The Conservatives are “coming for the SNP and Labour” by focusing on voters who are repelled by Scotland’s “soggy, centre-Left consensus”, Ruth Davidson has said as she unveiled an election manifesto that promised to put taxpayers first.
"It's like applying for a job and not turning up for the interview."
Ed's getting smarter by the day
It's a great soundbite but there is nothing to gain by being there for Dave and the downside for Ed is high. Without Dave there he is outnumbered by those on his left and those who seek to be disruptive (from a political, anti-establishment perspective).
He will seem like the establishment and I'm not sure that is a look he should be keen on.
There is a potentially high downside for Ed, but it's a question of how probable that downside is. The Tories either thought it was very high, or else even it it wasn't, the risk of a downside for them was too high if Cameron showed up, but that is far from certain. If Ed holds up well by being ganged up on, as Cameron hoped to appear in the last one (with some success, though the level of ganging up was not as high was may be the case for Ed tonight), he could come across as tough and reasonable in the face of more extreme and potentially unpalatable options (outside Scotland, where the damage has already been done, so there is no downside at all as however unlikely to happen a revival, he cannot make the situation worse).
The Conservatives are “coming for the SNP and Labour” by focusing on voters who are repelled by Scotland’s “soggy, centre-Left consensus”, Ruth Davidson has said as she unveiled an election manifesto that promised to put taxpayers first.
Migrants killed in 'religious clash' on Mediterranean boat.
Italian police say they have arrested 15 Muslim migrants after they allegedly threw 12 Christians overboard following a row on a boat heading to Italy. The Christian migrants, said to be from Ghana and Nigeria, are all feared dead.
Hi Sunil. No I didn't see it, but I knew about it from my friends in Israel, where Christians are now being protected from Muslim barbarism by Jews. The wheel turning full circle in this instance.
I saw part of it and it was harrowing. I will see the full thing on iPlayer. We are largely turning a blind eye to one of the great crimes of the 21st century and I include in that the destruction of the Assyrian and other civilisations in Iraq and Syria.
That foreign policy has played so little a part in our election does not speak well of us or our politicians.
As a sign of how divorced the pb commentariat are from the rest of the country, I was just talking with one of my more senior partners (very switched on, very broad hinterland beyond her job) and mentioned in passing that there was another debate tonight.
"Is there?", she said.
Small sample size. Panelbase found 24% of the population will definitely watch it, and another 32% will probably watch it.
It may be an unpopular view, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe strongly in the principle of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, I think it is absolutely disgraceful that Lord Janner is effectively being named by the police and the CPS as being guilty in fact (but not in law) of very serious charges with no possibility of being able to defend himself. If they don't think that he should be charged with any crime, then they should issue a one-line statement saying that and saying nothing else.
Spot on. Trial, and conviction by press, tv, Twitter and Facebook. Disgusting. It would be nice not to have it on here as well.
Not so nice for the rich and famous nowadays , they cannot use the same old boys network , etc that kept them safe in the past. The social media gets past the cap doffers and exposes what once would have been kept amongst themselves. They do not like the peasants having this type of power.
Get a grip, Malcolm. The CPS makes decisions based upon practicality. Same as in plenty of rape cases (or non-cases). It is the likelihood of conviction, not the likelihood of guilt or innocence.
As you well know, of course.
So why are we having so many enquiries on cover ups , scandals etc. They are not looking for benefit dodgers for them, all have been establishment and aided and abetted by authorities of all kinds from parliament downwards. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg as well I bet.
I have to say I am perplexed by the celebrity abuse thing (not the time for this conversation but it is in the news today).
I get how the first complainant goes to the police after, say, 20 years. But I don't get how nos 2-20 go. At the same time after 20 years.
But then I've not been following it too closely and no doubt there is a sensible answer.
As a sign of how divorced the pb commentariat are from the rest of the country, I was just talking with one of my more senior partners (very switched on, very broad hinterland beyond her job) and mentioned in passing that there was another debate tonight.
"Is there?", she said.
Small sample size. Panelbase found 24% of the population will definitely watch it, and another 32% will probably watch it.
That would give absurdly huge viewing figures compared to similar events
As a sign of how divorced the pb commentariat are from the rest of the country, I was just talking with one of my more senior partners (very switched on, very broad hinterland beyond her job) and mentioned in passing that there was another debate tonight.
