Hi ha- really funny seeing these polls. The Tories are going to do a Labour and replace a popular, likeable leader with someone who has the charisma of something that you find on your shoe after that horrible feeling when you know you've stood in something.
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
The key point for me is to respect the victims of crime. Part of that is to get official recognition that they really ARE victims. For this, it doesn't matter whether the perpetrator of the crime is alive or dead. The only thing that matters is that the facts come to light.
The police will prioritize their resources accordingly, as of course they must, and some crimes will be investigated more vigorously than others. That is how it should be. The argument that crimes should be overlooked in their entirety because police resources are limited is ludicrous.
"The argument that crimes should be overlooked in their entirety because police resources are limited is ludicrous."
I don't see why you should think that, Mr. Disraeli, it happens hundreds of times every day up and down the land. An allegation might get put into the book and be given a crime number (for insurance purposes, usually) but not always and then the Old Bill cheerfully forget all about it.
The women aren't 'strong enough' and now the other bloke is too old. I think case I think it will backfire. Unfortunately for Burnham there are a lot of mature Labour Party members who have encountered this thinly veiled ageism in politics over the last 20 years. Damn this cult of youth! Where's it got us?
Man of the People, Armani Burnham. More from that GQ intv. The 25yrs thing is so transparent!
Nick Carvell, Fashion Editor of GQ.co.uk, notes that off-the-peg Armani suit 'tends to start at around £800', although in a sale Mr Burnham might get a discount of between 30 and 70 per cent off. Mr Carvell added: 'The thing is, it's also not as expensive as it could be. After all, to get a suit made - favoured by many of our leaders throughout history - a politician would have to stump up a minimum of £1,200 to £3,000.'
Embarrassingly the admission came moments after accusing Boris Johnson of being 'out of touch'.
'He seems to me to be somebody that the vast majority of the country would think: 'How out of touch is this bloke?' The things he gets away with now he wouldn't in the top job.'
Mr Burnham also suggested that after a quarter of a century in politics - in an apparent swipe at Mr Corbyn has been in the Commons for 32 years.
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
The key point for me is to respect the victims of crime. Part of that is to get official recognition that they really ARE victims. For this, it doesn't matter whether the perpetrator of the crime is alive or dead. The only thing that matters is that the facts come to light.
The police will prioritize their resources accordingly, as of course they must, and some crimes will be investigated more vigorously than others. That is how it should be. The argument that crimes should be overlooked in their entirety because police resources are limited is ludicrous.
It maybe ludicrous, but that is the police opinion: burglary and theft from cars is not worth investigating:
Not that investigating your own crime helps! I was burgled and a camera stolen and reported to the police. They did nothing, but I contacted all the 3 second hand camera shops in town. One indeed had my camera, along with the name and address of the seller. I reported this and got my camera back but the burglar/fence was never charged. How much more evidence did they need!
I recall LK getting a lot of positive write-ups on here and elsewhere about her charm and plausibility as a potential LOTO. Was that always the emperor's new clothes, or has she just been uncharacteristically crap in this contest for some reason?
Also, in my mind - those who claim to be victims of dead paedos can give evidence to the Goddard Inq.
That seems to be the appropriate place for it to be recorded and investigated as part of her remit. Isn't that was such inquiries are specifically set up to do?
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
The key point for me is to respect the victims of crime. Part of that is to get official recognition that they really ARE victims. For this, it doesn't matter whether the perpetrator of the crime is alive or dead. The only thing that matters is that the facts come to light.
The police will prioritize their resources accordingly, as of course they must, and some crimes will be investigated more vigorously than others. That is how it should be. The argument that crimes should be overlooked in their entirety because police resources are limited is ludicrous.
"The argument that crimes should be overlooked in their entirety because police resources are limited is ludicrous."
I don't see why you should think that, Mr. Disraeli, it happens hundreds of times every day up and down the land. An allegation might get put into the book and be given a crime number (for insurance purposes, usually) but not always and then the Old Bill cheerfully forget all about it.
Maybe she should engrave it onto a LizStone, or Ke(y)Stone- and then put it outside...somewhere.
I mean FFS- what has gotten into the heads of Labour politicians to ridicule sane minded folk with this meaningless, claptrap, nonsense. Almost makes me want to vote for Jezza
I recall LK getting a lot of positive write-ups on here and elsewhere about her charm and plausibility as a potential LOTO. Was that always the emperor's new clothes, or has she just been uncharacteristically crap in this contest for some reason?
The women aren't 'strong enough' and now the other bloke is too old. I think case I think it will backfire. Unfortunately for Burnham there are a lot of mature Labour Party members who have encountered this thinly veiled ageism in politics over the last 20 years. Damn this cult of youth! Where's it got us?
Man of the People, Armani Burnham. More from that GQ intv. The 25yrs thing is so transparent!
Nick Carvell, Fashion Editor of GQ.co.uk, notes that off-the-peg Armani suit 'tends to start at around £800', although in a sale Mr Burnham might get a discount of between 30 and 70 per cent off. Mr Carvell added: 'The thing is, it's also not as expensive as it could be. After all, to get a suit made - favoured by many of our leaders throughout history - a politician would have to stump up a minimum of £1,200 to £3,000.'
Embarrassingly the admission came moments after accusing Boris Johnson of being 'out of touch'.
'He seems to me to be somebody that the vast majority of the country would think: 'How out of touch is this bloke?' The things he gets away with now he wouldn't in the top job.'
Mr Burnham also suggested that after a quarter of a century in politics - in an apparent swipe at Mr Corbyn has been in the Commons for 32 years.
OT Mr Llama, thought you may know the answer to this. I'm watching League of Gentlemen for the umpteenth time and Jack Hawkins' character says he made Half Colonel.
Mr. Llama, when was the last time we had a bald PM?
Churchill, probably. But then Wilson was not exactly hirsute and, from memory, Callaghan was "thinning" (I once stood above him at the Grand Hotel in Brighton). Additionally, in days of yore there was not this fashion for shaven heads to disguise incipient baldness and the TV people were a lot more deferential.
All of which is a nonsense. If a PM potential PM is to be discarded because of how much hair he/she has then we might as well go back to the days of barbarian kings and go for election by combat, and may the biggest thug win.
I am by no means an expert on military history, so doubtless Mr Llama will correct me, but I think there are two uses of the term (neither technically correct)
1. Brevet Colonel, as a battlefield appointment, to the senior surviving major if there were no more senior surviving officers gave them command of the regiment until such time as the post was confirmed by House Guards or a replacement sent. They were sometimes called Half Colonels.
2. Colonels with rank, but without a regiment (especially in peace time) were sometimes sent on extended furlough as Colonels-on-half-pay, also known informally as half-colonels
Mr. Charles, I have never heard of either of those being used for Half-Colonels.
An officer given temporary rank was usually addressed by that rank except in formal documents such as the London Gazette when he would be named as Captain Bloggs (Brevet Lt. Colonel), as happened with a relative of yours (which reminds me I owe you a letter and the return of a document*).
Colonels on long leave because they were, essentially, unemployed would be a very old practice and I wouldn't have thought there would be sufficient number for a naming convention ever to have grown up or if it did to have survived into modern parlance.
*I am now wracked with guilt having completely forgotten about the research I did. I can only plead drink as mitigation.
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
The key point for me is to respect the victims of crime. Part of that is to get official recognition that they really ARE victims. For this, it doesn't matter whether the perpetrator of the crime is alive or dead. The only thing that matters is that the facts come to light.
