"In its annual report earlier RBS said "a prosecuting authority in Germany is undertaking an investigation into Coutts & Co Ltd in Switzerland, and current and former employees, for alleged aiding and abetting of tax evasion by certain Coutts & Co Ltd clients". It adds the bank is "cooperating with the authority"."
I wonder if anyone interesting banked with them?
Coutts and Co have a pretty high bar to bank with them.
You forgot to add "I'll get my coat", as I believe is traditional in these parts
That is a failure for Labour, not a success. As compared to a scenario where Labour voters turn out more regularly in safe Labour seats, Miliband might get the same number of seats, but in all other respects he has a weakened mandate.
Want to convince the Lib Dems/country/Queen/rivals that you've won the election? Every vote counts.
At a recent hustings in Thanet South the audience was asked their voting intentions as they entered the hall, the tories were on 51%, after the meeting they'd dropped to 31%
I remember the guy on the Newsnight Referendum panel who was in the UNDECIDEDS seats. Under a not exactly forensic grilling, it transpired he had already voted YES - by postal vote.
They promoted an organization which is a front for terrorists.
If it is really a front for terrorists then surely it should be proscribed.
We have a government which promised - or at least Cameron did - to proscribe Hizb-ut-Tahir but has done nothing. Our political class simply lack the moral courage to call these people out for what they are are and to take the steps necessary to deal with them.
Or maybe there is no proof of any illegality on its part?
That was the argument used for not taking action against Abu Hamza until we were embarrassed by the US authorities into taking action instead of providing him the freedom to carry on his harmful activities.
There is quite a lot of information around about such organisations, what they do etc. The problem is not the lack of information. It is politicians and others sitting there with their fingers in their ears shouting "la la we can't hear you".
The Quilliam Foundation and the Lib Dem candidate for my own constituency are very good on this and, frankly, rather frustrated at the way the authorities find every possible excuse not to take action against people and groups who are a very real threat to us.
Do you really think that lack of proof of any illegality on its part is a bad reason not to take action against it?
You're assuming a lack of proof.
No, I'm not. I asked whether lack of proof may be a reason why the organisation wasnt proscribed. Your answer suggested you thought that lack of proof wasnt a good reason!
Bullshit, those two scenarios are nothing alike. The PWR was seen as the more complicated form of power generation but money poured into it from the nuclear weapons programme in the US which made it viable. The basic design of the MSR is sound and has been sound since it was first invented. Perfecting the MSR design would be easier than making the PWR work was back then, but governments are all risk averse and short termist so no money goes into it when we can make do with substandard AP1000s and EPRs which still produce too much waste and are still basically unsafe, it's like a "tame" tiger. It is still a dangerous technology as we saw in Japan. The MSR is inherently safer than the PWR.
Make do and mend is not enough for future energy supplies, we need an energy revolution. The PWR is last century's technology and it shows. Boilers with cracks, leaking pipes is it any wonder that no insurance company will go near them? Britain as a country needs to invest in future technology and that is the MSR in the medium term and laser based fusion in the long term. Instead we are wasting £17bn buying an outdated reactor design from Areva (French state owned company) and EDF (French state owned company) and pissing away billions with ITER. Our energy policy is a complete and utter joke. We have homegrown expertise in nuclear pursuits and yet we are about to waste billions on importing schlock from France. Complete ad utter joke.
You appear to have bought in to the hype a little too much. The idea that "Boilers with cracks", "leaking pipes" etc will not be problems with an MSR is rather hopeful - the harsh environments between the various reactor types are rather similar. More than anything, they are materials issues.
"The basic design of the MSR is sound and has been sound since it was first invented."
So was the basic design of the PWR/AGW/BWR/etc. The devil came when they tried to get large GW+ plants running for decades. Just look at the history of pebble-bed reactors for examples of hyped-up promising tech that's gone nowhere so far due to technical problems.
"The MSR is inherently safer than the PWR."
Unproven, as is the expense of running them. Whilst it may be true in theory, the whole history of nuclear power is littered with such claims.
"Britain as a country needs to invest in future technology"
Agree.
"MSR in the medium term"
Why?
"laser based fusion in the long term"
Hmmm... the NIF is interesting but problematic (see previous post).
"importing schlock from France."
You are joking?
"Our energy policy is a complete and utter joke."
Agree, but yours does not sound much better. The problem is there are no easy, cheap and sure-fire solutions. I wish there was, but in the meantime we need to get energy that is as cheap and as secure as possible (note those two aims are not necessarily complementary).
Now what might or might not have gone on there is worthy of discussion, but a black site....with all those white plod cars / vans outside...keeping it on the down low you understand.
At a recent hustings in Thanet South the audience was asked their voting intentions as they entered the hall, the tories were on 51%, after the meeting they'd dropped to 31%
I remember the guy on the Newsnight Referendum panel who was in the UNDECIDEDS seats. Under a not exactly forensic grilling, it transpired he had already voted YES - by postal vote.
People like that get right under my skin. Not Yes voters, but those who misrepresent their position.
The Labour Uncut future history has... 'As he makes his first speech outside that famous door, Sterling starts to plummet. The FTSE 100 has already fallen almost 10%'
This reminds me that, with my holidays after the election and Sterling at 1.37 Euros, that I ought to get some currency now.
Now what might or might not have gone on there is worthy of discussion, but a black site....with all those white plod cars / vans outside...keeping it on the down low you understand.
Well, you'd never suspect a police station would be a police "black site"...... titters
Isn't Coutts RBS or was... After my wife died RBS was extremely unhelpful nay couldn't give a shit and I closed my account forthwith. I will never go back even if I win the lottery .
You appear to have bought in to the hype a little too much. The idea that "Boilers with cracks", "leaking pipes" etc will not be problems with an MSR is rather hopeful - the harsh environments between the various reactor types are rather similar. More than anything, they are materials issues.
"The basic design of the MSR is sound and has been sound since it was first invented."
So was the basic design of the PWR/AGW/BWR/etc. The devil came when they tried to get large GW+ plants running for decades. Just look at the history of pebble-bed reactors for examples of hyped-up promising tech that's gone nowhere so far due to technical problems.
"The MSR is inherently safer than the PWR."
Unproven, as is the expense of running them. Whilst it may be true in theory, the whole history of nuclear power is littered with such claims.
"Britain as a country needs to invest in future technology"
Agree.
"MSR in the medium term"
Why?
"laser based fusion in the long term"
Hmmm... the NIF is interesting but problematic (see previous post).
"importing schlock from France."
You are joking?
"Our energy policy is a complete and utter joke."
Agree, but yours does not sound much better. The problem is there are no easy, cheap and sure-fire solutions. I wish there was, but in the meantime we need to get energy that is as cheap and as secure as possible (note those two aims are not necessarily complementary).
The only surprise here is no mention of vacuum energy.
At a recent hustings in Thanet South the audience was asked their voting intentions as they entered the hall, the tories were on 51%, after the meeting they'd dropped to 31%
I remember the guy on the Newsnight Referendum panel who was in the UNDECIDEDS seats. Under a not exactly forensic grilling, it transpired he had already voted YES - by postal vote.
The tory was asked if he lived in the constituency:
No but I have a second home here and my yacht is moored in the Marina.
At a recent hustings in Thanet South the audience was asked their voting intentions as they entered the hall, the tories were on 51%, after the meeting they'd dropped to 31%
I may have gone to the same one ? It was organised by the Local Round Table-if so the figures you quote are wrong but there was a drop in support for the Con Candidate.
I don't agree with Mike that it is a 3 way split-I have seen very little Labour effort in the seat, the candidate is not that strong-he didn't even turn up to the event as apparently he had been told not to by Labour HQ!!
I agree though that there is a lot of stop Farage noise and the Conservatives seem best placed to pick it up.
A shame the Lib candidate -Russ Timpson isn't in a more winnable seat as he is a good guy.
"I'm not making it up! Why on earth would I bother making something like that up and posting it here? I'm not trying to lay the Greens in Bristol West!"