"Is there?", she said.
Small sample size. Panelbase found 24% of the population will definitely watch it, and another 32% will probably watch it.
That would give absurdly huge viewing figures compared to similar events
I confidently expect overnight ratings of about 20m.
Reckless blames his looks on non appearance in manifesto
Darren McCaffrey (@DMcCaffreySKY) April 16 WATCH: @MarkReckless on Desmond donation and how 'looks don't quite cut the muster' to appear IN the manifesto. pic.twitter.com/1stkyRZM9M
"It's like applying for a job and not turning up for the interview."
Ed's getting smarter by the day
It's a great soundbite but there is nothing to gain by being there for Dave and the downside for Ed is high. Without Dave there he is outnumbered by those on his left and those who seek to be disruptive (from a political, anti-establishment perspective).
He will seem like the establishment and I'm not sure that is a look he should be keen on.
There is a potentially high downside for Ed, but it's a question of how probable that downside is. The Tories either thought it was very high, or else even it it wasn't, the risk of a downside for them was too high if Cameron showed up, but that is far from certain. If Ed holds up well by being ganged up on, as Cameron hoped to appear in the last one (with some success, though the level of ganging up was not as high was may be the case for Ed tonight), he could come across as tough and reasonable in the face of more extreme and potentially unpalatable options (outside Scotland, where the damage has already been done, so there is no downside at all as however unlikely to happen a revival, he cannot make the situation worse).
Ed is definitely looking more primeministerial human. Especially so when he is seen in his becoming-trademark jeans and jumper.
As I mentioned earlier, if they were sensible (!) he and Nicola would have been rehearsing Mr & Mrs Reasonable all day which at least would allow voters to understand just how an Lab/SNP arrangement might work.
And yes, if he is ganged up on, he will do well, but even then he must be careful as he can't hit back too hard at anyone apart from Nige.
It may be an unpopular view, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe strongly in the principle of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, I think it is absolutely disgraceful that Lord Janner is effectively being named by the police and the CPS as being guilty in fact (but not in law) of very serious charges with no possibility of being able to defend himself. If they don't think that he should be charged with any crime, then they should issue a one-line statement saying that and saying nothing else.
Spot on. Trial, and conviction by press, tv, Twitter and Facebook. Disgusting. It would be nice not to have it on here as well.
Not so nice for the rich and famous nowadays , they cannot use the same old boys network , etc that kept them safe in the past. The social media gets past the cap doffers and exposes what once would have been kept amongst themselves. They do not like the peasants having this type of power.
Get a grip, Malcolm. The CPS makes decisions based upon practicality. Same as in plenty of rape cases (or non-cases). It is the likelihood of conviction, not the likelihood of guilt or innocence.
As you well know, of course.
So why are we having so many enquiries on cover ups , scandals etc. They are not looking for benefit dodgers for them, all have been establishment and aided and abetted by authorities of all kinds from parliament downwards. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg as well I bet.
I have to say I am perplexed by the celebrity abuse thing (not the time for this conversation but it is in the news today).
I get how the first complainant goes to the police after, say, 20 years. But I don't get how nos 2-20 go. At the same time after 20 years.
But then I've not been following it too closely and no doubt there is a sensible answer.
Worrying thing in many of these cases is that they have been brought up with police and authorities for years and years with apparently little or no action being taken. Similar with all the recent child cases , authorities actually blamed the victims.
It may be an unpopular view, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe strongly in the principle of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, I think it is absolutely disgraceful that Lord Janner is effectively being named by the police and the CPS as being guilty in fact (but not in law) of very serious charges with no possibility of being able to defend himself. If they don't think that he should be charged with any crime, then they should issue a one-line statement saying that and saying nothing else.
Spot on. Trial, and conviction by press, tv, Twitter and Facebook. Disgusting. It would be nice not to have it on here as well.
Not so nice for the rich and famous nowadays , they cannot use the same old boys network , etc that kept them safe in the past. The social media gets past the cap doffers and exposes what once would have been kept amongst themselves. They do not like the peasants having this type of power.
Get a grip, Malcolm. The CPS makes decisions based upon practicality. Same as in plenty of rape cases (or non-cases). It is the likelihood of conviction, not the likelihood of guilt or innocence.
As you well know, of course.