The police will prioritize their resources accordingly, as of course they must, and some crimes will be investigated more vigorously than others. That is how it should be. The argument that crimes should be overlooked in their entirety because police resources are limited is ludicrous.
Until someone is convicted, they are alleged facts and alleged victims. Innocence until proven guilty. Trial by your peers. Old-fashioned I realise in this era of witch hunt via Twitter. But I'm rather keen on them.
That is why it is important - vital - to investigate allegations against living people so that you can establish the facts and both the alleged victims and the alleged perpetrator can have their day in court.
It might be worth remembering at this point that there have been a number of trials of celebrities who were acquitted. So they are not guilty of what they were accused of and - it follows - their "victims" are not victims of crimes at all.
Some on here give the impression that it is more important to investigate dead people to establish facts when the one thing you can't do in the case of a dead person is establish any facts in such a way as to get official recognition. Official recognition is a guilty verdict after a trial. Unless you're going to start putting dead people on trial. But that, IMO, is a branch of the entertainment industry not the proper role of the police and the judicial system.
I recall LK getting a lot of positive write-ups on here and elsewhere about her charm and plausibility as a potential LOTO. Was that always the emperor's new clothes, or has she just been uncharacteristically crap in this contest for some reason?
@Plato - The only difference between the follicle challenged and those that shave is the level of vanity – and that is where my expertise on the subject comes to an end I'm afraid – BTW.
Order of rank: Major, Lieutenant Colonel, (full) Colonel – Lt. Colonel often called half Colonels.
... Commanding officers of Regiments and large units are normally Lieutenant Colonels...
Not wishing to be pedantic Mr. St Clare, but Mr. Flaming Picky would like to point out that statement is only true for certain branches of the army.
Then there is the cavalry, and what goes on over there is no one's business but their own and frankly, not a subject for polite society.
Well indeed Mr Llama, at least on that score we are in total agreement.
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
The key point for me is to respect the victims of crime. Part of that is to get official recognition that they really ARE victims. For this, it doesn't matter whether the perpetrator of the crime is alive or dead. The only thing that matters is that the facts come to light.
The police will prioritize their resources accordingly, as of course they must, and some crimes will be investigated more vigorously than others. That is how it should be. The argument that crimes should be overlooked in their entirety because police resources are limited is ludicrous.
Until someone is convicted, they are alleged facts and alleged victims. Innocence until proven guilty. Trial by your peers. Old-fashioned I realise in this era of witch hunt via Twitter. But I'm rather keen on them.
That is why it is important - vital - to investigate allegations against living people so that you can establish the facts and both the alleged victims and the alleged perpetrator can have their day in court.
It might be worth remembering at this point that there have been a number of trials of celebrities who were acquitted. So they are not guilty of what they were accused of and - it follows - their "victims" are not victims of crimes at all.
Some on here give the impression that it is more important to investigate dead people to establish facts when the one thing you can't do in the case of a dead person is establish any facts in such a way as to get official recognition. Official recognition is a guilty verdict after a trial. Unless you're going to start putting dead people on trial. But that, IMO, is a branch of the entertainment industry not the proper role of the police and the judicial system.
No business or organisation has unlimited resources. There needs to be prioritisation.
Would we be asking the police to spend x to investigate claims against a dead non-celebrity?
Well part of the answer there surely is that if the person accused wasn't a celebrity, there wouldn't have been a cover up in the first place, and they'd have been arrested when alive
Except we know from Rotherham and other places that that isn't the case. Cover ups and turning a blind eye happen in lots of places and for a variety of reasons.
Also, in my mind - those who claim to be victims of dead paedos can give evidence to the Goddard Inq.
That seems to be the appropriate place for it to be recorded and investigated as part of her remit. Isn't that was such inquiries are specifically set up to do?
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
The key point for me is to respect the victims of crime. Part of that is to get official recognition that they really ARE victims. For this, it doesn't matter whether the perpetrator of the crime is alive or dead. The only thing that matters is that the facts come to light.
The police will prioritize their resources accordingly, as of course they must, and some crimes will be investigated more vigorously than others. That is how it should be. The argument that crimes should be overlooked in their entirety because police resources are limited is ludicrous.
"The argument that crimes should be overlooked in their entirety because police resources are limited is ludicrous."
I don't see why you should think that, Mr. Disraeli, it happens hundreds of times every day up and down the land. An allegation might get put into the book and be given a crime number (for insurance purposes, usually) but not always and then the Old Bill cheerfully forget all about it.
A national judicial investigation can also take a broader view on time and geography and address the important issues concerning whether these were individual crimes or a more extensive systematic problem involving corruption and cover up.
It would keep the plod off the sinecure gravy train and free to raid current paedos or perhaps employers of illegal aliens amongst many other unpoliced issues.
And that is what the Goddard inquiry is for. Exactly that. As I have said - repeatedly. So that inquiry looks into historical matters. And, with luck, it can ensure that the causes of what happened have gone and cannot recur. And the police investigate alleged crimes by living people who can then, if the evidence is there, be prosecuted.
Is this hard to understand? I want people who have committed crimes to be investigated and prosecuted. I see no point trying to investigate dead people because you cannot establish the facts and you cannot prosecute.
So how does an inquiry establish the facts? There has to be an investigation of some sort. Genuine question - if the police do not do the investigating, who does?
I genuinely do not know how the Goddard inquiry is going to gather the information they will need. But people other than the police do investigations: there are professional investigators of many backgrounds and lawyers and others.
We have had lots of judicial investigations and they do not generally rely on the police though they may do.
Remember also that there are different standards of proof and so the bar in terms of what you set out as facts is lower than it would be in a criminal trial. Nor can you defame a dead person.
Off topic. The reports of 3 police forces investigating Ted Heath starting to look ominous. Wilts, Met & Jersey.
*Bangs head on desk*
They do not get to see him castigated for what he did. Because he is dead. And beyond any castigating.
It is not the job of the police to stop people being revered in the media. It really isn't. The job of the police is to keep order and investigate crimes. Crimes committed by living people. Who can then be brought to justice.
The police do not have infinite resources. They need to use them sensibly. Try telling a current victim: a 13-year old repeatedly subject to gang rape that the police in her area - let's call it Yorkshire - cannot investigate her allegations because they are too busy making sure that a dead person is no longer being revered. But never mind, eh, because in time she too may have the satisfaction of seeing her abusers no longer be revered or maybe by then she will have been too damaged and her life ruined and her abusers will have discarded her and got away with it and moved onto the next victims.
I'd bang your head on the desk harder, it might knock some sense into it
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
And that could and should have been achieved by journalists. You don't need the police to do that. You do not use the police to do other people's jobs. Not when they have their own vital job to do.
Someone very close to me was raped as a child - but not by a celebrity - and the police did the square root of f...all. Imagine how that child and her parents feel at seeing the police wasting their time investigating a dead celebrity, an investigation which can lead nowhere, just so that people can have the satisfaction of not having that person appear on TV. FFS!!!
The journalists need the police to prove the person alleged to have committed the crimes was guilty FFS!
No they don't. You cannot defame a dead person. So journalists can write what they like about dead people. That is why those journalists started saying what they knew or suspected about Savile after his death. Because he could no longer threaten them with a libel writ.
