OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
I'm still trying to understand how two men can have sex with a woman immediately after each other, and one's a rapist and the other isn't, when no coercion was involved.
It seems the jury (and media) accepted in this case that going back to the room with the first guy was enough consent... if there had been no second guy the first would no doubt have been found guilty
How about... there was consent to have sex with the guy she picked up in a bar. There wasn't consent to have sex with some random other bloke who turned up, saw it all on display, and decided to stick it in without so much as a by-your-leave.
Totally O/T but I've just had a "cold call" from someone offering to get me compensation for bad investment advice.
Stupidly was a bit short and didn't get all the details, but I'm sure many here would be interested!
why would anyone need that? you should tell them to eff off.
If you have a complaint you complain to the source of the advice, there's an FCA regulated approach for handling that & if you haven't got a satisfactory outcome for most things you can complain to the Financial Ombudsman service.
Anyone calling up like that is as bad as the PPI ambulance chasers - do it yourself if you have been wronged and then you won't be handing over money to a spiv.
While in principle I agree, there is a good deal of "investment" advice on pb, and if we got a decent mix together, could prove complicated!
A bit like the guy in one of Spike Milligan's book who died, leaving all his money to himself!
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
I'm still trying to understand how two men can have sex with a woman immediately after each other, and one's a rapist and the other isn't, when no coercion was involved.
It seems the jury (and media) accepted in this case that going back to the room with the first guy was enough consent... if there had been no second guy the first would no doubt have been found guilty
How about... there was consent to have sex with the guy she picked up in a bar. There wasn't consent to have sex with some random other bloke who turned up, saw it all on display, and decided to stick it in without so much as a by-your-leave.
Doesn't she say she cant remember any of it?
...and don't both the blokes say she consented to sex with Evans?
Yes, there's no point in Green / SNP / PC doing boilerplate criticism of Cameron.
They will be trying to win votes - and that means win votes off Lab and LD which is where their votes will come from.
Indeed, Ed Miliband will be slaughtered.
Indeed. How refreshing for him.
Those respective debating points in full:
SNP: "Labour are failing in Scotland" PC: "Labour are failing in Wales" Greens: "Labour should be Labour and renationalise the railways, pay a living wage etc" LD: "Only by having Vince Cable in the Cabinet can you stop manic lunatics wrecking our economy." Labour: "The NHS will completely collapse by June if we are not elected." UKIP: "All the others would let most of Turkey move here." Tory: No show
A good summation except it should read SNP "Labour failed in Scotland".
As the Scottish electorate booted them out in 2007 and have since been rather pleased with SNP government.
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
I wasn't aware that there is a minimum that has to be achieved. DUP probably gets more votes than PC, for example.
What would be awesome is if the broadcasters sprang a surprise on the leaders in the first debate, with Anne Robinson as the host for an impromptu performance of the Weakest Link, with politically relevant factual questions.
Who'd be the cretin who contributed nothing aside from saying 'bank' every time it came to them, and was outraged this contribution was not noted in the voting?
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
I'm still trying to understand how two men can have sex with a woman immediately after each other, and one's a rapist and the other isn't, when no coercion was involved.
It seems the jury (and media) accepted in this case that going back to the room with the first guy was enough consent... if there had been no second guy the first would no doubt have been found guilty
How about... there was consent to have sex with the guy she picked up in a bar. There wasn't consent to have sex with some random other bloke who turned up, saw it all on display, and decided to stick it in without so much as a by-your-leave.
Doesn't she say she cant remember any of it?
...and don't both the blokes say she consented to sex with Evans?
Can't use evidence from the other bloke.
TBH, case as stated, and I wasn't on the jury, I've not formed a high opinion of anyone involved.
Not even the hall porter, receptionist or whatever his designation is!
He could have avoided the news speculation on what secrets he took to his grave, by giving either full statements or interviews to the abuse committee that have been taking evidence.
Last year he was walking unaided in and out of cars avoiding reporters, yet seems to have chosen not to have found the time to provide a full frank statement. Instead it was a “received a "substantial bundle of papers" from Mr Dickens, which he had asked Home Office officials to examine and "report back to me" if "action needed to be taken".…”
Did he not remember any of the details or names etc in the file? Since Dickens announced in the media that he was going to pass the file to Brittan it would not have come as a surprise.
All the reports from friends indicate that he had known about his cancer for some while and that it was not an unexpected death.
We now have his reputation being tarnished hours after his death, something he could have at least minimised by being seen to be helpful. Unless of course it transpires that he has provided a thorough statement or been interviewed by the committee. For his reputation I hope he did those things. Alas it looks like he did not do the right thing.
All Leaders debate each other separately in one on one debates.
How about a revival of 'we are the champions' with Ron Pickering to host
How about ' It's a Knockout ' ? Nick Clegg can be everyone else's joker.
You only need to look at the low standard of modern TV programming, dominated as it is with absurd lack of talent contests, to realise that this is exactly what the TV channels would like. All the TV channels want is ratings and their political correspondents want to look important.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
I'm still trying to understand how two men can have sex with a woman immediately after each other, and one's a rapist and the other isn't, when no coercion was involved.
Seems daft when phrased like that. As I understand it, the reasoning was: 1) Lad and lass meet, after meeting earlier in the night. Both are now sh1tfaced. They stagger back to hotel and bonk. 2) No crime committed. The return to the hotel is grounds for believing consent given. 3) Another lad turns up, not especially the worse for wear. His mates are at the window watching. 4) He bonks lass, who is still paralytic and unable to give reasonable consent. Crime committed.
The core problem is the UK has a binary law on this. Rape or Nor Rape.
More enlightened jurisdictions have the idea of Sexual Misconduct (what Wikileaks guy is charged with) where there is a middle group, still a crime but treated, and viewed by the public as intermediate.
Although the idea that the Great British Public could be so subtle in their interpretation and view of the law might be quite optomistic.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
I'm still trying to understand how two men can have sex with a woman immediately after each other, and one's a rapist and the other isn't, when no coercion was involved.
It seems the jury (and media) accepted in this case that going back to the room with the first guy was enough consent... if there had been no second guy the first would no doubt have been found guilty
How about... there was consent to have sex with the guy she picked up in a bar. There wasn't consent to have sex with some random other bloke who turned up, saw it all on display, and decided to stick it in without so much as a by-your-leave.
Doesn't she say she cant remember any of it?
...and don't both the blokes say she consented to sex with Evans?
Dunno, I haven't been following it closely. But even if you are a slag, there is a big difference between a one night stand and agreeing to take part in a group shagging scenario. And if he is so keen to get a job, why not apply at his local Wetherspoons?