So why are we having so many enquiries on cover ups , scandals etc. They are not looking for benefit dodgers for them, all have been establishment and aided and abetted by authorities of all kinds from parliament downwards. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg as well I bet.
Malcolm: Some thoughts -
1. The prosecuting authorities have not been particularly good in the past. 2. Child abuse simply was not taken seriously as a crime decades ago. Certainly not as much as now. 3. Victims are disinclined to come forward. 4. These sorts of crimes are difficult to prove and there was probably a tendency to disbelieve the complainants and believe those being accused, especially when the latter were respectable. 5. Whistleblowing about what went on in childrens' homes and elsewhere simply was not taken seriously. 6. The children living in these homes had no-one to speak for them. Out of sight, out of mind. Seen as a problem; probably not seen as lovable. No votes / no glory in looking after abandoned / damaged children.
Put all or some of these together and it's easy to see how this has happened.
I'm not excluding BTW the possibility that there were more active and determined attempts to cover up crimes where important people were involved.
He left that a bit late. It would have been a bit more helpful if he'd done it about three months ago. Is the UKIP campaign even set up to spend the money in the next three weeks?
Not everyone is happy:
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound · 5m5 minutes ago Wouldn't £1m have been better spent on 20 good journalists?
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound · 24s25 seconds ago £1m could also have gone on a bonus for all the hard working people at the Express and the Star.
Will no one think of the poor hacks?
Noone cares about journalists. Their days are numbered so can get away with not giving them payrises.
And if Labour get in and implement Leveson there won't be much of a press worth reading anyway. Pretty much all the stuff that's worth reading is on blogs these days.
Private Eye is still worth a read. It is the only news I am willing to pay for.
As a sign of how divorced the pb commentariat are from the rest of the country, I was just talking with one of my more senior partners (very switched on, very broad hinterland beyond her job) and mentioned in passing that there was another debate tonight.
"Is there?", she said.
Small sample size. Panelbase found 24% of the population will definitely watch it, and another 32% will probably watch it.
That would give absurdly huge viewing figures compared to similar events
I confidently expect overnight ratings of about 20m.
Agree with that. If we want a decent social care system for those children who do not have adequate families of their own then we need to think hard and intelligently about how best to do it and spend good money on such a system. Looking after children well takes time and effort and does not come cheap.
It seems to me sometimes that we have a very high level of outrage about child abuse and a mob mentality against those either accused of or found guilty of these crimes but lack the concomitant necessary will and effort actually to care for our children properly. These should be reversed. The same could be said about our approach to care of the elderly, the disabled or the mentally ill. Lots of outrage about films showing them being abused in homes but a huge unwillingness to spend the time, money and effort needed to make sure such things don't happen.
Caring for others is expensive - in every sense. It's about time we realised it.
Absolutely. If a child goes into care, then the carers (usually the parents) have failed (leaving aside those who are wrongly put into care, and that does happen). Such children are exactly the ones who require more money, attention and care than 'ordinary' children.
They are often (mostly?) broken, and I can say that from sad (not personal) experience. For many, verbal, physical and/or secual abuse wll be their norm. They are not 'normal' children, and require massive amounts of help.
The Rotherham UKIP carers scandal, when viewed in conjunction with the larger scandal, shows that at least one social services was not in any way fit for purpose. And sadly I fear they are far from alone.
If we do not give these children the care (and thus money) they deserve, then we can expect these horrible issues to continue. I would have a lot more time for the people horrified by Rotherham if they acknowledged this point more often,
It may be an unpopular view, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe strongly in the principle of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, I think it is absolutely disgraceful that Lord Janner is effectively being named by the police and the CPS as being guilty in fact (but not in law) of very serious charges with no possibility of being able to defend himself. If they don't think that he should be charged with any crime, then they should issue a one-line statement saying that and saying nothing else.
Spot on. Trial, and conviction by press, tv, Twitter and Facebook. Disgusting. It would be nice not to have it on here as well.
Not so nice for the rich and famous nowadays , they cannot use the same old boys network , etc that kept them safe in the past. The social media gets past the cap doffers and exposes what once would have been kept amongst themselves. They do not like the peasants having this type of power.
Get a grip, Malcolm. The CPS makes decisions based upon practicality. Same as in plenty of rape cases (or non-cases). It is the likelihood of conviction, not the likelihood of guilt or innocence.
As you well know, of course.
