims in such incidents to be released publicly on the 'net? After all, it might reveal something?

Flightpath

SquareRoot said:

Socrates said:

@Richard_Tyndall

Flightpath is a not particularly bright troll, who spends most of his time just smearing UKIP as racist without evidence. It's best just to ignore him.

Socrates is a not particularly bright troll, who spends most of his time just smearing the EU and anything UKIP don't like without evidence (evidence available if required). It's best just to ignore him

Socrates is not particularly bright. Full Stop. After months of defending racist kippers he now finds his hero Carswell as the Mail says, ''Clacton MP Mr Carswell is the first senior Ukip politician to admit, in effect, that some of the party’s members are racist.''

and

''the difference in tone between rabble-rouser Mr Farage and intellectual Mr Carswell, who spent his childhood in Africa, will not go unnoticed.''

Who do kippers want to believe? Where does ukip want to go? Already we see a schism between traditional hatred filled kippers and the neokippers who merely want to ride its coat-tails to pursue a totally opposite liberal agenda. Carswell wants to leave the EU for totally different reasons to the foreigner hating kippers that Farage relies on. In or out of the EU immigration would be little different as long as we have a successful economy and under carswell it would be clearly be little different.
I struggle to find a single one of Farage's recent pronouncements that Carswell agrees with, from breast feeding to traffic jams to rough diamonds. Its a pity on the obvious issue of Polish neo nazis that he feels he must be silent.

JosiasJessop

Life_ina_market_town said:

JosiasJessop said:

If the media and public had a goods track record of reporting and behaving responsibly with such information, I might agree.

Sadly they do not.

What interest is it to you, or I, of the man's name if he has done nothing wrong? Yet if he is named people will judge him guilty, as we have seen so many times before.

Would satisfying the public's sick curiosity be worth a man's suicide, for instance?

The fallacy of this approach is twofold. Firstly, it does not follow from the fact that some people may draw wholly unreasonable or capricious conclusions from a statement that it should not be published if a reasonable man would not draw such imputations. Secondly, you seem to think freedom of speech is a wholly instrumental value, which should be governed by whether individuals have a "need" or "interest" (presumably to be judged by an organ of the state) rather than a substantive value, where it is presumed that information can be published unless its publication is otherwise unlawful. There is no 'sick curiosity' (as you put it) in knowing the identities of those involved in fatal accidents of substantive public interest.

The suicide point has some value to it, but would it justify a refusal to publish the name of the Chief Executive Officer of a bank that went bust and had to be bailed out at public expense, albeit the person in question had been committed no crime, tort or breach of contract? I rather think not.

"There is no 'sick curiosity' (as you put it) in knowing the identities of those involved in fatal accidents of substantive public interest."

I disagree, and the last thread gave illustrative examples of the dangers.

As for your last paragraph: the name of a CEO is already on the public record; if the bank is named, the CEO will be known. Hopefully information on his wife, children and address would not be publicised unless it is of direct relevance.

JosiasJessop

Socrates said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sorry you think I'm being an idiot.

My logic is nothing of the sort, as should be obvious.

Your logic is completely idiotic. "The public shouldn't be provided with information, because then they might form conclusions we disagree with" is completely antithetical to a free, open society. There might be good reasons to protect the accused's anonymity in controversial cases but your argument wasn't one of them.

That is not my argument.

rcs1000

There are very few genuine trolls on this site. A troll is someone who says things they don't believe in, in order to create a reaction or argument.

Socrates is not a troll. Nor is flightpath.

Both of them genuinely believe what they are arguing for.

Some people, who shall remain nameless, have occasionally done some truly inspired trolling.

rcs1000

Ha! I've just discovered another pb.com poster is a published author, joining the ranks of SeanT, Morris Dancer and test.

Unless they out themselves, their secret is safe with me. Unless I've had a few drinks.

Richard_Tyndall

rcs1000 said:

There are very few genuine trolls on this site. A troll is someone who says things they don't believe in, in order to create a reaction or argument.