Out of idle interest, and to illustrate how in the Republican nomination process the early contests are not actually that important in terms of numbers of delegates won, I have run the numbers of GOP delegates per candidate for Iowa and New Hampshire combined using the latest opinion polls:
Trump 13 Bush 8 Walker 10 Christie 3 Paul 4 Kasich 3 Carson 4 Cruz 2 Rubio 2 Fiorina 1 Huckabee 2 Perry 1 Others 0
Of course, there are perception and momentum brownie points to be won from coming first in the horse race, but with proportional allocation of delegates in the early races, and the small number of delegates available until Super Tuesday, it really does not make much difference in the big scheme of things.
And that is what the Goddard inquiry is for. Exactly that. As I have said - repeatedly. So that inquiry looks into historical matters. And, with luck, it can ensure that the causes of what happened have gone and cannot recur. And the police investigate alleged crimes by living people who can then, if the evidence is there, be prosecuted.
Is this hard to understand? I want people who have committed crimes to be investigated and prosecuted. I see no point trying to investigate dead people because you cannot establish the facts and you cannot prosecute.
So how does an inquiry establish the facts? There has to be an investigation of some sort. Genuine question - if the police do not do the investigating, who does?
I genuinely do not know how the Goddard inquiry is going to gather the information they will need. But people other than the police do investigations: there are professional investigators of many backgrounds and lawyers and others.
We have had lots of judicial investigations and they do not generally rely on the police though they may do.
Remember also that there are different standards of proof and so the bar in terms of what you set out as facts is lower than it would be in a criminal trial. Nor can you defame a dead person.
Thanks. From my understanding, inquiries can examine the historical record (documents and collected evidence) and receive witness and expert testimony. But that is very different from actual investigation to obtain new evidence (as opposed to new testimony and expert opinion). So I am genuinely interested in whether an inquiry can actually conduct investigations and, if so, how?
And that is what the Goddard inquiry is for. Exactly that. As I have said - repeatedly. So that inquiry looks into historical matters. And, with luck, it can ensure that the causes of what happened have gone and cannot recur. And the police investigate alleged crimes by living people who can then, if the evidence is there, be prosecuted.
Is this hard to understand? I want people who have committed crimes to be investigated and prosecuted. I see no point trying to investigate dead people because you cannot establish the facts and you cannot prosecute.
So how does an inquiry establish the facts? There has to be an investigation of some sort. Genuine question - if the police do not do the investigating, who does?
I genuinely do not know how the Goddard inquiry is going to gather the information they will need. But people other than the police do investigations: there are professional investigators of many backgrounds and lawyers and others.
We have had lots of judicial investigations and they do not generally rely on the police though they may do.
Remember also that there are different standards of proof and so the bar in terms of what you set out as facts is lower than it would be in a criminal trial. Nor can you defame a dead person.
I think your last point is particularly pertinent. A criminal standard of proof for an event in the 1960s with no witnesses or forensic evidence is nigh on impossible to deliver fairly, a balance of probabilities is much more plausible. The latter is open to a judicial enquiry but not to the police. Of course the police can follow up any finding from the enquiry should they need to do so.
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
The key point for me is to respect the victims of crime. Part of that is to get official recognition that they really ARE victims. For this, it doesn't matter whether the perpetrator of the crime is alive or dead. The only thing that matters is that the facts come to light.
The police will prioritize their resources accordingly, as of course they must, and some crimes will be investigated more vigorously than others. That is how it should be. The argument that crimes should be overlooked in their entirety because police resources are limited is ludicrous.
Until someone is convicted, they are alleged facts and alleged victims. Innocence until proven guilty. Trial by your peers. Old-fashioned I realise in this era of witch hunt via Twitter. But I'm rather keen on them.
That is why it is important - vital - to investigate allegations against living people so that you can establish the facts and both the alleged victims and the alleged perpetrator can have their day in court.
It might be worth remembering at this point that there have been a number of trials of celebrities who were acquitted. So they are not guilty of what they were accused of and - it follows - their "victims" are not victims of crimes at all.
Some on here give the impression that it is more important to investigate dead people to establish facts when the one thing you can't do in the case of a dead person is establish any facts in such a way as to get official recognition. Official recognition is a guilty verdict after a trial. Unless you're going to start putting dead people on trial. But that, IMO, is a branch of the entertainment industry not the proper role of the police and the judicial system.
Why did we waste police time investigating 7/7?
Are you serious?
To find out, inter alia, did anyone else help? Was anyone else involved? How did they learn to make bombs? Who funded them? Was there a wider cell? Were other crimes being planned? Etc Etc.
Mr. Charles, I have never heard of either of those being used for Half-Colonels.
An officer given temporary rank was usually addressed by that rank except in formal documents such as the London Gazette when he would be named as Captain Bloggs (Brevet Lt. Colonel), as happened with a relative of yours (which reminds me I owe you a letter and the return of a document*).
Colonels on long leave because they were, essentially, unemployed would be a very old practice and I wouldn't have thought there would be sufficient number for a naming convention ever to have grown up or if it did to have survived into modern parlance.
*I am now wracked with guilt having completely forgotten about the research I did. I can only plead drink as mitigation.
Not to worry - happy to take a drink off you in mitigation
The colonels on long leave were reasonable common after the Napoleonic wars, so quite recent. I thought LoEG was set in the Victorian era, but as I've never watched it...
Some on here give the impression that it is more important to investigate dead people to establish facts when the one thing you can't do in the case of a dead person is establish any facts in such a way as to get official recognition.
Not "more important", but there are cases when the public interest would seem to have a case in doing so. You seem to have a black and white approach to this. Would you rather that resources had not been "wasted" investigating Jimmy Savile for example?
(Presumably you are not in favour of "cold case" investigations either.)
P.S. As an aside, I must say that finding myself in disagreement with your postings is a very rare occurrence for me. In fact I usually find myself in "violent agreement" with you!
My understanding was that the Wilts investigation wasn't into the truth of the allegations against Heath, but whether they dropped a criminal trial because they were afraid of one of the defendants(?) making allegations about Heath (from what I've read hearsay based rather than evidential) from the witness box.
That's a rather different matter and one that, I think, does need investigation because it suggests that, in order to protect a man's reputation, the police/CPS were prepared to see justice thwarted for the victims of the other alleged crime.
But I've been in Galway today, so haven't been reading the papers
My understanding was that the Wilts investigation wasn't into the truth of the allegations against Heath, but whether they dropped a criminal trial because they were afraid of one of the defendants(?) making allegations about Heath (from what I've read hearsay based rather than evidential) from the witness box.
That's a rather different matter and one that, I think, does need investigation because it suggests that, in order to protect a man's reputation, the police/CPS were prepared to see justice thwarted for the victims of the other alleged crime.
But I've been in Galway today, so haven't been reading the papers
To find out, inter alia, did anyone else help? Was anyone else involved? Was there a money trail? Was there a wider paedophile network? Were other crimes being planned? Etc Etc.
Hillary continues to sink in the polls as the email scandal gets ever more traction.
WSJ/NBC poll, sampled July 26-30, before the latest legal problems became known -
Clinton favorable among white women July/June 34% 44%
Clinton UNfavorable among white women July/June 53% 43%
The Monday debate was shown on C-Span, and consisted of all the candidates sitting in the front row of the audience, and coming up on stage to be questioned one by one. It was bland.
This evening we find out who the ten candidates are for Thursday. Fox News is running this, Fox decides who the top ten are, and Fox decides which polls decide this, the debate format and the presenters.
