I love it when morons on the internet decide to play Perry Mason. It wastes their time and saves the rest of us having to deal with their other Neanderthal views.
There is a process for hearing appeals against convictions based on new evidence. That is being followed through the courts.
It does not comprise putting up one-sided websites that seek to trash the reputations of complainants.
And I love it when thickos believe the system can't make mistakes.
Or when imbeciles think that the one-sidedness of a website hosting a video from an objective source means the video is therefore one-sided. You think Ched Evans' website has been playing photoshop with the CCTV footage?
First you try to mischaracterise my views to imply I don't want to stop more women getting raped. Now you try to ignore the evidence just because of which website it is hosted on. You're embarrassing yourself.
And all because you can't answer the simple question: "What was the evidence that proved beyond reasonable doubt that Evans raped the complainant?" You can't answer so you're throwing every logical fallacy in the book to hide your lack of argument. What a numpty.
I love it when morons on the internet decide to play Perry Mason. It wastes their time and saves the rest of us having to deal with their other Neanderthal views.
There is a process for hearing appeals against convictions based on new evidence. That is being followed through the courts.
It does not comprise putting up one-sided websites that seek to trash the reputations of complainants.
And I love it when thickos believe the system can't make mistakes.
Or when imbeciles think that the one-sidedness of a website hosting a video from an objective source means the video is therefore one-sided. You think Ched Evans' website has been playing photoshop with the CCTV footage?
First you try to mischaracterise my views to imply I don't want to stop more women getting raped. Now you try to ignore the evidence just because of which website it is hosted on. You're embarrassing yourself.
And all because you can't answer the simple question: "What was the evidence that proved beyond reasonable doubt that Evans raped the complainant?" You can't answer so you're throwing every logical fallacy in the book to hide your lack of argument. What a numpty.
I've answered it. I can't make you understand it.
Given you think that it is appropriate to link to websites that trash the reputations of people who have no chance to give their account, I really don't have the slightest concern what you think of me.
Socrates you were told last week not to discuss the Ched Evans case.
Also everybody else, please don't link to the Ched Evans website, as that website has been referred to the Attorney General for contempt of court action for potentially identifying the victim.
Didn't see the warning last time. Have seen it now.
If you were making a name for yourself as a strident anti war campaigner, would you big up Tony Blair and be gutted if you saw him and didn't get his autograph or a selfie?
Depends on the coppers. Get the IT desk jockey report variety who love filling in reports and you've a better chance.
12 Gene Hunts and you're done for.
IME there are three type of copper. Dixon of Dock Green who called me Maam and meant it. The Gene Hunts who'd bend evidence to get a baddie and the form filler who played it safe and hid in their office.
OTOH I wouldn't fancy having 12 coppers on the bench. Unless I was prosecuting.
I was once the foreman of a jury at the Royal Courts of Justice in the case of Kent Constabulary vs Mr Big Scumbag. A civil case. Mr Scumbag was an armed bank robber whose house had been raided by Kent plod to recover the sawn-off (after surveillance). Mr Scumbag claims Mrs Scumbag was treated roughly by the Kent Tactical Firearms Unit during the raid and sued them. We found in favour of plod. A really fascinating two weeks with firearms passed around the jury, expert witnesses, men in wigs, the gallery full of cops, journalists, the full shebang - and me elected to be the foreman! Was like being in a film set. Would love to do it again.
Nick Clegg has appeared to take sole credit for saving the British economy by claiming that he was responsible for preventing a debt crisis similar to that suffered by Greece.
The Liberal Democrat leader made no mention of the Conservatives or David Cameron as he boasted “I’m proud of creating a stable government without which we couldn’t have had an economic recovery now.”
I love it when morons on the internet decide to play Perry Mason. It wastes their time and saves the rest of us having to deal with their other Neanderthal views.
There is a process for hearing appeals against convictions based on new evidence. That is being followed through the courts.
It does not comprise putting up one-sided websites that seek to trash the reputations of complainants.
And I love it when thickos believe the system can't make mistakes.
Or when imbeciles think that the one-sidedness of a website hosting a video from an objective source means the video is therefore one-sided. You think Ched Evans' website has been playing photoshop with the CCTV footage?
First you try to mischaracterise my views to imply I don't want to stop more women getting raped. Now you try to ignore the evidence just because of which website it is hosted on. You're embarrassing yourself.
And all because you can't answer the simple question: "What was the evidence that proved beyond reasonable doubt that Evans raped the complainant?" You can't answer so you're throwing every logical fallacy in the book to hide your lack of argument. What a numpty.
I've answered it. I can't make you understand it.
Given you think that it is appropriate to link to websites that trash the reputations of people who have no chance to give their account, I really don't have the slightest concern what you think of me.
You haven't answered it at all. You just linked to a source and said "it's somewhere in there". You're delusional. I linked to a website because it was the source for a video of a facts of a case. You're just trying to smear rather than dealing with the facts.
And regardless of your concerns, I was also dealing with the facts when stating that you are a nasty little man and an imbecile.
I thought juries convicted; judges run the court, as far as the law is concerned, including advising the jury on what the law says, and how it’s currently interpreted. The judge sums up the evidence and can, in doing so, indicate that he or she regards the prosecution or the defence as having, or not having, made their case.
However, it’s still open to the jury to return a “perverse” verdict!
The judge then gets to pass sentence, assuming the verdict was guilty!
But in reality the judge controls the court, can include and exclude evidence, and heavily influences juries in the way they vote. In the Evans case I have mentioned, can anyone really explain what the evidence was that meant he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"? I've brought it up several times and despite being a high-profile case, no-one has been able to argue this to me.
I suggest that you read the Court of Appeal judgment from 2012 where they considered whether the conviction was unsafe. The judgment goes into it in grim detail:
I thought juries convicted; judges run the court, as far as the law is concerned, including advising the jury on what the law says, and how it’s currently interpreted. The judge sums up the evidence and can, in doing so, indicate that he or she regards the prosecution or the defence as having, or not having, made their case.
However, it’s still open to the jury to return a “perverse” verdict!
The judge then gets to pass sentence, assuming the verdict was guilty!
But in reality the judge controls the court, can include and exclude evidence, and heavily influences juries in the way they vote. In the Evans case I have mentioned, can anyone really explain what the evidence was that meant he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"? I've brought it up several times and despite being a high-profile case, no-one has been able to argue this to me.
I suggest that you read the Court of Appeal judgment from 2012 where they considered whether the conviction was unsafe. The judgment goes into it in grim detail:
"This was a classic case for decision by the jury."
Reading through that - no way on God's green earth I could have found Evans guilty.
The jury saw and heard the witnesses. We did not.
This is an argument that effectively says "we should never question the results of court cases". Would you apply a similar logic to the OJ Simpson trial?
The website for the defence has also put up the video of the alleged rape victim entering the hotel. Does she seem too paralytically drunk to give consent to you?
I love it when morons on the internet decide to play Perry Mason. It wastes their time and saves the rest of us having to deal with their other Neanderthal views.
There is a process for hearing appeals against convictions based on new evidence. That is being followed through the courts.
It does not comprise putting up one-sided websites that seek to trash the reputations of complainants.
He is talking about the video, not the totality of the website.
It is rude to call people morons even if they are, which Socrates isn't. Furthermore morons are thick on the ground, and not exempt from jury service. There might even be juries out there with morons and ukip voters on them. What do you think of that?
OTOH I wouldn't fancy having 12 coppers on the bench. Unless I was prosecuting.
