"Because we don't like to different from the mean.
If 500 people rate it as 7.6, that will influence the views of no 501"
I take your point but film goers have no need to score the films. It's not like politics where people might have a 'team'. I'm quite sure they make independent judgements. Why shouldn't they? What's interesting is that 500 is nearly always precisely representative of 500,000.
Roger, 'anchoring' is not really about making independent judgments, it's about a systematic dysfunction in how we perceive and think. It is a universal cognitive bias:
I've got a vague recollection of an experiment in Kahneman's "thinking fast and slow" - where, if a supermarket limits the number of items that can be bought on a special offer, people tend to buy more of the item, than if the offer had no limits at all.
So, when the *exclusive 70% off special offer* signage says "limited to 3 per customer", it' not that they're trying to prevent a stampede, it's because research says you're more likely to pick up three.
You know what: those black tie events are wonderful opportunities to take tens (or hundreds) of thousands of pounds off hedge fund managers and give them to good causes.
Basically: it enables John Jones who runs Macro Bond Leveraged Fund and earns $12m a year to hang out with some famous people like Marcus Mumford or whoever and feel important. And the charity makes good money.
I know a handful of successful fundraisers for a number of well known charities, and believe me, they have no problem with very rich people parting with some of their wealth at these events. And the people there are made all too aware of where the cash goes.
OT - IIRC you enjoyed Boston Legal - if you haven't seen Rake the Aussie comedy drama - I can't rate it better. A very similar type of show but with the Oz unPCness added in spades.
I've watched most of S1 and been very impressed/LOL a lot. Been watching it on Netflix. Trailer
Party Election broadcasts? - Can’t believe 16% of the nation actually watches them. – Don’t most people nip out to the kitchen and put the kettle on before the decent programmes start?
Anybody would think we have a GE coming up....tonight at 10pm on C4...
Britain's Racist Election
When maverick Conservative Peter Griffiths won the West Midlands seat of Smethwick in the 1964 General Election following an anti-immigration campaign, it triggered one of the worst chapters in the history of British race relations. Violence, assassination attempts, and even the creation of a British Ku Klux Klan tore a community apart - and took a single street to the brink of official racial segregation. This documentary tells the story of what happened when a small town gained international notoriety
As an aside, has anybody else been watching Israeli politics? It looks like Netanyahu is about to be evicted from office, after calling an unnecessary election.
Oh I've got him staying in as PM on the electiongame. Knesset is on a knife efdge though so wouldn't take much switching for the centre-left bloc to get in.
He's saying that the whole thing will be a con (from the government perspective).
You're reading what you want to see.
He's saying the renegotiation won't achieve anything substantive, but the government will claim we should stay in on the new improved terms. And therefore he'll campaign for out.
That doesn't mean the referendum is a con, merely that it resolves into an in/out vote.
I sometimes wonder what level of polling UKIP might achieve if they were organised and focused. Not a word have I seen about our immediately allowing three committed jihadists to jet back to the UK after being discovered in Turkey. They were off to pledge allegiance to our deadly enemies. Why make them our problem again? I guess the complicated answer is that if we didn't, Turkey might become less assiduous at detecting future such cases - but in the mind of a floating voter I would rather they were in Syria than Streatham.
You make it sound as if they chose to return when in fact they were picked up by Turkish authorities and shipped back (no doubt at the behest of HM Government). They are now enjoying HM's hospitality in the London Central Police Station.
Given this country is so ready to intervene in other nations troubles should we not also intervene when our errant citizens are causing / planning to cause trouble in other countries? Like it or not they are our problem and we have to deal with them.
I've been flat hunting over the weekend as moving in with my partner. We are moving on Friday 8th May. This means I will be able to vote for a local MP in Wantage who will be my representative for 1 day before I move to a different constituency.
Anybody would think we have a GE coming up....tonight at 10pm on C4...
Britain's Racist Election
When maverick Conservative Peter Griffiths won the West Midlands seat of Smethwick in the 1964 General Election following an anti-immigration campaign, it triggered one of the worst chapters in the history of British race relations. Violence, assassination attempts, and even the creation of a British Ku Klux Klan tore a community apart - and took a single street to the brink of official racial segregation. This documentary tells the story of what happened when a small town gained international notoriety
If you want a benefit scrounger for a neighbour vote Labour?
So 52% of the electorate have not made their mind up and have to decide whether to stick with the devil we know as the country slowly recovers or put their future prosperity in the hands of Ed "Dwayne Dibley" and Ed "Browns Sidekick"
Not hard to see where this is going to go.....
Possibly the most important stat that has been posted here for a while.
Entirely in line with what you hear on the doorstep.
No love for anybody, but special derision for the two Eds.
As an aside, has anybody else been watching Israeli politics? It looks like Netanyahu is about to be evicted from office, after calling an unnecessary election.
I have, for my family reasons and our local religious community connections.
It's not looking good for Israel, no. Netanyahu was elected on the back of a lot of (justified) anti-Obama rhetoric and that's going to cost him now with the liberal American Jewish money flowing to his opponents. Foreign money is the key point in this election with the Israel Hayom issue being the lightning rod. American Jewish cash has also united the traditionally split arab opposition into the Joint Arab List which might manage third. They will stay in opposition but united for the first time with 20% or so.
It may not be all bad news though. Netanyahu consistently outpolls his rivals - especially Zionist Union leaders Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni - on preferred-leader issues. In the weeks of horsetrading after the "result" its likely that the smaller parties will prefer Netanyahu in the PMs office and the extra influence that will gain them than propping up a Zionist Union coalition. He may well end up bloodied but still on top when the dust settles.
Good evening Plato – we did indeed enjoy BL, and shall pass on your advice wrt Rake to the lady of the house (as she has legal procession of the remote) – I think Poldark and Outlander are her favourites at the mo.
OT - IIRC you enjoyed Boston Legal - if you haven't seen Rake the Aussie comedy drama - I can't rate it better. A very similar type of show but with the Oz unPCness added in spades.
I've watched most of S1 and been very impressed/LOL a lot. Been watching it on Netflix. Trailer
Party Election broadcasts? - Can’t believe 16% of the nation actually watches them. – Don’t most people nip out to the kitchen and put the kettle on before the decent programmes start?
As an aside, has anybody else been watching Israeli politics? It looks like Netanyahu is about to be evicted from office, after calling an unnecessary election.
Oh I've got him staying in as PM on the electiongame. Knesset is on a knife efdge though so wouldn't take much switching for the centre-left bloc to get in.
It looks like Likud could be as many 6 seats behind Zionist Union - its 24-26 against 20-22. Given Netanyahu has managed to really upset most of the political partners on the tight of the electoral spectrum in Israel (and 70% of Israelis now think he should go), we are likely to see a change of PM.
Very interesting, and almost totally unremarked on in the UK press.
Party Election broadcasts? - Can’t believe 16% of the nation actually watches them. – Don’t most people nip out to the kitchen and put the kettle on before the decent programmes start?
Semi-seriously (to match your post *grin*) is it a myth that those kettles cause a discernible and measurable spike in grid use? So your hypothesis would be, to a certain degree, testable?
He's saying that the whole thing will be a con (from the government perspective).
You're reading what you want to see.
He's saying the renegotiation won't achieve anything substantive, but the government will claim we should stay in on the new improved terms. And therefore he'll campaign for out.
That doesn't mean the referendum is a con, merely that it resolves into an in/out vote.
Oh for god's sake don't talk such transparent nonsense! Don't insult people's intelligence. It demeans you!
In 2013, in his Bloomberg speech, he was still talking about significant unilateral repatriations of power. As recently as last year, he was after a cap on immigration from the EU, of the kind which Switzerland is now negotiating. All such talk has now been dropped. Ministers plainly won’t risk asking for something that might be denied. The only objectives still on the list are – with the exception of the “ever-closer union” technicality – ones that we can enact ourselves, without the possibility of a veto. If you doubt me, ask why the referendum can now be held in 2016. The original justification for the delay was to allow time for a substantial renegotiation culminating in a new treaty. No one in government is now talking in such terms
Cameron talked about repatriating sovereignty in various ways. Now they are not talking about anything that cannot be done without EU approval apart from the 'ever closer union' posturing which is meaningless anyway. Cameron has already failed before the negotiation has officially started if Hannan is to be believed. It's a con!
I sometimes wonder what level of polling UKIP might achieve if they were organised and focused. Not a word have I seen about our immediately allowing three committed jihadists to jet back to the UK after being discovered in Turkey. They were off to pledge allegiance to our deadly enemies. Why make them our problem again? I guess the complicated answer is that if we didn't, Turkey might become less assiduous at detecting future such cases - but in the mind of a floating voter I would rather they were in Syria than Streatham.
You make it sound as if they chose to return when in fact they were picked up by Turkish authorities and shipped back (no doubt at the behest of HM Government). They are now enjoying HM's hospitality in the London Central Police Station.
Given this country is so ready to intervene in other nations troubles should we not also intervene when our errant citizens are causing / planning to cause trouble in other countries? Like it or not they are our problem and we have to deal with them.
Well, they're our problem now... but stop thinking rationally and start thinking politically. Thinking - as UKIP need to - like a 1990s Lib Dem. Act wickedly and stir endlessly was, I think, the motto. Cameron and Clegg are, in their wisdom, about to make it a legal duty for penniless local councils to stop jihadists going off to join the struggle. Pickles wants a referendum, so why not help him out. The question could be "Do you want the council to spend your taxes on a) Auntie Ethel's meals on wheels, or b) making sure terrorists stay in the local area?".