In other interesting tidbits, DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was asked by Chris Matthews on very lefty MsNBC what the difference was between the Democratic Party and Socialism. She couldn't answer. She appeared on one of the Sunday talk shows on a main network and was asked again. She still couldn't answer the question.
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
The key point for me is to respect the victims of crime. Part of that is to get official recognition that they really ARE victims. For this, it doesn't matter whether the perpetrator of the crime is alive or dead. The only thing that matters is that the facts come to light.
The police will prioritize their resources accordingly, as of course they must, and some crimes will be investigated more vigorously than others. That is how it should be. The argument that crimes should be overlooked in their entirety because police resources are limited is ludicrous.
Until someone is convicted, they are alleged facts and alleged victims. Innocence until proven guilty. Trial by your peers. Old-fashioned I realise in this era of witch hunt via Twitter. But I'm rather keen on them.
That is why it is important - vital - to investigate allegations against living people so that you can establish the facts and both the alleged victims and the alleged perpetrator can have their day in court.
It might be worth remembering at this point that there have been a number of trials of celebrities who were acquitted. So they are not guilty of what they were accused of and - it follows - their "victims" are not victims of crimes at all.
Some on here give the impression that it is more important to investigate dead people to establish facts when the one thing you can't do in the case of a dead person is establish any facts in such a way as to get official recognition. Official recognition is a guilty verdict after a trial. Unless you're going to start putting dead people on trial. But that, IMO, is a branch of the entertainment industry not the proper role of the police and the judicial system.
Why did we waste police time investigating 7/7?
Are you serious?
To find out, inter alia, did anyone else help? Was anyone else involved? How did they learn to make bombs? Who funded them? Was there a wider cell? Were other crimes being planned? Etc Etc.
You've answered the question as to why we should investigate Heath
What a political price Boris Johnson has paid for his 3 second-hand water cannon he bought off Angela Merkl which I can only guess are now watering the playingfields of Eton? The financial cost of £217,000 palls into insignificance when you have been well and truly shafted and made to look like an idiot by the Germans.It wouldn't have been so bad if it was Estonians,Bulgarians or any nationality of your choice but being ripped off by the Germans is simply beyond the pale.
To find out, inter alia, did anyone else help? Was anyone else involved? Was there a money trail? Was there a wider paedophile network? Were other crimes being planned? Etc Etc.
I think Cyclefree swallowed Lucky's bait hook, line and sinker there.
To find out, inter alia, did anyone else help? Was anyone else involved? Was there a money trail? Was there a wider paedophile network? Were other crimes being planned? Etc Etc.
Could not the Goddard enquiry cover all that?
Bearing in mind that the accusations include cover ups by SYP and now Wilts police amongst others, can we rely on the police to investigate their own?
Boris would have made a good opposition leader, now the Tories have won a majority, he has lost his chance. Instead the Tories will revert to their natural position of picking the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary when in power which favours Osborne
Fox decides who the top ten are, and Fox decides which polls decide this, the debate format and the presenters.
How does Fox get along with Trump? We might find a rather odd set of polls used ...
Joking aside, I think the top 10 will be Trump, Bush, Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Paul, Christie, Kasich and Huckabee. Bye bye Perry, Fiorina and Santorum. No need to say the same to Pataki, Gilmore, Graham, and Jindal - they never got into the race, really.
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
The key point for me is to respect the victims of crime. Part of that is to get official recognition that they really ARE victims. For this, it doesn't matter whether the perpetrator of the crime is alive or dead. The only thing that matters is that the facts come to light.
The police will prioritize their resources accordingly, as of course they must, and some crimes will be investigated more vigorously than others. That is how it should be. The argument that crimes should be overlooked in their entirety because police resources are limited is ludicrous.
Until someone is convicted, they are alleged facts and alleged victims. Innocence until proven guilty. Trial by your peers. Old-fashioned I realise in this era of witch hunt via Twitter. But I'm rather keen on them.
That is why it is important - vital - to investigate allegations against living people so that you can establish the facts and both the alleged victims and the alleged perpetrator can have their day in court.
It might be worth remembering at this point that there have been a number of trials of celebrities who were acquitted. So they are not guilty of what they were accused of and - it follows - their "victims" are not victims of crimes at all.
Some on here give the impression that it is more important to investigate dead people to establish facts when the one thing you can't do in the case of a dead person is establish any facts in such a way as to get official recognition. Official recognition is a guilty verdict after a trial. Unless you're going to start putting dead people on trial. But that, IMO, is a branch of the entertainment industry not the proper role of the police and the judicial system.
Why did we waste police time investigating 7/7?
Are you serious?
To find out, inter alia, did anyone else help? Was anyone else involved? How did they learn to make bombs? Who funded them? Was there a wider cell? Were other crimes being planned? Etc Etc.
You've answered the question as to why we should investigate Heath
If you are happy for the police to investigate events that may have happened 50 years ago rather than leaving it to an inquiry set up for the purpose, then you should say what current crimes should not be investigated. So what shall it be?
Fox decides who the top ten are, and Fox decides which polls decide this, the debate format and the presenters.
How does Fox get along with Trump? We might find a rather odd set of polls used ...
Joking aside, I think the top 10 will be Trump, Bush, Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Paul, Christie, Kasich and Huckabee. Bye bye Perry, Fiorina and Santorum. No need to say the same to Pataki, Gilmore, Graham, and Jindal - they never got into the race, really.
Trump and Greta van Susteren are good buddies. Fox is giving him a lot of exposure.
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
The key point for me is to respect the victims of crime. Part of that is to get official recognition that they really ARE victims. For this, it doesn't matter whether the perpetrator of the crime is alive or dead. The only thing that matters is that the facts come to light.
The police will prioritize their resources accordingly, as of course they must, and some crimes will be investigated more vigorously than others. That is how it should be. The argument that crimes should be overlooked in their entirety because police resources are limited is ludicrous.
It maybe ludicrous, but that is the police opinion: burglary and theft from cars is not worth investigating:
Not that investigating your own crime helps! I was burgled and a camera stolen and reported to the police. They did nothing, but I contacted all the 3 second hand camera shops in town. One indeed had my camera, along with the name and address of the seller. I reported this and got my camera back but the burglar/fence was never charged. How much more evidence did they need!
I have no faith in my local police. They are very hot with people doing 32mph in a 30 limit and use unmarked police cars to catch them, but they let drug dealers walk around anywhere. It seems that they are only willing to do the easy stuff on people who cause no trouble, but anything that is difficult they let go by with a blind eye. Recently someone was sexually assaulted before a witness and they dismissed it as insufficient evidence and told the witness not to bother them.
Hillary continues to sink in the polls as the email scandal gets ever more traction.
WSJ/NBC poll, sampled July 26-30, before the latest legal problems became known -
Clinton favorable among white women July/June 34% 44%
Clinton UNfavorable among white women July/June 53% 43%
The Monday debate was shown on C-Span, and consisted of all the candidates sitting in the front row of the audience, and coming up on stage to be questioned one by one. It was bland.
This evening we find out who the ten candidates are for Thursday. Fox News is running this, Fox decides who the top ten are, and Fox decides which polls decide this, the debate format and the presenters.
In other interesting tidbits, DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was asked by Chris Matthews on very lefty MsNBC what the difference was between the Democratic Party and Socialism. She couldn't answer. She appeared on one of the Sunday talk shows on a main network and was asked again. She still couldn't answer the question.