Yes, there's no point in Green / SNP / PC doing boilerplate criticism of Cameron.
They will be trying to win votes - and that means win votes off Lab and LD which is where their votes will come from.
Indeed, Ed Miliband will be slaughtered.
Indeed. How refreshing for him.
Those respective debating points in full:
SNP: "Labour are failing in Scotland" PC: "Labour are failing in Wales" Greens: "Labour should be Labour and renationalise the railways, pay a living wage etc" LD: "Only by having Vince Cable in the Cabinet can you stop manic lunatics wrecking our economy." Labour: "The NHS will completely collapse by June if we are not elected." UKIP: "All the others would let most of Turkey move here." Tory: No show
A good summation except it should read SNP "Labour failed in Scotland".
and you should vote SNP in Scotland as we are planning to help Labour get back into power in the UK based on all we know about them.... Surely shome mishtake?
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
I wasn't aware that there is a minimum that has to be achieved. DUP probably gets more votes than PC, for example.
There isn't a minimum, the rules seem to be made up as we go along.
If I never hear from Vicky Price again I do not think my life will be diminished. I am not going to have a breakdown about it but I really don't think the BBC should be employing her to express a professional opinion about anything. She is a delusional scum bag.
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
Or more importantly, the DUP do not face competition from a Major Party in their Constituent Country which is included.
OT. I feel sorry for HRH Andrew. I was once working with a celeb who earlier that week had been exposed in a tabloid as having an affair with a bimbo. He said the worst part was thinking that everyone he met or who saw him on TV was looking at his groin.
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
Or more importantly, the DUP do not face competition from a Major Party in their Constituent Country which is included.
Or more importantly I've just made up a spurious reason for excluding one party while including another. It's all a big mess, isnt it? You have to hope that the Northern Ireland parties dont cry foul (after all they're all so crap you would have thought they'd want to avoid scrutiny where possible) but it they do then the broadcasters may have to go back to the drawing board.
Yes, there's no point in Green / SNP / PC doing boilerplate criticism of Cameron.
They will be trying to win votes - and that means win votes off Lab and LD which is where their votes will come from.
Indeed, Ed Miliband will be slaughtered.
Indeed. How refreshing for him.
Those respective debating points in full:
SNP: "Labour are failing in Scotland" PC: "Labour are failing in Wales" Greens: "Labour should be Labour and renationalise the railways, pay a living wage etc" LD: "Only by having Vince Cable in the Cabinet can you stop manic lunatics wrecking our economy." Labour: "The NHS will completely collapse by June if we are not elected." UKIP: "All the others would let most of Turkey move here." Tory: No show
A good summation except it should read SNP "Labour failed in Scotland".
and you should vote SNP in Scotland as we are planning to help Labour get back into power in the UK based on all we know about them.... Surely shome mishtake?
And it's conditional on Labour devolving EVERYTHING to Scotland. This is fairly well understood by at least 52% of the Scottish electorate.
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
Or more importantly, the DUP do not face competition from a Major Party in their Constituent Country which is included.
Coburn's profile since he won the 4 way fight (by about 0.5%) between the Greens, Liberals and a 3rd SNP to his MEP seat has pretty much killed UKIP off in Scotland. His buffoonery might be enough to get him another MEP gig though. He's Comedy Gold.
Ishmael..never said there are no mountains in Scotland..I know there are..I have climbed most of them Kle 4 Lotsa words to say exactly nowt..you should get a job in education..
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
Or more importantly, the DUP do not face competition from a Major Party in their Constituent Country which is included.
Or more importantly I've just made up a spurious reason for excluding one party while including another. It's all a big mess, isnt it? You have to hope that the Northern Ireland parties dont cry foul (after all they're all so crap you would have thought they'd want to avoid scrutiny where possible) but it they do then the broadcasters may have to go back to the drawing board.
It's all crazy when we have an independent electoral commission that has already made a clear distinction between minor and major parties. We should just have three debates with:
1) All parties 2) Major parties 3) Tories and Labour
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
I wasn't aware that there is a minimum that has to be achieved. DUP probably gets more votes than PC, for example.
There isn't a minimum, the rules seem to be made up as we go along.
Nothing wrong with that in theory, it's just a matter of finding the most reasonable arrangement. Obviously it would not please the SNP and PC to be excluded, but a reasonable arrangement could have been made without them purely on the nationwide aspect (Yes I know the Scottish Greens are a separate party), but with the broadcasters having conceded that point, the reasonableness of excluding the DUP and other NI parties becomes harder to justify. NI simply being a different sort of entity, a unique situation, which means not including them is reasonable, is the only justification I can see, and it is true to a point, but having the way the inclusion of everyone else has justified makes that a difficult point to make the official reason. Number of constituencies contested is a tricky one, as it's one I would have used to exclude the Greens (though they have increased the the number), but it's not such a great leap from Wales to NI numbers.
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
Or more importantly, the DUP do not face competition from a Major Party in their Constituent Country which is included.
Or more importantly I've just made up a spurious reason for excluding one party while including another. It's all a big mess, isnt it? You have to hope that the Northern Ireland parties dont cry foul (after all they're all so crap you would have thought they'd want to avoid scrutiny where possible) but it they do then the broadcasters may have to go back to the drawing board.
It's not spurious, it's the basis on how the Broadcast media are expected to maintain impartial and balanced coverage. The proposal means that either all Major Parties in a constituent country or none are in the debate.
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
Or more importantly, the DUP do not face competition from a Major Party in their Constituent Country which is included.
Or more importantly I've just made up a spurious reason for excluding one party while including another. It's all a big mess, isnt it? You have to hope that the Northern Ireland parties dont cry foul (after all they're all so crap you would have thought they'd want to avoid scrutiny where possible) but it they do then the broadcasters may have to go back to the drawing board.
It's all crazy when we have an independent electoral commission that has already made a clear distinction between minor and major parties. We should just have three debates with:
1) All parties 2) Major parties 3) Tories and Labour
It's just going to be a longer and more boring version of PMQs. More wind than light.
The risk of legal challenge to the debate format comes from a party credibly being able to claim that their exclusion is to their unfair detriment. The northern Irish parties are going to struggle with this (and I doubt they will try).
By including all the rest in two rounds of debates, the broadcasters will probably get away with the bit that is unfair on some other parties, the head to head between David Cameron and Ed Miliband. It's in none of the other parties' interests to see the debates not happen.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
I'm still trying to understand how two men can have sex with a woman immediately after each other, and one's a rapist and the other isn't, when no coercion was involved.