"You know what: those black tie events are wonderful opportunities to take tens (or hundreds) of thousands of pounds off hedge fund managers and give them to good causes."
You misunderstand the ethos of charities run by lefties. Collecting money from rich people is a bourgeois distraction. To quote John O'Farrell 'it could lead to smiling'.
Party Election broadcasts? - Can’t believe 16% of the nation actually watches them. – Don’t most people nip out to the kitchen and put the kettle on before the decent programmes start?
Semi-seriously (to match your post *grin*) is it a myth that those kettles cause a discernible and measurable spike in grid use? So your hypothesis would be, to a certain degree, testable?
I think I read somewhere many moons ago that there was a distinct increase in both electricity and water demand during PPBs, as kettles were switched on and loos flushed. – how ‘scientific’ or utterly bogus I’ve no idea. : )
"You know what: those black tie events are wonderful opportunities to take tens (or hundreds) of thousands of pounds off hedge fund managers and give them to good causes."
You misunderstand the ethos of charities run by lefties. Collecting money from rich people is a bourgeois distraction. To quote John O'Farrell 'it could lead to smiling'.
Instead of going out and raising money the transparent way, "charities run by lefties" usually just ponce off of taxpayer money and funding. Governments hand it out to handwringing causes who then use it to lobby/campaign against that same government.
It's one circular way to encourage more employment I suppose.
I sometimes wonder what level of polling UKIP might achieve if they were organised and focused. Not a word have I seen about our immediately allowing three committed jihadists to jet back to the UK after being discovered in Turkey. They were off to pledge allegiance to our deadly enemies. Why make them our problem again? I guess the complicated answer is that if we didn't, Turkey might become less assiduous at detecting future such cases - but in the mind of a floating voter I would rather they were in Syria than Streatham.
You make it sound as if they chose to return when in fact they were picked up by Turkish authorities and shipped back (no doubt at the behest of HM Government). They are now enjoying HM's hospitality in the London Central Police Station.
Given this country is so ready to intervene in other nations troubles should we not also intervene when our errant citizens are causing / planning to cause trouble in other countries? Like it or not they are our problem and we have to deal with them.
Well, they're our problem now... but stop thinking rationally and start thinking politically. Thinking - as UKIP need to - like a 1990s Lib Dem. Act wickedly and stir endlessly was, I think, the motto. Cameron and Clegg are, in their wisdom, about to make it a legal duty for penniless local councils to stop jihadists going off to join the struggle. Pickles wants a referendum, so why not help him out. The question could be "Do you want the council to spend your taxes on a) Auntie Ethel's meals on wheels, or b) making sure terrorists stay in the local area?".
Have you got a link for that assertion? Councils are not equipped to restrict the movement of citizens as you suggest.
He's saying that the whole thing will be a con (from the government perspective).
You're reading what you want to see.
He's saying the renegotiation won't achieve anything substantive, but the government will claim we should stay in on the new improved terms. And therefore he'll campaign for out.
That doesn't mean the referendum is a con, merely that it resolves into an in/out vote.
Oh for god's sake don't talk such transparent nonsense! Don't insult people's intelligence. It demeans you!
In 2013, in his Bloomberg speech, he was still talking about significant unilateral repatriations of power. As recently as last year, he was after a cap on immigration from the EU, of the kind which Switzerland is now negotiating. All such talk has now been dropped. Ministers plainly won’t risk asking for something that might be denied. The only objectives still on the list are – with the exception of the “ever-closer union” technicality – ones that we can enact ourselves, without the possibility of a veto. If you doubt me, ask why the referendum can now be held in 2016. The original justification for the delay was to allow time for a substantial renegotiation culminating in a new treaty. No one in government is now talking in such terms
Cameron talked about repatriating sovereignty in various ways. Now they are not talking about anything that cannot be done without EU approval apart from the 'ever closer union' posturing which is meaningless anyway. Cameron has already failed before the negotiation has officially started if Hannan is to be believed. It's a con!
There will not be renegotiation of Freedom of Labour. That is one of the four pillars on which the EU was founded. Anyone who thinks you can remain in the EU and remove that is talking rubbish.
It is possible - and desired by a great many of the wealthier countries in the EU - to see changes on the ability of non-citizens to claim welfare.
(As an aside, many of the other countries in the EU already effectively limit the access of non citizens to healthcare. In Italy, healthcare is insurance based. You can't - as a Brit - go to Italy and enjoy unlimited free healthcare, unless you pay into the healthcare fund.)
As an aside, it looks likely that Switzerland will continue allow EU citizens to work (and vice-versa). However, you will not be able to go Switzerland and job hunt, you will need to get a job while you are in - say - France, and then you will be legally allowed to live and reside in Switzerland. As an aside, Switzerland is also a member of Schengen.
He's saying that the whole thing will be a con (from the government perspective).
You're reading what you want to see.
He's saying the renegotiation won't achieve anything substantive, but the government will claim we should stay in on the new improved terms. And therefore he'll campaign for out.
That doesn't mean the referendum is a con, merely that it resolves into an in/out vote.
Oh for god's sake don't talk such transparent nonsense! Don't insult people's intelligence. It demeans you!
In 2013, in his Bloomberg speech, he was still talking about significant unilateral repatriations of power. As recently as last year, he was after a cap on immigration from the EU, of the kind which Switzerland is now negotiating. All such talk has now been dropped. Ministers plainly won’t risk asking for something that might be denied. The only objectives still on the list are – with the exception of the “ever-closer union” technicality – ones that we can enact ourselves, without the possibility of a veto. If you doubt me, ask why the referendum can now be held in 2016. The original justification for the delay was to allow time for a substantial renegotiation culminating in a new treaty. No one in government is now talking in such terms
Cameron talked about repatriating sovereignty in various ways. Now they are not talking about anything that cannot be done without EU approval apart from the 'ever closer union' posturing which is meaningless anyway. Cameron has already failed before the negotiation has officially started if Hannan is to be believed. It's a con!
No, it's not. It may be an exercise in futility, but that's not the same thing.
1. Cameron tries renegotiation but achieves nothing 2. If he claims that nothing is the greatest thing since sliced bread, the Tories split with Hammond and Gove leading the BOO campaign 3. Therefore Cameron, being the pragmatist/opportunist he is will lead the "regretfully BOO" campaign
Consequently the likelihood is that Cameron will get some really concessions. Question will be whether they are enough to convince Hammond/Gove to campaign to stay in
I sometimes wonder what level of polling UKIP might achieve if they were organised and focused. Not a word have I seen about our immediately allowing three committed jihadists to jet back to the UK after being discovered in Turkey. They were off to pledge allegiance to our deadly enemies. Why make them our problem again? I guess the complicated answer is that if we didn't, Turkey might become less assiduous at detecting future such cases - but in the mind of a floating voter I would rather they were in Syria than Streatham.
You make it sound as if they chose to return when in fact they were picked up by Turkish authorities and shipped back (no doubt at the behest of HM Government). They are now enjoying HM's hospitality in the London Central Police Station.
Given this country is so ready to intervene in other nations troubles should we not also intervene when our errant citizens are causing / planning to cause trouble in other countries? Like it or not they are our problem and we have to deal with them.
Well, they're our problem now... but stop thinking rationally and start thinking politically. Thinking - as UKIP need to - like a 1990s Lib Dem. Act wickedly and stir endlessly was, I think, the motto. Cameron and Clegg are, in their wisdom, about to make it a legal duty for penniless local councils to stop jihadists going off to join the struggle. Pickles wants a referendum, so why not help him out. The question could be "Do you want the council to spend your taxes on a) Auntie Ethel's meals on wheels, or b) making sure terrorists stay in the local area?".
Have you got a link for that assertion? Councils are not equipped to restrict the movement of citizens as you suggest.
Surely we should be encouraging would be jihadists to go to Iraq and join ISIS
Party Election broadcasts? - Can’t believe 16% of the nation actually watches them. – Don’t most people nip out to the kitchen and put the kettle on before the decent programmes start?
Semi-seriously (to match your post *grin*) is it a myth that those kettles cause a discernible and measurable spike in grid use? So your hypothesis would be, to a certain degree, testable?
I don't know about PPBs but a few years ago there was a documentary about the work of the people at the National Grid whose job it is to ensure that there is enough electricity and one of the things they looked at when planning each day was the TV schedules. Spikes in demand could apparently be guaranteed during the adverts and at the end of a popular programme.
I sometimes wonder what level of polling UKIP might achieve if they were organised and focused. Not a word have I seen about our immediately allowing three committed jihadists to jet back to the UK after being discovered in Turkey. They were off to pledge allegiance to our deadly enemies. Why make them our problem again? I guess the complicated answer is that if we didn't, Turkey might become less assiduous at detecting future such cases - but in the mind of a floating voter I would rather they were in Syria than Streatham.
You make it sound as if they chose to return when in fact they were picked up by Turkish authorities and shipped back (no doubt at the behest of HM Government). They are now enjoying HM's hospitality in the London Central Police Station.
Given this country is so ready to intervene in other nations troubles should we not also intervene when our errant citizens are causing / planning to cause trouble in other countries? Like it or not they are our problem and we have to deal with them.
Well, they're our problem now... but stop thinking rationally and start thinking politically. Thinking - as UKIP need to - like a 1990s Lib Dem. Act wickedly and stir endlessly was, I think, the motto. Cameron and Clegg are, in their wisdom, about to make it a legal duty for penniless local councils to stop jihadists going off to join the struggle. Pickles wants a referendum, so why not help him out. The question could be "Do you want the council to spend your taxes on a) Auntie Ethel's meals on wheels, or b) making sure terrorists stay in the local area?".