Socrates is not a troll. Nor is flightpath.

Both of them genuinely believe what they are arguing for.

Some people, who shall remain nameless, have occasionally done some truly inspired trolling.

To be fair Flightpath isn't bright enough to be a troll. Most of his arguments are so fatuous and illogical that the over-riding feeling they inspire is one of pity.

Socrates and I disagree on a number of issues including his specific antipathy to islam - as opposed to my antipathy to all religions equally - but he does argue cogently and carefully so that even if you disagree with his conclusions you can see the basis for his arguments. He also has the great advantage over Flightpath of not being a party fanatic.

rcs1000

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

There are very few genuine trolls on this site. A troll is someone who says things they don't believe in, in order to create a reaction or argument.

Socrates is not a troll. Nor is flightpath.

Both of them genuinely believe what they are arguing for.

Some people, who shall remain nameless, have occasionally done some truly inspired trolling.

To be fair Flightpath isn't bright enough to be a troll. Most of his arguments are so fatuous and illogical that the over-riding feeling they inspire is one of pity.

Socrates and I disagree on a number of issues including his specific antipathy to islam - as opposed to my antipathy to all religions equally - but he does argue cogently and carefully so that even if you disagree with his conclusions you can see the basis for his arguments. He also has the great advantage over Flightpath of not being a party fanatic.

I don't like people claiming anyone of this site is "not bright enough". We disagree about things, because most problems are hard, and require trade offs, and we all have different priorities and prejudices.

isam

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

How Labour blocked Miliband from taking a bigger role in No campaign in favour of Brown and how Cameron would have resigned if it was Yes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11311537/Revealed-Out-of-touch-Ed-Miliband-was-barred-from-appearing-at-final-rally-against-Scottish-independence.html

Bruce Anderson's offers a controversial view on how the Tories should resist full devomax and if necessary have a second referendum excluding 16-18 year olds and ensuring No regions remain in the Union if a Yes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11314336/England-must-be-resolute-and-save-the-Scots-from-self-destruction.html

*cough*

I pointed out a year ago, on pb, that Cameron would of course resign if he lost the referendum. Many on here disputed this.

Now here it is, plainly admitted, in black and white.

I shall be magnanimous in my intellectual victory.

CHORTLE

fair's fair, you did

Luckyguy1983

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

<
Your logic is self evidently tripe. More facts being in the public domain cannot but harm an inaccurate conspiracy theory. They can only add weight to an accurate one.

Nope: the web is filled with sites where people ignore evidence that goes against their pet conspiracy theory, and only use evidence that suits them. As you well know.

As an aside: would you be in favour of details of full injuries (including pictures) of all victims in such incidents to be released publicly on the 'net? After all, it might reveal something?

Oh, I quite agree on the biased and selective websites. Among them are the BBC, The Telegraph, and all our best loved media outlets. The principle remains valid. More facts cannot aid a theory that they do not support.

rcs1000

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

<
Your logic is self evidently tripe. More facts being in the public domain cannot but harm an inaccurate conspiracy theory. They can only add weight to an accurate one.

Nope: the web is filled with sites where people ignore evidence that goes against their pet conspiracy theory, and only use evidence that suits them. As you well know.

As an aside: would you be in favour of details of full injuries (including pictures) of all victims in such incidents to be released publicly on the 'net? After all, it might reveal something?

Oh, I quite agree on the biased and selective websites. Among them are the BBC, The Telegraph, and all our best loved media outlets. The principle remains valid. More facts cannot aid a theory that they do not support.

Facts? You can prove anything with 'facts'.

Richard_Tyndall

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

There are very few genuine trolls on this site. A troll is someone who says things they don't believe in, in order to create a reaction or argument.

Socrates is not a troll. Nor is flightpath.

Both of them genuinely believe what they are arguing for.

Some people, who shall remain nameless, have occasionally done some truly inspired trolling.

To be fair Flightpath isn't bright enough to be a troll. Most of his arguments are so fatuous and illogical that the over-riding feeling they inspire is one of pity.