It seems the jury (and media) accepted in this case that going back to the room with the first guy was enough consent... if there had been no second guy the first would no doubt have been found guilty
How about... there was consent to have sex with the guy she picked up in a bar. There wasn't consent to have sex with some random other bloke who turned up, saw it all on display, and decided to stick it in without so much as a by-your-leave.
Doesn't she say she cant remember any of it?
...and don't both the blokes say she consented to sex with Evans?
Dunno, I haven't been following it closely. But even if you are a slag, there is a big difference between a one night stand and agreeing to take part in a group shagging scenario. And if he is so keen to get a job, why not apply at his local Wetherspoons?
The point is she agreed to both according to them and was too drunk to remember if she agreed to either according to her... some girls like two blokes at once, it isnt illegal, who are we to make a moral judgement?
Why should it matter what job he is applying for as long as he isn't a risk as a sex offender?
If he is a sex case then why put female staff/customers in Wetherspoons at risk?
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
Or more importantly, the DUP do not face competition from a Major Party in their Constituent Country which is included.
The DUP don't "even" fight all the seats in NI.
Indeed, every part of the NI Settlement means that elections are utterly meaningless. The constituencies are Gerrymandered to give the exact result they do (9 Unionist, 6 Sinn Fein, 2 SDLP and 1 Alliance) and will always be done in that way. Demographics are working against this balance but it's needs to be maintained.
The parties are required to firm a Sinn Fein/DUP coalition to be allowed to run the Assembly as well, not "have the choice to" are required to by the Irish and UK governments.
The really ironic thing is that although Gerrymandering is accepted and intentional, the boundaries of constituencies in Northern Ireland are not nearly as bizarre as they are in some parts of England.
Kle 4 Lotsa words to say exactly nowt..you should get a job in education..
I would dispute I said nowt, I think rambling as it was I exposed your faulty logic and base idiocy in this instance effectively enough as I was going for passion not conciseness hence the use of insults which I generally do my best to avoid, but as this very answer also shows, I would have no defence to your intimation that I use too many words to make a point. I am not a writer of any great merit, and brevity escapes me entirely on most occasions, fair enough.
That I am not better at compiling my thoughts is something I find regrettable but it is a fair point of criticism against my words. I shall assume in turn that as your own writings are demonstrably of greater quality, it emphasizes just how silly the point you were laughably attempting to make truly was, especially as you appear to have completely ignored several of the points that others more effectively than I am capable of.
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
Or more importantly, the DUP do not face competition from a Major Party in their Constituent Country which is included.
Or more importantly I've just made up a spurious reason for excluding one party while including another. It's all a big mess, isnt it? You have to hope that the Northern Ireland parties dont cry foul (after all they're all so crap you would have thought they'd want to avoid scrutiny where possible) but it they do then the broadcasters may have to go back to the drawing board.
It's all crazy when we have an independent electoral commission that has already made a clear distinction between minor and major parties. We should just have three debates with:
1) All parties 2) Major parties 3) Tories and Labour
You are assuming there is a direct correlation between major party status and being in debates. IIRC they said that minor parties should "sometimes" get substantial coverage. Just not all the time.
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
Or more importantly, the DUP do not face competition from a Major Party in their Constituent Country which is included.
Or more importantly I've just made up a spurious reason for excluding one party while including another. It's all a big mess, isnt it? You have to hope that the Northern Ireland parties dont cry foul (after all they're all so crap you would have thought they'd want to avoid scrutiny where possible) but it they do then the broadcasters may have to go back to the drawing board.
It's all crazy when we have an independent electoral commission that has already made a clear distinction between minor and major parties. We should just have three debates with:
1) All parties 2) Major parties 3) Tories and Labour
You are assuming there is a direct correlation between major party status and being in debates. IIRC they said that minor parties should "sometimes" get substantial coverage. Just not all the time.
Which is why they should get in one debate, but one less than the major parties. Hence my solution.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
I'm still trying to understand how two men can have sex with a woman immediately after each other, and one's a rapist and the other isn't, when no coercion was involved.
Seems daft when phrased like that. As I understand it, the reasoning was: 1) Lad and lass meet, after meeting earlier in the night. Both are now sh1tfaced. They stagger back to hotel and bonk. 2) No crime committed. The return to the hotel is grounds for believing consent given. 3) Another lad turns up, not especially the worse for wear. His mates are at the window watching. 4) He bonks lass, who is still paralytic and unable to give reasonable consent. Crime committed.
Except the first lad and lass didn't meet earlier in the night. She was stumbling on the way home when she met him. If she was drunk when she returned to the hotel, surely that consent is vetoed by the same standard as it was when she sleeps with the second guy.
It's also the case that there was no agreed evidence on how drunk she was. When she went to the police the next day (several hours after posting on social media about how hard she partied), they found no alcohol in her bloodstream.
It all sounds like Ched Evans has been massively stitched up to get up the rape conviction statistics.
She went to the police the next day.. to report her handbag stolen
Kle4..yep..point made.. get a job as a teacher..and bore the kids to death.
You also continue to show that you seem to think the messenger can invalidate the message. I would submit it might undermine it in the right scenario, but does not invalidate it, hence my defence of the 'coward callers'. I am not insulted by being called a bore, because I am a bore (I've come to terms with it), that doesn't mean I am wrong. It doesn't mean I am right either, but a coward calling someone else a coward may be right or wrong as well, not automatically wrong as you suggested.
Perhaps the kids would do well to learn the boring point that people can make valid points even if you do not like what they say or even know who said it. It would make them more reasonable.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
I'm still trying to understand how two men can have sex with a woman immediately after each other, and one's a rapist and the other isn't, when no coercion was involved.
Seems daft when phrased like that. As I understand it, the reasoning was: 1) Lad and lass meet, after meeting earlier in the night. Both are now sh1tfaced. They stagger back to hotel and bonk. 2) No crime committed. The return to the hotel is grounds for believing consent given. 3) Another lad turns up, not especially the worse for wear. His mates are at the window watching. 4) He bonks lass, who is still paralytic and unable to give reasonable consent. Crime committed.
Except the first lad and lass didn't meet earlier in the night. She was stumbling on the way home when she met him. If she was drunk when she returned to the hotel, surely that consent is vetoed by the same standard as it was when she sleeps with the second guy.
It's also the case that there was no agreed evidence on how drunk she was. When she went to the police the next day (several hours after posting on social media about how hard she partied), they found no alcohol in her bloodstream.