Have you got a link for that assertion? Councils are not equipped to restrict the movement of citizens as you suggest.
Not literally for arresting them. But a government which loves to engage in synthetic outrage over 'public sector non-jobs' now expects councils to employ 'counter-terror co-coordinators' who can develop 'multi-agency prevent action plans' as part of work to mainstream anti-radicalisation activity across a range of safeguarding channel partners.
I sometimes wonder what level of polling UKIP might achieve if they were organised and focused. Not a word have I seen about our immediately allowing three committed jihadists to jet back to the UK after being discovered in Turkey. They were off to pledge allegiance to our deadly enemies. Why make them our problem again? I guess the complicated answer is that if we didn't, Turkey might become less assiduous at detecting future such cases - but in the mind of a floating voter I would rather they were in Syria than Streatham.
You make it sound as if they chose to return when in fact they were picked up by Turkish authorities and shipped back (no doubt at the behest of HM Government). They are now enjoying HM's hospitality in the London Central Police Station.
Given this country is so ready to intervene in other nations troubles should we not also intervene when our errant citizens are causing / planning to cause trouble in other countries? Like it or not they are our problem and we have to deal with them.
Well, they're our problem now... but stop thinking rationally and start thinking politically. Thinking - as UKIP need to - like a 1990s Lib Dem. Act wickedly and stir endlessly was, I think, the motto. Cameron and Clegg are, in their wisdom, about to make it a legal duty for penniless local councils to stop jihadists going off to join the struggle. Pickles wants a referendum, so why not help him out. The question could be "Do you want the council to spend your taxes on a) Auntie Ethel's meals on wheels, or b) making sure terrorists stay in the local area?".
Have you got a link for that assertion? Councils are not equipped to restrict the movement of citizens as you suggest.
Surely we should be encouraging would be jihadists to go to Iraq and join ISIS
Is that really such a great idea? The 'good' ones that survive and return will be fully trained up and ready to cause mayhem here.
"Of course, we also sacrifice our heritage to ideology. Say goodbye to Paolozzi’s Tottenham Court Road murals, trashed by terrorists of Transport for London; to Oxford’s ancient Port Meadow horizon, occluded by death-cult developers; and perhaps to the BBC, the greatest cultural achievement of any 20th-century democracy, soon to be poleaxed by free-market fundamentalists as pernicious as the statue-smashers of so-called Islamic State."
LOL....I have to say the Guardian piece about how Phoenix Night Live was disable-ist was quite a cracker as well...The reviewer seemed to have missed the whole point of the gag that Brian Potter isn't actually disabled.
As an aside, it looks likely that Switzerland will continue allow EU citizens to work (and vice-versa). However, you will not be able to go Switzerland and job hunt, you will need to get a job while you are in - say - France, and then you will be legally allowed to live and reside in Switzerland. As an aside, Switzerland is also a member of Schengen.
Re your first post I have been one of those who has never believed Cameron's claims since he made them. it was obvious that the EU was not going to accommodate his demands.
As for your second post. The attached link from a month ago seems to suggest something different although lacks the detail to set out exactly what.
And as far as Schengen is concerned it doesn't preclude the requirement for valid documentaton and to work in Switzerland I believe one requires a valid work permit.
Party Election broadcasts? - Can’t believe 16% of the nation actually watches them. – Don’t most people nip out to the kitchen and put the kettle on before the decent programmes start?
Semi-seriously (to match your post *grin*) is it a myth that those kettles cause a discernible and measurable spike in grid use? So your hypothesis would be, to a certain degree, testable?
I don't know about PPBs but a few years ago there was a documentary about the work of the people at the National Grid whose job it is to ensure that there is enough electricity and one of the things they looked at when planning each day was the TV schedules. Spikes in demand could apparently be guaranteed during the adverts and at the end of a popular programme.
Not sure that is such a problem these days, the days when 20 million people watched a particularly well trailed episode of Corrie are long gone.
I sometimes wonder what level of polling UKIP might achieve if they were organised and focused. Not a word have I seen about our immediately allowing three committed jihadists to jet back to the UK after being discovered in Turkey. They were off to pledge allegiance to our deadly enemies. Why make them our problem again? I guess the complicated answer is that if we didn't, Turkey might become less assiduous at detecting future such cases - but in the mind of a floating voter I would rather they were in Syria than Streatham.
You make it sound as if they chose to return when in fact they were picked up by Turkish authorities and shipped back (no doubt at the behest of HM Government). They are now enjoying HM's hospitality in the London Central Police Station.
Given this country is so ready to intervene in other nations troubles should we not also intervene when our errant citizens are causing / planning to cause trouble in other countries? Like it or not they are our problem and we have to deal with them.
Well, they're our problem now... but stop thinking rationally and start thinking politically. Thinking - as UKIP need to - like a 1990s Lib Dem. Act wickedly and stir endlessly was, I think, the motto. Cameron and Clegg are, in their wisdom, about to make it a legal duty for penniless local councils to stop jihadists going off to join the struggle. Pickles wants a referendum, so why not help him out. The question could be "Do you want the council to spend your taxes on a) Auntie Ethel's meals on wheels, or b) making sure terrorists stay in the local area?".
Have you got a link for that assertion? Councils are not equipped to restrict the movement of citizens as you suggest.
Surely we should be encouraging would be jihadists to go to Iraq and join ISIS
Sending them to prison for life for treason would be more to my liking.
I sometimes wonder what level of polling UKIP might achieve if they were organised and focused. Not a word have I seen about our immediately allowing three committed jihadists to jet back to the UK after being discovered in Turkey. They were off to pledge allegiance to our deadly enemies. Why make them our problem again? I guess the complicated answer is that if we didn't, Turkey might become less assiduous at detecting future such cases - but in the mind of a floating voter I would rather they were in Syria than Streatham.
You make it sound as if they chose to return when in fact they were picked up by Turkish authorities and shipped back (no doubt at the behest of HM Government). They are now enjoying HM's hospitality in the London Central Police Station.
Given this country is so ready to intervene in other nations troubles should we not also intervene when our errant citizens are causing / planning to cause trouble in other countries? Like it or not they are our problem and we have to deal with them.
Well, they're our problem now... but stop thinking rationally and start thinking politically. Thinking - as UKIP need to - like a 1990s Lib Dem. Act wickedly and stir endlessly was, I think, the motto. Cameron and Clegg are, in their wisdom, about to make it a legal duty for penniless local councils to stop jihadists going off to join the struggle. Pickles wants a referendum, so why not help him out. The question could be "Do you want the council to spend your taxes on a) Auntie Ethel's meals on wheels, or b) making sure terrorists stay in the local area?".
Have you got a link for that assertion? Councils are not equipped to restrict the movement of citizens as you suggest.
Surely we should be encouraging would be jihadists to go to Iraq and join ISIS
Is that really such a great idea? The 'good' ones that survive and return will be fully trained up and ready to cause mayhem here.
He's saying that the whole thing will be a con (from the government perspective).
You're reading what you want to see.
He's saying the renegotiation won't achieve anything substantive, but the government will claim we should stay in on the new improved terms. And therefore he'll campaign for out.
That doesn't mean the referendum is a con, merely that it resolves into an in/out vote.
Oh for god's sake don't talk such transparent nonsense! Don't insult people's intelligence. It demeans you!
In 2013, in his Bloomberg speech, he was still talking about significant unilateral repatriations of power. As recently as last year, he was after a cap on immigration from the EU, of the kind which Switzerland is now negotiating. All such talk has now been dropped. Ministers plainly won’t risk asking for something that might be denied. The only objectives still on the list are – with the exception of the “ever-closer union” technicality – ones that we can enact ourselves, without the possibility of a veto. If you doubt me, ask why the referendum can now be held in 2016. The original justification for the delay was to allow time for a substantial renegotiation culminating in a new treaty. No one in government is now talking in such terms
Cameron talked about repatriating sovereignty in various ways. Now they are not talking about anything that cannot be done without EU approval apart from the 'ever closer union' posturing which is meaningless anyway. Cameron has already failed before the negotiation has officially started if Hannan is to be believed. It's a con!
No, it's not. It may be an exercise in futility, but that's not the same thing.
1. Cameron tries renegotiation but achieves nothing 2. If he claims that nothing is the greatest thing since sliced bread, the Tories split with Hammond and Gove leading the BOO campaign 3. Therefore Cameron, being the pragmatist/opportunist he is will lead the "regretfully BOO" campaign
Consequently the likelihood is that Cameron will get some really concessions. Question will be whether they are enough to convince Hammond/Gove to campaign to stay in
Whatever Charles, I long since tired of Cameron's hollow rhetoric on the EU and will be the first to admit my utter astonishment if he ever recommends withdrawal but it will not happen.
I sometimes wonder what level of polling UKIP might achieve if they were organised and focused. Not a word have I seen about our immediately allowing three committed jihadists to jet back to the UK after being discovered in Turkey. They were off to pledge allegiance to our deadly enemies. Why make them our problem again? I guess the complicated answer is that if we didn't, Turkey might become less assiduous at detecting future such cases - but in the mind of a floating voter I would rather they were in Syria than Streatham.
You make it sound as if they chose to return when in fact they were picked up by Turkish authorities and shipped back (no doubt at the behest of HM Government). They are now enjoying HM's hospitality in the London Central Police Station.
Given this country is so ready to intervene in other nations troubles should we not also intervene when our errant citizens are causing / planning to cause trouble in other countries? Like it or not they are our problem and we have to deal with them.