So why are we having so many enquiries on cover ups , scandals etc. They are not looking for benefit dodgers for them, all have been establishment and aided and abetted by authorities of all kinds from parliament downwards. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg as well I bet.
Malcolm: Some thoughts -
1. The prosecuting authorities have not been particularly good in the past. 2. Child abuse simply was not taken seriously as a crime decades ago. Certainly not as much as now. 3. Victims are disinclined to come forward. 4. These sorts of crimes are difficult to prove and there was probably a tendency to disbelieve the complainants and believe those being accused, especially when the latter were respectable. 5. Whistleblowing about what went on in childrens' homes and elsewhere simply was not taken seriously. 6. The children living in these homes had no-one to speak for them. Out of sight, out of mind. Seen as a problem; probably not seen as lovable. No votes / no glory in looking after abandoned / damaged children.
Put all or some of these together and it's easy to see how this has happened.
I'm not excluding BTW the possibility that there were more active and determined attempts to cover up crimes where important people were involved.
Agree totally and in the past certain types of people were seen to be above reproach as we are seeing more and more as these scandals come out over recent years.
As a sign of how divorced the pb commentariat are from the rest of the country, I was just talking with one of my more senior partners (very switched on, very broad hinterland beyond her job) and mentioned in passing that there was another debate tonight.
"Is there?", she said.
Small sample size. Panelbase found 24% of the population will definitely watch it, and another 32% will probably watch it.
That would give absurdly huge viewing figures compared to similar events
I confidently expect overnight ratings of about 20m.
Are you "very confident" ?
Well, naturally we'll just have to see what the ratings bring. It's not for me to pre-judge that, it's up to the electorate. But this polling is pointing very clearly to a seismic shift in the debate-watching landscape.
He left that a bit late. It would have been a bit more helpful if he'd done it about three months ago. Is the UKIP campaign even set up to spend the money in the next three weeks?
As a sign of how divorced the pb commentariat are from the rest of the country, I was just talking with one of my more senior partners (very switched on, very broad hinterland beyond her job) and mentioned in passing that there was another debate tonight.
"Is there?", she said.
Small sample size. Panelbase found 24% of the population will definitely watch it, and another 32% will probably watch it.
So on a voting population of 46 million you're saying over 11 million will definitely watch it and a further nearly 15mn will probably watch it. Let's say only half of the probables watch it and nobody who isn't registered to vote does that makes over 18 million watching it.
I don't think so. Such claims make it hard to take seriously what Panelbase is saying.
It may be an unpopular view, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe strongly in the principle of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, I think it is absolutely disgraceful that Lord Janner is effectively being named by the police and the CPS as being guilty in fact (but not in law) of very serious charges with no possibility of being able to defend himself. If they don't think that he should be charged with any crime, then they should issue a one-line statement saying that and saying nothing else.
Spot on. Trial, and conviction by press, tv, Twitter and Facebook. Disgusting. It would be nice not to have it on here as well.
Not so nice for the rich and famous nowadays , they cannot use the same old boys network , etc that kept them safe in the past. The social media gets past the cap doffers and exposes what once would have been kept amongst themselves. They do not like the peasants having this type of power.
Occasionally you're funny and thick - not funny this time..
That from a cretinous half witted numpty. Touch a nerve old boy, you worried you will be in the queue.
Oh dear - a new low even by your standards. Crawl back in the hole whence you came.
As a sign of how divorced the pb commentariat are from the rest of the country, I was just talking with one of my more senior partners (very switched on, very broad hinterland beyond her job) and mentioned in passing that there was another debate tonight.
"Is there?", she said.
It doesn't count cos Dave refused to turn up!
Don't say he was scared of defending his record though.. "scared" is on the PBPC naughty list regardless of it's context
Sam, this forces me to repeat the question I asked earlier: is our deal still on?
It may be an unpopular view, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe strongly in the principle of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, I think it is absolutely disgraceful that Lord Janner is effectively being named by the police and the CPS as being guilty in fact (but not in law) of very serious charges with no possibility of being able to defend himself. If they don't think that he should be charged with any crime, then they should issue a one-line statement saying that and saying nothing else.
Spot on. Trial, and conviction by press, tv, Twitter and Facebook. Disgusting. It would be nice not to have it on here as well.
Not so nice for the rich and famous nowadays , they cannot use the same old boys network , etc that kept them safe in the past. The social media gets past the cap doffers and exposes what once would have been kept amongst themselves. They do not like the peasants having this type of power.