What percentage of bets at the bookies and at Betfair are from users of this site, or from people who get their tips here? If it's low, comments on this site might not move the markets very much.
By the way, the Election Forecast which this post referred to says that the Tories are 100% certain to win Wyre Forest, my nearby constituency. I think that's right, given all the parties standing. So why are the bookies' odds 1.44 or 1.5?
They promoted an organization which is a front for terrorists.
If it is really a front for terrorists then surely it should be proscribed.
We have a government which promised - or at least Cameron did - to proscribe Hizb-ut-Tahir but has done nothing. Our political class simply lack the moral courage to call these people out for what they are are and to take the steps necessary to deal with them.
Or maybe there is no proof of any illegality on its part?
That was the argument used for not taking action against Abu Hamza until we were embarrassed by the US authorities into taking action instead of providing him the freedom to carry on his harmful activities.
There is quite a lot of information around about such organisations, what they do etc. The problem is not the lack of information. It is politicians and others sitting there with their fingers in their ears shouting "la la we can't hear you".
The Quilliam Foundation and the Lib Dem candidate for my own constituency are very good on this and, frankly, rather frustrated at the way the authorities find every possible excuse not to take action against people and groups who are a very real threat to us.
Do you really think that lack of proof of any illegality on its part is a bad reason not to take action against it?
You're assuming a lack of proof.
No, I'm not. I asked whether lack of proof may be a reason why the organisation wasnt proscribed. Your answer suggested you thought that lack of proof wasnt a good reason!
If the law requires a certain level of proof before something is banned then clearly the something should not be banned in the absence of that proof.
But my point is a different one: the government has not taken the steps it said it would and has not explained why. And it has not looked for or at the evidence which suggests that there are some very sinister individuals/organisations operating in the UK in ways which are a threat.
Turning a blind eye and then saying there's no proof of illegality is neither a sensible nor a moral policy - as I say on numerous occasions to bankers!
The tory was asked if he lived in the constituency:
No but I have a second home here and my yacht is moored in the Marina.
The look on Nigel's face was priceless.
That's NOT what he said!!!
Granted he lives in the Medway area but he is a Kent boy-frankly having seen how Thanet politics has gone over the last 30 years I am glad that he isn't.
I wasn't overly impressed with him on the night-I thought he spouted the Party line too much - when he spoke personally he was a lot better.
I thought Farage was OK on the night and didn't try and Grand stand too much but neither was I bowled over by him.
They promoted an organization which is a front for terrorists.
If it is really a front for terrorists then surely it should be proscribed.
We have a government which promised - or at least Cameron did - to proscribe Hizb-ut-Tahir but has done nothing. Our political class simply lack the moral courage to call these people out for what they are are and to take the steps necessary to deal with them.
Or maybe there is no proof of any illegality on its part?
That was the argument used for not taking action against Abu Hamza until we were embarrassed by the US authorities into taking action instead of providing him the freedom to carry on his harmful activities.
There is quite a lot of information around about such organisations, what they do etc. The problem is not the lack of information. It is politicians and others sitting there with their fingers in their ears shouting "la la we can't hear you".
The Quilliam Foundation and the Lib Dem candidate for my own constituency are very good on this and, frankly, rather frustrated at the way the authorities find every possible excuse not to take action against people and groups who are a very real threat to us.
Do you really think that lack of proof of any illegality on its part is a bad reason not to take action against it?
You're assuming a lack of proof.
No, I'm not. I asked whether lack of proof may be a reason why the organisation wasnt proscribed. Your answer suggested you thought that lack of proof wasnt a good reason!
But my point is a different one
Yes, it certainly seems to be. I cant quite see how your point isnt that the group should be proscribed even if there isnt any evidence of illegality but I'm sure that's because I havent read it closely enough.
What percentage of bets at the bookies and at Betfair are from users of this site, or from people who get their tips here? If it's low, comments on this site might not move the markets very much.
That doesnt stop some rather obvious rampers from posting here (particularly at election time). Stuart Truth anyone?
At a recent hustings in Thanet South the audience was asked their voting intentions as they entered the hall, the tories were on 51%, after the meeting they'd dropped to 31%
I may have gone to the same one ? It was organised by the Local Round Table-if so the figures you quote are wrong but there was a drop in support for the Con Candidate.
I don't agree with Mike that it is a 3 way split-I have seen very little Labour effort in the seat, the candidate is not that strong-he didn't even turn up to the event as apparently he had been told not to by Labour HQ!!
I agree though that there is a lot of stop Farage noise and the Conservatives seem best placed to pick it up.
A shame the Lib candidate -Russ Timpson isn't in a more winnable seat as he is a good guy.
Not far out it was 49% down to 34%
Nigel Farage wins Thanet South hustings event in Broadstairs
PS The male Green refused to attend because all the candidates were men. Why doesn't he stand down then and insist a woman take his place if he's that concerned about it?
PS The male Green refused to attend because all the candidates were men. Why doesn't he stand down then and insist a woman take his place if he's that concerned about it?
No, he refused to attend because the event was only open to men not because all the candidates were men.
PS The male Green refused to attend because all the candidates were men. Why doesn't he stand down then and insist a woman take his place if he's that concerned about it?
No, he refused to attend because the event was only open to men not because all the candidates were men.
Would he have refused to attend hustings organised by the Womens' Institute?
McCarthyism is alive ad well and posting on PB.Com
Roger: it is not McCarthyism to ask MPs to do a bit of due diligence about the groups they share a platform with. They should be careful about not allowing their respectability as MPs to be misused by others.
This is particularly the case when speaking on platforms with organisations which advocate violence against particular groups and in some cases against this country.
In the same way I thought it beyond stupid of Straw and Rifkind not to do a bit of due diligence about the Chinese company they were speaking to.
If they don't do any due diligence then we're entitled to criticise them for their naivety / stupidity etc. And if they support organisations that we think they shouldn't we're entitled to criticise their judgment.
PS The male Green refused to attend because all the candidates were men. Why doesn't he stand down then and insist a woman take his place if he's that concerned about it?
No, he refused to attend because the event was only open to men not because all the candidates were men.
Would he have refused to attend hustings organised by the Womens' Institute?
If they refused to let men in then I would imagine so (going on his reasoning for refusing to attend the one being discussed here).
Re Sadiq Khan, my comment had little to do with sharing a platform with CageUK nutters at an event which Caroline Lucas also attended (but it doesn't do her much credit).
PS The male Green refused to attend because all the candidates were men. Why doesn't he stand down then and insist a woman take his place if he's that concerned about it?
No, he refused to attend because the event was only open to men not because all the candidates were men.
So the Greens are against men meeting in bath houses too ?
McCarthyism is alive ad well and posting on PB.Com
Roger: it is not McCarthyism to ask MPs to do a bit of due diligence about the groups they share a platform with. They should be careful about not allowing their respectability as MPs to be misused by others.
This is particularly the case when speaking on platforms with organisations which advocate violence against particular groups and in some cases against this country.
In the same way I thought it beyond stupid of Straw and Rifkind not to do a bit of due diligence about the Chinese company they were speaking to.
If they don't do any due diligence then we're entitled to criticise them for their naivety / stupidity etc. And if they support organisations that we think they shouldn't we're entitled to criticise their judgment.
He seems to be under attack for who else was at the event rather than for what he said at the event. McCarthyism doesnt sound too wide of the mark. Roger almost understating things for once!
PS The male Green refused to attend because all the candidates were men. Why doesn't he stand down then and insist a woman take his place if he's that concerned about it?
No, he refused to attend because the event was only open to men not because all the candidates were men.
So the Greens are against men meeting in bath houses too ?
No, this particular Green candidate would appear to be unlikely to attend a hustings in a men only bath house is the only conclusion I think we can reasonably draw from the exchange.
McCarthyism is alive ad well and posting on PB.Com
Roger: it is not McCarthyism to ask MPs to do a bit of due diligence about the groups they share a platform with. They should be careful about not allowing their respectability as MPs to be misused by others.