Socrates and I disagree on a number of issues including his specific antipathy to islam - as opposed to my antipathy to all religions equally - but he does argue cogently and carefully so that even if you disagree with his conclusions you can see the basis for his arguments. He also has the great advantage over Flightpath of not being a party fanatic.

I don't like people claiming anyone of this site is "not bright enough". We disagree about things, because most problems are hard, and require trade offs, and we all have different priorities and prejudices.

The problem is not the opinion but the incoherent and partial way it is expressed. You and I disagree on things and, as I said, Socrates and I have large areas of disagreement such as AGW. But both of you can put forward cogent and well grounded arguments to support your case. The same applies to the majority of posters on here. Flightpath never even bothers with this and is so wedded to his party's position on everything that he seems unable to even think for himself when it comes to arguing a case. That is why I view him with such disdain.

Luckyguy1983

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

<
Your logic is self evidently tripe. More facts being in the public domain cannot but harm an inaccurate conspiracy theory. They can only add weight to an accurate one.

Nope: the web is filled with sites where people ignore evidence that goes against their pet conspiracy theory, and only use evidence that suits them. As you well know.

As an aside: would you be in favour of details of full injuries (including pictures) of all victims in such incidents to be released publicly on the 'net? After all, it might reveal something?

Oh, I quite agree on the biased and selective websites. Among them are the BBC, The Telegraph, and all our best loved media outlets. The principle remains valid. More facts cannot aid a theory that they do not support.

Facts? You can prove anything with 'facts'.

I quite agree, I merely dispute that the more facts that emerge into the public domain, the more that untrue conspiracies flourish. What flourishes tends rather to be the truth (grooming gangs).

CD13

rcs1000,

"Ha! I've just discovered another pb.com poster is a published author, joining the ranks of SeanT, Morris Dancer and test."

If that's "An ever rolling stream", it's me - courtesy of Wild Wolf publications, but I suspect I'll not be rolling in riches on the royalties.

As regards the Glasgow tragedy, we'll no doubt find out the full facts soon enough. Otherwise, we'll all put our own favourite interpretation on it.

Luckyguy1983

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

How Labour blocked Miliband from taking a bigger role in No campaign in favour of Brown and how Cameron would have resigned if it was Yes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11311537/Revealed-Out-of-touch-Ed-Miliband-was-barred-from-appearing-at-final-rally-against-Scottish-independence.html

Bruce Anderson's offers a controversial view on how the Tories should resist full devomax and if necessary have a second referendum excluding 16-18 year olds and ensuring No regions remain in the Union if a Yes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11314336/England-must-be-resolute-and-save-the-Scots-from-self-destruction.html

*cough*

I pointed out a year ago, on pb, that Cameron would of course resign if he lost the referendum. Many on here disputed this.

Now here it is, plainly admitted, in black and white.

I shall be magnanimous in my intellectual victory.

CHORTLE

Without the aid of a Tardis and a dimension where 'Yes' was victorious, we can't be sure that he would have. If there had not been a Cameronite successor with higher ratings than him, I can't see that he would have gone.

HurstLlama

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

<
Your logic is self evidently tripe. More facts being in the public domain cannot but harm an inaccurate conspiracy theory. They can only add weight to an accurate one.

Nope: the web is filled with sites where people ignore evidence that goes against their pet conspiracy theory, and only use evidence that suits them. As you well know.

As an aside: would you be in favour of details of full injuries (including pictures) of all victims in such incidents to be released publicly on the 'net? After all, it might reveal something?

Oh, I quite agree on the biased and selective websites. Among them are the BBC, The Telegraph, and all our best loved media outlets. The principle remains valid. More facts cannot aid a theory that they do not support.

Facts? You can prove anything with 'facts'.

Oh, for a Like Button.

TheScreamingEagles

For those suffering from polling withdrawal

While 39% of those polled said they voted Lib Dem in 2010, just 16.9% intend to vote for Clegg’s party in 2015. Labour has seen a growth in support from 24.3% in 2010 to 31.1% today – becoming the most popular party for LGBT voters.

