Just saw some of the disgusting footage in that Yorkshire abattoir. I also note this sentence:
Slaughterhouses in the UK are required to stun animals before they are killed to minimise pain, but Muslim and Jewish slaughterhouses are exempt due to religious requirements.
Why on Earth is this the case? Moderate Jews and moderate Muslims have accepted stunning. It's only the fundamentalists we are appeasing. As with the free speech issue, this needs to end. Your rights to practice your religion however you want end when it causes the suffering of others, and that includes animals.
Compassion in World Farming report that 80% of the cattle and sheep slaughtered under the Halal method in the UK are effectively stunned before slaughter, and they are campaigning to remove the religious exemption - which would seem to be unnecessary.
Right. The vast majority of Muslims and Jews are happy to eat livestock that was stunned before death. It's only the 20% of real nutters that get an opt out from the law. Why? What's the point? Are these people really so valuable to the country that we should abandon the principle of equal treatment and our belief that animals shouldn't suffer?
It really shows the moral cowardice of the establishment they're not willing to do this.
Fear of being labelled racist trumps everything else: animal rights, child protection, gender discrimination, sexual discrimination, freedom of expression, social harmony..
Do you have to have this kind of outlook on the world to consider voting UKIP or does it just help?
I don't think it's an outlook; I'm afraid it's evidence based. There is a hesitation in the mainstream political parties to criticise practices that they'd otherwise condemn where these can be labelled as cultural.
A few do but they are very much in the minority, and not in power.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 26m26 minutes ago Revised Labour lead in ELBOW 1st Feb now 0.8%.not 0.4, due to late breaking TNS phone poll, but still 2nd lowest lead
@Casino_Royale The ritual killing of animals is wrong? How do you stand on fox hunting to hounds?
I am in favour of fox hunting with hounds, and repealing the ban. I see it as no different to shooting, trapping or fishing and very different to the deliberate ritual killing of animals in pursuance of conformance to some religious theology.
All well and good, but does this add up? To which the answer is, mostly. If we reckon that there are say 70 seats where the Lib Dems would see themselves as in serious contention and use an average of 30%, and use 6.5% as an average for the other 561 mainland seats, we get a Lib Dem overall poll rating of just over 9% - a full percentage point ahead of the centre point of their national polling.
Lower that figure from 6.5% I reckon... slightly - but that squares the circle - It will be an expensive night for the Libs in terms of deposit losses.
Eastenders is too whiteshite. And the white characters are too Britishunbelievable caricatures. And the non-white British characters are too integrated.
I hesitate to teach a grandmother to suck eggs, but I think Professor Curtice is wrong in his final paragraph. I don't think Ms Sturgeon will have any difficulty whatsoever simultaneously riding the various post-election horses. She just needs to blame Westminster for everything and be generally stroppy and difficult, a role to which she is admirably suited.
There will be a problem when the Tories offer by far the best deal, if it were up to Ruth Davidson, I am quite convinced she is solidly behind Full Fiscal Autonomy. The Tories have everything to gain through this if they have a genuine desire to hold the Union together, nothing short of FFA seems to have any prospect of being effective.
The popularity of Sturgeon MAY be enough to do such a deal. But it would be a tremendous political gamble none the less.
Just saw some of the disgusting footage in that Yorkshire abattoir. I also note this sentence:
Slaughterhouses in the UK are required to stun animals before they are killed to minimise pain, but Muslim and Jewish slaughterhouses are exempt due to religious requirements.
Why on Earth is this the case? Moderate Jews and moderate Muslims have accepted stunning. It's only the fundamentalists we are appeasing. As with the free speech issue, this needs to end. Your rights to practice your religion however you want end when it causes the suffering of others, and that includes animals.
Compassion in World Farming report that 80% of the cattle and sheep slaughtered under the Halal method in the UK are effectively stunned before slaughter, and they are campaigning to remove the religious exemption - which would seem to be unnecessary.
Right. The vast majority of Muslims and Jews are happy to eat livestock that was stunned before death. It's only the 20% of real nutters that get an opt out from the law. Why? What's the point? Are these people really so valuable to the country that we should abandon the principle of equal treatment and our belief that animals shouldn't suffer?
It really shows the moral cowardice of the establishment they're not willing to do this.
Fear of being labelled racist trumps everything else: animal rights, child protection, gender discrimination, sexual discrimination, freedom of expression, social harmony..