The only candidate, Democrat or Republican, with a net favourability rating at present is self-confessed 'socialist' Senator Bernie Sanders
Boris would have made a good opposition leader, now the Tories have won a majority, he has lost his chance. Instead the Tories will revert to their natural position of picking the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary when in power which favours Osborne
Have to agree,I saw Boris address 1 million crowd, after the Olympics parade, he was very popular, Quote" You have achieved the impossible, you have got people talking to each other on the tube", addressed to the Gamesmakers. However being popular does not a good PM make.
Well, to be fair, a third runway at Heathrow is something essential for the country, and is moving so slowly because of the suburban London and Home Counties lobby. And he seems to be promising redistribution of taxation - it's not like supporters of other parties don't envisage any financial gain from their side's being in power.
Boris would have made a good opposition leader, now the Tories have won a majority, he has lost his chance. Instead the Tories will revert to their natural position of picking the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary when in power which favours Osborne
Have to agree,I saw Boris address 1 million crowd, after the Olympics parade, he was very popular, Quote" You have achieved the impossible, you have got people talking to each other on the tube", addressed to the Gamesmakers. However being popular does not a good PM make.
No, although it often helps them get there in the first place, but as the Tories are in government now anyway and have just been re-elected that is less of a requirement for them at the moment
Fox decides who the top ten are, and Fox decides which polls decide this, the debate format and the presenters.
How does Fox get along with Trump? We might find a rather odd set of polls used ...
Joking aside, I think the top 10 will be Trump, Bush, Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Paul, Christie, Kasich and Huckabee. Bye bye Perry, Fiorina and Santorum. No need to say the same to Pataki, Gilmore, Graham, and Jindal - they never got into the race, really.
Trump and Greta van Susteren are good buddies. Fox is giving him a lot of exposure.
I'll probably be on Fox Business News tomorrow re the Iran deal, but don't get up - it's the 06:00 slot! Of course, I may also be bumped.
Hillary continues to sink in the polls as the email scandal gets ever more traction.
WSJ/NBC poll, sampled July 26-30, before the latest legal problems became known -
Clinton favorable among white women July/June 34% 44%
Clinton UNfavorable among white women July/June 53% 43%
The Monday debate was shown on C-Span, and consisted of all the candidates sitting in the front row of the audience, and coming up on stage to be questioned one by one. It was bland.
This evening we find out who the ten candidates are for Thursday. Fox News is running this, Fox decides who the top ten are, and Fox decides which polls decide this, the debate format and the presenters.
In other interesting tidbits, DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was asked by Chris Matthews on very lefty MsNBC what the difference was between the Democratic Party and Socialism. She couldn't answer. She appeared on one of the Sunday talk shows on a main network and was asked again. She still couldn't answer the question.
The only candidate, Democrat or Republican, with a net favourability rating at present is self-confessed 'socialist' Senator Bernie Sanders
To clarify the Thursday debate, if you make the top ten, you're debating at 8.50pm EDT. If you don't, you're on at 5pm EDT.
I don't know if the format, questioners etc will be the same for both debates.
The interesting factor is using polls - which mainly have an MOE of about 3 to 4% - to decide if somebody with a 6% rating should get the nod over a 5% rating. The campaigns are lobbying Fox News like it's going out of style.
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
The key point for me is to respect the victims of crime. Part of that is to get official recognition that they really ARE victims. For this, it doesn't matter whether the perpetrator of the crime is alive or dead. The only thing that matters is that the facts come to light.
The police will prioritize their resources accordingly, as of course they must, and some crimes will be investigated more vigorously than others. That is how it should be. The argument that crimes should be overlooked in their entirety because police resources are limited is ludicrous.
Until someone is convicted, they are alleged facts and alleged victims. Innocence until proven guilty. Trial by your peers. Old-fashioned I realise in this era of witch hunt via Twitter. But I'm rather keen on them.
That is why it is important - vital - to investigate allegations against living people so that you can establish the facts and both the alleged victims and the alleged perpetrator can have their day in court.
It might be worth remembering at this point that there have been a number of trials of celebrities who were acquitted. So they are not guilty of what they were accused of and - it follows - their "victims" are not victims of crimes at all.
Some on here give the impression that it is more important to investigate dead people to establish facts when the one thing you can't do in the case of a dead person is establish any facts in such a way as to get official recognition. Official recognition is a guilty verdict after a trial. Unless you're going to start putting dead people on trial. But that, IMO, is a branch of the entertainment industry not the proper role of the police and the judicial system.
Why did we waste police time investigating 7/7?
Are you serious?
To find out, inter alia, did anyone else help? Was anyone else involved? How did they learn to make bombs? Who funded them? Was there a wider cell? Were other crimes being planned? Etc Etc.
You've answered the question as to why we should investigate Heath
If you are happy for the police to investigate events that may have happened 50 years ago rather than leaving it to an inquiry set up for the purpose, then you should say what current crimes should not be investigated. So what shall it be?
Boris would have made a good opposition leader, now the Tories have won a majority, he has lost his chance. Instead the Tories will revert to their natural position of picking the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary when in power which favours Osborne
Have to agree,I saw Boris address 1 million crowd, after the Olympics parade, he was very popular, Quote" You have achieved the impossible, you have got people talking to each other on the tube", addressed to the Gamesmakers. However being popular does not a good PM make.
No, although it often helps them get there in the first place, but as the Tories are in government now anyway and have just been re-elected that is less of a requirement for them at the moment
Yes Boris had his best chance when he was seen as the possible saviour of a trailing Tory party,but now DC has secured another 5 years, he is so last year.
FFS. Labour must stop with these nonsense policies. May as well guarantee that everyone gets be millionaire, and lives happily ever at this rate. We'll probably all find pots of gold at the end of the rainbow too.
Hillary continues to sink in the polls as the email scandal gets ever more traction.
WSJ/NBC poll, sampled July 26-30, before the latest legal problems became known -
Clinton favorable among white women July/June 34% 44%
Clinton UNfavorable among white women July/June 53% 43%
The Monday debate was shown on C-Span, and consisted of all the candidates sitting in the front row of the audience, and coming up on stage to be questioned one by one. It was bland.
This evening we find out who the ten candidates are for Thursday. Fox News is running this, Fox decides who the top ten are, and Fox decides which polls decide this, the debate format and the presenters.
In other interesting tidbits, DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was asked by Chris Matthews on very lefty MsNBC what the difference was between the Democratic Party and Socialism. She couldn't answer. She appeared on one of the Sunday talk shows on a main network and was asked again. She still couldn't answer the question.
The only candidate, Democrat or Republican, with a net favourability rating at present is self-confessed 'socialist' Senator Bernie Sanders
To clarify the Thursday debate, if you make the top ten, you're debating at 8.50pm EDT. If you don't, you're on at 5pm EDT.
I don't know if the format, questioners etc will be the same for both debates.
The interesting factor is using polls - which mainly have an MOE of about 3 to 4% - to decide if somebody with a 6% rating should get the nod over a 5% rating. The campaigns are lobbying Fox News like it's going out of style.
Man updates his PC to Windows 10 ... only for his wife to find his entire PORN collection transformed into a slideshow on repeat
Reddit user FalloutBoS left his PC on overnight to update to Windows 10 His wife woke in the morning to find his porn collection as a screensaver The user posted the story as a warning to others updating to new OS
Pictures are automatically taken from the My Pictures folder to make slideshows that run on the screen when inactive
Fox decides who the top ten are, and Fox decides which polls decide this, the debate format and the presenters.