However, the prime beneficiary from the decline in support for the Lib Dems is the Greens, who have seen their support grow within the community from 3.8% in 2010 16.5% today.

Support for the Conservatives has also more than doubled from 10.4% in 2010 to 23% today, while SNP support among Scottish gay voters has grown from 18% in 2010 to 43% today.

Just 1.62% of LGBT voters say they will vote UKIP, up from 0.2% in 2010. UKIP is the only UK wide party which officially opposed equal marriage in England and Wales.

Despite a poor showing for the Conservatives as a party, when readers were asked which party leader they would prefer to be be Prime Minister after 2015, David Cameron took a lead over all his opponents.

36.7% of PinkNews readers want Cameron to remain Prime Minister, while 28.6% would rather
see Miliband in charge, 17.1% Clegg, 15.7% Bennett and 1.84% Farage.

Mr Cameron was significantly more popular than his party with gay voters – likely because 84.6% of gay voters said that they would vote against their local MP if they voted against the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/

philiph

CD13 said:

rcs1000,

"Ha! I've just discovered another pb.com poster is a published author, joining the ranks of SeanT, Morris Dancer and test."

If that's "An ever rolling stream", it's me - courtesy of Wild Wolf publications, but I suspect I'll not be rolling in riches on the royalties.

As regards the Glasgow tragedy, we'll no doubt find out the full facts soon enough. Otherwise, we'll all put our own favourite interpretation on it.

Or me for Reliable Roses or as a co author of the last RHS dictionary of plants.

Richard_Tyndall

TheScreamingEagles said:

For those suffering from polling withdrawal

While 39% of those polled said they voted Lib Dem in 2010, just 16.9% intend to vote for Clegg’s party in 2015. Labour has seen a growth in support from 24.3% in 2010 to 31.1% today – becoming the most popular party for LGBT voters.

However, the prime beneficiary from the decline in support for the Lib Dems is the Greens, who have seen their support grow within the community from 3.8% in 2010 16.5% today.

Support for the Conservatives has also more than doubled from 10.4% in 2010 to 23% today, while SNP support among Scottish gay voters has grown from 18% in 2010 to 43% today.

Just 1.62% of LGBT voters say they will vote UKIP, up from 0.2% in 2010. UKIP is the only UK wide party which officially opposed equal marriage in England and Wales.

Despite a poor showing for the Conservatives as a party, when readers were asked which party leader they would prefer to be be Prime Minister after 2015, David Cameron took a lead over all his opponents.

36.7% of PinkNews readers want Cameron to remain Prime Minister, while 28.6% would rather
see Miliband in charge, 17.1% Clegg, 15.7% Bennett and 1.84% Farage.

Mr Cameron was significantly more popular than his party with gay voters – likely because 84.6% of gay voters said that they would vote against their local MP if they voted against the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/

I still think UKIP opposing Gay Marriage was a stupid decision. As a perception issue it goes far beyond just the LGBT community and impacts in the wider population, playing into the (false in my opinion) idea of UKIP intolerance in general.

Much as I am pleased they have now said they will not seek a reversal of the law changes, I still wish they would be more forthright as a party in their support for LGBT issues, starting with admitting they were wrong to oppose Gay marriage.

isam

TheScreamingEagles said:

For those suffering from polling withdrawal

While 39% of those polled said they voted Lib Dem in 2010, just 16.9% intend to vote for Clegg’s party in 2015. Labour has seen a growth in support from 24.3% in 2010 to 31.1% today – becoming the most popular party for LGBT voters.

However, the prime beneficiary from the decline in support for the Lib Dems is the Greens, who have seen their support grow within the community from 3.8% in 2010 16.5% today.

Support for the Conservatives has also more than doubled from 10.4% in 2010 to 23% today, while SNP support among Scottish gay voters has grown from 18% in 2010 to 43% today.