I was once the foreman of a jury at the Royal Courts of Justice in the case of Kent Constabulary vs Mr Big Scumbag. A civil case. Mr Scumbag was an armed bank robber whose house had been raided by Kent plod to recover the sawn-off (after surveillance). Mr Scumbag claims Mrs Scumbag was treated roughly by the Kent Tactical Firearms Unit during the raid and sued them. We found in favour of plod. A really fascinating two weeks with firearms passed around the jury, expert witnesses, men in wigs, the gallery full of cops, journalists, the full shebang - and me elected to be the foreman! Was like being in a film set. Would love to do it again.
I've not posted for many many years, although lurking all that time. Luckily I have been able to re-register with my original username (I vaguely recall with one software change someone else acquired it and I came back for a short while with a variation of it).
Anyway although I do intend to post I do have another motive. If possible I would like an off-line conversation with NP.
It is rude to call people morons even if they are, which Socrates isn't. Furthermore morons are thick on the ground, and not exempt from jury service. There might even be juries out there with morons and ukip voters on them. What do you think of that?
In deference to our host, I shall steer clear of further discussion of the case in point.
Morons on jury service are carefully guided through the process by the judge. Morons on the internet don't have that help and in some cases decide that aspects of the legal system that they just don't like should be junked to their taste. The jury service is far from infallible, but it works reasonably well.
Were Labour to win a minimum of 260 seats and the SNP + LiBDem combined were win at least 60 seats, both of which appear likely prospects, then EdM appears to be in the box seat to become the next Prime Minister, even if the Tories were to win as many as 290 - 300 seats, since it appears they will not have allies in any appreciable numbers to get close to overhauling a Labour Confidence & Supply arrangement totalling 320+ seats (+ because they would most likely also be able to count on a handful or so of PC, Green and SDLP M.P.s). On this basis, picking up bits and pieces at 2.4 (2.33 net) today on Betfair on EdM becoming PM looks like value to me. The Tories will really need to motor from hereon in to prevent such an outcome, unless of course you really, really think that the SNP or LibDems might instead side with them, which I consider to be most unlikely.
I can't read the word numpty without thinking of numpy. My life has been changed. Just as Battlestar Galactica will now forever be altered by the widespread use of the word fracking to denote the extraction of hydrocarbons from shale deposits by the process of hydraulic fracturing.
@Peter_the_Punter Going to back or lay Un_De_Sceaux - or identified a danger
Each way value for Vibrato Valtat at 14s ?
It's a watching race for me, Pulpstar. You certainly can't crab the favorite's form, but it's of little interest at 4/5 and I don't fancy betting for place money.
I haven't had any bets on the Festival yet but may well go with Jezki again. Faugheen is plainly talented but doesn't always hurdle with fluency and we both know how relevant Championship form is. 6/1 the reigning champ looks good, but there's no hurry; I doubt it will shorten before the big day.
OTOH I wouldn't fancy having 12 coppers on the bench. Unless I was prosecuting.
I was once the foreman of a jury at the Royal Courts of Justice in the case of Kent Constabulary vs Mr Big Scumbag. A civil case. Mr Scumbag was an armed bank robber whose house had been raided by Kent plod to recover the sawn-off (after surveillance). Mr Scumbag claims Mrs Scumbag was treated roughly by the Kent Tactical Firearms Unit during the raid and sued them. We found in favour of plod. A really fascinating two weeks with firearms passed around the jury, expert witnesses, men in wigs, the gallery full of cops, journalists, the full shebang - and me elected to be the foreman! Was like being in a film set. Would love to do it again.
Would tend to agree with PtP's view on mixed feelings about jury service. The case I did we returned an 11:1 verdict. The facts were utterly inescapable and frankly the whole case was a total waste of time - that ended up costing Mr Scumbag an enormous legal fee plus costs. The troubling aspect was that Mr Scumbag was a minority ethnic and of the 5 minority ethnic members of the jury the one who shared Scumbag's ethnicity just point blank refused to go against him. There were some quite heated 11 vs 1 arguments and the rest of us all felt that this was abject racism and an abrogation of a jurist's sworn duty (really the facts were unassailable). I had to send a note to the judge explaining we would never get a 12:0 verdict and he said 'OK then'. Left me a bit resentful and angry that justice is not top of some people's agenda when they serve.
"You think lay persons judging "demeanour" and "manner" are acceptable grounds to prove something "beyond reasonable doubt"?"
If you have a better alternative to the jury system, Socrates, let us hear it instead of your constant yelling at the jurors to (metaphorically) get off your lawn.
Were Labour to win a minimum of 260 seats and the SNP + LiBDem combined were win at least 60 seats, both of which appear likely prospects, then EdM appears to be in the box seat to become the next Prime Minister, even if the Tories were to win as many as 290 - 300 seats, since it appears they will not have allies in any appreciable numbers to get close to overhauling a Labour Confidence & Supply arrangement totalling 320+ seats (+ because they would most likely also be able to count on a handful or so of PC, Green and SDLP M.P.s). On this basis, picking up bits and pieces at 2.4 (2.33 net) today on Betfair on EdM becoming PM looks like value to me. The Tories will really need to motor from hereon in to prevent such an outcome, unless of course you really, really think that the SNP or LibDems might instead side with them, which I consider to be most unlikely.
Bo Jo, Gove and Ed Balls all at 1.01 in the same market certainly aren't
Were Labour to win a minimum of 260 seats and the SNP + LiBDem combined were win at least 60 seats, both of which appear likely prospects, then EdM appears to be in the box seat to become the next Prime Minister, even if the Tories were to win as many as 290 - 300 seats, since it appears they will not have allies in any appreciable numbers to get close to overhauling a Labour Confidence & Supply arrangement totalling 320+ seats (+ because they would most likely also be able to count on a handful or so of PC, Green and SDLP M.P.s). On this basis, picking up bits and pieces at 2.4 (2.33 net) today on Betfair on EdM becoming PM looks like value to me. The Tories will really need to motor from hereon in to prevent such an outcome, unless of course you really, really think that the SNP or LibDems might instead side with them, which I consider to be most unlikely.
I think that is fair enough, and also I reckon PM Ed is now more likely than Labour most seats. He can also become PM with less seats than Conservatives.
"One survivor "Gemma" told Sky News: "It's still going on if not worse, because now they're having to hide it more. I'm still seeing my abusers driving young girls in their car. They're untouchable"
Nick Clegg has appeared to take sole credit for saving the British economy by claiming that he was responsible for preventing a debt crisis similar to that suffered by Greece.
The Liberal Democrat leader made no mention of the Conservatives or David Cameron as he boasted “I’m proud of creating a stable government without which we couldn’t have had an economic recovery now.”
To be fair, in early 2010 collective Great and Good (especially in the arera of finance) knickers were in an almighty twist over the prospect of NOM, and even of coalition. Nick persuading the LD’s to sign up did stabilise the situation.
Were Labour to win a minimum of 260 seats and the SNP + LiBDem combined were win at least 60 seats, both of which appear likely prospects, then EdM appears to be in the box seat to become the next Prime Minister, even if the Tories were to win as many as 290 - 300 seats, since it appears they will not have allies in any appreciable numbers to get close to overhauling a Labour Confidence & Supply arrangement totalling 320+ seats (+ because they would most likely also be able to count on a handful or so of PC, Green and SDLP M.P.s). On this basis, picking up bits and pieces at 2.4 (2.33 net) today on Betfair on EdM becoming PM looks like value to me. The Tories will really need to motor from hereon in to prevent such an outcome, unless of course you really, really think that the SNP or LibDems might instead side with them, which I consider to be most unlikely.
A rainbow coalition would be very unstable. Especially with the SNP trying to get concessions for Scotland. It will destroy Labour in England to give Wales and Scotland a bunch of money and concessions, it would wipe them out for a generation in England, which is why Balls hasn't gone for it.