How does Fox get along with Trump? We might find a rather odd set of polls used ...
Joking aside, I think the top 10 will be Trump, Bush, Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Paul, Christie, Kasich and Huckabee. Bye bye Perry, Fiorina and Santorum. No need to say the same to Pataki, Gilmore, Graham, and Jindal - they never got into the race, really.
Trump and Greta van Susteren are good buddies. Fox is giving him a lot of exposure.
I'll probably be on Fox Business News tomorrow re the Iran deal, but don't get up - it's the 06:00 slot! Of course, I may also be bumped.
Man updates his PC to Windows 10 ... only for his wife to find his entire PORN collection transformed into a slideshow on repeat
Reddit user FalloutBoS left his PC on overnight to update to Windows 10 His wife woke in the morning to find his porn collection as a screensaver The user posted the story as a warning to others updating to new OS
Pictures are automatically taken from the My Pictures folder to make slideshows that run on the screen when inactive
"My understanding is that there was one question which was different from the exemplar they had provided and which required the students to apply their mathematical skills in a way that was different from how they had been taught."
Crikey, a maths exam that at least in part tested students' knowledge of and skills in maths in a way that couldn't be coached. No wonder everyone was up in arms about it. If that idea caught on mathematics teachers would have to teach mathematics rather than how to pass an exam, students would have to learn mathematics rather than how to pass an exam. it would be the most radical shake-up in maths education in living memory.
Most maths teachers would be rendered helpless and unable to cope. They would be going off sick with stress and taking early retirement in massive numbers. The costs would be enormous. Then think of the knock on effects. E.g. the few pupils who got through the system would arrive at Uni with good maths skills so Uni lecturers wouldn't be able to coast the first year teaching a subset of the A level. More stress.
Who ever set that question needs to be fired, if they haven't been already eased out and the examining board told in no uncertain terms that they must stick to the script.
Enjoy? Suck it and see.
There are n sweets in a bag. 6 of the sweets are orange. The rest of the sweets are yellow.
Hannah takes a random sweet from the bag. She eats the sweet.
Hannah then takes at random another sweet from the bag. She eats the sweet.
The probability that Hannah eats two orange sweets is 1/3.
Show that n² – n – 90 = 0.
Oh! The answer? Courtesy of the Guardian.
Let’s solve it:
If Hannah takes a sweet from the bag on her first selection, there is a 6/n chance it will be orange.
That’s because there are 6 oranges and n sweets.
If Hannah takes a sweet from the bag on her second selection, there is a 5/(n-1) chance it will be orange.
That’s because there are only 5 orange sweets left out of a total of n - 1 sweets.
The chance of getting two orange sweets in a row is the first probability MULTIPLIED BY the second one. (That’s the most important thing to learn from your lesson today, peeps!)
Which is 6/n x 5/n–1
The question tells us that the chance of Hannah getting two orange sweets is 1/3.
Man updates his PC to Windows 10 ... only for his wife to find his entire PORN collection transformed into a slideshow on repeat
Reddit user FalloutBoS left his PC on overnight to update to Windows 10 His wife woke in the morning to find his porn collection as a screensaver The user posted the story as a warning to others updating to new OS
Pictures are automatically taken from the My Pictures folder to make slideshows that run on the screen when inactive
Schoolboy error. Who saves their porn collection in "My pictures". Titters......
Indeed but one of the comments indicated it takes information from everywhere not just my pictures. I have not seen or upgraded to it so I am not sure how that works.
Man updates his PC to Windows 10 ... only for his wife to find his entire PORN collection transformed into a slideshow on repeat
Reddit user FalloutBoS left his PC on overnight to update to Windows 10 His wife woke in the morning to find his porn collection as a screensaver The user posted the story as a warning to others updating to new OS
Pictures are automatically taken from the My Pictures folder to make slideshows that run on the screen when inactive
Man updates his PC to Windows 10 ... only for his wife to find his entire PORN collection transformed into a slideshow on repeat
Reddit user FalloutBoS left his PC on overnight to update to Windows 10 His wife woke in the morning to find his porn collection as a screensaver The user posted the story as a warning to others updating to new OS
Pictures are automatically taken from the My Pictures folder to make slideshows that run on the screen when inactive
P.S. As an aside, I must say that finding myself in disagreement with your postings is a very rare occurrence for me. In fact I usually find myself in "violent agreement" with you!
I just did a respone and it seems to have disappeared. How very annoying.
I would much rather that Savile had been investigated while he was alive. So that something could have been done about him. Why he wasn't is a proper subject for investigation. But investigating whether he did or did not rape X on such and such a day 40 years ago is frankly pointless because the facts cannot be established and he cannot be prosecuted.
If the complainant made the allegation at the time then of course it is proper to look at that and understand why it was not taken forward - and down thread I gave some examples as to why that might be. Some of those reasons might not involve a crime. And that is why we have a historical inquiry under a judge to look at why authorities did not take this stuff seriously even when they were told. The police should concentrate on what might be crimes.
Pplease remember that Person A can be guilty of obstruction of justice or conspiracy even if Person B is not guilty of the crime the investigation of which Person A was seeking to obstruct. It is not necessary to investigate Person B - particularly if they were dead - to establish a potential crime against Person A. If we concentrate on what Heath may or may not have done we risk ignoring Person A.
I would very much like, for instance, the authorities to look into and take action into any possible cover ups etc in Rotherham and places like that.
The police do not have unlimited resources. 4 police forces investigating Heath's alleged crimes - though I take @Charles' point that they may be investigating the police reaction rather than the alleged crimes themselves - means that they are not investigating other stuff. And the other stuff that they may not be investigating may be actual child abuse now being committed by people who can be tried and put behind bars. That seems to me - but apparently no-one else - a waste of police resources. Especially when we have a judge led inquiry to look at the historical stuff.
I am all in favour of "cold" cases. But they are different: they are usually old crimes where new evidence or the use of forensic techniques not previously available to the police enable them to solve what was previously an unsolved crime. I think they are a good idea. In such cases, because they are very time consuming and expensive, the police will usually only pursue them if there is a chance of an actual prosecution at the end.
PS I may have a black and white approach. But I certainly have little patience with the false pseudo-therapeutic sentimentality which infests so much public discourse these days.
Journalese? I don't know what you mean. My question was an honest one and very simple. I am surprised you want to run away from it.
Its a crap smart arse question to try and make a crappy smart arse point
By your logic we wouldn't have the police investigate anything other than the most serious current unsolved crime until that crime was solved.
No, by my logic we should let an inquiry set up to investigate very old cases do that whilst the police use their time to prevent and detect crime that is going on currently. You disagree but seem unwilling to take the next step of accepting that there will be consequences to the diversion of police time.
If asking you a simple question is being a smart arse there isn't much point in trying to engage you in conversation. I am disappointed, but there we are.
Until someone is convicted, they are alleged facts and alleged victims. Innocence until proven guilty. Trial by your peers. Old-fashioned I realise in this era of witch hunt via Twitter. But I'm rather keen on them.
That is why it is important - vital - to investigate allegations against living people so that you can establish the facts and both the alleged victims and the alleged perpetrator can have their day in court.
It might be worth remembering at this point that there have been a number of trials of celebrities who were acquitted. So they are not guilty of what they were accused of and - it follows - their "victims" are not victims of crimes at all.