Occasionally you're funny and thick - not funny this time..
That from a cretinous half witted numpty. Touch a nerve old boy, you worried you will be in the queue.
Oh dear - a new low even by your standards. Crawl back in the hole whence you came.
As they say , "go boil your head" you stupid halfwit. Go bother someone you are able to bully.
As a sign of how divorced the pb commentariat are from the rest of the country, I was just talking with one of my more senior partners (very switched on, very broad hinterland beyond her job) and mentioned in passing that there was another debate tonight.
"Is there?", she said.
Small sample size. Panelbase found 24% of the population will definitely watch it, and another 32% will probably watch it.
So on a voting population of 46 million you're saying over 11 million will definitely watch it and a further nearly 15mn will probably watch it. Let's say only half of the probables watch it and nobody who isn't registered to vote does that makes over 18 million watching it.
I don't think so. Such claims make it hard to take seriously what Panelbase is saying.
Well, quite. Some of it is people lying, but some of it is because their panel is unrepresentative in that it is disproportionately politically interested. What that then means for their polling is unclear.
Tonight I will be mainly eating steak and drinking red wine. Tragically, therefore, I will miss the debate. But I look forward to reading the disinterested, dispassionate analysis on here later. Now to feed my flying pigs.
It's sad that Cameron isn't in the debate tonight. Should be there. Daft to step out.
It'll all make sense when they scrape what is left of Ed M off the stage no doubt. It must be true, because they need it to be true; that's how politics works, right?
God knows. I don't have a particularly high opinion of the CPS based on my experience of them. What good prosecutors they have are leaving. Still, see what I posted below re the importance of a well funded and competent judicial system. Since no-one seems to care about this we'll continue to have one which cannot cope with the demands on it and we can then all happily spend time criticising them for being rubbish while spending public money on less important matters and worshipping the new state religion of the NHS.
This is controversial, but I am more interested in the next generation than the past generation. We need to be teaching children about respect: that does not just apply to their elders ("you must respect us!"), but also to themselves ("You must not do that!")
But we also need a system that is fair to both sides: misunderstandings and outright lies can lead to false accusations, and someone who is falsely accused can have their lives ruined as much as any victim.
That is not to say we should no prosecute past crimes. Regular readers will know that a friend of mine committed suicide a couple of years ago, decades after the abuse he suffered (not in the UK). And the Nottingham scandal (sadly ignored on here) resonates with me for various indirect reasons. But prosecuting the undoubted criminals will be pointless if we allow the same crimes to continue in the future.
And there has undoubtedly been (is?) a big problem in social care. We need to work out how to fix this, even if it requires a large amount of new money thrown at it.
There would probably be quite a benefit financially to sorting out Childrens homes as well as socially. The rates of ex-care teenagers in prisons and other aspects of the criminal justice system are quite appalling.
To an extent the extreme laxity of the Childrens homes in places like Rotherham was a reaction to the over controlling systems run by the Monks or by people like Frank Beck in Leicester. One extreme to another, and both failing.
Probably better still to prevent children from winding up in care in the first place by supportting families in difficulty; though a fair number of children are safer away from their parents and always will be.
He is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore he deserves the same protection as any other person innocent in law, no matter how much the Twitter mob are pursuing him. If no charges are to be brought, whatever the reason, then the CPS should make no comment on the evidence, which he has no opportunity to rebut.
In other words, the statement should read "The CPS has decided not to proceed with any charges against Lord Janner". End of statement. A footnote could direct the curious to a web page which details the tests which the CPS use when making such decisions.
BTW I see you are prejudging his guilt with 'evade justice' phrase. QED.
I have some sympathy with the CPS. A reasonable Crown Prosecutor would have given reasons to the complainants for the decision not to prefer charges, since a failure to do so would invite an application for judicial review against the Director. Those reasons were bound to leak, as the fact of the charging decision (which had been communicated to the complainants in advance) did this morning. Therefore it was right that the Director made a fuller public statement than the one you suggest. However, there was absolutely no need for her to give her assessment of the strength or otherwise of the evidence. She could and should simply have said that a finding of unfitness to plead was inevitable, and that even if the Crown Court subsequently found he had committed the relevant acts*, an absolute discharge was inevitable. The proper forum, if any, for these allegations, is the public inquiry. It is a sad day for the rule of law when we have trial by public statements of members of the executive.