It all sounds like Ched Evans has been massively stitched up to get up the rape conviction statistics.
She went to the police the next day.. to report her handbag stolen
Aye, PC Plod decided for her that she'd been "raped"...
O/T - regular posters will know I'm not a massive fan of Matthew D'Ancona; his articles in the Evening Standard on UKIP made him come across like a massive pillock earlier this year. But he was instrumental in winning over my vote - to UKIP.
However, his new (ish) book, "In It Together" - inside story of the coalition government - is absolutely fascinating. Very well written, and a real page-turner. As far as I can tell, it chimes with what we hear in the news, as accurate too.
Highly recommended.
I'm just over half-way through. The most fascinating chapter so far is, "The ballad of Steve and Jeremy". It covers the inside role of Steve Hilton's role in government. And why he left. And how Heywood took over.
I've always had a soft spot for Steve Hilton. I liked (and still do like) his Big Society concept, and I loved his anti-statist and disruptive radicalism. Together with his support for EU withdrawal, one of the best Cameroons.
Here are some choice snippets on the EU and Hilton's resignation:
"The plan was always to introduce a referendum lock on future transfers of sovereignty to Brussels; to announce an audit of the impact of EU law on British sovereignty; to renegotiate the terms of the UK's membership; and then to hold a referendum after the 2015 election."
" 'We've got to be clear with this' , Hilton said to his colleagues, 'If we're heading for a referendum in the second term, we have to have change the terms of the debate.' By then, he explained, the case for exit had to be absolutely manifest."
"The public had to believe that the EU was holding Britain back in what Cameron came to describe as the 'global race'. As Prime Minster, he would have to emerge from every EY negotiation looking despondent and frustrated: or so Hilton's strategy demanded"
"Cameron was open-minded. Hilton, in contrast, believed that the mandarinate was determined the keep the UK in the EU at almost any cost."
"(Heywood) confirmed his worst suspicions: Whitehall would link arms with Brussels if Britain ever made a serious bid to exit the European Union."
"...by the end of 2011, Hilton had come to regard Cameron as a reactive rather than transformative Prime Minister.... With something close to despair, ... his words, though politely received, were not getting through.."
"..Cameron, his senior advisor had realised, was not a political punk, shaking a fist at the Establishment, but one of its instinctive guardians.."
"(By 2012) ..the Age of Hilton was already over, and the Age of Heywood well-established. That said more about Cameron than it did about either talented man."
You are no longer permitted to talk about the Ched Evans case going forward.
Everyone else, please be careful, as the website people are obtaining their information to this case has been refered to the Attorney-General for contempt of court.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
I'm still trying to understand how two men can have sex with a woman immediately after each other, and one's a rapist and the other isn't, when no coercion was involved.
Seems daft when phrased like that. As I understand it, the reasoning was: 1) Lad and lass meet, after meeting earlier in the night. Both are now sh1tfaced. They stagger back to hotel and bonk. 2) No crime committed. The return to the hotel is grounds for believing consent given. 3) Another lad turns up, not especially the worse for wear. His mates are at the window watching. 4) He bonks lass, who is still paralytic and unable to give reasonable consent. Crime committed.
Except the first lad and lass didn't meet earlier in the night. She was stumbling on the way home when she met him. If she was drunk when she returned to the hotel, surely that consent is vetoed by the same standard as it was when she sleeps with the second guy.
It's also the case that there was no agreed evidence on how drunk she was. When she went to the police the next day (several hours after posting on social media about how hard she partied), they found no alcohol in her bloodstream.
It all sounds like Ched Evans has been massively stitched up to get up the rape conviction statistics.
She went to the police the next day.. to report her handbag stolen
Aye, PC Plod decided for her that she'd been "raped"...
You are no longer permitted to talk about the Ched Evans case going forward.
Everyone else, please be careful, as the website people are obtaining their information to this case has been refered to the Attorney-General for contempt of court.
Jesus Christ what a joke this place is becoming
AudreyAnnes attempts to ban betting will be enforced next
The New England Patriots Deflate-Gate row rumbles on, and the league have apparently completed their investigation and are now in the penalty phase.
Bill Belichick pretty much threw Tom Brady under the bus at his press conference today. Brady's press conference is in about 90 minutes. He addressed the team in a closed door team meeting earlier today.
ESPN is all Patriots all the time now. This is to them what air crashes are to CNN.
Remember all those CSI: TV shows - CSI:Miami, CSI:New York etc.? Some wag at ESPN has started calling this PSI:New England.
O/T - regular posters will know I'm not a massive fan of Matthew D'Ancona; his articles in the Evening Standard on UKIP made him come across like a massive pillock earlier this year. But he was instrumental in winning over my vote - to UKIP.
However, his new (ish) book, "In It Together" - inside story of the coalition government - is absolutely fascinating. Very well written, and a real page-turner. As far as I can tell, it chimes with what we hear in the news, as accurate too.
Highly recommended.
I'm just over half-way through. The most fascinating chapter so far is, "The ballad of Steve and Jeremy". It covers the inside role of Steve Hilton's role in government. And why he left. And how Heywood took over.
I've always had a soft spot for Steve Hilton. I liked (and still do like) his Big Society concept, and I loved his anti-statist and disruptive radicalism. Together with his support for EU withdrawal, one of the best Cameroons.
Here are some choice snippets on the EU and Hilton's resignation:
"The plan was always to introduce a referendum lock on future transfers of sovereignty to Brussels; to announce an audit of the impact of EU law on British sovereignty; to renegotiate the terms of the UK's membership; and then to hold a referendum after the 2015 election."
" 'We've got to be clear with this' , Hilton said to his colleagues, 'If we're heading for a referendum in the second term, we have to have change the terms of the debate.' By then, he explained, the case for exit had to be absolutely manifest."
"The public had to believe that the EU was holding Britain back in what Cameron came to describe as the 'global race'. As Prime Minster, he would have to emerge from every EY negotiation looking despondent and frustrated: or so Hilton's strategy demanded"
"Cameron was open-minded. Hilton, in contrast, believed that the mandarinate was determined the keep the UK in the EU at almost any cost."
"(Heywood) confirmed his worst suspicions: Whitehall would link arms with Brussels if Britain ever made a serious bid to exit the European Union."
"...by the end of 2011, Hilton had come to regard Cameron as a reactive rather than transformative Prime Minister.... With something close to despair, ... his words, though politely received, were not getting through.."
"..Cameron, his senior advisor had realised, was not a political punk, shaking a fist at the Establishment, but one of its instinctive guardians.."