Do you have to have this kind of outlook on the world to consider voting UKIP or does it just help?
I don't think it's an outlook; I'm afraid it's evidence based. There is a hesitation in the mainstream political parties to criticise practices that they'd otherwise condemn where these can be labelled as cultural.
A few do but they are very much in the minority, and not in power.
Councillor Peter Golds' complaints to the police about electoral malpractice in Tower Hamlets met the response "it's a cultural matter" for a very long time, and he's not UKIP.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 14m14 minutes ago Revised "Super-ELBOW" for Jan 2015, due to late TNS phone poll. Lab 33.3, Con 32.1, UKIP, 15.2, LD 7.3, Green 6.5
You are starting to bewilder me, and I'm sure others, with your constant fiddling and changes, now almost hourly, on your ELBOW.
Before you turn the ELBOW, - which I like - and yourself to a harlequin of fun, and not to be taken seriously, why don't you consider publishing the ELBOW twice a week on say, Tuesday and Friday: come what may and never mind the news headlines.
Do this, up to say the last 3 weeks to the election; then and only then, would it be worth while to publish daily.
Lower that figure from 6.5% I reckon... slightly - but that squares the circle - It will be an expensive night for the Libs in terms of deposit losses.
Sky news footage of the treatment of animals at a North yorkshore halal abattoir is absolutely horrific... I shouldn't think the treatment at non halal abattoirs is much better but it's worth a watch...
Can't imagine I'll eat mammal meat again
Pithy comment alert, but the real animals are the scum that work there. Would like to seem them thrown about and beaten see how they like it
I am sure the aninal liberation types are up in arms about this and of course RSPCA will no doubt be on the case big time.
If not, why not?
There are a lot of animal welfare charities with a specific focus on farming. Animal Aid obtained the footage in this instance, and Compassion in World Farming also.
Why are you trying to link this to some grudge you hold against the RSPCA?
Having a number of animal charities allows for diversity of opinion and for charities that do not represent public opinion to fail to attract potential donors. Yet you seem to be criticising the RSPCA for not exercising a monopoly on animal rights activism. Frankly it's a bizarre attitude to take.
Not sure where you get this idea of a "grudge" from???
I mention the RSPCA because it is the biggest high profile animal charity I know.
It would be nice if they stepped up to be counted wouldn't it?
It is complete nonsense to suggest that a larger sample improves a poll's accuracy as YouGov found at GE10.
ICM's 1k sample poll was far more accurate than YouGov's 6k sample one. On that day five of the top six pollsters used the phone - five of the bottom six were online.
Is a smaller moe not evidence of greater accuracy? And a 2k sample has moe of 2%, compared to a 1k sample with 3% moe.
Pulling one pair of polls out where the larger was less accurate doesn't really back up your assertion.
MofE and consequently sample size is of less importance than using the right or wrong methodology .
"of less importance", sure.
But Mike said "It is complete nonsense to suggest that a larger sample improves a poll's accuracy"
Complete nonsense?
Remember the original Literary Digest poll which set off polling in 1936 . A sample size of 2.4million which got the wrong result
Yes, I know about the original voodoo poll. And it comes as close as Mike's 6k YouGov sample size example to proving his point that "It is complete nonsense to suggest that a larger sample improves a poll's accuracy".
If Mike is right, why bother with a sample size greater than one?
Sky news footage of the treatment of animals at a North yorkshore halal abattoir is absolutely horrific... I shouldn't think the treatment at non halal abattoirs is much better but it's worth a watch...
Can't imagine I'll eat mammal meat again
Pithy comment alert, but the real animals are the scum that work there. Would like to seem them thrown about and beaten see how they like it
I am sure the aninal liberation types are up in arms about this and of course RSPCA will no doubt be on the case big time.
If not, why not?
There are a lot of animal welfare charities with a specific focus on farming. Animal Aid obtained the footage in this instance, and Compassion in World Farming also.
Why are you trying to link this to some grudge you hold against the RSPCA?
Having a number of animal charities allows for diversity of opinion and for charities that do not represent public opinion to fail to attract potential donors. Yet you seem to be criticising the RSPCA for not exercising a monopoly on animal rights activism. Frankly it's a bizarre attitude to take.
Not sure where you get this idea of a "grudge" from???
I mention the RSPCA because it is the biggest high profile animal charity I know.