It is rude to call people morons even if they are, which Socrates isn't. Furthermore morons are thick on the ground, and not exempt from jury service. There might even be juries out there with morons and ukip voters on them. What do you think of that?
In deference to our host, I shall steer clear of further discussion of the case in point.
Morons on jury service are carefully guided through the process by the judge. Morons on the internet don't have that help and in some cases decide that aspects of the legal system that they just don't like should be junked to their taste. The jury service is far from infallible, but it works reasonably well.
A friend of mine now deceased claimed that he was on a jury in London. Black defendant, possession of drugs, defence he was fitted up by coppers. Jury unanimously believed the fitting-up claim but thought the D had it coming to him. Guilty on 11-1 verdict, my friend dissenting.
OTOH I wouldn't fancy having 12 coppers on the bench. Unless I was prosecuting.
I was once the foreman of a jury at the Royal Courts of Justice in the case of Kent Constabulary vs Mr Big Scumbag. A civil case. Mr Scumbag was an armed bank robber whose house had been raided by Kent plod to recover the sawn-off (after surveillance). Mr Scumbag claims Mrs Scumbag was treated roughly by the Kent Tactical Firearms Unit during the raid and sued them. We found in favour of plod. A really fascinating two weeks with firearms passed around the jury, expert witnesses, men in wigs, the gallery full of cops, journalists, the full shebang - and me elected to be the foreman! Was like being in a film set. Would love to do it again.
Would tend to agree with PtP's view on mixed feelings about jury service. The case I did we returned an 11:1 verdict. The facts were utterly inescapable and frankly the whole case was a total waste of time - that ended up costing Mr Scumbag an enormous legal fee plus costs. The troubling aspect was that Mr Scumbag was a minority ethnic and of the 5 minority ethnic members of the jury the one who shared Scumbag's ethnicity just point blank refused to go against him. There were some quite heated 11 vs 1 arguments and the rest of us all felt that this was abject racism and an abrogation of a jurist's sworn duty (really the facts were unassailable). I had to send a note to the judge explaining we would never get a 12:0 verdict and he said 'OK then'. Left me a bit resentful and angry that justice is not top of some people's agenda when they serve.
@Peter_the_Punter Going to back or lay Un_De_Sceaux - or identified a danger
Each way value for Vibrato Valtat at 14s ?
It's a watching race for me, Pulpstar. You certainly can't crab the favorite's form, but it's of little interest at 4/5 and I don't fancy betting for place money.
I haven't had any bets on the Festival yet but may well go with Jezki again. Faugheen is plainly talented but doesn't always hurdle with fluency and we both know how relevant Championship form is. 6/1 the reigning champ looks good, but there's no hurry; I doubt it will shorten before the big day.
Any chance of seeing you there?
Are there any B&Bs nearby for anywhere near a reasonable rate ?
OTOH I wouldn't fancy having 12 coppers on the bench. Unless I was prosecuting.
I was once the foreman of a jury at the Royal Courts of Justice in the case of Kent Constabulary vs Mr Big Scumbag. A civil case. Mr Scumbag was an armed bank robber whose house had been raided by Kent plod to recover the sawn-off (after surveillance). Mr Scumbag claims Mrs Scumbag was treated roughly by the Kent Tactical Firearms Unit during the raid and sued them. We found in favour of plod. A really fascinating two weeks with firearms passed around the jury, expert witnesses, men in wigs, the gallery full of cops, journalists, the full shebang - and me elected to be the foreman! Was like being in a film set. Would love to do it again.
We had a case involving 51,000 quid in counterfeit notes. They sat in the centre of the table as we deliberated.
If there had been any way, any way at all I could I have slipped a few in my pocket...... :-)
It is rude to call people morons even if they are, which Socrates isn't. Furthermore morons are thick on the ground, and not exempt from jury service. There might even be juries out there with morons and ukip voters on them. What do you think of that?
In deference to our host, I shall steer clear of further discussion of the case in point.
Morons on jury service are carefully guided through the process by the judge. Morons on the internet don't have that help and in some cases decide that aspects of the legal system that they just don't like should be junked to their taste. The jury service is far from infallible, but it works reasonably well.
A friend of mine now deceased claimed that he was on a jury in London. Black defendant, possession of drugs, defence he was fitted up by coppers. Jury unanimously believed the fitting-up claim but thought the D had it coming to him. Guilty on 11-1 verdict, my friend dissenting.
And no doubt you have a great uncle who smoked 80 a day and lived to age 97 before dying from falling off his bicycle.
OTOH I wouldn't fancy having 12 coppers on the bench. Unless I was prosecuting.
I was once the foreman of a jury at the Royal Courts of Justice in the case of Kent Constabulary vs Mr Big Scumbag. A civil case. Mr Scumbag was an armed bank robber whose house had been raided by Kent plod to recover the sawn-off (after surveillance). Mr Scumbag claims Mrs Scumbag was treated roughly by the Kent Tactical Firearms Unit during the raid and sued them. We found in favour of plod. A really fascinating two weeks with firearms passed around the jury, expert witnesses, men in wigs, the gallery full of cops, journalists, the full shebang - and me elected to be the foreman! Was like being in a film set. Would love to do it again.
Would tend to agree with PtP's view on mixed feelings about jury service. The case I did we returned an 11:1 verdict. The facts were utterly inescapable and frankly the whole case was a total waste of time - that ended up costing Mr Scumbag an enormous legal fee plus costs. The troubling aspect was that Mr Scumbag was a minority ethnic and of the 5 minority ethnic members of the jury the one who shared Scumbag's ethnicity just point blank refused to go against him. There were some quite heated 11 vs 1 arguments and the rest of us all felt that this was abject racism and an abrogation of a jurist's sworn duty (really the facts were unassailable). I had to send a note to the judge explaining we would never get a 12:0 verdict and he said 'OK then'. Left me a bit resentful and angry that justice is not top of some people's agenda when they serve.
Were Labour to win a minimum of 260 seats and the SNP + LiBDem combined were win at least 60 seats, both of which appear likely prospects, then EdM appears to be in the box seat to become the next Prime Minister, even if the Tories were to win as many as 290 - 300 seats, since it appears they will not have allies in any appreciable numbers to get close to overhauling a Labour Confidence & Supply arrangement totalling 320+ seats (+ because they would most likely also be able to count on a handful or so of PC, Green and SDLP M.P.s). On this basis, picking up bits and pieces at 2.4 (2.33 net) today on Betfair on EdM becoming PM looks like value to me. The Tories will really need to motor from hereon in to prevent such an outcome, unless of course you really, really think that the SNP or LibDems might instead side with them, which I consider to be most unlikely.
I think that is fair enough, and also I reckon PM Ed is now more likely than Labour most seats. He can also become PM with less seats than Conservatives.
Yes, the disconnect between the Next PM and Most Seats market is curious indeed.
It is rude to call people morons even if they are, which Socrates isn't. Furthermore morons are thick on the ground, and not exempt from jury service. There might even be juries out there with morons and ukip voters on them. What do you think of that?
In deference to our host, I shall steer clear of further discussion of the case in point.
Morons on jury service are carefully guided through the process by the judge. Morons on the internet don't have that help and in some cases decide that aspects of the legal system that they just don't like should be junked to their taste. The jury service is far from infallible, but it works reasonably well.
A friend of mine now deceased claimed that he was on a jury in London. Black defendant, possession of drugs, defence he was fitted up by coppers. Jury unanimously believed the fitting-up claim but thought the D had it coming to him. Guilty on 11-1 verdict, my friend dissenting.
Scary. Good on your friend for going with the law though.