Just 1.62% of LGBT voters say they will vote UKIP, up from 0.2% in 2010. UKIP is the only UK wide party which officially opposed equal marriage in England and Wales.

Despite a poor showing for the Conservatives as a party, when readers were asked which party leader they would prefer to be be Prime Minister after 2015, David Cameron took a lead over all his opponents.

36.7% of PinkNews readers want Cameron to remain Prime Minister, while 28.6% would rather
see Miliband in charge, 17.1% Clegg, 15.7% Bennett and 1.84% Farage.

Mr Cameron was significantly more popular than his party with gay voters – likely because 84.6% of gay voters said that they would vote against their local MP if they voted against the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/

Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobby

If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing

TheScreamingEagles

Re that PinkNews poll.

Means Brighton Pavillion should be a nailed on Green Hold.

TheScreamingEagles

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

For those suffering from polling withdrawal

While 39% of those polled said they voted Lib Dem in 2010, just 16.9% intend to vote for Clegg’s party in 2015. Labour has seen a growth in support from 24.3% in 2010 to 31.1% today – becoming the most popular party for LGBT voters.

However, the prime beneficiary from the decline in support for the Lib Dems is the Greens, who have seen their support grow within the community from 3.8% in 2010 16.5% today.

Support for the Conservatives has also more than doubled from 10.4% in 2010 to 23% today, while SNP support among Scottish gay voters has grown from 18% in 2010 to 43% today.

Just 1.62% of LGBT voters say they will vote UKIP, up from 0.2% in 2010. UKIP is the only UK wide party which officially opposed equal marriage in England and Wales.

Despite a poor showing for the Conservatives as a party, when readers were asked which party leader they would prefer to be be Prime Minister after 2015, David Cameron took a lead over all his opponents.

36.7% of PinkNews readers want Cameron to remain Prime Minister, while 28.6% would rather
see Miliband in charge, 17.1% Clegg, 15.7% Bennett and 1.84% Farage.

Mr Cameron was significantly more popular than his party with gay voters – likely because 84.6% of gay voters said that they would vote against their local MP if they voted against the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/

I still think UKIP opposing Gay Marriage was a stupid decision. As a perception issue it goes far beyond just the LGBT community and impacts in the wider population, playing into the (false in my opinion) idea of UKIP intolerance in general.

Much as I am pleased they have now said they will not seek a reversal of the law changes, I still wish they would be more forthright as a party in their support for LGBT issues, starting with admitting they were wrong to oppose Gay marriage.

Like you, I despair at some of the appalling attitudes that still exist in our respective parties when it comes to LGBT issues.

TheScreamingEagles

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

For those suffering from polling withdrawal

While 39% of those polled said they voted Lib Dem in 2010, just 16.9% intend to vote for Clegg’s party in 2015. Labour has seen a growth in support from 24.3% in 2010 to 31.1% today – becoming the most popular party for LGBT voters.

However, the prime beneficiary from the decline in support for the Lib Dems is the Greens, who have seen their support grow within the community from 3.8% in 2010 16.5% today.

Support for the Conservatives has also more than doubled from 10.4% in 2010 to 23% today, while SNP support among Scottish gay voters has grown from 18% in 2010 to 43% today.

Just 1.62% of LGBT voters say they will vote UKIP, up from 0.2% in 2010. UKIP is the only UK wide party which officially opposed equal marriage in England and Wales.

Despite a poor showing for the Conservatives as a party, when readers were asked which party leader they would prefer to be be Prime Minister after 2015, David Cameron took a lead over all his opponents.

36.7% of PinkNews readers want Cameron to remain Prime Minister, while 28.6% would rather
see Miliband in charge, 17.1% Clegg, 15.7% Bennett and 1.84% Farage.

Mr Cameron was significantly more popular than his party with gay voters – likely because 84.6% of gay voters said that they would vote against their local MP if they voted against the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/

Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobby

If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing

Because "straight" people generally don't have to live with intolerance that the LGBT community have to.

Some people have been murdered/killed for being gay in the recent past in this country for being LGBT.