Well, they're our problem now... but stop thinking rationally and start thinking politically. Thinking - as UKIP need to - like a 1990s Lib Dem. Act wickedly and stir endlessly was, I think, the motto. Cameron and Clegg are, in their wisdom, about to make it a legal duty for penniless local councils to stop jihadists going off to join the struggle. Pickles wants a referendum, so why not help him out. The question could be "Do you want the council to spend your taxes on a) Auntie Ethel's meals on wheels, or b) making sure terrorists stay in the local area?".
Have you got a link for that assertion? Councils are not equipped to restrict the movement of citizens as you suggest.
Surely we should be encouraging would be jihadists to go to Iraq and join ISIS
Is that really such a great idea? The 'good' ones that survive and return will be fully trained up and ready to cause mayhem here.
Today comment is free has published their finest piece ever
Privatising BBC3 would be as pernicious as Isis destroying Iraq’s historic sites
You can never tell with these stand-ups whether they are making a joke, or just really twisted fkers. – Besides, hasn’t he made most of his appearances on BBC2?
There will not be renegotiation of Freedom of Labour. That is one of the four pillars on which the EU was founded. Anyone who thinks you can remain in the EU and remove that is talking rubbish.
It is possible - and desired by a great many of the wealthier countries in the EU - to see changes on the ability of non-citizens to claim welfare.
(As an aside, many of the other countries in the EU already effectively limit the access of non citizens to healthcare. In Italy, healthcare is insurance based. You can't - as a Brit - go to Italy and enjoy unlimited free healthcare, unless you pay into the healthcare fund.)
We have insurance-based welfare (Contribution-based JSA and ESA), we also have residence based welfare which is open to anyone who is resident. All the Government has to do is to apply a fairly hefty residency qualification - say ten years - for all people to get the residency one. British people will mostly still get it as we have lived here that long, foreigners can be excluded on exactly the same basis as Britons so it should not be discriminatory. What we have here is just political inability to think out of the box and adjust our laws to take account of the reality we find ourselves in.
I sometimes wonder what level of polling UKIP might achieve if they were organised and focused. Not a word have I seen about our immediately allowing three committed jihadists to jet back to the UK after being discovered in Turkey. They were off to pledge allegiance to our deadly enemies. Why make them our problem again? I guess the complicated answer is that if we didn't, Turkey might become less assiduous at detecting future such cases - but in the mind of a floating voter I would rather they were in Syria than Streatham.
You make it sound as if they chose to return when in fact they were picked up by Turkish authorities and shipped back (no doubt at the behest of HM Government). They are now enjoying HM's hospitality in the London Central Police Station.
Given this country is so ready to intervene in other nations troubles should we not also intervene when our errant citizens are causing / planning to cause trouble in other countries? Like it or not they are our problem and we have to deal with them.
Well, they're our problem now... but stop thinking rationally and start thinking politically. Thinking - as UKIP need to - like a 1990s Lib Dem. Act wickedly and stir endlessly was, I think, the motto. Cameron and Clegg are, in their wisdom, about to make it a legal duty for penniless local councils to stop jihadists going off to join the struggle. Pickles wants a referendum, so why not help him out. The question could be "Do you want the council to spend your taxes on a) Auntie Ethel's meals on wheels, or b) making sure terrorists stay in the local area?".
Have you got a link for that assertion? Councils are not equipped to restrict the movement of citizens as you suggest.
Surely we should be encouraging would be jihadists to go to Iraq and join ISIS
Sending them to prison for life for treason would be more to my liking.
They could always spend time counting the birds on Rockall.
Had Clarkson sexually assaulted seven-year-old BBC producers on a regular basis and been protected by the Establishment, you might have a case. We accept you don't like Clarkson.
...
My distate on the proceedings stems from a longstanding opinion that justice in the UK depends on who you know and the size of lawyer you can hire, and the unwritten rule is SLEBS CAN DO WHAT THEY LIKE. The commentariat were rapidly deployed to support Clarkson (Pearson's Telegraph article was frankly ludicrous) and the entire process is wearily depressing. If there weren't independent witnesses to the event, I'd expect Tymon to be prosecuted for hurting Clarkson's fist with his nose.
...
None of what you say - even if true and its not - justifies bringing Saville into it or saying that the PM in both cases exerted influence. Various newspapers are actually more than keen to attack Clarkson over this. To be accurate about him, there does not seem to be any grouping he is not prepared to slag off (except possibly the Aston Martin design team) - in this he is more shock-jock rather than reporter. I have to say the more he apes Howard Stern and that ilk, the more I dislike bim. The more controlled he is the better he is.
No one should be punched or assaulted over a steak sandwich and verbally abusing your juniors is infantile, although the BBC's view of business based on the Apprentice (which is another BBC programme you are wise to avoid) suggests they do actually go along with the latter.
I sometimes wonder what level of polling UKIP might achieve if they were organised and focused. Not a word have I seen about our immediately allowing three committed jihadists to jet back to the UK after being discovered in Turkey. They were off to pledge allegiance to our deadly enemies. Why make them our problem again? I guess the complicated answer is that if we didn't, Turkey might become less assiduous at detecting future such cases - but in the mind of a floating voter I would rather they were in Syria than Streatham.
You make it sound as if they chose to return when in fact they were picked up by Turkish authorities and shipped back (no doubt at the behest of HM Government). They are now enjoying HM's hospitality in the London Central Police Station.
Given this country is so ready to intervene in other nations troubles should we not also intervene when our errant citizens are causing / planning to cause trouble in other countries? Like it or not they are our problem and we have to deal with them.
Well, they're our problem now... but stop thinking rationally and start thinking politically. Thinking - as UKIP need to - like a 1990s Lib Dem. Act wickedly and stir endlessly was, I think, the motto. Cameron and Clegg are, in their wisdom, about to make it a legal duty for penniless local councils to stop jihadists going off to join the struggle. Pickles wants a referendum, so why not help him out. The question could be "Do you want the council to spend your taxes on a) Auntie Ethel's meals on wheels, or b) making sure terrorists stay in the local area?".
Have you got a link for that assertion? Councils are not equipped to restrict the movement of citizens as you suggest.
Surely we should be encouraging would be jihadists to go to Iraq and join ISIS
Is that really such a great idea? The 'good' ones that survive and return will be fully trained up and ready to cause mayhem here.
Have you read the Atlantic article about ISIS?
I will if you post a link.
I read that it was exceptionally interesting. There was also a good piece in Fortean Times of all places a couple of months ago, about Dabiq and IS's apocalyptic end-times theology.
Had Clarkson sexually assaulted seven-year-old BBC producers on a regular basis and been protected by the Establishment, you might have a case. We accept you don't like Clarkson.
...
My distate on the proceedings stems from a longstanding opinion that justice in the UK depends on who you know and the size of lawyer you can hire, and the unwritten rule is SLEBS CAN DO WHAT THEY LIKE. The commentariat were rapidly deployed to support Clarkson (Pearson's Telegraph article was frankly ludicrous) and the entire process is wearily depressing. If there weren't independent witnesses to the event, I'd expect Tymon to be prosecuted for hurting Clarkson's fist with his nose.
...
None of what you say - even if true and its not - justifies bringing Saville into it or saying that the PM in both cases exerted influence. Various newspapers are actually more than keen to attack Clarkson over this. To be accurate about him, there does not seem to be any grouping he is not prepared to slag off (except possibly the Aston Martin design team) - in this he is more shock-jock rather than reporter. I have to say the more he apes Howard Stern and that ilk, the more I dislike bim. The more controlled he is the better he is.
No one should be punched or assaulted over a steak sandwich and verbally abusing your juniors is infantile, although the BBC's view of business based on the Apprentice (which is another BBC programme you are wise to avoid) suggests they do actually go along with the latter.
Somebody posted a link a few days ago to a BBC quiz for kids about what it takes to be an entrepreneur...and many of the questions required you to gives answers that implied you were willing to be dishonest, liar and a cheat. Was very revealing what the view inside the BBC bubble thinks it is like to be a successful entrepreneur.
Mr. Urquhart, indeed, that was an unpleasant revelation.
But, to speak up for the BBC, there was a very interesting piece about the often ignored country of Eritrea, which is a military dictatorship on the east coast of Africa.
Mr. Urquhart, indeed, that was an unpleasant revelation.
But, to speak up for the BBC, there was a very interesting piece about the often ignored country of Eritrea, which is a military dictatorship on the east coast of Africa.
Eritrea gets virtually zero coverage, despite in a terrible state with all sorts of wars for 10+ years now.
Today comment is free has published their finest piece ever
Privatising BBC3 would be as pernicious as Isis destroying Iraq’s historic sites
You can never tell with these stand-ups whether they are making a joke, or just really twisted fkers. – Besides, hasn’t he made most of his appearances on BBC2?
What was even better was dear Polly T retweeted it approvingly this morning.
Did Bibi skip out from the debates by the way.... ?
That law is becoming a global phenomenon.
Under Ed's proposed You Must Also Talk To Bibi Act 2016 the phrase he will need is ha'im ani b'matzar? Ani rotze l'daber eem oreh deen (Am I under arrest? I want to talk to a lawyer)
I sometimes wonder what level of polling UKIP might achieve if they were organised and focused. Not a word have I seen about our immediately allowing three committed jihadists to jet back to the UK after being discovered in Turkey. They were off to pledge allegiance to our deadly enemies. Why make them our problem again? I guess the complicated answer is that if we didn't, Turkey might become less assiduous at detecting future such cases - but in the mind of a floating voter I would rather they were in Syria than Streatham.