Were Labour to win a minimum of 260 seats and the SNP + LiBDem combined were win at least 60 seats, both of which appear likely prospects, then EdM appears to be in the box seat to become the next Prime Minister, even if the Tories were to win as many as 290 - 300 seats, since it appears they will not have allies in any appreciable numbers to get close to overhauling a Labour Confidence & Supply arrangement totalling 320+ seats (+ because they would most likely also be able to count on a handful or so of PC, Green and SDLP M.P.s). On this basis, picking up bits and pieces at 2.4 (2.33 net) today on Betfair on EdM becoming PM looks like value to me. The Tories will really need to motor from hereon in to prevent such an outcome, unless of course you really, really think that the SNP or LibDems might instead side with them, which I consider to be most unlikely.
I think that is fair enough, and also I reckon PM Ed is now more likely than Labour most seats. He can also become PM with less seats than Conservatives.
Yes, the disconnect between the Next PM and Most Seats market is curious indeed.
The risk on this analysis is that if Labour is well beaten in votes and seats by the Conservatives, Ed Miliband may be unhorsed even if Labour lead the next government.
Were Labour to win a minimum of 260 seats and the SNP + LiBDem combined were win at least 60 seats, both of which appear likely prospects, then EdM appears to be in the box seat to become the next Prime Minister, even if the Tories were to win as many as 290 - 300 seats, since it appears they will not have allies in any appreciable numbers to get close to overhauling a Labour Confidence & Supply arrangement totalling 320+ seats (+ because they would most likely also be able to count on a handful or so of PC, Green and SDLP M.P.s). On this basis, picking up bits and pieces at 2.4 (2.33 net) today on Betfair on EdM becoming PM looks like value to me. The Tories will really need to motor from hereon in to prevent such an outcome, unless of course you really, really think that the SNP or LibDems might instead side with them, which I consider to be most unlikely.
A rainbow coalition would be very unstable. Especially with the SNP trying to get concessions for Scotland. It will destroy Labour in England to give Wales and Scotland a bunch of money and concessions, it would wipe them out for a generation in England, which is why Balls hasn't gone for it.
A second election following an attempt at a rainbow coalition could yield unpredictable results.
Were Labour to win a minimum of 260 seats and the SNP + LiBDem combined were win at least 60 seats, both of which appear likely prospects, then EdM appears to be in the box seat to become the next Prime Minister, even if the Tories were to win as many as 290 - 300 seats, since it appears they will not have allies in any appreciable numbers to get close to overhauling a Labour Confidence & Supply arrangement totalling 320+ seats (+ because they would most likely also be able to count on a handful or so of PC, Green and SDLP M.P.s). On this basis, picking up bits and pieces at 2.4 (2.33 net) today on Betfair on EdM becoming PM looks like value to me. The Tories will really need to motor from hereon in to prevent such an outcome, unless of course you really, really think that the SNP or LibDems might instead side with them, which I consider to be most unlikely.
A rainbow coalition would be very unstable. Especially with the SNP trying to get concessions for Scotland. It will destroy Labour in England to give Wales and Scotland a bunch of money and concessions, it would wipe them out for a generation in England, which is why Balls hasn't gone for it.
It would be highly unstable as you say. If the Labour Party even half stick to their promise to balance the deficit, the government will fall very quickly. No ones is going to be going through the lobbies to reduce public spending on the big areas.
Why would the snp, lib dems, greens, PC support something that is going to roundly make them unpopular?
The present coalition barely has the stomach for the really tough decisions needed in the next parliament. What weve seen so far is chicken feed.
OTOH I wouldn't fancy having 12 coppers on the bench. Unless I was prosecuting.
I was once the foreman of a jury at the Royal Courts of Justice in the case of Kent Constabulary vs Mr Big Scumbag. A civil case. Mr Scumbag was an armed bank robber whose house had been raided by Kent plod to recover the sawn-off (after surveillance). Mr Scumbag claims Mrs Scumbag was treated roughly by the Kent Tactical Firearms Unit during the raid and sued them. We found in favour of plod. A really fascinating two weeks with firearms passed around the jury, expert witnesses, men in wigs, the gallery full of cops, journalists, the full shebang - and me elected to be the foreman! Was like being in a film set. Would love to do it again.
We had a case involving 51,000 quid in counterfeit notes. They sat in the centre of the table as we deliberated.
If there had been any way, any way at all I could I have slipped a few in my pocket...... :-)
They were probably still wet. No further chance of that once the BoE goes plastic.
Were Labour to win a minimum of 260 seats and the SNP + LiBDem combined were win at least 60 seats, both of which appear likely prospects, then EdM appears to be in the box seat to become the next Prime Minister, even if the Tories were to win as many as 290 - 300 seats, since it appears they will not have allies in any appreciable numbers to get close to overhauling a Labour Confidence & Supply arrangement totalling 320+ seats (+ because they would most likely also be able to count on a handful or so of PC, Green and SDLP M.P.s). On this basis, picking up bits and pieces at 2.4 (2.33 net) today on Betfair on EdM becoming PM looks like value to me. The Tories will really need to motor from hereon in to prevent such an outcome, unless of course you really, really think that the SNP or LibDems might instead side with them, which I consider to be most unlikely.
I really don't agree with that. There's this assumption that every non-Tory MP in the HoC will rally behind Labour, but that's not the case. In the scenario you outline it'll almost certainly be true that the Lib Dems + DUP + Con would have an absolute majority, albeit tiny. Cameron would be the incumbent, and almost certainly ahead on both votes and seats.
Why would the Lib Dems immediately jump ship to form a 3rd wheel of an ever weaker agreement with a nationalist separatist party and an opposition leader who'd so comprehensively failed to win the election?
It doesn't compute. It's more likely the Lib Dems would hedge their bets and abstain, entering a period of consolidation and internal reflection. In which case, Caneron remains leading a minority Conservative government. Nothing changes unless Cameron resigns or loses a vote of confidence. This minority is stable in the short-term if Tory outnumbers Lab + Lib Dem combined, because he can't be obviously ambushed.
The risk is with the SNP, but Cameron might be able to buy their abstention on key finance bills and domestic English reforms by bunging them a bit more cash or initiating more devolution.
Were Labour to win a minimum of 260 seats and the SNP + LiBDem combined were win at least 60 seats, both of which appear likely prospects, then EdM appears to be in the box seat to become the next Prime Minister, even if the Tories were to win as many as 290 - 300 seats, since it appears they will not have allies in any appreciable numbers to get close to overhauling a Labour Confidence & Supply arrangement totalling 320+ seats (+ because they would most likely also be able to count on a handful or so of PC, Green and SDLP M.P.s). On this basis, picking up bits and pieces at 2.4 (2.33 net) today on Betfair on EdM becoming PM looks like value to me. The Tories will really need to motor from hereon in to prevent such an outcome, unless of course you really, really think that the SNP or LibDems might instead side with them, which I consider to be most unlikely.
I think that is fair enough, and also I reckon PM Ed is now more likely than Labour most seats. He can also become PM with less seats than Conservatives.
Yes, the disconnect between the Next PM and Most Seats market is curious indeed.
The risk on this analysis is that if Labour is well beaten in votes and seats by the Conservatives, Ed Miliband may be unhorsed even if Labour lead the next government.
He could well be unhorsed after the bookies have paid out on next Gov't though. So long as he makes it to Buckingham Palace...
A recent movie with some good and twisty legal shenanigans in it is the Richard Gere thriller 'Arbitrage' -- the jury scenes were shot not on a set, but in New York City's actual grand jury chamber (surprisingly plain-looking).