This is particularly the case when speaking on platforms with organisations which advocate violence against particular groups and in some cases against this country.
In the same way I thought it beyond stupid of Straw and Rifkind not to do a bit of due diligence about the Chinese company they were speaking to.
If they don't do any due diligence then we're entitled to criticise them for their naivety / stupidity etc. And if they support organisations that we think they shouldn't we're entitled to criticise their judgment.
He seems to be under attack for who else was at the event rather than for what he said at the event. McCarthyism doesnt sound too wide of the mark. Roger almost understating things for once!
Whereas when the Tories get within a mile of a Latvian homophobe...
The report suggests that essential safety nets were waived by ministers and senior civil servants in Whitehall because the Thatcher government wanted to use Savile as the poster-boy for charitable funding of the NHS.
"Successive politicians and NHS and DHSS senior officers feted Savile and placed him in a position of authority and trust," the report says, singling out Health Minister Dr Gerard Vaughan for particular criticism.
ps @Sean_F - I dont know if you saw the quote from the article posted on pbc earlier today - "There are no queens in the National Front". It was referring to the French version but I'm sure they are just as full of them as our own was
PS The male Green refused to attend because all the candidates were men. Why doesn't he stand down then and insist a woman take his place if he's that concerned about it?
No, he refused to attend because the event was only open to men not because all the candidates were men.
So the Greens are against men meeting in bath houses too ?
No, this particular Green candidate would appear to be unlikely to attend a hustings in a men only bath house is the only conclusion I think we can reasonably draw from the exchange.
if you want to be reasonable piss off to another site Neil :-)
McCarthyism is alive ad well and posting on PB.Com
Roger: it is not McCarthyism to ask MPs to do a bit of due diligence about the groups they share a platform with. They should be careful about not allowing their respectability as MPs to be misused by others.
This is particularly the case when speaking on platforms with organisations which advocate violence against particular groups and in some cases against this country.
In the same way I thought it beyond stupid of Straw and Rifkind not to do a bit of due diligence about the Chinese company they were speaking to.
If they don't do any due diligence then we're entitled to criticise them for their naivety / stupidity etc. And if they support organisations that we think they shouldn't we're entitled to criticise their judgment.
He seems to be under attack for who else was at the event rather than for what he said at the event. McCarthyism doesnt sound too wide of the mark. Roger almost understating things for once!
Whereas when the Tories get within a mile of a Latvian homophobe...
You aspire to be at tim's level? (Fwiw I almost wore out my keyboard in frustration at tim's Latvian homophobe obsession.)
They promoted an organization which is a front for terrorists.
If it is really a front for terrorists then surely it should be proscribed.
We have a government which promised - or at least Cameron did - to proscribe Hizb-ut-Tahir but has done nothing. Our political class simply lack the moral courage to call these people out for what they are are and to take the steps necessary to deal with them.
Or maybe there is no proof of any illegality on its part?
That was the argument used for not taking action against Abu Hamza until we were embarrassed by the US authorities into taking action instead of providing him the freedom to carry on his harmful activities.
There is quite a lot of information around about such organisations, what they do etc. The problem is not the lack of information. It is politicians and others sitting there with their fingers in their ears shouting "la la we can't hear you".
The Quilliam Foundation and the Lib Dem candidate for my own constituency are very good on this and, frankly, rather frustrated at the way the authorities find every possible excuse not to take action against people and groups who are a very real threat to us.
Do you really think that lack of proof of any illegality on its part is a bad reason not to take action against it?
You're assuming a lack of proof.
No, I'm not. I asked whether lack of proof may be a reason why the organisation wasnt proscribed. Your answer suggested you thought that lack of proof wasnt a good reason!
But my point is a different one
Yes, it certainly seems to be. I cant quite see how your point isnt that the group should be proscribed even if there isnt any evidence of illegality but I'm sure that's because I havent read it closely enough.
There are too many negatives in many of your posts.
You have shifted your ground from "lack of proof" to "lack of evidence". The Terrorism Act 2000 in fact enables the Home Secretary to proscribe organisations if "he believes" that they are concerned in terrorism. So proof is neither here nor there.
The report suggests that essential safety nets were waived by ministers and senior civil servants in Whitehall because the Thatcher government wanted to use Savile as the poster-boy for charitable funding of the NHS.
"Successive politicians and NHS and DHSS senior officers feted Savile and placed him in a position of authority and trust," the report says, singling out Health Minister Dr Gerard Vaughan for particular criticism.
"The report suggests that essential safety nets were waived by ministers and senior civil servants in Whitehall because the Thatcher government wanted to use Savile as the poster-boy for charitable funding of the NHS."
In my opinion Thatcher and Murdoch are responsible for most of societies ills but even I would struggle to make a case that she's responsible for anything done by Saville
The report suggests that essential safety nets were waived by ministers and senior civil servants in Whitehall because the Thatcher government wanted to use Savile as the poster-boy for charitable funding of the NHS.
"Successive politicians and NHS and DHSS senior officers feted Savile and placed him in a position of authority and trust," the report says, singling out Health Minister Dr Gerard Vaughan for particular criticism.
What I don't quite get and isn't mentioned, is I understood he started as a porter at Mandeville Hospital in 1969 and was given wide ranging access at that time? Maybe I am wrong. So he had been given access for 10 years before Thatcher "waived" restrictions.
Edit:- Guardian report this.
Savile’s association with Stoke Mandeville dates back to 1969, when he began work as a volunteer porter and starstruck managers gave him unrestricted access to the hospital grounds.
Because money talks and buys influence, particularly as when someone is enabling another party (that is acting in the public interest) to obtain huge sums of money for public benefit, they recipients are likely to be unwilling to the point of clinical denial to admit that the horse in their midst is of the Trojan variety. Money also of course enables employment of fierce defamation lawyers.
Also, personally I think the whole NHS should be broken up into small units that are independent of each other to the extent that they are legally different employers. When virtually a whole industry is operated by one entity, it enables those running it to banish people not just from their job but from their career and makes whistleblowing virtually impossible. BR was much the same.
McCarthyism is alive ad well and posting on PB.Com
Roger: it is not McCarthyism to ask MPs to do a bit of due diligence about the groups they share a platform with. They should be careful about not allowing their respectability as MPs to be misused by others.
This is particularly the case when speaking on platforms with organisations which advocate violence against particular groups and in some cases against this country.
In the same way I thought it beyond stupid of Straw and Rifkind not to do a bit of due diligence about the Chinese company they were speaking to.
If they don't do any due diligence then we're entitled to criticise them for their naivety / stupidity etc. And if they support organisations that we think they shouldn't we're entitled to criticise their judgment.
He seems to be under attack for who else was at the event rather than for what he said at the event. McCarthyism doesnt sound too wide of the mark. Roger almost understating things for once!
Whereas when the Tories get within a mile of a Latvian homophobe...
You aspire to be at tim's level? (Fwiw I almost wore out my keyboard in frustration at tim's Latvian homophobe obsession.)
Wasn't specifically directed at you - you're in the top quartile for 'being reasonble' on this site. I was irritated by the shrieks of "McCarthyism" from Roger, who wastes no opportunity to smear and dengrate the Tories on the flimsiest of grounds. [Ironically he is now defending Thatcher! Go figure.]
Anyway, it's a shame tim isn't around any more. Brought a better balance to the threads, despite occassionally being a somewhat obsessive.
The report suggests that essential safety nets were waived by ministers and senior civil servants in Whitehall because the Thatcher government wanted to use Savile as the poster-boy for charitable funding of the NHS.
"Successive politicians and NHS and DHSS senior officers feted Savile and placed him in a position of authority and trust," the report says, singling out Health Minister Dr Gerard Vaughan for particular criticism.
What I don't quite get and isn't mentioned, is I understood he started as a porter at Mandeville Hospital in 1969 and was given wide ranging access at that time? Maybe I am wrong. So he had been given access for 10 years before Thatcher "waived" restrictions.