You make it sound as if they chose to return when in fact they were picked up by Turkish authorities and shipped back (no doubt at the behest of HM Government). They are now enjoying HM's hospitality in the London Central Police Station.
Given this country is so ready to intervene in other nations troubles should we not also intervene when our errant citizens are causing / planning to cause trouble in other countries? Like it or not they are our problem and we have to deal with them.
Well, they're our problem now... but stop thinking rationally and start thinking politically. Thinking - as UKIP need to - like a 1990s Lib Dem. Act wickedly and stir endlessly was, I think, the motto. Cameron and Clegg are, in their wisdom, about to make it a legal duty for penniless local councils to stop jihadists going off to join the struggle. Pickles wants a referendum, so why not help him out. The question could be "Do you want the council to spend your taxes on a) Auntie Ethel's meals on wheels, or b) making sure terrorists stay in the local area?".
Have you got a link for that assertion? Councils are not equipped to restrict the movement of citizens as you suggest.
Surely we should be encouraging would be jihadists to go to Iraq and join ISIS
Sending them to prison for life for treason would be more to my liking.
They could always spend time counting the birds on Rockall.
On the other hand - since they had not actually left Turkey for anywhere - it would be hard to prove a treasonable act. As it is they can be questioned and may give up information. They are now on what is a believe called 'the grid' and can be watched in case they give anything away. Relatives and friends may be willing to 'give up' other silly dopey schoolgirls who are thinking about doing the same thing.
So 52% of the electorate have not made their mind up and have to decide whether to stick with the devil we know as the country slowly recovers or put their future prosperity in the hands of Ed "Dwayne Dibley" and Ed "Browns Sidekick"
Not hard to see where this is going to go.....
Possibly the most important stat that has been posted here for a while.
Entirely in line with what you hear on the doorstep.
No love for anybody, but special derision for the two Eds.
Dosent surprise me. I think there will be a large chunk of Labour leaning voters who wont bother to get out of bed on voting day. Frankly anything could happen in this election except EICIPM.
I dont think you can entirely rule out 250 ukip mps crapping themselves on May 8th when they realise they have been elected and have to try and form a government. Unlikely but I think EICIPM is even more unlikely. We may be about to find out how good the top civil servants are and how good HM Queen is at getting politicians to form unlikely coalitions. My guess is that she will order Dave and Ed to form a grand coalition if we get a real stalemate.
The BBC3 being removed is the end of the world narrative has been pushed by all sorts of lefties for over a year now. I find it a bit weird tbh. They had the guy behind the new gay show on C4 going totally nutto on R5 a few weeks back, ranting and raving about evil Tories shutting down the BBC etc.
BBC3 only broadcasts from 7pm until I think 2am, the vast majority of the output is repeats, including repeats on the same day. The amount of original hours of content produced is tiny.
How that output can't be incorporated into iPlayer or BBC2 etc I have no idea. And to say that internet only series can't become popular is just utter balls...House of Cards anybody? And BBC3 is aimed at the yuff market, which are all into streaming, youtube, twitch, etc.
The BBC3 being removed is the end of the world narrative has been pushed by all sorts of lefties for over a year now. I find it a bit weird tbh. They had the guy behind the new gay show on C4 going totally nutto on R5 a few weeks back, ranting and raving about evil Tories shutting down the BBC etc.
BBC3 only broadcasts from 7pm until I think 2am, the vast majority of the output is repeats, including repeats on the same day. The amount of original hours of content produced is tiny.
How that output can't be incorporated into iPlayer or BBC2 etc I have no idea. And to say that internet only series can't become popular is just utter balls...House of Cards anybody? And BBC3 is aimed at the yuff market, which are all into streaming, youtube, twitch, etc.
Were they seriously comparing it to the destruction of unique historical artefacts in Syria?
The BBC3 being removed is the end of the world narrative has been pushed by all sorts of lefties for over a year now. I find it a bit weird tbh. They had the guy behind the new gay show on C4 going totally nutto on R5 a few weeks back, ranting and raving about evil Tories shutting down the BBC etc.
BBC3 only broadcasts from 7pm until I think 2am, the vast majority of the output is repeats, including repeats on the same day. The amount of original hours of content produced is tiny.
How that output can't be incorporated into iPlayer or BBC2 etc I have no idea. And to say that internet only series can't become popular is just utter balls...House of Cards anybody? And BBC3 is aimed at the yuff market, which are all into streaming, youtube, twitch, etc.
Were they seriously comparing it to the destruction of unique historical artefacts in Syria?
The raving loony on R5 wasn't far off to be honest. The way he was going on, he made it sound like the government had just withdrawn all funding from the BBC and were saying they would close it down if they won the GE...rather than just frozen their income and the suits had decided that closing BBC3 as a stand alone channel was a way of saving a few million.
That CiF article is the pits. I can't decide whether it is an example of terminal stupidity, narcissism of a level that the original Narcissus might have balked at or utter moral vacuity, or a combination of all three.
I find it heartbreaking to think of the destruction that IS are wreaking in Iraq and Syria and elsewhere. They are destroying a civilisation that is part of all our heritage. They are barbarians.
That there is so little we can do - even when (and I hope it is when rather than if) IS is destroyed - makes it even worse.
That CiF article is the pits. I can't decide whether it is an example of terminal stupidity, narcissism of a level that the original Narcissus might have balked at or utter moral vacuity, or a combination of all three.
I find it heartbreaking to think of the destruction that IS are wreaking in Iraq and Syria and elsewhere. They are destroying a civilisation that is part of all our heritage. They are barbarians.
That there is so little we can do - even when (and I hope it is when rather than if) IS is destroyed - makes it even worse.
Just wait until they get to Egypt.
Though if the article in the Atlantic is right, better to get them to form up in that field near Alleppo; then bathe them in instant sunshine.
As an aside, has anybody else been watching Israeli politics? It looks like Netanyahu is about to be evicted from office, after calling an unnecessary election.
Oh I've got him staying in as PM on the electiongame. Knesset is on a knife efdge though so wouldn't take much switching for the centre-left bloc to get in.
It looks like Likud could be as many 6 seats behind Zionist Union - its 24-26 against 20-22. Given Netanyahu has managed to really upset most of the political partners on the tight of the electoral spectrum in Israel (and 70% of Israelis now think he should go), we are likely to see a change of PM.
Very interesting, and almost totally unremarked on in the UK press.
It seems to me that neither Likud or Zionist Union will be able to create a coalition with a majority of 61+.
The Netanyahu hardliners might get 22 Likud, 24 the three religious parties, 5 Otna/Yachad, 5 Lieberman? - that's 56..
The Herzog middle of the road secular parties might get 26 ZU, 12 Lapid, 5 Meretz, 8 Kulanu - that's 51
Holding the balance of power is the combined Arab party with 13! The SNP of Israel!
It is eerily familiar.
The possibilities are a) a Herzog/Arab coalition with 64. Unheard of and highly risky. (Lab/SNP) b) a grand coalition between Herzog and Netanyahu with Herzog as boss. (Con/Lab) Won't last long. c) another election d) a surprise.
Party Election broadcasts? - Can’t believe 16% of the nation actually watches them. – Don’t most people nip out to the kitchen and put the kettle on before the decent programmes start?
Semi-seriously (to match your post *grin*) is it a myth that those kettles cause a discernible and measurable spike in grid use? So your hypothesis would be, to a certain degree, testable?
I don't know about PPBs but a few years ago there was a documentary about the work of the people at the National Grid whose job it is to ensure that there is enough electricity and one of the things they looked at when planning each day was the TV schedules. Spikes in demand could apparently be guaranteed during the adverts and at the end of a popular programme.
The largest ever pickup was on 4 July 1990 when a 2800 MW demand was imposed by the ending of the penalty shootout in the England v West Germany FIFA World Cup semi-final.
I sometimes wonder what level of polling UKIP might achieve if they were organised and focused. Not a word have I seen about our immediate future such cases - but in the mind of a floating voter I would rather they were in Syria than Streatham.
Given this country is so ready to intervene in other nations troubles should we not also intervene when our errant citizens are causing / planning to cause trouble in other countries? Like it or not they are our problem and we have to deal with them.
Well, they're our p
Have you got a link for that assertion? Councils are not equipped to restrict the movement of citizens as you suggest.
n plans' as part of work to mainstream anti-radicalisation activity across a range of safeguarding channel partners.
Well firstly the whole purpose of this seems to be to stop the terrorists becoming terrorists in the first place. It is not talking about reacting to imported terrorists but identifying those with the potential to become terrorists living in the area and stopping them being radicalised
Secondly the initiative is 4 years old and this is basically updating it. All these roles will have already been resourced.
Thirdly, the only way that such matters can be addressed is by a concerted effort by all agencies at local, regional and national level.
Fourthly, I doubt it is a full time role but something added on to someones role who has similar work to do involving similar multi agency liaison.
Bottom line is either you want the issue addressed in a co-ordinated manner or you don't and if you don't you could have dozens of newly radicalised terrorists popping up all across the country.
Whether we like it or not councils (i.e. social workers and the likes) are often as close to those most vulnerable to radicalisation as any government representatives and as such are in the best position to identify and monitor such things. Not to include councils would be incompetent and not to recommend they work in liaison with other agencies (such as the police) would also be incompetent. Given terrorism is an increasing issue internationally, I think we have little choice but to do all we can to stop the production line of them from this country.
Its got to be a bit dubious isn't it where a reporter claims to know more than the intelligence services? But anyway being threatened by a group that believes they are going to bring on the apocalypse (be first defeated and nearly wiped out by the 'anti messiah' before being saved by the return of Jesus) - well thats surely got to give us an edge.