Speedy

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

For those suffering from polling withdrawal

While 39% of those polled said they voted Lib Dem in 2010, just 16.9% intend to vote for Clegg’s party in 2015. Labour has seen a growth in support from 24.3% in 2010 to 31.1% today – becoming the most popular party for LGBT voters.

However, the prime beneficiary from the decline in support for the Lib Dems is the Greens, who have seen their support grow within the community from 3.8% in 2010 16.5% today.

Support for the Conservatives has also more than doubled from 10.4% in 2010 to 23% today, while SNP support among Scottish gay voters has grown from 18% in 2010 to 43% today.

Just 1.62% of LGBT voters say they will vote UKIP, up from 0.2% in 2010. UKIP is the only UK wide party which officially opposed equal marriage in England and Wales.

Despite a poor showing for the Conservatives as a party, when readers were asked which party leader they would prefer to be be Prime Minister after 2015, David Cameron took a lead over all his opponents.

36.7% of PinkNews readers want Cameron to remain Prime Minister, while 28.6% would rather
see Miliband in charge, 17.1% Clegg, 15.7% Bennett and 1.84% Farage.

Mr Cameron was significantly more popular than his party with gay voters – likely because 84.6% of gay voters said that they would vote against their local MP if they voted against the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/

I still think UKIP opposing Gay Marriage was a stupid decision. As a perception issue it goes far beyond just the LGBT community and impacts in the wider population, playing into the (false in my opinion) idea of UKIP intolerance in general.

Much as I am pleased they have now said they will not seek a reversal of the law changes, I still wish they would be more forthright as a party in their support for LGBT issues, starting with admitting they were wrong to oppose Gay marriage.

I have a contrary opinion, gay marriage was what led social conservatives to break away from the Tories and towards UKIP.
Do you remember the huge fuss over it within the Tory party when it came to a vote?

Gay marriage was one of the 3 main political policy events that lead UKIP to surge, the other two were the eurozone crisis and immigration. It added an extra policy in which UKIP was more in tune with Tory voters than the Tory party.

CD13

philiph,

"Or me for Reliable Roses or as a co author of the last RHS dictionary of plants."

Now that is true class.

HYUFD

RT The voters who have gone to UKIP have generally been socially conservative, liberals have the 3 main parties and the Greens to choose from

AlastairMeeks

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

For those suffering from polling withdrawal

While 39% of those polled said they voted Lib Dem in 2010, just 16.9% intend to vote for Clegg’s party in 2015. Labour has seen a growth in support from 24.3% in 2010 to 31.1% today – becoming the most popular party for LGBT voters.

However, the prime beneficiary from the decline in support for the Lib Dems is the Greens, who have seen their support grow within the community from 3.8% in 2010 16.5% today.

Support for the Conservatives has also more than doubled from 10.4% in 2010 to 23% today, while SNP support among Scottish gay voters has grown from 18% in 2010 to 43% today.

Just 1.62% of LGBT voters say they will vote UKIP, up from 0.2% in 2010. UKIP is the only UK wide party which officially opposed equal marriage in England and Wales.

Despite a poor showing for the Conservatives as a party, when readers were asked which party leader they would prefer to be be Prime Minister after 2015, David Cameron took a lead over all his opponents.

36.7% of PinkNews readers want Cameron to remain Prime Minister, while 28.6% would rather
see Miliband in charge, 17.1% Clegg, 15.7% Bennett and 1.84% Farage.

Mr Cameron was significantly more popular than his party with gay voters – likely because 84.6% of gay voters said that they would vote against their local MP if they voted against the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/

Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobby

If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing

It affects my entire life profoundly on a daily basis. It's like walking against a crowd coming out of a railway station. Everyone coming towards you is oblivious to your very different experience of the journey.

Charles

rcs1000 said:

Ha! I've just discovered another pb.com poster is a published author, joining the ranks of SeanT, Morris Dancer and test.

Unless they out themselves, their secret is safe with me. Unless I've had a few drinks.