It would be nice if they stepped up to be counted wouldn't it?
It's almost as if they don't want unseemly protests disturbing the peace outside their swish Sussex HQ.
It is complete nonsense to suggest that a larger sample improves a poll's accuracy as YouGov found at GE10.
ICM's 1k sample poll was far more accurate than YouGov's 6k sample one. On that day five of the top six pollsters used the phone - five of the bottom six were online.
Is a smaller moe not evidence of greater accuracy? And a 2k sample has moe of 2%, compared to a 1k sample with 3% moe.
Pulling one pair of polls out where the larger was less accurate doesn't really back up your assertion.
MofE and consequently sample size is of less importance than using the right or wrong methodology .
"of less importance", sure.
But Mike said "It is complete nonsense to suggest that a larger sample improves a poll's accuracy"
Complete nonsense?
Remember the original Literary Digest poll which set off polling in 1936 . A sample size of 2.4million which got the wrong result
Yes, I know about the original voodoo poll. And it comes as close as Mike's 6k YouGov sample size example to proving his point that "It is complete nonsense to suggest that a larger sample improves a poll's accuracy".
If Mike is right, why bother with a sample size greater than one?
"If Mike is right, why bother with a sample size greater than one?"
As sample size increases the poll becomes more accurate (for some value of "accurate").
After a certain point, other factors have a greater impact and increasing the sample size alone doesn't help.
Sky news footage of the treatment of animals at a North yorkshore halal abattoir is absolutely horrific... I shouldn't think the treatment at non halal abattoirs is much better but it's worth a watch...
Can't imagine I'll eat mammal meat again
Pithy comment alert, but the real animals are the scum that work there. Would like to seem them thrown about and beaten see how they like it
This is the kind of thing that the RSPCA should really be getting stuck into. I guess going after fox hunting toffs is the easier option.
It is complete nonsense to suggest that a larger sample improves a poll's accuracy as YouGov found at GE10.
ICM's 1k sample poll was far more accurate than YouGov's 6k sample one. On that day five of the top six pollsters used the phone - five of the bottom six were online.
Is a smaller moe not evidence of greater accuracy? And a 2k sample has moe of 2%, compared to a 1k sample with 3% moe.
Pulling one pair of polls out where the larger was less accurate doesn't really back up your assertion.
MofE and consequently sample size is of less importance than using the right or wrong methodology .
"of less importance", sure.
But Mike said "It is complete nonsense to suggest that a larger sample improves a poll's accuracy"
Complete nonsense?
Remember the original Literary Digest poll which set off polling in 1936 . A sample size of 2.4million which got the wrong result
Yes, I know about the original voodoo poll. And it comes as close as Mike's 6k YouGov sample size example to proving his point that "It is complete nonsense to suggest that a larger sample improves a poll's accuracy".
If Mike is right, why bother with a sample size greater than one?
"If Mike is right, why bother with a sample size greater than one?"
As sample size increases the poll becomes more accurate (for some value of "accurate").
After a certain point, other factors have a greater impact and increasing the sample size alone doesn't help.
Sounds like you agree that "It is complete nonsense to suggest that a larger sample improves a poll's accuracy" is mostly nonsense?
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 14m14 minutes ago Revised "Super-ELBOW" for Jan 2015, due to late TNS phone poll. Lab 33.3, Con 32.1, UKIP, 15.2, LD 7.3, Green 6.5
You are starting to bewilder me, and I'm sure others, with your constant fiddling and changes, now almost hourly, on your ELBOW.
Before you turn the ELBOW, - which I like - and yourself to a harlequin of fun, and not to be taken seriously, why don't you consider publishing the ELBOW twice a week on say, Tuesday and Friday: come what may and never mind the news headlines.
Do this, up to say the last 3 weeks to the election; then and only then, would it be worth while to publish daily.
Normally I Tweet on Sundays, but blame TNS for releasing their phone poll a week after the field-work ended (26th January!)
94.1% chance for Farron to hold, vs 93.3% Carmichael
I'll gladly frame a bet at 11-10 with a massive push chance that Farron holds and Carmichael doesn't.
More interesting exercise for you - price up LD v Tory seats in Scotland
All one of them ?
Berwickshire Roxburgh I assume you mean.