Edit:- Guardian report this.
Savile’s association with Stoke Mandeville dates back to 1969, when he began work as a volunteer porter and starstruck managers gave him unrestricted access to the hospital grounds.
Odds of 50:1 (which a 2% chance implies) against Farage winning in Thanet South are to my mind absurd. Is Election4cast planning on offering these odds to punters?
If opinion poll weighting is influenced by similar calculations and thought process then I think pollsters will find 1992 to be like the vicarage teaparty in comparison to 2015.
All models are struggling to assess just how localised UKIP's support is. This is a case in point.
I think there is a clutch of three-way marginal seats where UKIP could get to ~30% and fall just short, or get to ~35% and win several and the difference could be mostly down to how good the local UKIP organisation is on the ground compared to the competition.
You can't model that. The best you can say is that there is a set of seats in which UKIP is competitive. If you interpret the results of the model in such broad-brush terms then it's probably fairly reasonable.
McCarthyism is alive ad well and posting on PB.Com
Roger: it is not McCarthyism to ask MPs to do a bit of due diligence about the groups they share a platform with. They should be careful about not allowing their respectability as MPs to be misused by others.
This is particularly the case when speaking on platforms with organisations which advocate violence against particular groups and in some cases against this country.
In the same way I thought it beyond stupid of Straw and Rifkind not to do a bit of due diligence about the Chinese company they were speaking to.
If they don't do any due diligence then we're entitled to criticise them for their naivety / stupidity etc. And if they support organisations that we think they shouldn't we're entitled to criticise their judgment.
He seems to be under attack for who else was at the event rather than for what he said at the event. McCarthyism doesnt sound too wide of the mark. Roger almost understating things for once!
Well if I were in some position of responsibility and I were to share a platform with David Irving, say (I wouldn't BTW) it would be wholly reasonable of you to criticise my judgment in doing so, even if all I was doing was giving my tips on when to plant spring bulbs.
In the same way I strongly criticised Livingstone for giving a platform to Qaradawi even though Livingstone himself has not advocated stoning of women, for instance.
There's a lot of naivety around about how these organisations seek to operate and how they try and pretend that they they are something which they are not.
Mark Easton report is very strange...apparently the ills of Jimmy Savile in the NHS only began in 1980 due to decisions made by Thatcher government...where as the Guardian article on the same report talks about claims from dating right back into the early 70's after being given access in 1969, way before Thatcher.
McCarthyism is alive ad well and posting on PB.Com
Roger: it is not McCarthyism to ask MPs to do a bit of due diligence about the groups they share a platform with. They should be careful about not allowing their respectability as MPs to be misused by others.
This is particularly the case when speaking on platforms with organisations which advocate violence against particular groups and in some cases against this country.
In the same way I thought it beyond stupid of Straw and Rifkind not to do a bit of due diligence about the Chinese company they were speaking to.
If they don't do any due diligence then we're entitled to criticise them for their naivety / stupidity etc. And if they support organisations that we think they shouldn't we're entitled to criticise their judgment.
He seems to be under attack for who else was at the event rather than for what he said at the event. McCarthyism doesnt sound too wide of the mark. Roger almost understating things for once!
Whereas when the Tories get within a mile of a Latvian homophobe...
You aspire to be at tim's level? (Fwiw I almost wore out my keyboard in frustration at tim's Latvian homophobe obsession.)
Wasn't specifically directed at you - you're in the top quartile for 'being reasonble' on this site. I was irritated by the shrieks of "McCarthyism" from Roger, who wastes no opportunity to smear and dengrate the Tories on the flimsiest of grounds. [Ironically he is now defending Thatcher! Go figure.]
Anyway, it's a shame tim isn't around any more. Brought a better balance to the threads, despite occassionally being a somewhat obsessive.
Only top quartile? Right, I'm storming off in a huff!
In the same way I strongly criticised Livingstone for giving a platform to Qaradawi even though Livingstone himself has not advocated stoning of women, for instance.
Isn't it better that we know how these people think?
Mr. Urquhart, Easton's a grade A cretin. When reporting (I use the term quite wrongly) on English devolution he didn't even mention the possibility of an English Parliament.
Don't shoot the messenger folks! (or in the case of Nabber's and the Watcher, pretend that I have no idea what a Lloyds name is, then tell me I am talking about an entirely different case) Take it to those who wrote the report.
McCarthyism is alive ad well and posting on PB.Com
Roger: it is not McCarthyism to ask MPs to do a bit of due diligence about the groups they share a platform with. They should be careful about not allowing their respectability as MPs to be misused by others.
This is particularly the case when speaking on platforms with organisations which advocate violence against particular groups and in some cases against this country.
In the same way I thought it beyond stupid of Straw and Rifkind not to do a bit of due diligence about the Chinese company they were speaking to.
If they don't do any due diligence then we're entitled to criticise them for their naivety / stupidity etc. And if they support organisations that we think they shouldn't we're entitled to criticise their judgment.
He seems to be under attack for who else was at the event rather than for what he said at the event. McCarthyism doesnt sound too wide of the mark. Roger almost understating things for once!
Whereas when the Tories get within a mile of a Latvian homophobe...
You aspire to be at tim's level? (Fwiw I almost wore out my keyboard in frustration at tim's Latvian homophobe obsession.)
Wasn't specifically directed at you - you're in the top quartile for 'being reasonble' on this site. I was irritated by the shrieks of "McCarthyism" from Roger, who wastes no opportunity to smear and dengrate the Tories on the flimsiest of grounds. [Ironically he is now defending Thatcher! Go figure.]
Anyway, it's a shame tim isn't around any more. Brought a better balance to the threads, despite occassionally being a somewhat obsessive.
Only top quartile? Right, I'm storming off in a huff!
Most of the reasonable people are lurkers, far too sensible to descend into the grubby maelstrom of innuendo, smear and outright partisan lies. And let's not even mention the rampant condescension, arrogance, and military-grade sarcasm.
Mark Easton report is very strange...apparently the ills of Jimmy Savile in the NHS only began in 1980 due to decisions made by Thatcher government...where as the Guardian article on the same report talks about claims from dating right back into the early 70's after being given access in 1969, way before Thatcher.
It was clearly the fault of 'caring and sharing' NHS managers and staff, who were told of his crimes but turned a blind eye. Involving politicians is a smokescreen.
"The report suggests that essential safety nets were waived by ministers and senior civil servants in Whitehall because the Thatcher government wanted to use Savile as the poster-boy for charitable funding of the NHS."
In my opinion Thatcher and Murdoch are responsible for most of societies ills but even I would struggle to make a case that she's responsible for anything done by Saville
Didn't the security services or senior police - who must have known of the rumours - brief her?
It just seems extraordinary that he was given so much leeway, even given the amounts he raised. Or did the money really blind everyone? (Which wouldn't surprise me, tbh.)
McCarthyism is alive ad well and posting on PB.Com
Roger: it is not McCarthyism to ask MPs to do a bit of due diligence about the groups they share a platform with. They should be careful about not allowing their respectability as MPs to be misused by others.
This is particularly the case when speaking on platforms with organisations which advocate violence against particular groups and in some cases against this country.
In the same way I thought it beyond stupid of Straw and Rifkind not to do a bit of due diligence about the Chinese company they were speaking to.
If they don't do any due diligence then we're entitled to criticise them for their naivety / stupidity etc. And if they support organisations that we think they shouldn't we're entitled to criticise their judgment.
He seems to be under attack for who else was at the event rather than for what he said at the event. McCarthyism doesnt sound too wide of the mark. Roger almost understating things for once!
Whereas when the Tories get within a mile of a Latvian homophobe...
You aspire to be at tim's level? (Fwiw I almost wore out my keyboard in frustration at tim's Latvian homophobe obsession.)