@NickPalmer is, and I believe @CD13 is one as well (albeit self-published, I believe, although not sure the distinction is relevant in the days of e-books)

HYUFD

SeanT Yes, looks like you were right and Dave would have done the 'decent thing'

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

O/T
Interesting piece on ISIS
http://juergentodenhoefer.de/seven-impressions-of-a-difficult-journey/?lang=en

isam

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

For those suffering from polling withdrawal

While 39% of those polled said they voted Lib Dem in 2010, just 16.9% intend to vote for Clegg’s party in 2015. Labour has seen a growth in support from 24.3% in 2010 to 31.1% today – becoming the most popular party for LGBT voters.

However, the prime beneficiary from the decline in support for the Lib Dems is the Greens, who have seen their support grow within the community from 3.8% in 2010 16.5% today.

Support for the Conservatives has also more than doubled from 10.4% in 2010 to 23% today, while SNP support among Scottish gay voters has grown from 18% in 2010 to 43% today.

Just 1.62% of LGBT voters say they will vote UKIP, up from 0.2% in 2010. UKIP is the only UK wide party which officially opposed equal marriage in England and Wales.

Despite a poor showing for the Conservatives as a party, when readers were asked which party leader they would prefer to be be Prime Minister after 2015, David Cameron took a lead over all his opponents.

36.7% of PinkNews readers want Cameron to remain Prime Minister, while 28.6% would rather
see Miliband in charge, 17.1% Clegg, 15.7% Bennett and 1.84% Farage.

Mr Cameron was significantly more popular than his party with gay voters – likely because 84.6% of gay voters said that they would vote against their local MP if they voted against the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/

Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobby

If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing

Because "straight" people generally don't have to live with intolerance that the LGBT community have to.

Some people have been murdered/killed for being gay in the recent past in this country for being LGBT.

I don't know that follows really.

I used to live in Brighton, which is one of the most LGBT tolerant/friendly places on earth, and I had never seen as many LGBT groups/nights... Why bother if you are living in a very tolerant place?

isam

antifrank said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

For those suffering from polling withdrawal

While 39% of those polled said they voted Lib Dem in 2010, just 16.9% intend to vote for Clegg’s party in 2015. Labour has seen a growth in support from 24.3% in 2010 to 31.1% today – becoming the most popular party for LGBT voters.

However, the prime beneficiary from the decline in support for the Lib Dems is the Greens, who have seen their support grow within the community from 3.8% in 2010 16.5% today.

Support for the Conservatives has also more than doubled from 10.4% in 2010 to 23% today, while SNP support among Scottish gay voters has grown from 18% in 2010 to 43% today.

Just 1.62% of LGBT voters say they will vote UKIP, up from 0.2% in 2010. UKIP is the only UK wide party which officially opposed equal marriage in England and Wales.

Despite a poor showing for the Conservatives as a party, when readers were asked which party leader they would prefer to be be Prime Minister after 2015, David Cameron took a lead over all his opponents.

36.7% of PinkNews readers want Cameron to remain Prime Minister, while 28.6% would rather
see Miliband in charge, 17.1% Clegg, 15.7% Bennett and 1.84% Farage.

Mr Cameron was significantly more popular than his party with gay voters – likely because 84.6% of gay voters said that they would vote against their local MP if they voted against the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/

Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobby

If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing

It affects my entire life profoundly on a daily basis. It's like walking against a crowd coming out of a railway station. Everyone coming towards you is oblivious to your very different experience of the journey.

I thought LGBT people were the same as everyone else except for their sexual preference?

TheScreamingEagles

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

For those suffering from polling withdrawal


http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/

Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobby

If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing

Because "straight" people generally don't have to live with intolerance that the LGBT community have to.

Some people have been murdered/killed for being gay in the recent past in this country for being LGBT.

I don't know that follows really.

I used to live in Brighton, which is one of the most LGBT tolerant/friendly places on earth, and I had never seen as many LGBT groups/nights... Why bother if you are living in a very tolerant place?

The same reason The Village had to start doing LGBT nights.