@Peter_the_Punter Going to back or lay Un_De_Sceaux - or identified a danger
Each way value for Vibrato Valtat at 14s ?
It's a watching race for me, Pulpstar. You certainly can't crab the favorite's form, but it's of little interest at 4/5 and I don't fancy betting for place money.
I haven't had any bets on the Festival yet but may well go with Jezki again. Faugheen is plainly talented but doesn't always hurdle with fluency and we both know how relevant Championship form is. 6/1 the reigning champ looks good, but there's no hurry; I doubt it will shorten before the big day.
Any chance of seeing you there?
Are there any B&Bs nearby for anywhere near a reasonable rate ?
@Peter_the_Punter Going to back or lay Un_De_Sceaux - or identified a danger
Each way value for Vibrato Valtat at 14s ?
It's a watching race for me, Pulpstar. You certainly can't crab the favorite's form, but it's of little interest at 4/5 and I don't fancy betting for place money.
I haven't had any bets on the Festival yet but may well go with Jezki again. Faugheen is plainly talented but doesn't always hurdle with fluency and we both know how relevant Championship form is. 6/1 the reigning champ looks good, but there's no hurry; I doubt it will shorten before the big day.
Any chance of seeing you there?
Are there any B&Bs nearby for anywhere near a reasonable rate ?
You are joking?!!
It's as an accommodation blank-out for a good fifty miles around the course, all week, every year.
You can bring a sleeping bag and stay in my greenhouse or garden shed if you like, but you'll have to put your bid in quick. Others are interested.
Were Labour to win a minimum of 260 seats and the SNP + LiBDem combined were win at least 60 seats, both of which appear likely prospects, then EdM appears to be in the box seat to become the next Prime Minister, even if the Tories were to win as many as 290 - 300 seats, since it appears they will not have allies in any appreciable numbers to get close to overhauling a Labour Confidence & Supply arrangement totalling 320+ seats (+ because they would most likely also be able to count on a handful or so of PC, Green and SDLP M.P.s). On this basis, picking up bits and pieces at 2.4 (2.33 net) today on Betfair on EdM becoming PM looks like value to me. The Tories will really need to motor from hereon in to prevent such an outcome, unless of course you really, really think that the SNP or LibDems might instead side with them, which I consider to be most unlikely.
I really don't agree with that. There's this assumption that every non-Tory MP in the HoC will rally behind Labour, but that's not the case. In the scenario you outline it'll almost certainly be true that the Lib Dems + DUP + Con would have an absolute majority, albeit tiny. Cameron would be the incumbent, and almost certainly ahead on both votes and seats.
Why would the Lib Dems immediately jump ship to form a 3rd wheel of an ever weaker agreement with a nationalist separatist party and an opposition leader who'd so comprehensively failed to win the election?
It doesn't compute. It's more likely the Lib Dems would hedge their bets and abstain, entering a period of consolidation and internal reflection. In which case, Caneron remains leading a minority Conservative government. Nothing changes unless Cameron resigns or loses a vote of confidence. This minority is stable in the short-term if Tory outnumbers Lab + Lib Dem combined, because he can't be obviously ambushed.
The risk is with the SNP, but Cameron might be able to buy their abstention on key finance bills and domestic English reforms by bunging them a bit more cash or initiating more devolution.
Have to say I see it pretty similar to Peter, but who knows?!
It is rude to call people morons even if they are, which Socrates isn't. Furthermore morons are thick on the ground, and not exempt from jury service. There might even be juries out there with morons and ukip voters on them. What do you think of that?
In deference to our host, I shall steer clear of further discussion of the case in point.
Morons on jury service are carefully guided through the process by the judge. Morons on the internet don't have that help and in some cases decide that aspects of the legal system that they just don't like should be junked to their taste. The jury service is far from infallible, but it works reasonably well.
A friend of mine now deceased claimed that he was on a jury in London. Black defendant, possession of drugs, defence he was fitted up by coppers. Jury unanimously believed the fitting-up claim but thought the D had it coming to him. Guilty on 11-1 verdict, my friend dissenting.
And no doubt you have a great uncle who smoked 80 a day and lived to age 97 before dying from falling off his bicycle.
I don't know how much money I would spend on a lawyer who publicly professed the belief that the good old British jury is the best in the world, tra-lal-la la, mind how you go and goodnight all.
it is a characteristic of the moron (to use your expression) that if he understands an argument he is so pleased with himself that he elevates it into an article of faith. You have grasped (well done!) that anecdotal evidence is unsatrisfactory. You have therefore decided that it is not valid, which is wrong. ("I wouldn't eat that mushroom if I were you, my great uncle ate one like that and died in agony": do you follow the advice or do you say "Oooooh, but did he eat it as part of a double-blind randomised study?").
And it takes both a moron and a singularly ill-informed lawyer not to know why anecdotal evidence of English jury deliberations is the best evidence we can get.
Were Labour to win a minimum of 260 seats and the SNP + LiBDem combined were win at least 60 seats, both of which appear likely prospects, then EdM appears to be in the box seat to become the next Prime Minister, even if the Tories were to win as many as 290 - 300 seats, since it appears they will not have allies in any appreciable numbers to get close to overhauling a Labour Confidence & Supply arrangement totalling 320+ seats (+ because they would most likely also be able to count on a handful or so of PC, Green and SDLP M.P.s). On this basis, picking up bits and pieces at 2.4 (2.33 net) today on Betfair on EdM becoming PM looks like value to me. The Tories will really need to motor from hereon in to prevent such an outcome, unless of course you really, really think that the SNP or LibDems might instead side with them, which I consider to be most unlikely.
A rainbow coalition would be very unstable. Especially with the SNP trying to get concessions for Scotland. It will destroy Labour in England to give Wales and Scotland a bunch of money and concessions, it would wipe them out for a generation in England, which is why Balls hasn't gone for it.
So what are you suggesting would happen in the event of such a not unlikely outcome? ..... An agreed GE re-run in the Autumn and near paralysis until then?
@Peter_the_Punter Going to back or lay Un_De_Sceaux - or identified a danger
Each way value for Vibrato Valtat at 14s ?
It's a watching race for me, Pulpstar. You certainly can't crab the favorite's form, but it's of little interest at 4/5 and I don't fancy betting for place money.
I haven't had any bets on the Festival yet but may well go with Jezki again. Faugheen is plainly talented but doesn't always hurdle with fluency and we both know how relevant Championship form is. 6/1 the reigning champ looks good, but there's no hurry; I doubt it will shorten before the big day.
Any chance of seeing you there?
Are there any B&Bs nearby for anywhere near a reasonable rate ?
@Peter_the_Punter Going to back or lay Un_De_Sceaux - or identified a danger
Each way value for Vibrato Valtat at 14s ?
It's a watching race for me, Pulpstar. You certainly can't crab the favorite's form, but it's of little interest at 4/5 and I don't fancy betting for place money.
I haven't had any bets on the Festival yet but may well go with Jezki again. Faugheen is plainly talented but doesn't always hurdle with fluency and we both know how relevant Championship form is. 6/1 the reigning champ looks good, but there's no hurry; I doubt it will shorten before the big day.
Any chance of seeing you there?
Are there any B&Bs nearby for anywhere near a reasonable rate ?
You are joking?!!
It's as an accommodation blank-out for a good fifty miles around the course, all week, every year.
You can bring a sleeping bag and stay in my greenhouse or garden shed if you like, but you'll have to put your bid in quick. Others are interested.
OTOH I wouldn't fancy having 12 coppers on the bench. Unless I was prosecuting.