Some on here give the impression that it is more important to investigate dead people to establish facts when the one thing you can't do in the case of a dead person is establish any facts in such a way as to get official recognition. Official recognition is a guilty verdict after a trial. Unless you're going to start putting dead people on trial. But that, IMO, is a branch of the entertainment industry not the proper role of the police and the judicial system.
Why did we waste police time investigating 7/7?
Are you serious?
To find out, inter alia, did anyone else help? Was anyone else involved? How did they learn to make bombs? Who funded them? Was there a wider cell? Were other crimes being planned? Etc Etc.
You've answered the question as to why we should investigate Heath
No - a crime was committed on 7/7. We knew about 4 perpetrators. We needed to know if they were the only ones or whether there were others.
In the case of Heath, we cannot ever know or establish whether or not he did or did not attack someone in 1961 or whenever. All that can be investigated is whether an allegation was made and how that was dealt with. That is an allegation into the police or whichever authority received the complaint. It is not an investigation into Heath's alleged crime.
If the allegation is against the police it most certainly should not be investigated by them. Either the IPCC or the Goddard inquiry would seem to me to be most appropriate.
An allegation is made now about Heath but which was not made then. It does not raise questions of cover up. It may raise questions about the climate at the time. Again, a matter for the Goddard inquiry. But the police? If Heath were still alive, yes - because he could be prosecuted.
From memory, the Postcode Address File has about 25million addresses in England and Wales. After you've stripped out the prisons, hospitals, B&B's, hostels, battered womens' shelters, leisure homes, etc it comes to about 23 million places that an individual can sleep in with a front door you can lock.
There are ~56 million people in England and Wales, of which about 46 million are adults. If we assume that ~40% of those adults are single, then there are about 20 million singletons and about 13 million couples.
So that's 33 million singles/couples chasing 23 million accommodation units.
So for Andy to make good his promise, he's going to have to build or otherwise create 10 million accomodation units.
I am obviously oversimplifying here, but he may just possibly have bitten off more than he can chew...
(NB For historical reasons, Scotland and Northern Ireland don't have the same housing problems as E&W. do)
I was interested in the chart on an earlier thread showing the large number of asylum seekers Sweden is letting in. Are they from similar places to where UK asylum seekers come from? It must be a test on Sweden's social model: does anyone know how well integrated they are so far?
Until someone is convicted, they are alleged facts and alleged victims. Innocence until proven guilty. Trial by your peers. Old-fashioned I realise in this era of witch hunt via Twitter. But I'm rather keen on them.
That is why it is important - vital - to investigate allegations against living people so that you can establish the facts and both the alleged victims and the alleged perpetrator can have their day in court.
It might be worth remembering at this point that there have been a number of trials of celebrities who were acquitted. So they are not guilty of what they were accused of and - it follows - their "victims" are not victims of crimes at all.
Some on here give the impression that it is more important to investigate dead people to establish facts when the one thing you can't do in the case of a dead person is establish any facts in such a way as to get official recognition. Official recognition is a guilty verdict after a trial. Unless you're going to start putting dead people on trial. But that, IMO, is a branch of the entertainment industry not the proper role of the police and the judicial system.
Why did we waste police time investigating 7/7?
Are you serious?
To find out, inter alia, did anyone else help? Was anyone else involved? How did they learn to make bombs? Who funded them? Was there a wider cell? Were other crimes being planned? Etc Etc.
You've answered the question as to why we should investigate Heath
No - a crime was committed on 7/7. We knew about 4 perpetrators. We needed to know if they were the only ones or whether there were others.
In the case of Heath, we cannot ever know or establish whether or not he did or did not attack someone in 1961 or whenever. All that can be investigated is whether an allegation was made and how that was dealt with. That is an allegation into the police or whichever authority received the complaint. It is not an investigation into Heath's alleged crime.
If the allegation is against the police it most certainly should not be investigated by them. Either the IPCC or the Goddard inquiry would seem to me to be most appropriate.
An allegation is made now about Heath but which was not made then. It does not raise questions of cover up. It may raise questions about the climate at the time. Again, a matter for the Goddard inquiry. But the police? If Heath were still alive, yes - because he could be prosecuted.
How can the police only investigate crimes that have already been decided to be crimes?
I was interested in the chart on an earlier thread showing the large number of asylum seekers Sweden is letting in. Are they from similar places to where UK asylum seekers come from? It must be a test on Sweden's social model: does anyone know how well integrated they are so far?
Mark Mardell had a report on BBC World Service earlier today about a Swedish city near Stockholm which is 50% Syrian in population. I was half asleep so didn't remember the name. Apparently all refugees now get resident permits.
The World Service website is so awful I can't find anything.
"The woman at the centre of the Sir Edward Heath child abuse storm can be revealed as a Filipino prostitute, who ran a brothel just a mile from the late Prime Minister’s former home in Salisbury.
Myra Ling-Ling Forde, 67, has twice been jailed for operating as a madam out of her terraced property in the Wiltshire town where Sir Edward made his home after leaving office.
But in the early 1990s it is alleged she had a prosecution dropped after threatening to expose Sir Edward as a paedophile."
It might be worth remembering at this point that there have been a number of trials of celebrities who were acquitted. So they are not guilty of what they were accused of and - it follows - their "victims" are not victims of crimes at all.
Some on here give the impression that it is more important to investigate dead people to establish facts when the one thing you can't do in the case of a dead person is establish any facts in such a way as to get official recognition. Official recognition is a guilty verdict after a trial. Unless you're going to start putting dead people on trial. But that, IMO, is a branch of the entertainment industry not the proper role of the police and the judicial system.
Why did we waste police time investigating 7/7?
Are you serious?
To find out, inter alia, did anyone else help? Was anyone else involved? How did they learn to make bombs? Who funded them? Was there a wider cell? Were other crimes being planned? Etc Etc.
You've answered the question as to why we should investigate Heath
No - a crime was committed on 7/7. We knew about 4 perpetrators. We needed to know if they were the only ones or whether there were others.
In the case of Heath, we cannot ever know or establish whether or not he did or did not attack someone in 1961 or whenever. All that can be investigated is whether an allegation was made and how that was dealt with. That is an allegation into the police or whichever authority received the complaint. It is not an investigation into Heath's alleged crime.
If the allegation is against the police it most certainly should not be investigated by them. Either the IPCC or the Goddard inquiry would seem to me to be most appropriate.
An allegation is made now about Heath but which was not made then. It does not raise questions of cover up. It may raise questions about the climate at the time. Again, a matter for the Goddard inquiry. But the police? If Heath were still alive, yes - because he could be prosecuted.
To be honest I probably read your original comment "waste of police time investigating" as "waste of time investigating", and we have been arguing at slightly cross purposes ever since
@JamesClayton5: Corbyn tells #newsnight's @maitlis that Blair could be tried for war crimes. This could get messy...
Bit of an understatement...
Could this be the beginning of the end of the Corbyngasm? No more Mr Nice Naive Earnestness. That is one serious threat he just deployed. Will people still think he is a good option because he's cuddly and speaks his mind once they realize how nasty he can be to his fellow party members? Maybe yes, but to me this seems to be going against the perceived persona that most seem to credit as the cause of his unexpected success.
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
The police will prioritize their resources accordingly, as of course they must, and some crimes will be investigated more vigorously than others. That is how it should be. The argument that crimes should be overlooked in their entirety because police resources are limited is ludicrous.