There will not be renegotiation of Freedom of Labour. That is one of the four pillars on which the EU was founded. Anyone who thinks you can remain in the EU and remove that is talking rubbish.
It is possible - and desired by a great many of the wealthier countries in the EU - to see changes on the ability of non-citizens to claim welfare.
(As an aside, many of the other countries in the EU already effectively limit the access of non citizens to healthcare. In Italy, healthcare is insurance based. You can't - as a Brit - go to Italy and enjoy unlimited free healthcare, unless you pay into the healthcare fund.)
We have insurance-based welfare (Contribution-based JSA and ESA), we also have residence based welfare which is open to anyone who is resident. All the Government has to do is to apply a fairly hefty residency qualification - say ten years - for all people to get the residency one. British people will mostly still get it as we have lived here that long, foreigners can be excluded on exactly the same basis as Britons so it should not be discriminatory. What we have here is just political inability to think out of the box and adjust our laws to take account of the reality we find ourselves in.
Theres a huge amount of truth in that!!! The way we allow child tax credits to pay for children in poland is beyond absurd.
Mr Urquhart - re, ''Was very revealing what the view inside the BBC bubble thinks it is like to be a successful entrepreneur.'' Yes The reality is that far too many TV programmes these days rely on the audience taking pleasure from pulling the wings of flies.
F1 question as there seems to be a few fans on here.
Are Manor serious about taking part or did they just turn up to collect last years prize money and will not disband?
Yes.
;-)
I think they are serious - but could well be wrong. People will not take it well if it was a smash-and-grab operation, and there are some known names amongst the operation, including Justin King. I can't see him putting his name to something shabby (although I could well be wrong). Also, certain other teams would like nothing more than Manor to fail so they can grab the money (I think they get it if Marussia failed), so they will be watching like a hawk.
I hope they do continue - having just fifteen cars on the grid was awful.
There will not be renegotiation of Freedom of Labour. That is one of the four pillars on which the EU was founded. Anyone who thinks you can remain in the EU and remove that is talking rubbish.
It is possible - and desired by a great many of the wealthier countries in the EU - to see changes on the ability of non-citizens to claim welfare.
(As an aside, many of the other countries in the EU already effectively limit the access of non citizens to healthcare. In Italy, healthcare is insurance based. You can't - as a Brit - go to Italy and enjoy unlimited free healthcare, unless you pay into the healthcare fund.)
We have insurance-based welfare (Contribution-based JSA and ESA), we also have residence based welfare which is open to anyone who is resident. All the Government has to do is to apply a fairly hefty residency qualification - say ten years - for all people to get the residency one. British people will mostly still get it as we have lived here that long, foreigners can be excluded on exactly the same basis as Britons so it should not be discriminatory. What we have here is just political inability to think out of the box and adjust our laws to take account of the reality we find ourselves in.
Theres a huge amount of truth in that!!! The way we allow child tax credits to pay for children in poland is beyond absurd.
Well quite. We have a residency based qualification but for some reason CTC and Child Benefit can be paid in respect of children who are not resident in the UK.
Mr. Urquhart, indeed, that was an unpleasant revelation.
But, to speak up for the BBC, there was a very interesting piece about the often ignored country of Eritrea, which is a military dictatorship on the east coast of Africa.
Is that the one that Ethiopia is often at war with? A war sustained by third world aid...
Its got to be a bit dubious isn't it where a reporter claims to know more than the intelligence services? But anyway being threatened by a group that believes they are going to bring on the apocalypse (be first defeated and nearly wiped out by the 'anti messiah' before being saved by the return of Jesus) - well thats surely got to give us an edge.
I think his main job is as a lecturer in political science at Yale.
As an aside, has anybody else been watching Israeli politics? It looks like Netanyahu is about to be evicted from office, after calling an unnecessary election.
Oh I've got him staying in as PM on the electiongame. Knesset is on a knife efdge though so wouldn't take much switching for the centre-left bloc to get in.
It looks like Likud could be as many 6 seats behind Zionist Union - its 24-26 against 20-22. Given Netanyahu has managed to really upset most of the political partners on the tight of the electoral spectrum in Israel (and 70% of Israelis now think he should go), we are likely to see a change of PM.
Very interesting, and almost totally unremarked on in the UK press.
It seems to me that neither Likud or Zionist Union will be able to create a coalition with a majority of 61+.
The Netanyahu hardliners might get 22 Likud, 24 the three religious parties, 5 Otna/Yachad, 5 Lieberman? - that's 56..
The Herzog middle of the road secular parties might get 26 ZU, 12 Lapid, 5 Meretz, 8 Kulanu - that's 51
Holding the balance of power is the combined Arab party with 13! The SNP of Israel!
It is eerily familiar.
The possibilities are a) a Herzog/Arab coalition with 64. Unheard of and highly risky. (Lab/SNP) b) a grand coalition between Herzog and Netanyahu with Herzog as boss. (Con/Lab) Won't last long. c) another election d) a surprise.
What abouty a minority government, tolerated by religious parties for being nice about the devout and by secular parties for being helpful to low-income people, even if the parties woudln't get into bed together?
There will not be renegotiation of Freedom of Labour. That is one of the four pillars on which the EU was founded. Anyone who thinks you can remain in the EU and remove that is talking rubbish.
It is possible - and desired by a great many of the wealthier countries in the EU - to see changes on the ability of non-citizens to claim welfare.
(As an aside, many of the other countries in the EU already effectively limit the access of non citizens to healthcare. In Italy, healthcare is insurance based. You can't - as a Brit - go to Italy and enjoy unlimited free healthcare, unless you pay into the healthcare fund.)
We have insurance-based welfare (Contribution-based JSA and ESA), we also have residence based welfare which is open to anyone who is resident. All the Government has to do is to apply a fairly hefty residency qualification - say ten years - for all people to get the residency one. British people will mostly still get it as we have lived here that long, foreigners can be excluded on exactly the same basis as Britons so it should not be discriminatory. What we have here is just political inability to think out of the box and adjust our laws to take account of the reality we find ourselves in.
Theres a huge amount of truth in that!!! The way we allow child tax credits to pay for children in poland is beyond absurd.
Well quite. We have a residency based qualification but for some reason CTC and Child Benefit can be paid in respect of children who are not resident in the UK.
There was a point in time were the Labour Government actively positively wanted eastern european migration. They in the words of Mandelson they sent out 'search parties'. Its not by accident these rules, but by intent.
It should be one of the first things in designing public policy. Maybe we are reluctant to extend the contributions based system of assistance. Theres no reason not to make tax credits contributions based though, even if that threshold is low.
F1 question as there seems to be a few fans on here.
Are Manor serious about taking part or did they just turn up to collect last years prize money and will not disband?
Yes.
;-)
I think they are serious - but could well be wrong. People will not take it well if it was a smash-and-grab operation, and there are some known names amongst the operation, including Justin King. I can't see him putting his name to something shabby (although I could well be wrong). Also, certain other teams would like nothing more than Manor to fail so they can grab the money (I think they get it if Marussia failed), so they will be watching like a hawk.
I hope they do continue - having just fifteen cars on the grid was awful.
No it was not 'awful' - it was more boring than the France - Italy game. The most exciting part of the BBC coverage was the opening credits. How silly Eddie Jordan must feel now... It was a so called 'race' between two fit well trained runners and the rest who were carrying lead weights round their ankles; a race where we had the opposite of handicapping. The Renault engine was worse than last year, this accusation at least we could absolve Honda from even though our milkman in his milk float could have powered round the circuit quicker that Button. We had a good driver rejected by his team because he could not bring enough money with him but forced to be reinstated - where do you want me to stop when discussing the over hyped shambles that is F1?
As an aside, has anybody else been watching Israeli politics? It looks like Netanyahu is about to be evicted from office, after calling an unnecessary election.
Oh I've got him staying in as PM on the electiongame. Knesset is on a knife efdge though so wouldn't take much switching for the centre-left bloc to get in.
It looks like Likud could be as many 6 seats behind Zionist Union - its 24-26 against 20-22. Given Netanyahu has managed to really upset most of the political partners on the tight of the electoral spectrum in Israel (and 70% of Israelis now think he should go), we are likely to see a change of PM.
Very interesting, and almost totally unremarked on in the UK press.
It seems to me that neither Likud or Zionist Union will be able to create a coalition with a majority of 61+.
The Netanyahu hardliners might get 22 Likud, 24 the three religious parties, 5 Otna/Yachad, 5 Lieberman? - that's 56..
The Herzog middle of the road secular parties might get 26 ZU, 12 Lapid, 5 Meretz, 8 Kulanu - that's 51
Holding the balance of power is the combined Arab party with 13! The SNP of Israel!
It is eerily familiar.
The possibilities are a) a Herzog/Arab coalition with 64. Unheard of and highly risky. (Lab/SNP) b) a grand coalition between Herzog and Netanyahu with Herzog as boss. (Con/Lab) Won't last long. c) another election d) a surprise.
What abouty a minority government, tolerated by religious parties for being nice about the devout and by secular parties for being helpful to low-income people, even if the parties woudln't get into bed together?
The Israelis, by refusing to reform and amend their voting system, have let themselves in for a load of unneeded trouble.
Doubt it will happen but I really hope the decent people vote her out.
Why? No one would expect her to purchase and lay a wreath as a private individual (an individual poppy would be a vastly different matter) so I don't see what the problem is.