"(By 2012) ..the Age of Hilton was already over, and the Age of Heywood well-established. That said more about Cameron than it did about either talented man."
If and when there's a referendum, I wonder what proportion of Conservative MP's would favour Out. 30% or so?
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
I'm still trying to understand how two men can have sex with a woman immediately after each other, and one's a rapist and the other isn't, when no coercion was involved.
Seems daft when phrased like that. As I understand it, the reasoning was: 1) Lad and lass meet, after meeting earlier in the night. Both are now sh1tfaced. They stagger back to hotel and bonk. 2) No crime committed. The return to the hotel is grounds for believing consent given. 3) Another lad turns up, not especially the worse for wear. His mates are at the window watching. 4) He bonks lass, who is still paralytic and unable to give reasonable consent. Crime committed.
Except the first lad and lass didn't meet earlier in the night. She was stumbling on the way home when she met him. If she was drunk when she returned to the hotel, surely that consent is vetoed by the same standard as it was when she sleeps with the second guy.
It's also the case that there was no agreed evidence on how drunk she was. When she went to the police the next day (several hours after posting on social media about how hard she partied), they found no alcohol in her bloodstream.
It all sounds like Ched Evans has been massively stitched up to get up the rape conviction statistics.
She went to the police the next day.. to report her handbag stolen
Aye, PC Plod decided for her that she'd been "raped"...
Btw Plaid and the SNP - do they disagree on anything at all ?
They are in an Electoral Pact, in a Westminster Bloc, allow dual membership.
Personally I think all three debates should be 6 way with Nicola in two and Leanne in one. And I say that as a supporter of Scottish Independence.
Since the SNP, PC and the Green Party has an alliance, should they not be counted as one National entity.
The Greens are not in Electoral Pact with SNP and PC so they should be allowed their own spot. As in other multi-party democracies, the debates should be about who will ally with whom as much as anything else. But a Bloc (such as CDU/CSU) is treated as the same party and that appears to be quite fair.
I'm puzzled as to why they've invited Plaid and the SNP. Seven does seem excessive. How long will a debate be? How will interruptions work? They more or less functioned last time, but it was stretching it a bit and that was with just three.
Ninety-seven percent of the country will be unable to vote Plaid and ninety-two percent will be unable to vote SNP, which does raise very serious questions as to their inclusion [there is a counter-argument about the SNP holding the balance of power, however].
The Lib Dems will be very unhappy at this. Their position will get lost in a sea of noise in the first two debates, and they've been snipped from the third.
"(By 2012) ..the Age of Hilton was already over, and the Age of Heywood well-established. That said more about Cameron than it did about either talented man."
If and when there's a referendum, I wonder what proportion of Conservative MP's would favour Out. 30% or so?
Somewhere on my PC (I don't know where) I've got some stats from a research survey done of Conservative MPs on how many are BOO'ers.
It's probably about a year old. From memory, and I may be wrong and will check for you, it was around the 70-80 mark. A further 140-150 or so mainstream eurosceptic, around 65-70 or so agnostic on the EU, and about 6-8 MPs who are actively europhile.
You are no longer permitted to talk about the Ched Evans case going forward.
Everyone else, please be careful, as the website people are obtaining their information to this case has been refered to the Attorney-General for contempt of court.
Jesus Christ what a joke this place is becoming
AudreyAnnes attempts to ban betting will be enforced next
If you want a website to discuss everything without censorship you would need to move to a free country...
...and don't both the blokes say she consented to sex with Evans?
Dunno, I haven't been following it closely. But even if you are a slag, there is a big difference between a one night stand and agreeing to take part in a group shagging scenario. And if he is so keen to get a job, why not apply at his local Wetherspoons?
The point is she agreed to both according to them and was too drunk to remember if she agreed to either according to her... some girls like two blokes at once, it isnt illegal, who are we to make a moral judgement?
Why should it matter what job he is applying for as long as he isn't a risk as a sex offender?
If he is a sex case then why put female staff/customers in Wetherspoons at risk?
It's hard to put yourself in the position of a juror, but in my limited experience the number of women fancying a drunken shag is much larger than the number willing to engage in group sex. Maybe the jury decided that one was established beyond reasonable doubt and the other wasn't.
Wetherspoons was perhaps a bad example, he would of course have access to drunken women. My view is that I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, but that he should not be able to return straight back to the fame and fortune of professional football. Hence maybe he should be willing to work in a "normal" job for a bit.
...and don't both the blokes say she consented to sex with Evans?
Dunno, I haven't been following it closely. But even if you are a slag, there is a big difference between a one night stand and agreeing to take part in a group shagging scenario. And if he is so keen to get a job, why not apply at his local Wetherspoons?
The point is she agreed to both according to them and was too drunk to remember if she agreed to either according to her... some girls like two blokes at once, it isnt illegal, who are we to make a moral judgement?
Why should it matter what job he is applying for as long as he isn't a risk as a sex offender?
If he is a sex case then why put female staff/customers in Wetherspoons at risk?
It's hard to put yourself in the position of a juror, but in my limited experience the number of women fancying a drunken shag is much larger than the number willing to engage in group sex. Maybe the jury decided that one was established beyond reasonable doubt and the other wasn't.
Wetherspoons was perhaps a bad example, he would of course have access to drunken women. My view is that I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, but that he should not be able to return straight back to the fame and fortune of professional football. Hence maybe he should be willing to work in a "normal" job for a bit.
I just don't understand how Scotland-only and Wales-only parties can appear in a debate for a UK-wide general election.
An English viewer can basically disregard a third of the debate as an irrelevance.
There should be separate debates in each of the constituent parts of the UK.
I guess that if there is a reasonable chance of the SNP getting into govt after the GE the English people should know how best to stop that happening or enable it by tactical voting, and so should hear what they have to say?
If I were a left wing unionist living in England I think it would be great to have an SNP/Labour coalition
I just don't understand how Scotland-only and Wales-only parties can appear in a debate for a UK-wide general election.
An English viewer can basically disregard a third of the debate as an irrelevance.
There should be separate debates in each of the constituent parts of the UK.
Because they compete against parties which will be in the debates and those parties in the debates are Major Parties in their Constituenty Country.
As such they would be disadvantaged by not being included. It is really that simple - about maintaining at least the pretence of impartiality from broadcasters.
No Major Party in Northern Ireland is currently included in debates so their seperate system is unaffected by this.
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
...and don't both the blokes say she consented to sex with Evans?