Straight women started coming to the Village to avoid straight men hassling them in normal clubs.

The straight men soon found out, and started to visit the Village to go after the women.

The straight men then got upset when the gay men started hitting on them, so it had to be explained to them, if you go to a gay club, you should expect to be hit on.

But to avoid any confusion and stop the place being full of straight people, they had special nights purely designed for the gays (and me)

Richard_Tyndall

isam said:

I don't know that follows really.

I used to live in Brighton, which is one of the most LGBT tolerant/friendly places on earth, and I had never seen as many LGBT groups/nights... Why bother if you are living in a very tolerant place?

In part because there are still a lot of straight people who want gays to be, at best, seen and not heard. An openly gay couple in a pub or club - especially after the alcohol has flowed and brought out some of the inner intolerances in people - are quite possibly going to suffer abuse or worse. It is wrong and it is a shame but they would probably feel more comfortable in situations where they know they are not likely going to suffer that abuse.

The concern should be that our society still makes such things necessary, even in a place like Brighton.

CD13

Charles,

"@NickPalmer is, and I believe @CD13 is one as well (albeit self-published, I believe, although not sure the distinction is relevant in the days of e-books)."

It's not self-published, I wouldn't have the technical know-how. Wild Wolf specialise in "dark and edgy". And there was me thinking it was scientific and light.

Richard_Tyndall

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

Ha! I've just discovered another pb.com poster is a published author, joining the ranks of SeanT, Morris Dancer and test.

Unless they out themselves, their secret is safe with me. Unless I've had a few drinks.

@NickPalmer is, and I believe @CD13 is one as well (albeit self-published, I believe, although not sure the distinction is relevant in the days of e-books)

I was until my publisher shut down the company and walked off with the royalties a couple of years ago. Since then I have put the writing on the back burner but seeing Robert's posting and also seeing that my book is still on my Kindle account but no longer available anywhere else has led me to the decision that I need to start hitting the publishers and magazines again.

TheScreamingEagles

CD13 said:

Charles,

"@NickPalmer is, and I believe @CD13 is one as well (albeit self-published, I believe, although not sure the distinction is relevant in the days of e-books)."

It's not self-published, I wouldn't have the technical know-how. Wild Wolf specialise in "dark and edgy". And there was me thinking it was scientific and light.

Dark and edgy? That's code for Slash Fiction!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash_fiction

Charles

antifrank said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

For those suffering from polling withdrawal

While 39% of those polled said they voted Lib Dem in 2010, just 16.9% intend to vote for Clegg’s party in 2015. Labour has seen a growth in support from 24.3% in 2010 to 31.1% today – becoming the most popular party for LGBT voters.

However, the prime beneficiary from the decline in support for the Lib Dems is the Greens, who have seen their support grow within the community from 3.8% in 2010 16.5% today.

Support for the Conservatives has also more than doubled from 10.4% in 2010 to 23% today, while SNP support among Scottish gay voters has grown from 18% in 2010 to 43% today.

Just 1.62% of LGBT voters say they will vote UKIP, up from 0.2% in 2010. UKIP is the only UK wide party which officially opposed equal marriage in England and Wales.

Despite a poor showing for the Conservatives as a party, when readers were asked which party leader they would prefer to be be Prime Minister after 2015, David Cameron took a lead over all his opponents.

36.7% of PinkNews readers want Cameron to remain Prime Minister, while 28.6% would rather
see Miliband in charge, 17.1% Clegg, 15.7% Bennett and 1.84% Farage.

Mr Cameron was significantly more popular than his party with gay voters – likely because 84.6% of gay voters said that they would vote against their local MP if they voted against the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/

Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobby

If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing

It affects my entire life profoundly on a daily basis. It's like walking against a crowd coming out of a railway station. Everyone coming towards you is oblivious to your very different experience of the journey.

If you don't mind my asking, in what sort of way? (I'm thinking about the current world rather than some of the unpleasant attitudes that you no doubt faced when you were younger).

I might pinch the simile though!