Lets see
[snipped]
Lib Dem 32.5 Con 28 SNP 25.2 Lab 7 UKIP 6
Independent or Jacobite 500-1 (You never know) Lab 1,000-1 (4th and going backwards) UKIP 100-1 (They are going forwards...) SNP 4-1 Con 6-5 Lib Dem 8-11
For a bit of an overround...
Note I have NOT looked at the odds whilst doing this exercise. And I'm not offering those odds either.
Very solid effort, although you are betting to too much (124%) you haven't got anything too big according to the market. I will take Lab > 7% at 5/6 if you're offering though
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 14m14 minutes ago Revised "Super-ELBOW" for Jan 2015, due to late TNS phone poll. Lab 33.3, Con 32.1, UKIP, 15.2, LD 7.3, Green 6.5
You are starting to bewilder me, and I'm sure others, with your constant fiddling and changes, now almost hourly, on your ELBOW.
Before you turn the ELBOW, - which I like - and yourself to a harlequin of fun, and not to be taken seriously, why don't you consider publishing the ELBOW twice a week on say, Tuesday and Friday: come what may and never mind the news headlines.
Do this, up to say the last 3 weeks to the election; then and only then, would it be worth while to publish daily.
Normally I Tweet on Sundays, but blame TNS for releasing their phone poll a week after the field-work ended (26th January!)
Sunil, as discussed I don't believe that poll was politically weighted and therefore shouldn't sully your ELBOW.
I reckon the Lib Dems lose their deposit in my seat, NE Derbyshire btw @Antifrank. How does that fit in with your model ?
4% I reckon...
The LD lost deposit market may be upset if they do not stand in many seats. They are yet to select in over 300, including Loughborough or Broxtowe when I last looked. Will they stand in so many hopeless seats?
94.1% chance for Farron to hold, vs 93.3% Carmichael
I'll gladly frame a bet at 11-10 with a massive push chance that Farron holds and Carmichael doesn't.
More interesting exercise for you - price up LD v Tory seats in Scotland
All one of them ?
Berwickshire Roxburgh I assume you mean.
Lets see
[snipped]
Lib Dem 32.5 Con 28 SNP 25.2 Lab 7 UKIP 6
Independent or Jacobite 500-1 (You never know) Lab 1,000-1 (4th and going backwards) UKIP 100-1 (They are going forwards...) SNP 4-1 Con 6-5 Lib Dem 8-11
For a bit of an overround...
Note I have NOT looked at the odds whilst doing this exercise. And I'm not offering those odds either.
Very solid effort, although you are betting to too much (124%) you haven't got anything too big according to the market. I will take Lab > 7% at 5/6 if you're offering though
Comments
A few do but they are very much in the minority, and not in power.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/missing-presumed-red-2010-lib-dems.html
Revised Labour lead in ELBOW 1st Feb now 0.8%.not 0.4, due to late breaking TNS phone poll, but still 2nd lowest lead
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/562605251233329152
Davros? It might of course be misspelt to fool us all though?
I appreciate you might not agree.
Lower that figure from 6.5% I reckon... slightly - but that squares the circle - It will be an expensive night for the Libs in terms of deposit losses.
I could have made a more cogent defence of fox hunting than the Countryside Alliance did, if that helps?
The popularity of Sturgeon MAY be enough to do such a deal. But it would be a tremendous political gamble none the less.
Revised #Green v #LibDem race in ELBOW due to late breaking TNS phone poll. LibDem lead 0.5%
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/562605793867223040
Before you turn the ELBOW, - which I like - and yourself to a harlequin of fun, and not to be taken seriously, why don't you consider publishing the ELBOW twice a week on say, Tuesday and Friday: come what may and never mind the news headlines.
Do this, up to say the last 3 weeks to the election; then and only then, would it be worth while to publish daily.
4% I reckon...
I mention the RSPCA because it is the biggest high profile animal charity I know.
It would be nice if they stepped up to be counted wouldn't it?
If Mike is right, why bother with a sample size greater than one?
Thank goodness the whole keel of SLab's flagship GE strategy, vote Labour to get the Tories out, doesn't rest on selling Miliband to the Jocks.
"If Mike is right, why bother with a sample size greater than one?"
As sample size increases the poll becomes more accurate (for some value of "accurate").
After a certain point, other factors have a greater impact and increasing the sample size alone doesn't help.
That gives the SNP 33%. On this view, 7/1 seems a bargain.
new thread
Was correct about Carmichael vs Farron though