Wasn't specifically directed at you - you're in the top quartile for 'being reasonble' on this site. I was irritated by the shrieks of "McCarthyism" from Roger, who wastes no opportunity to smear and dengrate the Tories on the flimsiest of grounds. [Ironically he is now defending Thatcher! Go figure.]
Anyway, it's a shame tim isn't around any more. Brought a better balance to the threads, despite occassionally being a somewhat obsessive.
Only top quartile? Right, I'm storming off in a huff!
Most of the reasonable people are lurkers, far too sensible to descend into the grubby maelstrom of innuendo, smear and outright partisan lies. And let's not even mention the rampant condescension, arrogance, and military-grade sarcasm.
Oh, I might be responsible for a disproportionate amount of the military-grade sarcasm. Maybe top quartile was flattering me
Well if I were in some position of responsibility and I were to share a platform with David Irving, say (I wouldn't BTW) it would be wholly reasonable of you to criticise my judgment in doing so, even if all I was doing was giving my tips on when to plant spring bulbs.
In the same way I strongly criticised Livingstone for giving a platform to Qaradawi even though Livingstone himself has not advocated stoning of women, for instance.
There's a lot of naivety around about how these organisations seek to operate and how they try and pretend that they they are something which they are not.
Indeed, Livingstones Judgement will be rightly crtiticised, however if you were an MP and shared a platform with Mr Irvine to discuss crocusses you would not just have your judgement questioned you would be hounded out of office by a left wing rent-a-mob.
The left fail to realise that by not allowing freedom of association they are in the same league as the stoners, albeit in a different division.
"The report suggests that essential safety nets were waived by ministers and senior civil servants in Whitehall because the Thatcher government wanted to use Savile as the poster-boy for charitable funding of the NHS."
In my opinion Thatcher and Murdoch are responsible for most of societies ills but even I would struggle to make a case that she's responsible for anything done by Saville
Didn't the security services or senior police - who must have known of the rumours - brief her?
It just seems extraordinary that he was given so much leeway, even given the amounts he raised. Or did the money really blind everyone? (Which wouldn't surprise me, tbh.)
There has been suggestion in the past that Savile had a specialty for acquiring dirt on people and would make sure that he used that leverage when required.
People not knowing just isn't credible, how high up the chain it went only time will tell...John Lydon famously revealed stuff about Savile in 1978, but it was cut from an interview.
Most of the reasonable people are lurkers, far too sensible to descend into the grubby maelstrom of innuendo, smear and outright partisan lies. And let's not even mention the rampant condescension, arrogance, and military-grade sarcasm.
"The report suggests that essential safety nets were waived by ministers and senior civil servants in Whitehall because the Thatcher government wanted to use Savile as the poster-boy for charitable funding of the NHS."
In my opinion Thatcher and Murdoch are responsible for most of societies ills but even I would struggle to make a case that she's responsible for anything done by Saville
Didn't the security services or senior police - who must have known of the rumours - brief her?
How would they have known? The report suggests that none of the allegations were passed up the line.
"The report suggests that essential safety nets were waived by ministers and senior civil servants in Whitehall because the Thatcher government wanted to use Savile as the poster-boy for charitable funding of the NHS."
In my opinion Thatcher and Murdoch are responsible for most of societies ills but even I would struggle to make a case that she's responsible for anything done by Saville
Didn't the security services or senior police - who must have known of the rumours - brief her?
It just seems extraordinary that he was given so much leeway, even given the amounts he raised. Or did the money really blind everyone? (Which wouldn't surprise me, tbh.)
There has been suggestion in the past that Savile had a specialty for acquiring dirt on people and would make sure that he used that leverage when required.
People not knowing just isn't credible, how high up the chain it went only time will tell...John Lydon famously revealed stuff about Savile in 1978, but it was cut from an interview.
If that were the case, today's report has been a complete waste of time and money, and has drawn the wrong conclusions.
ps @Sean_F - I dont know if you saw the quote from the article posted on pbc earlier today - "There are no queens in the National Front". It was referring to the French version but I'm sure they are just as full of them as our own was
Martin Webster was the first openly gay leader of a British political party, from 1980-84. At the time, the NF wanted to recriminalise homosexuality.
"The report suggests that essential safety nets were waived by ministers and senior civil servants in Whitehall because the Thatcher government wanted to use Savile as the poster-boy for charitable funding of the NHS."
In my opinion Thatcher and Murdoch are responsible for most of societies ills but even I would struggle to make a case that she's responsible for anything done by Saville
Didn't the security services or senior police - who must have known of the rumours - brief her?
It just seems extraordinary that he was given so much leeway, even given the amounts he raised. Or did the money really blind everyone? (Which wouldn't surprise me, tbh.)
If the management of Stoke Mandeville, people who where in the same building as the offences took place were unaware of his activities why would the security services know anything? Apart from which the sort of offending he was involved with is well outside their remit. The police without any complaints being made were unlikely to investigate on the off chance.
ps @Sean_F - I dont know if you saw the quote from the article posted on pbc earlier today - "There are no queens in the National Front". It was referring to the French version but I'm sure they are just as full of them as our own was
Martin Webster was the first openly gay leader of a British political party, from 1980-84. At the time, the NF wanted to recriminalise homosexuality.
So they had at least some sensible policies! At the time is was still a criminal offence in the Republic Of Ireland!
In the same way I strongly criticised Livingstone for giving a platform to Qaradawi even though Livingstone himself has not advocated stoning of women, for instance.
Isn't it better that we know how these people think?
Why invite him to the country? Why give him a platform? Why embrace him as a moderate? YOu can read what he says and thinks.
But by doing what Livingstone did he was giving him the imprimatur, the blessing of the Mayor of London. He was enhancing his status and allowing him to use that to give himself more status among Muslims. And if such a man is embraced it is not surprising to find that 27% of Muslims in this country sympathise with the motives of those who murder cartoonists and Jews.
It is notable that Livingstone did not give the same honour to those Muslims who really are liberal. It is notable that Amnesty and those politicians willing to share platforms with supporters of the Taliban do not do the same for those Muslim liberals who live in fear of their lives. We should not appease those who advocate violence and intolerance. And if we want to know what people think let's hear from those who show real courage and who have something interesting and worthwhile to say about what Islam means in the modern world.
"The report suggests that essential safety nets were waived by ministers and senior civil servants in Whitehall because the Thatcher government wanted to use Savile as the poster-boy for charitable funding of the NHS."
In my opinion Thatcher and Murdoch are responsible for most of societies ills but even I would struggle to make a case that she's responsible for anything done by Saville
Didn't the security services or senior police - who must have known of the rumours - brief her?
It just seems extraordinary that he was given so much leeway, even given the amounts he raised. Or did the money really blind everyone? (Which wouldn't surprise me, tbh.)
If the management of Stoke Mandeville, people who where in the same building as the offences took place were unaware of his activities why would the security services know anything? Apart from which the sort of offending he was involved with is well outside their remit. The police without any complaints being made were unlikely to investigate on the off chance.
I thought he had been investigated a number of times by the police.
I thought - I may be wrong - that the security services would look a bit more deeply into the background / behaviour of someone with close access to the PM and the Royal Family.
The fact that Savile was a bit odd, to put it mildly, was not completely unknown to people until after his death.
"The report explains how Dr Vaughan assigned James Collier, a senior civil servant at the DHSS, to remove obstacles. "Savile was understood to be likely to walk away from the project if bureaucratic processes hindered his autonomy."
The investigations says that Collier "did not just sweep aside bureaucracy to enable the project, he was instrumental, once he had been placed in charge of the scheme, in sweeping aside some legitimate concerns raised by statutory bodies".
Well if I were in some position of responsibility and I were to share a platform with David Irving, say (I wouldn't BTW) it would be wholly reasonable of you to criticise my judgment in doing so, even if all I was doing was giving my tips on when to plant spring bulbs.
In the same way I strongly criticised Livingstone for giving a platform to Qaradawi even though Livingstone himself has not advocated stoning of women, for instance.
There's a lot of naivety around about how these organisations seek to operate and how they try and pretend that they they are something which they are not.