*This would not have in any event been a finding of guilt, since the jury cannot, following a finding of unfitness to plead, consider whether the defendant had mens rea when he committed the relevant acts.
Tonight I will be mainly eating steak and drinking red wine. Tragically, therefore, I will miss the debate. But I look forward to reading the disinterested, dispassionate analysis on here later. Now to feed my flying pigs.
SO , sounds a lot better than the debates will be. I am having seabass and will suffice with a synopsis later on. So far they have been poor and after the BBC Sunday Politics one I could not be forced to watch..
Jenner needs some sort of day in court, fact based trial something like that. He's been hung drawn and quartered in the media and the facts simply have to be established and tested imo.
There would probably be quite a benefit financially to sorting out Childrens homes as well as socially. The rates of ex-care teenagers in prisons and other aspects of the criminal justice system are quite appalling.
To an extent the extreme laxity of the Childrens homes in places like Rotherham was a reaction to the over controlling systems run by the Monks or by people like Frank Beck in Leicester. One extreme to another, and both failing.
Probably better still to prevent children from winding up in care in the first place by supportting families in difficulty; though a fair number of children are safer away from their parents and always will be.
We're in extreme un-PB-like danger of having a series of posts agreeing with each other (even if you are from Leicester), but I agree.
Your last comment is why I have promoted the government's troubled families scheme on here, to what seemed like rather startling indifference. Fixing these problems early can save thousands, both in terms of numbers of children and hard cash. The problem is such intervention costs a great deal immediately, and the monetary benefits may not be seen for years or decades.
Becoming a father has opened my eyes to a few things Firstly, the National Childcare Trust course was a godsend to us, despite the fact we are educated people on the wrong side of 30 and over 40. It was brilliant. But the people who paid to go on it were, with one exception, the people who probably least needs it.
Secondly, too many people struggle, even those who are well educated and well paid. Yet even on a supposedly-friendly place like Mumsnet there is too much conflicting advice, and even nasty advice.
Being a parent is far harder, but also more rewarding, than I ever imagined. We need to help people who struggle.
As a sign of how divorced the pb commentariat are from the rest of the country, I was just talking with one of my more senior partners (very switched on, very broad hinterland beyond her job) and mentioned in passing that there was another debate tonight.
"Is there?", she said.
It doesn't count cos Dave refused to turn up!
Don't say he was scared of defending his record though.. "scared" is on the PBPC naughty list regardless of it's context
Sam, this forces me to repeat the question I asked earlier: is our deal still on?
Didn't see the earlier question and I don't like deals like that really so I am forgetting about it. You say too much that annoys me to let go!
Tonight I will be mainly eating steak and drinking red wine. Tragically, therefore, I will miss the debate. But I look forward to reading the disinterested, dispassionate analysis on here later. Now to feed my flying pigs.
SO , sounds a lot better than the debates will be. I am having seabass and will suffice with a synopsis later on. So far they have been poor and after the BBC Sunday Politics one I could not be forced to watch..
Tonight I will be mainly eating steak and drinking red wine. Tragically, therefore, I will miss the debate. But I look forward to reading the disinterested, dispassionate analysis on here later. Now to feed my flying pigs.
SO , sounds a lot better than the debates will be. I am having seabass and will suffice with a synopsis later on. So far they have been poor and after the BBC Sunday Politics one I could not be forced to watch..
As a sign of how divorced the pb commentariat are from the rest of the country, I was just talking with one of my more senior partners (very switched on, very broad hinterland beyond her job) and mentioned in passing that there was another debate tonight.
"Is there?", she said.
It doesn't count cos Dave refused to turn up!
Don't say he was scared of defending his record though.. "scared" is on the PBPC naughty list regardless of it's context
Sam, this forces me to repeat the question I asked earlier: is our deal still on?
Didn't see the earlier question and I don't like deals like that really so I am forgetting about it. You say too much that annoys me to let go!
That's sad. It was probably to the benefit of PB that we ignore each other ...
In PB competition I accidentally saved before last 2 figures leaving Green and SNP as nilbut straight away changed to Green 1 and SNP 40. Could you please accept my entry as Green 1 SNP 40. Thanking you
Re-Enter with your same name a second time, and I'll delete the first.