Dunno, I haven't been following it closely. But even if you are a slag, there is a big difference between a one night stand and agreeing to take part in a group shagging scenario. And if he is so keen to get a job, why not apply at his local Wetherspoons?
The point is she agreed to both according to them and was too drunk to remember if she agreed to either according to her... some girls like two blokes at once, it isnt illegal, who are we to make a moral judgement?
Why should it matter what job he is applying for as long as he isn't a risk as a sex offender?
If he is a sex case then why put female staff/customers in Wetherspoons at risk?
It's hard to put yourself in the position of a juror, but in my limited experience the number of women fancying a drunken shag is much larger than the number willing to engage in group sex. Maybe the jury decided that one was established beyond reasonable doubt and the other wasn't.
Wetherspoons was perhaps a bad example, he would of course have access to drunken women. My view is that I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, but that he should not be able to return straight back to the fame and fortune of professional football. Hence maybe he should be willing to work in a "normal" job for a bit.
ok no worries
Surely that is the wrong way round guilt has to be established beyond reasonable doubt not consent
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
Or more importantly, the DUP do not face competition from a Major Party in their Constituent Country which is included.
The DUP don't "even" fight all the seats in NI.
Indeed, every part of the NI Settlement means that elections are utterly meaningless. The constituencies are Gerrymandered to give the exact result they do (9 Unionist, 6 Sinn Fein, 2 SDLP and 1 Alliance) and will always be done in that way.
The idea that East Belfast was gerrymandered to ensure an Alliance victory is one of the most bizarre claims I've ever seen on pbc and that includes all of Tapestry's contributions.
I just don't understand how Scotland-only and Wales-only parties can appear in a debate for a UK-wide general election.
An English viewer can basically disregard a third of the debate as an irrelevance.
There should be separate debates in each of the constituent parts of the UK.
I guess that if there is a reasonable chance of the SNP getting into govt after the GE the English people should know how best to stop that happening or enable it by tactical voting, and so should hear what they have to say?
If I were a left wing unionist living in England I think it would be great to have an SNP/Labour coalition
Yup that's about right, that and the big disadvantage both Nats would have given their main competitors in Scotland and Wales would be getting publicity that they wouldn't. None of which helps Ed and Nick but is some sort of counterbalance to Nigel for Dave ( however unwieldy with added Greens too).
...and don't both the blokes say she consented to sex with Evans?
Dunno, I haven't been following it closely. But even if you are a slag, there is a big difference between a one night stand and agreeing to take part in a group shagging scenario. And if he is so keen to get a job, why not apply at his local Wetherspoons?
The point is she agreed to both according to them and was too drunk to remember if she agreed to either according to her... some girls like two blokes at once, it isnt illegal, who are we to make a moral judgement?
Why should it matter what job he is applying for as long as he isn't a risk as a sex offender?
If he is a sex case then why put female staff/customers in Wetherspoons at risk?
It's hard to put yourself in the position of a juror, but in my limited experience the number of women fancying a drunken shag is much larger than the number willing to engage in group sex. Maybe the jury decided that one was established beyond reasonable doubt and the other wasn't.
Wetherspoons was perhaps a bad example, he would of course have access to drunken women. My view is that I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, but that he should not be able to return straight back to the fame and fortune of professional football. Hence maybe he should be willing to work in a "normal" job for a bit.
ok no worries
Surely that is the wrong way round guilt has to be established beyond reasonable doubt not consent
Awkward phrasing on my part, I meant BRD she had not consented to sex with Evans, even if reasonable doubt regarding bis mate. In any case, has that been taken to court? If not it is strictly not relevant.
And here I will comment no further, although it seems bizarre a website can be accused of contempt of court post-trial.
You are no longer permitted to talk about the Ched Evans case going forward.
Everyone else, please be careful, as the website people are obtaining their information to this case has been refered to the Attorney-General for contempt of court.
I am very careful. Why am I and others being singled out, and others told to be careful, but presumably still permitted to speak, until such time as they are no longer "careful"?
A tad arbitrary, and confusing.
Or do I misunderstand that this is not the usual blanket prohibition on sub judice topics ?
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
Or more importantly, the DUP do not face competition from a Major Party in their Constituent Country which is included.
The DUP don't "even" fight all the seats in NI.
Indeed, every part of the NI Settlement means that elections are utterly meaningless. The constituencies are Gerrymandered to give the exact result they do (9 Unionist, 6 Sinn Fein, 2 SDLP and 1 Alliance) and will always be done in that way.
The idea that East Belfast was gerrymandered to ensure an Alliance victory is one of the most bizarre claims I've ever seen on pbc and that includes all of Tapestry's contributions.
This is so obviously true Neil I don't know why you dispute it, I'm betting SF will win the seat in May courtesy of the securocrats.
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
Or more importantly, the DUP do not face competition from a Major Party in their Constituent Country which is included.
The DUP don't "even" fight all the seats in NI.
Indeed, every part of the NI Settlement means that elections are utterly meaningless. The constituencies are Gerrymandered to give the exact result they do (9 Unionist, 6 Sinn Fein, 2 SDLP and 1 Alliance) and will always be done in that way.
The idea that East Belfast was gerrymandered to ensure an Alliance victory is one of the most bizarre claims I've ever seen on pbc and that includes all of Tapestry's contributions.
This is so obviously true Neil I don't know why you dispute it, I'm betting SF will win the seat in May courtesy of the securocrats.
They've never polled more than about 1000 votes there. You must be on a potentially enormous profit!
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
It's hard to put yourself in the position of a juror, but in my limited experience the number of women fancying a drunken shag is much larger than the number willing to engage in group sex.
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
They only contest 18 constituencies. A lot less than the SNP or the Party of Wales.
Or more importantly, the DUP do not face competition from a Major Party in their Constituent Country which is included.
The DUP don't "even" fight all the seats in NI.
Indeed, every part of the NI Settlement means that elections are utterly meaningless. The constituencies are Gerrymandered to give the exact result they do (9 Unionist, 6 Sinn Fein, 2 SDLP and 1 Alliance) and will always be done in that way.
The idea that East Belfast was gerrymandered to ensure an Alliance victory is one of the most bizarre claims I've ever seen on pbc and that includes all of Tapestry's contributions.
Originally NI under the Good Friday agreement (off books) was supposed to be a 10-0-8 and the 11-0-7 result in 2001 was a very real problem but it was clear by 2010 that with demographic changes a 9-0-9 would be required. As a compromise a 9-1-8 was the obvious way to maintain a Unionist majority while not being a Unionist majority. It's typical of how undemocratic the NI system has been since 1998.