Indeed, Livingstones Judgement will be rightly crtiticised, however if you were an MP and shared a platform with Mr Irvine to discuss crocusses you would not just have your judgement questioned you would be hounded out of office by a left wing rent-a-mob.
The left fail to realise that by not allowing freedom of association they are in the same league as the stoners, albeit in a different division.
Those who associate with and give credibility to such vile people are what Lenin called "useful idiots"
Well if I were in some position of responsibility and I were to share a platform with David Irving, say (I wouldn't BTW) it would be wholly reasonable of you to criticise my judgment in doing so, even if all I was doing was giving my tips on when to plant spring bulbs.
In the same way I strongly criticised Livingstone for giving a platform to Qaradawi even though Livingstone himself has not advocated stoning of women, for instance.
There's a lot of naivety around about how these organisations seek to operate and how they try and pretend that they they are something which they are not.
Indeed, Livingstones Judgement will be rightly crtiticised, however if you were an MP and shared a platform with Mr Irvine to discuss crocusses you would not just have your judgement questioned you would be hounded out of office by a left wing rent-a-mob.
The left fail to realise that by not allowing freedom of association they are in the same league as the stoners, albeit in a different division.
Those who associate with and give credibility to such vile people are what Lenin called "useful idiots"
Yes, but if we take away their freedom of association to do so then we are little better.
McCarthyism is alive ad well and posting on PB.Com
Roger: it is not McCarthyism to ask MPs to do a bit of due diligence about the groups they share a platform with. They should be careful about not allowing their respectability as MPs to be misused by others.
This is particularly the case when speaking on platforms with organisations which advocate violence against particular groups and in some cases against this country.
In the same way I thought it beyond stupid of Straw and Rifkind not to do a bit of due diligence about the Chinese company they were speaking to.
If they don't do any due diligence then we're entitled to criticise them for their naivety / stupidity etc. And if they support organisations that we think they shouldn't we're entitled to criticise their judgment.
He seems to be under attack for who else was at the event rather than for what he said at the event. McCarthyism doesnt sound too wide of the mark. Roger almost understating things for once!
Whereas when the Tories get within a mile of a Latvian homophobe...
You aspire to be at tim's level? (Fwiw I almost wore out my keyboard in frustration at tim's Latvian homophobe obsession.)
Wasn't specifically directed at you - you're in the top quartile for 'being reasonble' on this site. I was irritated by the shrieks of "McCarthyism" from Roger, who wastes no opportunity to smear and dengrate the Tories on the flimsiest of grounds. [Ironically he is now defending Thatcher! Go figure.]
Anyway, it's a shame tim isn't around any more. Brought a better balance to the threads, despite occassionally being a somewhat obsessive.
Only top quartile? Right, I'm storming off in a huff!
Most of the reasonable people are lurkers, far too sensible to descend into the grubby maelstrom of innuendo, smear and outright partisan lies. And let's not even mention the rampant condescension, arrogance, and military-grade sarcasm.
Oh, I might be responsible for a disproportionate amount of the military-grade sarcasm. Maybe top quartile was flattering me
The report suggests that essential safety nets were waived by ministers and senior civil servants in Whitehall because the Thatcher government wanted to use Savile as the poster-boy for charitable funding of the NHS.
"Successive politicians and NHS and DHSS senior officers feted Savile and placed him in a position of authority and trust," the report says, singling out Health Minister Dr Gerard Vaughan for particular criticism.
The report suggests that essential safety nets were waived by ministers and senior civil servants in Whitehall because the Thatcher government wanted to use Savile as the poster-boy for charitable funding of the NHS.
"Successive politicians and NHS and DHSS senior officers feted Savile and placed him in a position of authority and trust," the report says, singling out Health Minister Dr Gerard Vaughan for particular criticism.
What I don't quite get and isn't mentioned, is I understood he started as a porter at Mandeville Hospital in 1969 and was given wide ranging access at that time? Maybe I am wrong. So he had been given access for 10 years before Thatcher "waived" restrictions.
Edit:- Guardian report this.
Savile’s association with Stoke Mandeville dates back to 1969, when he began work as a volunteer porter and starstruck managers gave him unrestricted access to the hospital grounds.
If you read the description of the molestor at Stoke Mandeville tweeted by Jeremy Vine today, it almost reads like a Viz parody story of Jimmy Saville being a nonse
"long white hair, gold jewellery, smelling of cigar smoke..."
All models are struggling to assess just how localised UKIP's support is. This is a case in point.
I think there is a clutch of three-way marginal seats where UKIP could get to ~30% and fall just short, or get to ~35% and win several and the difference could be mostly down to how good the local UKIP organisation is on the ground compared to the competition.
You can't model that. The best you can say is that there is a set of seats in which UKIP is competitive. If you interpret the results of the model in such broad-brush terms then it's probably fairly reasonable.
Pretty much what I tried to do with my Heath Robinson Model a couple of years ago.. identify seats where UKIP might have a chance in a three way marginal if their VI sustained, and take big prices (or tip them without backing as per Cannock Chase 250/1)
Well if I were in some position of responsibility and I were to share a platform with David Irving, say (I wouldn't BTW) it would be wholly reasonable of you to criticise my judgment in doing so, even if all I was doing was giving my tips on when to plant spring bulbs.
In the same way I strongly criticised Livingstone for giving a platform to Qaradawi even though Livingstone himself has not advocated stoning of women, for instance.
There's a lot of naivety around about how these organisations seek to operate and how they try and pretend that they they are something which they are not.
Indeed, Livingstones Judgement will be rightly crtiticised, however if you were an MP and shared a platform with Mr Irvine to discuss crocusses you would not just have your judgement questioned you would be hounded out of office by a left wing rent-a-mob.
The left fail to realise that by not allowing freedom of association they are in the same league as the stoners, albeit in a different division.
Those who associate with and give credibility to such vile people are what Lenin called "useful idiots"
Yes, but if we take away their freedom of association to do so then we are little better.
Not inviting someone to City Hall is not taking away their freedom of association. They can associate all they like. But we don't - and should not - give them the cloak of our credibility.
If someone wants to spout Nazi nonsense he's free to do so. But I'm not obliged to invite him to my home.
McCarthyism is alive ad well and posting on PB.Com
Roger: it is not McCarthyism to ask MPs to do a bit of due diligence about the groups they share a platform with. They should be careful about not allowing their respectability as MPs to be misused by others.
This is particularly the case when speaking on platforms with organisations which advocate violence against particular groups and in some cases against this country.
In the same way I thought it beyond stupid of Straw and Rifkind not to do a bit of due diligence about the Chinese company they were speaking to.
If they don't do any due diligence then we're entitled to criticise them for their naivety / stupidity etc. And if they support organisations that we think they shouldn't we're entitled to criticise their judgment.
He seems to be under attack for who else was at the event rather than for what he said at the event. McCarthyism doesnt sound too wide of the mark. Roger almost understating things for once!
Whereas when the Tories get within a mile of a Latvian homophobe...
You aspire to be at tim's level? (Fwiw I almost wore out my keyboard in frustration at tim's Latvian homophobe obsession.)
Wasn't specifically directed at you - you're in the top quartile for 'being reasonble' on this site. I was irritated by the shrieks of "McCarthyism" from Roger, who wastes no opportunity to smear and dengrate the Tories on the flimsiest of grounds. [Ironically he is now defending Thatcher! Go figure.]
Anyway, it's a shame tim isn't around any more. Brought a better balance to the threads, despite occassionally being a somewhat obsessive.
Only top quartile? Right, I'm storming off in a huff!
Most of the reasonable people are lurkers, far too sensible to descend into the grubby maelstrom of innuendo, smear and outright partisan lies. And let's not even mention the rampant condescension, arrogance, and military-grade sarcasm.
Oh, I might be responsible for a disproportionate amount of the military-grade sarcasm. Maybe top quartile was flattering me
No, military grade is flattering you
Well obviously I dont waste the good stuff on the likes of you
All models are struggling to assess just how localised UKIP's support is. This is a case in point.