I was once the foreman of a jury at the Royal Courts of Justice in the case of Kent Constabulary vs Mr Big Scumbag. A civil case. Mr Scumbag was an armed bank robber whose house had been raided by Kent plod to recover the sawn-off (after surveillance). Mr Scumbag claims Mrs Scumbag was treated roughly by the Kent Tactical Firearms Unit during the raid and sued them. We found in favour of plod. A really fascinating two weeks with firearms passed around the jury, expert witnesses, men in wigs, the gallery full of cops, journalists, the full shebang - and me elected to be the foreman! Was like being in a film set. Would love to do it again.
Would tend to agree with PtP's view on mixed feelings about jury service. The case I did we returned an 11:1 verdict. The facts were utterly inescapable and frankly the whole case was a total waste of time - that ended up costing Mr Scumbag an enormous legal fee plus costs. The troubling aspect was that Mr Scumbag was a minority ethnic and of the 5 minority ethnic members of the jury the one who shared Scumbag's ethnicity just point blank refused to go against him. There were some quite heated 11 vs 1 arguments and the rest of us all felt that this was abject racism and an abrogation of a jurist's sworn duty (really the facts were unassailable). I had to send a note to the judge explaining we would never get a 12:0 verdict and he said 'OK then'. Left me a bit resentful and angry that justice is not top of some people's agenda when they serve.
I still think this is good value at 5/1, though some of my seat number assumptions look out of date.
Yes, I got on at 7-1, have chased it up at 5s - but if the Labour vote share decreases between here and the election, the Conservatives could well have a minority Gov't too
So far as I can tell the following have been ruled out/in
DUP/UKIP ruled out coalition and seem to be working as a block - I think they would back up a Con minority. Lib Dems have ruled out coalition with UKIP SNP have ruled out coalition with Conservatives, or indeed minority support <- That's potentially huge for Labour.
SNP seem to be hinting at minority Labour support, but haven't completely ruled out coalition. 70-30 in favour of minority so far as I can tell, in fact Sturgeon seems positively enthusiastic about propping up Ed.
We ourselves won't take their seats meaning the bar for any Gov't is 323 seats, not 326, which could come into play.</p>
I don't see how a Conservative minority would be feasible using your own analysis, there isn't going to be enough support prepared to vote through Conservative policy. Who would vote through scrapping the human rights act, EV4EL, benefits cuts or most importantly the Tory budget? If Farron takes over from Clegg for the Lib Dems it'll be even harder.
For me by May 10/11 there are only two realistic scenarios unless the polls shift quickly, a continuation of the coalition with DUP propping them up or a Labour minority government.
A recent movie with some good and twisty legal shenanigans in it is the Richard Gere thriller 'Arbitrage' -- the jury scenes were shot not on a set, but in New York City's actual grand jury chamber (surprisingly plain-looking).
There was that Indian tennis player who liked to simultaneously bet for and against himself, Vijay Arbitraj
OTOH I wouldn't fancy having 12 coppers on the bench. Unless I was prosecuting.
I was once the foreman of a jury at the Royal Courts of Justice in the case of Kent Constabulary vs Mr Big Scumbag. A civil case. Mr Scumbag was an armed bank robber whose house had been raided by Kent plod to recover the sawn-off (after surveillance). Mr Scumbag claims Mrs Scumbag was treated roughly by the Kent Tactical Firearms Unit during the raid and sued them. We found in favour of plod. A really fascinating two weeks with firearms passed around the jury, expert witnesses, men in wigs, the gallery full of cops, journalists, the full shebang - and me elected to be the foreman! Was like being in a film set. Would love to do it again.
Would tend to agree with PtP's view on mixed feelings about jury service. The case I did we returned an 11:1 verdict. The facts were utterly inescapable and frankly the whole case was a total waste of time - that ended up costing Mr Scumbag an enormous legal fee plus costs. The troubling aspect was that Mr Scumbag was a minority ethnic and of the 5 minority ethnic members of the jury the one who shared Scumbag's ethnicity just point blank refused to go against him. There were some quite heated 11 vs 1 arguments and the rest of us all felt that this was abject racism and an abrogation of a jurist's sworn duty (really the facts were unassailable). I had to send a note to the judge explaining we would never get a 12:0 verdict and he said 'OK then'. Left me a bit resentful and angry that justice is not top of some people's agenda when they serve.
You are bound to get some horror stories, Patrick. Mine concerned a Jury that was principally preoccupied with getting home early.
By contrast, another jury I was on analysed a tricky case with great diligence and care, and came unanimously after long discussion to what I am sure was the correct decision.
Some juries are better than others, but on the whole I think the system works pretty well.
Were Labour to win a minimum of 260 seats and the SNP + LiBDem combined were win at least 60 seats, both of which appear likely prospects, then EdM appears to be in the box seat to become the next Prime Minister, even if the Tories were to win as many as 290 - 300 seats, since it appears they will not have allies in any appreciable numbers to get close to overhauling a Labour Confidence & Supply arrangement totalling 320+ seats (+ because they would most likely also be able to count on a handful or so of PC, Green and SDLP M.P.s). On this basis, picking up bits and pieces at 2.4 (2.33 net) today on Betfair on EdM becoming PM looks like value to me. The Tories will really need to motor from hereon in to prevent such an outcome, unless of course you really, really think that the SNP or LibDems might instead side with them, which I consider to be most unlikely.
I really don't agree with that. There's this assumption that every non-Tory MP in the HoC will rally behind Labour, but that's not the case. In the scenario you outline it'll almost certainly be true that the Lib Dems + DUP + Con would have an absolute majority, albeit tiny. Cameron would be the incumbent, and almost certainly ahead on both votes and seats.
Why would the Lib Dems immediately jump ship to form a 3rd wheel of an ever weaker agreement with a nationalist separatist party and an opposition leader who'd so comprehensively failed to win the election?
It doesn't compute. It's more likely the Lib Dems would hedge their bets and abstain, entering a period of consolidation and internal reflection. In which case, Caneron remains leading a minority Conservative government. Nothing changes unless Cameron resigns or loses a vote of confidence. This minority is stable in the short-term if Tory outnumbers Lab + Lib Dem combined, because he can't be obviously ambushed.
The risk is with the SNP, but Cameron might be able to buy their abstention on key finance bills and domestic English reforms by bunging them a bit more cash or initiating more devolution.
Casino - I think your forgetting that the LibDems will be a very different animal post Clegg. Do you really see the likes of Farron supporting the Tories? Hell would freeze over first.
Farage is actually much better when he is talking economics as here re Greece rather than tub thumping IMO
Yes i agree
Actually true what he says about being the non drinker with a group who are on it... they talk such rubbish!!
I have severely cut down to the point of barely drinking at all, and sometimes pick my mates up after a night out.. it really does reduce the minds of adults to nursery children
Although went on a date on Tuesday and drank cocktails which made yesterday v hard work.,... first hangover for 5 months
Last night's tied YG pegs back the Tory lead in this week's "part-ELBOW" so far to 0.2% (0.5% yesterday, 0.4% Tuesday). Libdems and Greens within 0.5% of each other.
Spending is £10bn more in real terms than in Labour’s supposedly profligate Indian summer of 2009.
Is that true?
Jenkins doesn't reference the claim, and it may be one of those supposed facts that has assumed a life of its own free from any relation to reality. If it is true, it does rather suggest that the next election is going to fought on the basis of a false narrative about the recent past.
@Peter_the_Punter Going to back or lay Un_De_Sceaux - or identified a danger
Each way value for Vibrato Valtat at 14s ?
It's a watching race for me, Pulpstar. You certainly can't crab the favorite's form, but it's of little interest at 4/5 and I don't fancy betting for place money.