Comments
North Ayrshire and Arran
I quite like my politicians to be forthright.
Fox, she is just a sockpuppet for London, will never amount to anything till that changes.
PS , commiserations on being the only thing worse than a Tory, your MP's must bathe in snake oil.
That foreign policy has played so little a part in our election does not speak well of us or our politicians.
"I think Dirty Desmond is quite principled actually."
You should go on stage. Seriously. You had me in stitches
I get how the first complainant goes to the police after, say, 20 years. But I don't get how nos 2-20 go. At the same time after 20 years.
But then I've not been following it too closely and no doubt there is a sensible answer.
Darren McCaffrey (@DMcCaffreySKY)
April 16
WATCH: @MarkReckless on Desmond donation and how 'looks don't quite cut the muster' to appear IN the manifesto. pic.twitter.com/1stkyRZM9M
primeministerialhuman. Especially so when he is seen in his becoming-trademark jeans and jumper.As I mentioned earlier, if they were sensible (!) he and Nicola would have been rehearsing Mr & Mrs Reasonable all day which at least would allow voters to understand just how an Lab/SNP arrangement might work.
And yes, if he is ganged up on, he will do well, but even then he must be careful as he can't hit back too hard at anyone apart from Nige.
Similar with all the recent child cases , authorities actually blamed the victims.
Had a look through Rother Valley just now, not a single poster or sign up.
1. The prosecuting authorities have not been particularly good in the past.
2. Child abuse simply was not taken seriously as a crime decades ago. Certainly not as much as now.
3. Victims are disinclined to come forward.
4. These sorts of crimes are difficult to prove and there was probably a tendency to disbelieve the complainants and believe those being accused, especially when the latter were respectable.
5. Whistleblowing about what went on in childrens' homes and elsewhere simply was not taken seriously.
6. The children living in these homes had no-one to speak for them. Out of sight, out of mind. Seen as a problem; probably not seen as lovable. No votes / no glory in looking after abandoned / damaged children.
Put all or some of these together and it's easy to see how this has happened.
I'm not excluding BTW the possibility that there were more active and determined attempts to cover up crimes where important people were involved.
They are often (mostly?) broken, and I can say that from sad (not personal) experience. For many, verbal, physical and/or secual abuse wll be their norm. They are not 'normal' children, and require massive amounts of help.
The Rotherham UKIP carers scandal, when viewed in conjunction with the larger scandal, shows that at least one social services was not in any way fit for purpose. And sadly I fear they are far from alone.
If we do not give these children the care (and thus money) they deserve, then we can expect these horrible issues to continue. I would have a lot more time for the people horrified by Rotherham if they acknowledged this point more often,
https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/how-desperate-are-labour/
Meanwhile Saint Sarah, AKA The People's Champion has selected an election agent with a rather interesting past:
https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/champions-choice/
3 Leaflets Received (1 Labour, 2 UKIP)
2 Posters Spotted (2 UKIP)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/daily-express-owner-richard-desmond-donates-13m-to-ukip-10182857.html
I don't think so. Such claims make it hard to take seriously what Panelbase is saying.
To an extent the extreme laxity of the Childrens homes in places like Rotherham was a reaction to the over controlling systems run by the Monks or by people like Frank Beck in Leicester. One extreme to another, and both failing.
Probably better still to prevent children from winding up in care in the first place by supportting families in difficulty; though a fair number of children are safer away from their parents and always will be.
*This would not have in any event been a finding of guilt, since the jury cannot, following a finding of unfitness to plead, consider whether the defendant had mens rea when he committed the relevant acts.
Your last comment is why I have promoted the government's troubled families scheme on here, to what seemed like rather startling indifference. Fixing these problems early can save thousands, both in terms of numbers of children and hard cash. The problem is such intervention costs a great deal immediately, and the monetary benefits may not be seen for years or decades.
Becoming a father has opened my eyes to a few things Firstly, the National Childcare Trust course was a godsend to us, despite the fact we are educated people on the wrong side of 30 and over 40. It was brilliant. But the people who paid to go on it were, with one exception, the people who probably least needs it.
Secondly, too many people struggle, even those who are well educated and well paid. Yet even on a supposedly-friendly place like Mumsnet there is too much conflicting advice, and even nasty advice.
Being a parent is far harder, but also more rewarding, than I ever imagined. We need to help people who struggle.