I think there is a clutch of three-way marginal seats where UKIP could get to ~30% and fall just short, or get to ~35% and win several and the difference could be mostly down to how good the local UKIP organisation is on the ground compared to the competition.
You can't model that. The best you can say is that there is a set of seats in which UKIP is competitive. If you interpret the results of the model in such broad-brush terms then it's probably fairly reasonable.
Pretty much what I tried to do with my Heath Robinson Model a couple of years ago.. identify seats where UKIP might have a chance in a three way marginal if their VI sustained, and take big prices (or tip them without backing as per Cannock Chase 250/1)
My assumption is that UKIP will hit 30-40% in about 20 seats, and therefore some of them will be wins.
@MaxPB The American system has created theoretical power, which is not the same thing?
As I said, this government needs to invest in the correct technology, not in what has "international consensus". It is not about being popular. Pulling out of ITER may not be a popular move, especially within European circles, but it would be the right move in the long term because Tokomaks just don't work, JET couldn't do it and ITER has basically got the same design.
Agree with that. Polywell might work. Thorium / molten salt does work - but not yet at scale. Lockheed Corporation is apprently quite close with some skunkworks type activity. I think a bit of healthy international competition rather than collaboration is what we need. We should leave ITER and invest in powergen driven R&D as a competitive advantage.
Patrick, update on our bet. I have yet to eat my pork pie but on the menu, I have however made up for it with real ale , taking my punishment on multiple occasions.
''Savile’s association with Stoke Mandeville dates back to 1969, when he began work as a volunteer porter and starstruck managers gave him unrestricted access to the hospital grounds.'' -- yes Watcher, well no. It was the BBC's fault, they regularly praised and publicised Saville's 'charity' work and promoted him as one of their 'talent'.
My own opinion for what it's worth is that people thought Saville was a typical sex'n drugs an rock'n roll type and was indeed playing around but consensually.
@TheWatcher I figured it out at the time dear Watcher. Having watched them snivel and whine for weeks about losing the ancestral piles. And I don't mean the haemorrhoids they got from sitting on their fat arses collecting money when the times were good
Lloyds Names lost their piles, Equitable Life customers were compensated for Regulatory Failure. Easy.
Equitable Life customers got nominal compensation after the Government consistently tried to get off the hook for its regulatory failures. I'm confused about the reference to Equitable Life names.
Compensation was derisory, dick turpin was hung for less.
@TheWatcher I figured it out at the time dear Watcher. Having watched them snivel and whine for weeks about losing the ancestral piles. And I don't mean the haemorrhoids they got from sitting on their fat arses collecting money when the times were good
Lloyds Names lost their piles, Equitable Life customers were compensated for Regulatory Failure. Easy.
Equitable Life customers got nominal compensation after the Government consistently tried to get off the hook for its regulatory failures. I'm confused about the reference to Equitable Life names.
Compensation was derisory, dick turpin was hung for less.
@TheWatcher I figured it out at the time dear Watcher. Having watched them snivel and whine for weeks about losing the ancestral piles. And I don't mean the haemorrhoids they got from sitting on their fat arses collecting money when the times were good
Lloyds Names lost their piles, Equitable Life customers were compensated for Regulatory Failure. Easy.
Equitable Life customers got nominal compensation after the Government consistently tried to get off the hook for its regulatory failures. I'm confused about the reference to Equitable Life names.
Compensation was derisory, dick turpin was hung for less.
@TheWatcher I figured it out at the time dear Watcher. Having watched them snivel and whine for weeks about losing the ancestral piles. And I don't mean the haemorrhoids they got from sitting on their fat arses collecting money when the times were good
Lloyds Names lost their piles, Equitable Life customers were compensated for Regulatory Failure. Easy.
Equitable Life customers got nominal compensation after the Government consistently tried to get off the hook for its regulatory failures. I'm confused about the reference to Equitable Life names.
Compensation was derisory, dick turpin was hung for less.
@TheWatcher I figured it out at the time dear Watcher. Having watched them snivel and whine for weeks about losing the ancestral piles. And I don't mean the haemorrhoids they got from sitting on their fat arses collecting money when the times were good
Lloyds Names lost their piles, Equitable Life customers were compensated for Regulatory Failure. Easy.
Equitable Life customers got nominal compensation after the Government consistently tried to get off the hook for its regulatory failures. I'm confused about the reference to Equitable Life names.
Compensation was derisory, dick turpin was hung for less.
My dad got £38k?
must have had more with them than me, luckily I only had a smallish amount of AVC's in a fund.
All models are struggling to assess just how localised UKIP's support is. This is a case in point.
I think there is a clutch of three-way marginal seats where UKIP could get to ~30% and fall just short, or get to ~35% and win several and the difference could be mostly down to how good the local UKIP organisation is on the ground compared to the competition.
You can't model that. The best you can say is that there is a set of seats in which UKIP is competitive. If you interpret the results of the model in such broad-brush terms then it's probably fairly reasonable.
Pretty much what I tried to do with my Heath Robinson Model a couple of years ago.. identify seats where UKIP might have a chance in a three way marginal if their VI sustained, and take big prices (or tip them without backing as per Cannock Chase 250/1)
My assumption is that UKIP will hit 30-40% in about 20 seats, and therefore some of them will be wins.
If your prediction is correct then anti UKIP sentiment probably means they win 1 (Clacton). UKIP will need 45% to win seats.
@TheWatcher I figured it out at the time dear Watcher. Having watched them snivel and whine for weeks about losing the ancestral piles. And I don't mean the haemorrhoids they got from sitting on their fat arses collecting money when the times were good
Lloyds Names lost their piles, Equitable Life customers were compensated for Regulatory Failure. Easy.
Equitable Life customers got nominal compensation after the Government consistently tried to get off the hook for its regulatory failures. I'm confused about the reference to Equitable Life names.
Compensation was derisory, dick turpin was hung for less.
@TheWatcher I figured it out at the time dear Watcher. Having watched them snivel and whine for weeks about losing the ancestral piles. And I don't mean the haemorrhoids they got from sitting on their fat arses collecting money when the times were good
Lloyds Names lost their piles, Equitable Life customers were compensated for Regulatory Failure. Easy.
Equitable Life customers got nominal compensation after the Government consistently tried to get off the hook for its regulatory failures. I'm confused about the reference to Equitable Life names.
Compensation was derisory, dick turpin was hung for less.
My dad got £38k?
must have had more with them than me, luckily I only had a smallish amount of AVC's in a fund.
Seen everything from a few hundred, a few thousand and the old mans was the most to-date.
Comments
That is a failure for Labour, not a success. As compared to a scenario where Labour voters turn out more regularly in safe Labour seats, Miliband might get the same number of seats, but in all other respects he has a weakened mandate.
Want to convince the Lib Dems/country/Queen/rivals that you've won the election? Every vote counts.
"The basic design of the MSR is sound and has been sound since it was first invented."
So was the basic design of the PWR/AGW/BWR/etc. The devil came when they tried to get large GW+ plants running for decades. Just look at the history of pebble-bed reactors for examples of hyped-up promising tech that's gone nowhere so far due to technical problems.
"The MSR is inherently safer than the PWR."
Unproven, as is the expense of running them. Whilst it may be true in theory, the whole history of nuclear power is littered with such claims.
"Britain as a country needs to invest in future technology"
Agree.
"MSR in the medium term"
Why?
"laser based fusion in the long term"
Hmmm... the NIF is interesting but problematic (see previous post).
"importing schlock from France."
You are joking?
"Our energy policy is a complete and utter joke."
Agree, but yours does not sound much better. The problem is there are no easy, cheap and sure-fire solutions. I wish there was, but in the meantime we need to get energy that is as cheap and as secure as possible (note those two aims are not necessarily complementary).
http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/2/26/1424956699029/38454ca3-80e2-45c0-a481-a7ff79ace5f4-620x372.jpeg
Now what might or might not have gone on there is worthy of discussion, but a black site....with all those white plod cars / vans outside...keeping it on the down low you understand.