The Northern Ireland Assembly is required to be a DUP/Sinn Fein alliance. It is suspended when this does not happen
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
Mr. JS, 7-7-2 is certainly an unorthodox formation.
Clegg's in a tricky position. If he withdraws, it's much easier to empty chair him than Cameron. If he protests, though, that's his only card.
Maybe the Coalition will have some co-ordinated action to withdraw?
I can't see why the broadcasters added Plaid and the SNP.
It's best for Miliband. Last debate, just him and Cameron, a good opportunity to turn around how the public perceive him.
A debate with just two parties during the Election Period would not be democratic or remotely acceptable. All of them should be 6 way, two with Nicola Sturgeon, one with Leanne Wood as part of the SNP/PLaid Electoral Alliance.
The debate cannot be longer than about 90 minutes, so that means barely 10 minutes for each participant assuming time taken by the host and possibly audience.
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
Cameron must be a European Agnostic, I guess, given that he's not willing to do even a moderately tough line on negotiation. So he's more Europhile than three quarters of his parliamentary party, let alone his activist and voter base.
If Tory leaders want to have the party stop being so divided over Europe, they need to stop dividing themselves from the views of their party.
Most of them won't be in Parliament in 15 weeks' time. Retiring: Robert Walter, Laura Sandys, Anne McIntosh (probably). Likely to lose: Anna Soubry, Ben Gummer.
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
What I find even more interesting is speculating who are the 64: who on earth is still on the fence on this?
Mr. Dair, d'you mean Sturgeon and Wood the other way around?
Mr. JS, indeed. Two party politicals.
No, of the three debates (because there shouldn't be any without all Major Parties, the SNP/Plaid Electoral Pact would put Nicola Sturgeon up for two of them and Leanne Wood for one.
CONSERVATIVE PARTY 306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010 • Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%) • 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%) • 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%) • 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
Laura Sandys and Damian Green
The members of 'European Mainstream' are self identified Europhiles.
Robert Buckland Damian Green Margot James Jeremy Lafroy James Paice Neil Carmichael Charles Hendry Peter Luff Richard Ottway Malcolm Rifkind Tony Baldry Richard Benyon Alistair Burt Stephen Dorrell Tobias Elwood Ben Gummer Laura Sandys Caroline Spelman
I am not labeling these as Europhiles. They have the courage of their convictions to do that themselves quite happily.
Comments
A bit like the guy in one of Spike Milligan's book who died, leaving all his money to himself!
Will debate take place
No 5/6
Yes 5/6
...and don't both the blokes say she consented to sex with Evans?
SNP "Labour failed in Scotland".
As the Scottish electorate booted them out in 2007 and have since been rather pleased with SNP government.
TBH, case as stated, and I wasn't on the jury, I've not formed a high opinion of anyone involved.
Not even the hall porter, receptionist or whatever his designation is!
Last year he was walking unaided in and out of cars avoiding reporters, yet seems to have chosen not to have found the time to provide a full frank statement. Instead it was a “received a "substantial bundle of papers" from Mr Dickens, which he had asked Home Office officials to examine and "report back to me" if "action needed to be taken".…”
Did he not remember any of the details or names etc in the file? Since Dickens announced in the media that he was going to pass the file to Brittan it would not have come as a surprise.
All the reports from friends indicate that he had known about his cancer for some while and that it was not an unexpected death.
We now have his reputation being tarnished hours after his death, something he could have at least minimised by being seen to be helpful. Unless of course it transpires that he has provided a thorough statement or been interviewed by the committee. For his reputation I hope he did those things. Alas it looks like he did not do the right thing.
More enlightened jurisdictions have the idea of Sexual Misconduct (what Wikileaks guy is charged with) where there is a middle group, still a crime but treated, and viewed by the public as intermediate.
Although the idea that the Great British Public could be so subtle in their interpretation and view of the law might be quite optomistic.
Fresh evidence radicalised Londoners are travelling to Iraq to fight... pic.twitter.com/TMCBgQNfCI
Personally I think all three debates should be 6 way with Nicola in two and Leanne in one. And I say that as a supporter of Scottish Independence.
Surely shome mishtake?
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/analysis/307451-stephen-daisley-humza-yousaf-and-david-coburn-have-twitter-spat/
Kle 4 Lotsa words to say exactly nowt..you should get a job in education..
1) All parties
2) Major parties
3) Tories and Labour
:we-are-all-clowns:
By including all the rest in two rounds of debates, the broadcasters will probably get away with the bit that is unfair on some other parties, the head to head between David Cameron and Ed Miliband. It's in none of the other parties' interests to see the debates not happen.
Why should it matter what job he is applying for as long as he isn't a risk as a sex offender?
If he is a sex case then why put female staff/customers in Wetherspoons at risk?
The parties are required to firm a Sinn Fein/DUP coalition to be allowed to run the Assembly as well, not "have the choice to" are required to by the Irish and UK governments.
The really ironic thing is that although Gerrymandering is accepted and intentional, the boundaries of constituencies in Northern Ireland are not nearly as bizarre as they are in some parts of England.
That I am not better at compiling my thoughts is something I find regrettable but it is a fair point of criticism against my words. I shall assume in turn that as your own writings are demonstrably of greater quality, it emphasizes just how silly the point you were laughably attempting to make truly was, especially as you appear to have completely ignored several of the points that others more effectively than I am capable of.
That and the relative dosh from Barnett.
Perhaps the kids would do well to learn the boring point that people can make valid points even if you do not like what they say or even know who said it. It would make them more reasonable.
Concise enough? I seek improvement in all things.
I wonder if my prediction of a "hard" crossover by Jan 2015 will come to pass, like my "soft" crossover by May 2014 did.
Stand by your calculators tonight...
However, his new (ish) book, "In It Together" - inside story of the coalition government - is absolutely fascinating. Very well written, and a real page-turner. As far as I can tell, it chimes with what we hear in the news, as accurate too.
Highly recommended.
I'm just over half-way through. The most fascinating chapter so far is, "The ballad of Steve and Jeremy". It covers the inside role of Steve Hilton's role in government. And why he left. And how Heywood took over.
I've always had a soft spot for Steve Hilton. I liked (and still do like) his Big Society concept, and I loved his anti-statist and disruptive radicalism. Together with his support for EU withdrawal, one of the best Cameroons.
Here are some choice snippets on the EU and Hilton's resignation:
"The plan was always to introduce a referendum lock on future transfers of sovereignty to Brussels; to announce an audit of the impact of EU law on British sovereignty; to renegotiate the terms of the UK's membership; and then to hold a referendum after the 2015 election."