I haven't had any bets on the Festival yet but may well go with Jezki again. Faugheen is plainly talented but doesn't always hurdle with fluency and we both know how relevant Championship form is. 6/1 the reigning champ looks good, but there's no hurry; I doubt it will shorten before the big day.
Any chance of seeing you there?
Are there any B&Bs nearby for anywhere near a reasonable rate ?
@Peter_the_Punter Going to back or lay Un_De_Sceaux - or identified a danger
Each way value for Vibrato Valtat at 14s ?
It's a watching race for me, Pulpstar. You certainly can't crab the favorite's form, but it's of little interest at 4/5 and I don't fancy betting for place money.
I haven't had any bets on the Festival yet but may well go with Jezki again. Faugheen is plainly talented but doesn't always hurdle with fluency and we both know how relevant Championship form is. 6/1 the reigning champ looks good, but there's no hurry; I doubt it will shorten before the big day.
Any chance of seeing you there?
Are there any B&Bs nearby for anywhere near a reasonable rate ?
You are joking?!!
It's as an accommodation blank-out for a good fifty miles around the course, all week, every year.
You can bring a sleeping bag and stay in my greenhouse or garden shed if you like, but you'll have to put your bid in quick. Others are interested.
I thought you lived in London !
Hmm I'll consider that.
True, but naturally I have another residence close to the racecourse. :=)
It is rude to call people morons even if they are, which Socrates isn't. Furthermore morons are thick on the ground, and not exempt from jury service. There might even be juries out there with morons and ukip voters on them. What do you think of that?
In deference to our host, I shall steer clear of further discussion of the case in point.
Morons on jury service are carefully guided through the process by the judge. Morons on the internet don't have that help and in some cases decide that aspects of the legal system that they just don't like should be junked to their taste. The jury service is far from infallible, but it works reasonably well.
A friend of mine now deceased claimed that he was on a jury in London. Black defendant, possession of drugs, defence he was fitted up by coppers. Jury unanimously believed the fitting-up claim but thought the D had it coming to him. Guilty on 11-1 verdict, my friend dissenting.
And no doubt you have a great uncle who smoked 80 a day and lived to age 97 before dying from falling off his bicycle.
I don't know how much money I would spend on a lawyer who publicly professed the belief that the good old British jury is the best in the world, tra-lal-la la, mind how you go and goodnight all.
it is a characteristic of the moron (to use your expression) that if he understands an argument he is so pleased with himself that he elevates it into an article of faith. You have grasped (well done!) that anecdotal evidence is unsatrisfactory. You have therefore decided that it is not valid, which is wrong. ("I wouldn't eat that mushroom if I were you, my great uncle ate one like that and died in agony": do you follow the advice or do you say "Oooooh, but did he eat it as part of a double-blind randomised study?").
And it takes both a moron and a singularly ill-informed lawyer not to know why anecdotal evidence of English jury deliberations is the best evidence we can get.
I did jury service myself two years ago. I'm satisfied that the conclusion we came to (Guilty) was the correct one, and I was impressed by how conscientious the jurors were (we took about 8 hours to come to our conclusion).
In general, if I were a Defendant, this is one of the countries where I would be most confident of getting a fair trial.
OTOH I wouldn't fancy having 12 coppers on the bench. Unless I was prosecuting.
I was once the foreman of a jury at the Royal Courts of Justice in the case of Kent Constabulary vs Mr Big Scumbag. A civil case. Mr Scumbag was an armed bank robber whose house had been raided by Kent plod to recover the sawn-off (after surveillance). Mr Scumbag claims Mrs Scumbag was treated roughly by the Kent Tactical Firearms Unit during the raid and sued them. We found in favour of plod. A really fascinating two weeks with firearms passed around the jury, expert witnesses, men in wigs, the gallery full of cops, journalists, the full shebang - and me elected to be the foreman! Was like being in a film set. Would love to do it again.
I've done Jury Service twice. First time, I had just turned 18!
Never mind about smoking, lack of green vegetables can also be a killer. How can these misbegotten parents escape justice so easily? In present day UK it seems these and others of their ilk, can.
Interesting piece on the Beeb this morning, an opinion poll about the NHS. What was interesting was that satisfaction in the NHS has risen 11% amongst those who identify as Labour supporters.
Shurly shome mishtake
It is at an all time high, and satisfaction is fairly equally spread between parties:
Spending is £10bn more in real terms than in Labour’s supposedly profligate Indian summer of 2009.
Is that true?
Jenkins doesn't reference the claim, and it may be one of those supposed facts that has assumed a life of its own free from any relation to reality. If it is true, it does rather suggest that the next election is going to fought on the basis of a false narrative about the recent past.
It looks like it is not true. Using figures from the OBR, total expenditure in 2009-10 (in 2013-14 prices) was £745.2bn and this had been reduced to £721.5bn in 2013-14.
Incidentally, government receipts peaked at £642.2bn in 2007-08, but have only recovered to £624.2bn in 2013-14 (all in 2013-14 prices).
Spending is £10bn more in real terms than in Labour’s supposedly profligate Indian summer of 2009.
Is that true?
Jenkins doesn't reference the claim, and it may be one of those supposed facts that has assumed a life of its own free from any relation to reality. If it is true, it does rather suggest that the next election is going to fought on the basis of a false narrative about the recent past.
It looks like it is not true. Using figures from the OBR, total expenditure in 2009-10 (in 2013-14 prices) was £745.2bn and this had been reduced to £721.5bn in 2013-14.
Incidentally, government receipts peaked at £642.2bn in 2007-08, but have only recovered to £624.2bn in 2013-14 (all in 2013-14 prices).
Which means that we have currently saved £745.2bn - £721.5bn = 24bn in the last 5-6 years despite all the whining from lefties, and we need to find another £721.5m - £624.2bn = 97.3bn to balance the books....
I posted this earlier, in refutation of the above: The Telegraph article is a load of bollocks. Matt Lee @APDiploWriter 22m22 minutes ago Classic. It's a brave new (media) world. @nytimes: Michelle Obama Praised for Bold Stand She Didn’t Take in #Saudi" http://nyti.ms/1A1juby
Were Labour to win a minimum of 260 seats and the SNP + LiBDem combined were win at least 60 seats, both of which appear likely prospects, then EdM appears to be in the box seat to become the next Prime Minister, even if the Tories were to win as many as 290 - 300 seats, since it appears they will not have allies in any appreciable numbers to get close to overhauling a Labour Confidence & Supply arrangement totalling 320+ seats (+ because they would most likely also be able to count on a handful or so of PC, Green and SDLP M.P.s). On this basis, picking up bits and pieces at 2.4 (2.33 net) today on Betfair on EdM becoming PM looks like value to me. The Tories will really need to motor from hereon in to prevent such an outcome, unless of course you really, really think that the SNP or LibDems might instead side with them, which I consider to be most unlikely.
I really don't agree with that. There's this assumption that every non-Tory MP in the HoC will rally behind Labour, but that's not the case. In the scenario you outline it'll almost certainly be true
The risk is with the SNP, but Cameron might be able to buy their abstention on key finance bills and domestic English reforms by bunging them a bit more cash or initiating more devolution.
Casino - I think your forgetting that the LibDems will be a very different animal post Clegg. Do you really see the likes of Farron supporting the Tories? Hell would freeze over first.
We must be wary of making too many assumptions. I don't think it's a given Clegg will resign after the election in May; he may outperform expectations and stay as leader. Even if he does not, it's not a given Farron will become leader. That process would take some time too, during which period either Clegg is interim leader, or there's a caretaker; that'd mean abstention and no deals so as not to tie the hands of the successor. The Lib Dems are a very democratic party.