Politically and under IPSA rules she is obviously bang to rights, but I don't see a moral issue here.
PS Balls, BoJo and Jeremy Browne have form for precisely the same offence.
As an aside, has anybody else been watching Israeli politics? It looks like Netanyahu is about to be evicted from office, after calling an unnecessary election.
Oh I've got him staying in as PM on the electiongame. Knesset is on a knife efdge though so wouldn't take much switching for the centre-left bloc to get in.
It looks like Likud could be as many 6 seats behind Zionist Union - its 24-26 against 20-22. Given Netanyahu has managed to really upset most of the political partners on the tight of the electoral spectrum in Israel (and 70% of Israelis now think he should go), we are likely to see a change of PM.
Very interesting, and almost totally unremarked on in the UK press.
It seems to me that neither Likud or Zionist Union will be able to create a coalition with a majority of 61+.
The Netanyahu hardliners might get 22 Likud, 24 the three religious parties, 5 Otna/Yachad, 5 Lieberman? - that's 56..
The Herzog middle of the road secular parties might get 26 ZU, 12 Lapid, 5 Meretz, 8 Kulanu - that's 51
Holding the balance of power is the combined Arab party with 13! The SNP of Israel!
It is eerily familiar.
The possibilities are a) a Herzog/Arab coalition with 64. Unheard of and highly risky. (Lab/SNP) b) a grand coalition between Herzog and Netanyahu with Herzog as boss. (Con/Lab) Won't last long. c) another election d) a surprise.
What abouty a minority government, tolerated by religious parties for being nice about the devout and by secular parties for being helpful to low-income people, even if the parties woudln't get into bed together?
The Israelis, by refusing to reform and amend their voting system, have let themselves in for a load of unneeded trouble.
What's this? Has someone had an AV referendum without telling us?
The fact that it's by Stewart Lee should be a clue that parts of it are meant with tongue firmly in cheek. He usually writes surreal flights of fancy and there are bits of it in the article - like finding BBC4 lowbrow due to reading old Norse.
The point he makes about Avalon/Hat Trick is absolutely true - a huge part of their success is reliant on convincing TV companies to produce naff panel shows which are then basically adverts for their acts' live shows. It's a real racket. The bloke saying he wants to buy it isn't interested in saving it for the nation - he's seen the pound signs flash before his eyes as to what happens if he gets a nominally public service broadcaster, with the free advertising and kudos that comes with it.
BBC3 may be mostly terible, but occassionally it's utterly brilliant - Uncle may be the best sit-com there's been in years.
I take the drift of your point. He is being mean. I once laid a poppy wreath as the honorary representative of a local organisation. It paid for the wreath. If he laid it on behalf of himself he should have paid I think, but if it was on behalf of the local Labour Party they should have paid.
Doubt it will happen but I really hope the decent people vote her out.
Why? No one would expect her to purchase and lay a wreath as a private individual (an individual poppy would be a vastly different matter) so I don't see what the problem is.
Politically and under IPSA rules she is obviously bang to rights, but I don't see a moral issue here.
PS Balls, BoJo and Jeremy Browne have form for precisely the same offence.
I agree, the MP is doing it on behalf of her constituents. A previous poster made the point that it shouldnt have came from her personal funds, and then her get refunded, it should have been an official source.
As i understand this is how Constituency offices are funded. The expenses are made and refunded in the name of the MP. While it is quite possible to try and make a fuss about this, and great fun can be had. The truth is she was representing her constituency and doing it in their name. I see no reason why it should come out of her pocket.
Mr. K, wasn't there a plan for two major Israeli parties to co-operate to make their PR system less awful but something happened (maybe Sharon's stroke) which prevented them getting the expected seat totals needed to reform the situation?
Mr. Flightpath, best not to judge a 20 race season based on race number 1.
There were a series of unfortunate events which meant things were less exciting than they might've been.
Alonso and Bottas being unwell cannot be helped.
Kvyat and Magnussen suffering mechanical issues is unfortunate.
The lap one contact put Raikkonen further down and prevented a potential three-way scrap for the podium.
Of more concern to me is the potentially greater difficulty in overtaking due to the direction aerodynamics have gone in [worth knowing for betting purposes as well].
The fact that it's by Stewart Lee should be a clue that parts of it are meant with tongue firmly in cheek. He usually writes surreal flights of fancy and there are bits of it in the article - like finding BBC4 lowbrow due to reading old Norse.
The point he makes about Avalon/Hat Trick is absolutely true - a huge part of their success is reliant on convincing TV companies to produce naff panel shows which are then basically adverts for their acts' live shows. It's a real racket. The bloke saying he wants to buy it isn't interested in saving it for the nation - he's seen the pound signs flash before his eyes as to what happens if he gets a nominally public service broadcaster, with the free advertising and kudos that comes with it.
BBC3 may be mostly terible, but occassionally it's utterly brilliant - Uncle may be the best sit-com there's been in years.
Never heard if it, ive 'sickbearded' it. i'll watch it later.
Did Bibi skip out from the debates by the way.... ?
That law is becoming a global phenomenon.
Under Ed's proposed You Must Also Talk To Bibi Act 2016 the phrase he will need is ha'im ani b'matzar? Ani rotze l'daber eem oreh deen (Am I under arrest? I want to talk to a lawyer)
A useful phrase!
I had a friend who claimed to be able to say "I surrender!" in 104 languages.
Although quite why he thought the Innuit would launch an offensive on north Nottinghamshire was never entirely clear...
"Farage said it was a “difficult” issue and that it was not a manifesto pledge. But he said his personal view was that immigrants would only bring their dependents after a period of time and after that he would not envisage their children being allowed to go straight into state schools."
So you're supposed to leave your kids behind when emigrating to the UK. Doesn't sound like an attractive proposition....
"Farage said it was a “difficult” issue and that it was not a manifesto pledge. But he said his personal view was that immigrants would only bring their dependents after a period of time and after that he would not envisage their children being allowed to go straight into state schools."
So you're supposed to leave your kids behind when emigrating to the UK. Doesn't sound like an attractive proposition....
Indeed, it's also a wonderful policy to screw the NHS as well.
Normally I'm all for private education, being a former public schoolboy myself, but this is just wrong.
No wonder 41% of the voters have gone from thinking UKIP is a racist party in October to 55% today
Comments
I've watched most of S1 and been very impressed/LOL a lot. Been watching it on Netflix. Trailer
Britain's Racist Election
When maverick Conservative Peter Griffiths won the West Midlands seat of Smethwick in the 1964 General Election following an anti-immigration campaign, it triggered one of the worst chapters in the history of British race relations. Violence, assassination attempts, and even the creation of a British Ku Klux Klan tore a community apart - and took a single street to the brink of official racial segregation. This documentary tells the story of what happened when a small town gained international notoriety
He's saying the renegotiation won't achieve anything substantive, but the government will claim we should stay in on the new improved terms. And therefore he'll campaign for out.
That doesn't mean the referendum is a con, merely that it resolves into an in/out vote.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995646/Three-British-teenagers-aged-18-19-held-Istanbul-claims-planned-join-Islamic-State-militants-Syria.html
Given this country is so ready to intervene in other nations troubles should we not also intervene when our errant citizens are causing / planning to cause trouble in other countries? Like it or not they are our problem and we have to deal with them.
No love for anybody, but special derision for the two Eds.
It's not looking good for Israel, no. Netanyahu was elected on the back of a lot of (justified) anti-Obama rhetoric and that's going to cost him now with the liberal American Jewish money flowing to his opponents. Foreign money is the key point in this election with the Israel Hayom issue being the lightning rod. American Jewish cash has also united the traditionally split arab opposition into the Joint Arab List which might manage third. They will stay in opposition but united for the first time with 20% or so.
It may not be all bad news though. Netanyahu consistently outpolls his rivals - especially Zionist Union leaders Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni - on preferred-leader issues. In the weeks of horsetrading after the "result" its likely that the smaller parties will prefer Netanyahu in the PMs office and the extra influence that will gain them than propping up a Zionist Union coalition. He may well end up bloodied but still on top when the dust settles.
Very interesting, and almost totally unremarked on in the UK press.
In 2013, in his Bloomberg speech, he was still talking about significant unilateral repatriations of power. As recently as last year, he was after a cap on immigration from the EU, of the kind which Switzerland is now negotiating. All such talk has now been dropped. Ministers plainly won’t risk asking for something that might be denied. The only objectives still on the list are – with the exception of the “ever-closer union” technicality – ones that we can enact ourselves, without the possibility of a veto.
If you doubt me, ask why the referendum can now be held in 2016. The original justification for the delay was to allow time for a substantial renegotiation culminating in a new treaty. No one in government is now talking in such terms
Cameron talked about repatriating sovereignty in various ways. Now they are not talking about anything that cannot be done without EU approval apart from the 'ever closer union' posturing which is meaningless anyway. Cameron has already failed before the negotiation has officially started if Hannan is to be believed. It's a con!
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/02/daniel-hannan-mep-camerons-coming-eu-renegotiation-will-alter-nothing.html
"You know what: those black tie events are wonderful opportunities to take tens (or hundreds) of thousands of pounds off hedge fund managers and give them to good causes."
You misunderstand the ethos of charities run by lefties. Collecting money from rich people is a bourgeois distraction. To quote John O'Farrell 'it could lead to smiling'.
It's one circular way to encourage more employment I suppose.
It is possible - and desired by a great many of the wealthier countries in the EU - to see changes on the ability of non-citizens to claim welfare.