Edit- oops, getting my no and yeses confused!
@GuidoFawkes: CAGE: Mentors of Jihadi John and supporters of terrorist Babar Ahmad. Why was @SadiqKhan speaking at their event? http://t.co/gdF5IKpqTv
This reminds me that, with my holidays after the election and Sterling at 1.37 Euros, that I ought to get some currency now.
Another Cage spokesman with an interesting history.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7258532.stm
No but I have a second home here and my yacht is moored in the Marina.
The look on Nigel's face was priceless.
I don't agree with Mike that it is a 3 way split-I have seen very little Labour effort in the seat, the candidate is not that strong-he didn't even turn up to the event as apparently he had been told not to by Labour HQ!!
I agree though that there is a lot of stop Farage noise and the Conservatives seem best placed to pick it up.
A shame the Lib candidate -Russ Timpson isn't in a more winnable seat as he is a good guy.
What percentage of bets at the bookies and at Betfair are from users of this site, or from people who get their tips here? If it's low, comments on this site might not move the markets very much.
By the way, the Election Forecast which this post referred to says that the Tories are 100% certain to win Wyre Forest, my nearby constituency. I think that's right, given all the parties standing. So why are the bookies' odds 1.44 or 1.5?
But my point is a different one: the government has not taken the steps it said it would and has not explained why. And it has not looked for or at the evidence which suggests that there are some very sinister individuals/organisations operating in the UK in ways which are a threat.
Turning a blind eye and then saying there's no proof of illegality is neither a sensible nor a moral policy - as I say on numerous occasions to bankers!
The tory was asked if he lived in the constituency:
No but I have a second home here and my yacht is moored in the Marina.
The look on Nigel's face was priceless.
That's NOT what he said!!!
Granted he lives in the Medway area but he is a Kent boy-frankly having seen how Thanet politics has gone over the last 30 years I am glad that he isn't.
I wasn't overly impressed with him on the night-I thought he spouted the Party line too much - when he spoke personally he was a lot better.
I thought Farage was OK on the night and didn't try and Grand stand too much but neither was I bowled over by him.
The sad thing is that friends like that will only help him in his constituency. And maybe for mayor too.
McCarthyism is alive ad well and posting on PB.Com
Nigel Farage wins Thanet South hustings event in Broadstairs
Read more: http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/Nigel-Farage-wins-Thanet-South-hustings-event/story-25907367-detail/story.html#ixzz3SsEL8Usl
Follow us: @ThanetGazette on Twitter | thanetgroup on Facebook
PS The male Green refused to attend because all the candidates were men. Why doesn't he stand down then and insist a woman take his place if he's that concerned about it?
Good opportunity to see whether the media will do their jobs flagging up how dodgy those apparent 'moderates' are.
F1: Carmen Jorda joins Lotus as a development driver (akin to Susie Wolff for Williams):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/31648080
Don't expect to see either of them race in anger. Wolff's too old to debut, and Jorda's 26, which is pushing it for a start.
Probably not, as there are male members of the WI.
Edit: Just checked, they can't be members, but they can attend
This is particularly the case when speaking on platforms with organisations which advocate violence against particular groups and in some cases against this country.
In the same way I thought it beyond stupid of Straw and Rifkind not to do a bit of due diligence about the Chinese company they were speaking to.
If they don't do any due diligence then we're entitled to criticise them for their naivety / stupidity etc. And if they support organisations that we think they shouldn't we're entitled to criticise their judgment.
But it's probably a bad analogy on my part, as the WI steers clear of electoral politics.
"Savile: 'How could this be allowed to happen?'"
The report suggests that essential safety nets were waived by ministers and senior civil servants in Whitehall because the Thatcher government wanted to use Savile as the poster-boy for charitable funding of the NHS.
"Successive politicians and NHS and DHSS senior officers feted Savile and placed him in a position of authority and trust," the report says, singling out Health Minister Dr Gerard Vaughan for particular criticism.
You have shifted your ground from "lack of proof" to "lack of evidence". The Terrorism Act 2000 in fact enables the Home Secretary to proscribe organisations if "he believes" that they are concerned in terrorism. So proof is neither here nor there.
In my opinion Thatcher and Murdoch are responsible for most of societies ills but even I would struggle to make a case that she's responsible for anything done by Saville
Edit:- Guardian report this.
Savile’s association with Stoke Mandeville dates back to 1969, when he began work as a volunteer porter and starstruck managers gave him unrestricted access to the hospital grounds.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/26/jimmy-savile-abuse-stoke-mandeville-hospital-inquiry
Also, personally I think the whole NHS should be broken up into small units that are independent of each other to the extent that they are legally different employers. When virtually a whole industry is operated by one entity, it enables those running it to banish people not just from their job but from their career and makes whistleblowing virtually impossible. BR was much the same.
Anyway, it's a shame tim isn't around any more. Brought a better balance to the threads, despite occassionally being a somewhat obsessive.
If opinion poll weighting is influenced by similar calculations and thought process then I think pollsters will find 1992 to be like the vicarage teaparty in comparison to 2015.
You can't model that. The best you can say is that there is a set of seats in which UKIP is competitive. If you interpret the results of the model in such broad-brush terms then it's probably fairly reasonable.
In the same way I strongly criticised Livingstone for giving a platform to Qaradawi even though Livingstone himself has not advocated stoning of women, for instance.
There's a lot of naivety around about how these organisations seek to operate and how they try and pretend that they they are something which they are not.
Isn't it better that we know how these people think?
Take it to those who wrote the report.
It just seems extraordinary that he was given so much leeway, even given the amounts he raised. Or did the money really blind everyone? (Which wouldn't surprise me, tbh.)
The left fail to realise that by not allowing freedom of association they are in the same league as the stoners, albeit in a different division.
People not knowing just isn't credible, how high up the chain it went only time will tell...John Lydon famously revealed stuff about Savile in 1978, but it was cut from an interview.
But by doing what Livingstone did he was giving him the imprimatur, the blessing of the Mayor of London. He was enhancing his status and allowing him to use that to give himself more status among Muslims. And if such a man is embraced it is not surprising to find that 27% of Muslims in this country sympathise with the motives of those who murder cartoonists and Jews.
It is notable that Livingstone did not give the same honour to those Muslims who really are liberal. It is notable that Amnesty and those politicians willing to share platforms with supporters of the Taliban do not do the same for those Muslim liberals who live in fear of their lives. We should not appease those who advocate violence and intolerance. And if we want to know what people think let's hear from those who show real courage and who have something interesting and worthwhile to say about what Islam means in the modern world.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9453112/how-liberal-britain-is-betraying-ex-muslims/
I thought - I may be wrong - that the security services would look a bit more deeply into the background / behaviour of someone with close access to the PM and the Royal Family.
The fact that Savile was a bit odd, to put it mildly, was not completely unknown to people until after his death.
The investigations says that Collier "did not just sweep aside bureaucracy to enable the project, he was instrumental, once he had been placed in charge of the scheme, in sweeping aside some legitimate concerns raised by statutory bodies".
Try reading the article?
By inviting him to the country Livingstone reveals what Livingstone thinks. That was one reason Boris trounced him.
"long white hair, gold jewellery, smelling of cigar smoke..."
If someone wants to spout Nazi nonsense he's free to do so. But I'm not obliged to invite him to my home.
yes Watcher, well no. It was the BBC's fault, they regularly praised and publicised Saville's 'charity' work and promoted him as one of their 'talent'.
My own opinion for what it's worth is that people thought Saville was a typical sex'n drugs an rock'n roll type and was indeed playing around but consensually.
" I'm confused about the reference to Equitable Life names. "
Not as amused as I was.... sorry confused.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-live-cpac-2015-day-1/
Ted Cruz has just started speaking with Hannity from Fox News hosting the show.