Abstention and no deals mean Cameron remains in office. Even if Farron subsequently won a few months later I'd find it funny if his first action was to try and jump into bed with Labour and the SNP to engineer a vote to boot out a Cameron minority. He'd be taking just the same risks in doing that as Labour would.
I think it's more likely Cameron would limp on for with a weak ministry for at least a year. The longstop would be the EU referendum in 2017, where I could easily see his government falling apart over the issue.
Comments
Or when imbeciles think that the one-sidedness of a website hosting a video from an objective source means the video is therefore one-sided. You think Ched Evans' website has been playing photoshop with the CCTV footage?
First you try to mischaracterise my views to imply I don't want to stop more women getting raped. Now you try to ignore the evidence just because of which website it is hosted on. You're embarrassing yourself.
And all because you can't answer the simple question: "What was the evidence that proved beyond reasonable doubt that Evans raped the complainant?" You can't answer so you're throwing every logical fallacy in the book to hide your lack of argument. What a numpty.
Given you think that it is appropriate to link to websites that trash the reputations of people who have no chance to give their account, I really don't have the slightest concern what you think of me.
12 Gene Hunts and you're done for.
IME there are three type of copper. Dixon of Dock Green who called me Maam and meant it. The Gene Hunts who'd bend evidence to get a baddie and the form filler who played it safe and hid in their office.
Women who make false allegations unlike in the Evans case then where all 12 jurors found him guilty
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11376085/Nick-Clegg-I-saved-Britain-from-Greece-style-debt-crisis.html
And regardless of your concerns, I was also dealing with the facts when stating that you are a nasty little man and an imbecile.
It is rude to call people morons even if they are, which Socrates isn't. Furthermore morons are thick on the ground, and not exempt from jury service. There might even be juries out there with morons and ukip voters on them. What do you think of that?
Woman goes off to copulate with a stranger she literally bumps into in the street. Other guy joins in. No injuries. No complaint of rape even.
Guy goes down for 5 years...
Each way value for Vibrato Valtat at 14s ?
Anyway although I do intend to post I do have another motive. If possible I would like an off-line conversation with NP.
Morons on jury service are carefully guided through the process by the judge. Morons on the internet don't have that help and in some cases decide that aspects of the legal system that they just don't like should be junked to their taste. The jury service is far from infallible, but it works reasonably well.
On this basis, picking up bits and pieces at 2.4 (2.33 net) today on Betfair on EdM becoming PM looks like value to me. The Tories will really need to motor from hereon in to prevent such an outcome, unless of course you really, really think that the SNP or LibDems might instead side with them, which I consider to be most unlikely.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11376569/If-London-treated-Britain-like-Germany-treats-the-eurozone-Londoners-would-pay-no-income-tax.html
I haven't had any bets on the Festival yet but may well go with Jezki again. Faugheen is plainly talented but doesn't always hurdle with fluency and we both know how relevant Championship form is. 6/1 the reigning champ looks good, but there's no hurry; I doubt it will shorten before the big day.
Any chance of seeing you there?
If you have a better alternative to the jury system, Socrates, let us hear it instead of your constant yelling at the jurors to (metaphorically) get off your lawn.
sean thomas knox @thomasknox · 4m4 minutes ago Camden Town, London
Rotherham Victim Says Abusers 'Untouchable' http://news.sky.com/story/1416946/rotherham-victim-says-abusers-untouchable … untouchable, and incredible. "still going on"???
"One survivor "Gemma" told Sky News: "It's still going on if not worse, because now they're having to hide it more. I'm still seeing my abusers driving young girls in their car. They're untouchable"
Much like Western liberal democracy itself.
If there had been any way, any way at all I could I have slipped a few in my pocket...... :-)
Why would the snp, lib dems, greens, PC support something that is going to roundly make them unpopular?
The present coalition barely has the stomach for the really tough decisions needed in the next parliament. What weve seen so far is chicken feed.
Why would the Lib Dems immediately jump ship to form a 3rd wheel of an ever weaker agreement with a nationalist separatist party and an opposition leader who'd so comprehensively failed to win the election?
It doesn't compute. It's more likely the Lib Dems would hedge their bets and abstain, entering a period of consolidation and internal reflection. In which case, Caneron remains leading a minority Conservative government. Nothing changes unless Cameron resigns or loses a vote of confidence. This minority is stable in the short-term if Tory outnumbers Lab + Lib Dem combined, because he can't be obviously ambushed.
The risk is with the SNP, but Cameron might be able to buy their abstention on key finance bills and domestic English reforms by bunging them a bit more cash or initiating more devolution.
It's as an accommodation blank-out for a good fifty miles around the course, all week, every year.
You can bring a sleeping bag and stay in my greenhouse or garden shed if you like, but you'll have to put your bid in quick. Others are interested.
it is a characteristic of the moron (to use your expression) that if he understands an argument he is so pleased with himself that he elevates it into an article of faith. You have grasped (well done!) that anecdotal evidence is unsatrisfactory. You have therefore decided that it is not valid, which is wrong. ("I wouldn't eat that mushroom if I were you, my great uncle ate one like that and died in agony": do you follow the advice or do you say "Oooooh, but did he eat it as part of a double-blind randomised study?").
And it takes both a moron and a singularly ill-informed lawyer not to know why anecdotal evidence of English jury deliberations is the best evidence we can get.
Hmm I'll consider that.
I love William Shatner doing his bit decades ago in The Defender in 1957 - just superb
youtube.com/watch?v=QIVeQeVu5xQ
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11376192/Michelle-Obamas-Saudia-Arabia-headscarf-snub-was-deliberate.html
For me by May 10/11 there are only two realistic scenarios unless the polls shift quickly, a continuation of the coalition with DUP propping them up or a Labour minority government.
By contrast, another jury I was on analysed a tricky case with great diligence and care, and came unanimously after long discussion to what I am sure was the correct decision.
Some juries are better than others, but on the whole I think the system works pretty well.
I have severely cut down to the point of barely drinking at all, and sometimes pick my mates up after a night out.. it really does reduce the minds of adults to nursery children
Although went on a date on Tuesday and drank cocktails which made yesterday v hard work.,... first hangover for 5 months
Con 32.8
Lab 32.6
UKIP 15.6
LD 7.0
Grn 6.5
Jenkins doesn't reference the claim, and it may be one of those supposed facts that has assumed a life of its own free from any relation to reality. If it is true, it does rather suggest that the next election is going to fought on the basis of a false narrative about the recent past.
In general, if I were a Defendant, this is one of the countries where I would be most confident of getting a fair trial.
Did one offset the other?!
I'm destined for Hell according to all of them - well it's fun on the way down!
"Any deal that can guarantee significantly more than 323 on a regular basis will be prioritised over razor-thin deals."
How can these misbegotten parents escape justice so easily? In present day UK it seems these and others of their ilk, can.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-31039895
Dylan Seabridge, aged eight, died of scurvy, says coroner
Incidentally, government receipts peaked at £642.2bn in 2007-08, but have only recovered to £624.2bn in 2013-14 (all in 2013-14 prices).
Matt Lee @APDiploWriter 22m22 minutes ago
Classic. It's a brave new (media) world.
@nytimes: Michelle Obama Praised for Bold Stand She Didn’t Take in #Saudi"
http://nyti.ms/1A1juby
Abstention and no deals mean Cameron remains in office. Even if Farron subsequently won a few months later I'd find it funny if his first action was to try and jump into bed with Labour and the SNP to engineer a vote to boot out a Cameron minority. He'd be taking just the same risks in doing that as Labour would.
I think it's more likely Cameron would limp on for with a weak ministry for at least a year. The longstop would be the EU referendum in 2017, where I could easily see his government falling apart over the issue.
new thread