" 'We've got to be clear with this' , Hilton said to his colleagues, 'If we're heading for a referendum in the second term, we have to have change the terms of the debate.' By then, he explained, the case for exit had to be absolutely manifest."
"The public had to believe that the EU was holding Britain back in what Cameron came to describe as the 'global race'. As Prime Minster, he would have to emerge from every EY negotiation looking despondent and frustrated: or so Hilton's strategy demanded"
"Cameron was open-minded. Hilton, in contrast, believed that the mandarinate was determined the keep the UK in the EU at almost any cost."
"(Heywood) confirmed his worst suspicions: Whitehall would link arms with Brussels if Britain ever made a serious bid to exit the European Union."
"...by the end of 2011, Hilton had come to regard Cameron as a reactive rather than transformative Prime Minister.... With something close to despair, ... his words, though politely received, were not getting through.."
"..Cameron, his senior advisor had realised, was not a political punk, shaking a fist at the Establishment, but one of its instinctive guardians.."
"(By 2012) ..the Age of Hilton was already over, and the Age of Heywood well-established. That said more about Cameron than it did about either talented man."
You are no longer permitted to talk about the Ched Evans case going forward.
Everyone else, please be careful, as the website people are obtaining their information to this case has been refered to the Attorney-General for contempt of court.
AudreyAnnes attempts to ban betting will be enforced next
Bill Belichick pretty much threw Tom Brady under the bus at his press conference today. Brady's press conference is in about 90 minutes. He addressed the team in a closed door team meeting earlier today.
ESPN is all Patriots all the time now. This is to them what air crashes are to CNN.
Remember all those CSI: TV shows - CSI:Miami, CSI:New York etc.? Some wag at ESPN has started calling this PSI:New England.
Peter Hitchens @ClarkeMicah
· 9h 9 hours ago
@Mo_Farouk23 Is it becos I is posh?
I'm puzzled as to why they've invited Plaid and the SNP. Seven does seem excessive. How long will a debate be? How will interruptions work? They more or less functioned last time, but it was stretching it a bit and that was with just three.
Ninety-seven percent of the country will be unable to vote Plaid and ninety-two percent will be unable to vote SNP, which does raise very serious questions as to their inclusion [there is a counter-argument about the SNP holding the balance of power, however].
The Lib Dems will be very unhappy at this. Their position will get lost in a sea of noise in the first two debates, and they've been snipped from the third.
It's probably about a year old. From memory, and I may be wrong and will check for you, it was around the 70-80 mark. A further 140-150 or so mainstream eurosceptic, around 65-70 or so agnostic on the EU, and about 6-8 MPs who are actively europhile.
I don't think you'd be far off in 2015.
Why should it matter what job he is applying for as long as he isn't a risk as a sex offender?
If he is a sex case then why put female staff/customers in Wetherspoons at risk?
It's hard to put yourself in the position of a juror, but in my limited experience the number of women fancying a drunken shag is much larger than the number willing to engage in group sex. Maybe the jury decided that one was established beyond reasonable doubt and the other wasn't.
Wetherspoons was perhaps a bad example, he would of course have access to drunken women. My view is that I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, but that he should not be able to return straight back to the fame and fortune of professional football. Hence maybe he should be willing to work in a "normal" job for a bit.
An English viewer can basically disregard a third of the debate as an irrelevance.
There should be separate debates in each of the constituent parts of the UK.
Wetherspoons was perhaps a bad example, he would of course have access to drunken women. My view is that I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, but that he should not be able to return straight back to the fame and fortune of professional football. Hence maybe he should be willing to work in a "normal" job for a bit.
ok no worries
If I were a left wing unionist living in England I think it would be great to have an SNP/Labour coalition
As such they would be disadvantaged by not being included. It is really that simple - about maintaining at least the pretence of impartiality from broadcasters.
No Major Party in Northern Ireland is currently included in debates so their seperate system is unaffected by this.
CONSERVATIVE PARTY
306 Conservative MPs elected in 2010
• Seven realistically regarded as Europhile (2.3%)
• 64 categorised as ‘European Agnostic’ (20.9%)
• 154 being Eurosceptic (50.3%)
• 81 can be classified as ‘hard Eurosceptics’ (26.5%) [on the grounds that they have publicly advocated withdrawal from the EU and/or rebelled against the party whip in favour of a referendum on withdrawal]
Surely that is the wrong way round guilt has to be established beyond reasonable doubt not consent
Awkward phrasing on my part, I meant BRD she had not consented to sex with Evans, even if reasonable doubt regarding bis mate. In any case, has that been taken to court? If not it is strictly not relevant.
And here I will comment no further, although it seems bizarre a website can be accused of contempt of court post-trial.
A tad arbitrary, and confusing.
Or do I misunderstand that this is not the usual blanket prohibition on sub judice topics ?
SNP 41% : Lab 28% : Con 17% : LD 5% : UKIP 5% : Grn 4%
The Northern Ireland Assembly is required to be a DUP/Sinn Fein alliance. It is suspended when this does not happen
Clegg's in a tricky position. If he withdraws, it's much easier to empty chair him than Cameron. If he protests, though, that's his only card.
Maybe the Coalition will have some co-ordinated action to withdraw?
I can't see why the broadcasters added Plaid and the SNP.
It's best for Miliband. Last debate, just him and Cameron, a good opportunity to turn around how the public perceive him.
Edit: Laura Sandys & Ben Wallace.
In fact I think there are a few more than 7.
Its not going to happen.
If it has - please provide a link.
Just listing them in an internet article does not mean that is the proposed order.
Mr. JS, indeed. Two party politicals.
If Tory leaders want to have the party stop being so divided over Europe, they need to stop dividing themselves from the views of their party.
I'll start it off: Cameron.
I still think it's wacky having 2/3 debates with 7 participants, one of whom 97% cannot vote for, another of whom 92% cannot vote for.
Edited extra bit: there's also a question of whether or not 'local' debates (Scotland and Wales) will be held.
Just asking.... or did I miss it?
Robert Buckland
Damian Green
Margot James
Jeremy Lafroy
James Paice
Neil Carmichael
Charles Hendry
Peter Luff
Richard Ottway
Malcolm Rifkind
Tony Baldry
Richard Benyon
Alistair Burt
Stephen Dorrell
Tobias Elwood
Ben Gummer
Laura Sandys
Caroline Spelman
I am not labeling these as Europhiles. They have the courage of their convictions to do that themselves quite happily.