(As an aside, many of the other countries in the EU already effectively limit the access of non citizens to healthcare. In Italy, healthcare is insurance based. You can't - as a Brit - go to Italy and enjoy unlimited free healthcare, unless you pay into the healthcare fund.)
As an aside, it looks likely that Switzerland will continue allow EU citizens to work (and vice-versa). However, you will not be able to go Switzerland and job hunt, you will need to get a job while you are in - say - France, and then you will be legally allowed to live and reside in Switzerland. As an aside, Switzerland is also a member of Schengen.
1. Cameron tries renegotiation but achieves nothing
2. If he claims that nothing is the greatest thing since sliced bread, the Tories split with Hammond and Gove leading the BOO campaign
3. Therefore Cameron, being the pragmatist/opportunist he is will lead the "regretfully BOO" campaign
Consequently the likelihood is that Cameron will get some really concessions. Question will be whether they are enough to convince Hammond/Gove to campaign to stay in
Parties in Gov't:
Kulanu 8
Likud 23
Yisrael Beiteinu 5
Parties that may or may not be in Gov't
Joint Arab List 13
Meretz 5
Shas 6
UTJ 6
Yesh Atid 14
Zionist Union 24
Others 4
That was my attempt on "election game"
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/412076/2015-03-09-Prevent_Duty_Guidance__2_.docx
Privatising BBC3 would be as pernicious as Isis destroying Iraq’s historic sites
http://tinyurl.com/mg2vd3v
"Of course, we also sacrifice our heritage to ideology. Say goodbye to Paolozzi’s Tottenham Court Road murals, trashed by terrorists of Transport for London; to Oxford’s ancient Port Meadow horizon, occluded by death-cult developers; and perhaps to the BBC, the greatest cultural achievement of any 20th-century democracy, soon to be poleaxed by free-market fundamentalists as pernicious as the statue-smashers of so-called Islamic State."
"Clickbait hyperbole which I can't decide is best described absurd or offensive."
As for your second post. The attached link from a month ago seems to suggest something different although lacks the detail to set out exactly what.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d2330148-b222-11e4-80af-00144feab7de.html#axzz3UU6gxQqz
And as far as Schengen is concerned it doesn't preclude the requirement for valid documentaton and to work in Switzerland I believe one requires a valid work permit.
Thanks! It did. Reply in your in box (I hope).
To be accurate about him, there does not seem to be any grouping he is not prepared to slag off (except possibly the Aston Martin design team) - in this he is more shock-jock rather than reporter. I have to say the more he apes Howard Stern and that ilk, the more I dislike bim. The more controlled he is the better he is.
No one should be punched or assaulted over a steak sandwich and verbally abusing your juniors is infantile, although the BBC's view of business based on the Apprentice (which is another BBC programme you are wise to avoid) suggests they do actually go along with the latter.
But, to speak up for the BBC, there was a very interesting piece about the often ignored country of Eritrea, which is a military dictatorship on the east coast of Africa.
Re ISIS
Here is the outstanding ISIS article in the Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Under Ed's proposed You Must Also Talk To Bibi Act 2016 the phrase he will need is ha'im ani b'matzar? Ani rotze l'daber eem oreh deen (Am I under arrest? I want to talk to a lawyer)
I dont think you can entirely rule out 250 ukip mps crapping themselves on May 8th when they realise they have been elected and have to try and form a government. Unlikely but I think EICIPM is even more unlikely. We may be about to find out how good the top civil servants are and how good HM Queen is at getting politicians to form unlikely coalitions. My guess is that she will order Dave and Ed to form a grand coalition if we get a real stalemate.
BBC3 only broadcasts from 7pm until I think 2am, the vast majority of the output is repeats, including repeats on the same day. The amount of original hours of content produced is tiny.
How that output can't be incorporated into iPlayer or BBC2 etc I have no idea. And to say that internet only series can't become popular is just utter balls...House of Cards anybody? And BBC3 is aimed at the yuff market, which are all into streaming, youtube, twitch, etc.
I find it heartbreaking to think of the destruction that IS are wreaking in Iraq and Syria and elsewhere. They are destroying a civilisation that is part of all our heritage. They are barbarians.
That there is so little we can do - even when (and I hope it is when rather than if) IS is destroyed - makes it even worse.
Though if the article in the Atlantic is right, better to get them to form up in that field near Alleppo; then bathe them in instant sunshine.
The Netanyahu hardliners might get 22 Likud, 24 the three religious parties, 5 Otna/Yachad, 5 Lieberman? - that's 56..
The Herzog middle of the road secular parties might get 26 ZU, 12 Lapid, 5 Meretz, 8 Kulanu - that's 51
Holding the balance of power is the combined Arab party with 13! The SNP of Israel!
It is eerily familiar.
The possibilities are
a) a Herzog/Arab coalition with 64. Unheard of and highly risky. (Lab/SNP)
b) a grand coalition between Herzog and Netanyahu with Herzog as boss. (Con/Lab) Won't last long.
c) another election
d) a surprise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup
Well firstly the whole purpose of this seems to be to stop the terrorists becoming terrorists in the first place. It is not talking about reacting to imported terrorists but identifying those with the potential to become terrorists living in the area and stopping them being radicalised
Secondly the initiative is 4 years old and this is basically updating it. All these roles will have already been resourced.
Thirdly, the only way that such matters can be addressed is by a concerted effort by all agencies at local, regional and national level.
Fourthly, I doubt it is a full time role but something added on to someones role who has similar work to do involving similar multi agency liaison.
Bottom line is either you want the issue addressed in a co-ordinated manner or you don't and if you don't you could have dozens of newly radicalised terrorists popping up all across the country.
Whether we like it or not councils (i.e. social workers and the likes) are often as close to those most vulnerable to radicalisation as any government representatives and as such are in the best position to identify and monitor such things. Not to include councils would be incompetent and not to recommend they work in liaison with other agencies (such as the police) would also be incompetent. Given terrorism is an increasing issue internationally, I think we have little choice but to do all we can to stop the production line of them from this country.
But anyway being threatened by a group that believes they are going to bring on the apocalypse (be first defeated and nearly wiped out by the 'anti messiah' before being saved by the return of Jesus) - well thats surely got to give us an edge.
Yes
The reality is that far too many TV programmes these days rely on the audience taking pleasure from pulling the wings of flies.
;-)
I think they are serious - but could well be wrong. People will not take it well if it was a smash-and-grab operation, and there are some known names amongst the operation, including Justin King. I can't see him putting his name to something shabby (although I could well be wrong). Also, certain other teams would like nothing more than Manor to fail so they can grab the money (I think they get it if Marussia failed), so they will be watching like a hawk.
I hope they do continue - having just fifteen cars on the grid was awful.
It should be one of the first things in designing public policy. Maybe we are reluctant to extend the contributions based system of assistance. Theres no reason not to make tax credits contributions based though, even if that threshold is low.
Doubt it will happen but I really hope the decent people vote her out.
It was a so called 'race' between two fit well trained runners and the rest who were carrying lead weights round their ankles; a race where we had the opposite of handicapping.
The Renault engine was worse than last year, this accusation at least we could absolve Honda from even though our milkman in his milk float could have powered round the circuit quicker that Button.
We had a good driver rejected by his team because he could not bring enough money with him but forced to be reinstated - where do you want me to stop when discussing the over hyped shambles that is F1?
Just what kind of formula is this?
Politically and under IPSA rules she is obviously bang to rights, but I don't see a moral issue here.
PS Balls, BoJo and Jeremy Browne have form for precisely the same offence.
The point he makes about Avalon/Hat Trick is absolutely true - a huge part of their success is reliant on convincing TV companies to produce naff panel shows which are then basically adverts for their acts' live shows. It's a real racket. The bloke saying he wants to buy it isn't interested in saving it for the nation - he's seen the pound signs flash before his eyes as to what happens if he gets a nominally public service broadcaster, with the free advertising and kudos that comes with it.
BBC3 may be mostly terible, but occassionally it's utterly brilliant - Uncle may be the best sit-com there's been in years.
As i understand this is how Constituency offices are funded. The expenses are made and refunded in the name of the MP. While it is quite possible to try and make a fuss about this, and great fun can be had. The truth is she was representing her constituency and doing it in their name. I see no reason why it should come out of her pocket.
Mr. K, wasn't there a plan for two major Israeli parties to co-operate to make their PR system less awful but something happened (maybe Sharon's stroke) which prevented them getting the expected seat totals needed to reform the situation?
Mr. Flightpath, best not to judge a 20 race season based on race number 1.
There were a series of unfortunate events which meant things were less exciting than they might've been.
Alonso and Bottas being unwell cannot be helped.
Kvyat and Magnussen suffering mechanical issues is unfortunate.
The lap one contact put Raikkonen further down and prevented a potential three-way scrap for the podium.
Of more concern to me is the potentially greater difficulty in overtaking due to the direction aerodynamics have gone in [worth knowing for betting purposes as well].
It was a pretty boring race.
Mr. Lilburne, a fateful day indeed.
Ukip leader explains his view that immigrants and their dependents would need private education for five years after entering country
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/15/farage-backs-five-year-state-school-ban-uk-immigrants
I had a friend who claimed to be able to say "I surrender!" in 104 languages.
Although quite why he thought the Innuit would launch an offensive on north Nottinghamshire was never entirely clear...
So you're supposed to leave your kids behind when emigrating to the UK. Doesn't sound like an attractive proposition....
Set back the Romans for centuries, and stopped them from fulfilling their potential.
Normally I'm all for private education, being a former public schoolboy myself, but this is just wrong.
No wonder 41% of the voters have gone from thinking UKIP is a racist party in October to 55% today