It maybe ludicrous, but that is the police opinion: burglary and theft from cars is not worth investigating:
Not that investigating your own crime helps! I was burgled and a camera stolen and reported to the police. They did nothing, but I contacted all the 3 second hand camera shops in town. One indeed had my camera, along with the name and address of the seller. I reported this and got my camera back but the burglar/fence was never charged. How much more evidence did they need!
I have no faith in my local police. They are very hot with people doing 32mph in a 30 limit and use unmarked police cars to catch them, but they let drug dealers walk around anywhere. It seems that they are only willing to do the easy stuff on people who cause no trouble, but anything that is difficult they let go by with a blind eye. Recently someone was sexually assaulted before a witness and they dismissed it as insufficient evidence and told the witness not to bother them.
A week ago we reported a burglary to the local police. My wife's handbag had been stolen from the kitchen of our flat on the first floor. There is alarmed scaffolding for decorators who are painting the outside. The windows were open. Within an hour, two officers came round and took a full statement from us. They examined the inside and outside and CCTV. They questioned neighbours. They called in forensics who dusted the window sills and surfaces for prints. They advised us on security. They asked if we would act as witnesses if they found the culprit. We said we would. They couldn't have been more prompt or professional.
An hour later, I suddenly had an idea and retrieved my wife's handbag from a local restaurant where she had left it after a meal the previous evening. I informed the police. They couldn't have been nicer. They thanked me for letting them know and said they were relieved it had been found.
It was a positive experience (apart from the guilt at wasting police time!).
@JamesClayton5: Corbyn tells #newsnight's @maitlis that Blair could be tried for war crimes. This could get messy...
Hell yeah, I'd vote for him!
(Could he add in Al "Sexed Up Dossier" Campbell too please? Pretty please?)
Erm! Does this mean you would be quite happy to see Cameron on similar charges about Libya? After all, he was only following the Blair autobiography Bible.
@JamesClayton5: Corbyn tells #newsnight's @maitlis that Blair could be tried for war crimes. This could get messy...
Bit of an understatement...
Could this be the beginning of the end of the Corbyngasm? No more Mr Nice Naive Earnestness. That is one serious threat he just deployed. Will people still think he is a good option because he's cuddly and speaks his mind once they realize how nasty he can be to his fellow party members? Maybe yes, but to me this seems to be going against the perceived persona that most seem to credit as the cause of his unexpected success.
It might be worth remembering at this point that there have been a number of trials of celebrities who were acquitted. So they are not guilty of what they were accused of and - it follows - their "victims" are not victims of crimes at all.
Some on here give the impression that it is more important to investigate dead people to establish facts when the one thing you can't do in the case of a dead person is establish any facts in such a way as to get official recognition. Official recognition is a guilty verdict after a trial. Unless you're going to start putting dead people on trial. But that, IMO, is a branch of the entertainment industry not the proper role of the police and the judicial system.
Why did we waste police time investigating 7/7?
Are you serious?
To find out, inter alia, did anyone else help? Was anyone else involved? How did they learn to make bombs? Who funded them? Was there a wider cell? Were other crimes being planned? Etc Etc.
You've answered the question as to why we should investigate Heath
No - a crime was committed on 7/7. We knew about 4 perpetrators. We needed to know if they were the only ones or whether there were others.
In the case of Heath, we cannot ever know or establish whether or not he did or did not attack someone in 1961 or whenever. All that can be investigated is whether an allegation was made and how that was dealt with. That is an allegation into the police or whichever authority received the complaint. It is not an investigation into Heath's alleged crime.
If the allegation is against the police it most certainly should not be investigated by them. Either the IPCC or the Goddard inquiry would seem to me to be most appropriate.
An allegation is made now about Heath but which was not made then. It does not raise questions of cover up. It may raise questions about the climate at the time. Again, a matter for the Goddard inquiry. But the police? If Heath were still alive, yes - because he could be prosecuted.
To be honest I probably read your original comment "waste of police time investigating" as "waste of time investigating", and we have been arguing at slightly cross purposes ever since
I am agnostic on how the investigation is conducted, so long as there is one and its conducted diligently. Just reviewing past evidence (when part of the problem was lack of investigation at the time) and current testimony does not cut it for me.
Seems like the took the government money and didn't do what they said and used it for stuff they weren't allowed.
Kids Company charity in closure warning
"According to one official familiar with the matter, £800,000 was paid out immediately to staff. Officials are now working out how much of the grant they will be able to recover."
Burnham's big, huge, strategic, mind blowing policy announcement thus far was.....drum roll.....a bit more..... yes....a few more beats....was..... to integrate health and social care. You got it.
Maybe, just maybe (and even that is unrealistic) an autistic, policywonk in the farther reaches of some frozen government department may be slightly (and I mean slightly) interested in this policy....but seriously Andy.
I much prefer his proposal to give us all some more houses- I want to be the goalie for Man City too- can you sort out that out Andy?
FFS. Labour must stop with these nonsense policies. May as well guarantee that everyone gets be millionaire, and lives happily ever at this rate. We'll probably all find pots of gold at the end of the rainbow too.
Blairite Messenger: Choose your next words carefully, Mr. Corbyn. They may be your last as Labour Leader.
Jeremy Corbyn: [to himself: thinking] "Earth and water"? [Corbyn unsheathes and points his sword at the Blairite Messenger's throat]
Blairite Messenger: Madman! You're a madman!
Jeremy Corbyn: Earth and water? You'll find plenty of both down there.
Blairite Messenger: No man, Blairite or Marxist, no man threatens a messenger!
Jeremy Corbyn: You bring the ashes and ruins of conquered Trades Unions to Islington's city steps. You insult my wife. You threaten my Party with slavery and death! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, Bankster. Perhaps you should have done the same!
Blairite Messenger: This is blasphemy! This is madness!
Jeremy Corbyn: Madness...? This is LABOUR! [kicks the Blairite Messenger down the well]
What are you some kind of elephant? Did I? I forget myself what I've said before I've said it.
The problem is, when you look at the alternatives- Andy Burnham who is rapidly descending into some caricature of the thick of it, LizStone Kendell, and Yvette Who? old man Jezza is very appealing with his "I'm a crazy old bastard" tag line.
Comments
I don't see why you should think that, Mr. Disraeli, it happens hundreds of times every day up and down the land. An allegation might get put into the book and be given a crime number (for insurance purposes, usually) but not always and then the Old Bill cheerfully forget all about it.
http://news.sky.com/story/1329795/police-asking-victims-to-investigate-own-crimes
Not that investigating your own crime helps! I was burgled and a camera stolen and reported to the police. They did nothing, but I contacted all the 3 second hand camera shops in town. One indeed had my camera, along with the name and address of the seller. I reported this and got my camera back but the burglar/fence was never charged. How much more evidence did they need!
That seems to be the appropriate place for it to be recorded and investigated as part of her remit. Isn't that was such inquiries are specifically set up to do?
I mean FFS- what has gotten into the heads of Labour politicians to ridicule sane minded folk with this meaningless, claptrap, nonsense. Almost makes me want to vote for Jezza
An officer given temporary rank was usually addressed by that rank except in formal documents such as the London Gazette when he would be named as Captain Bloggs (Brevet Lt. Colonel), as happened with a relative of yours (which reminds me I owe you a letter and the return of a document*).
Colonels on long leave because they were, essentially, unemployed would be a very old practice and I wouldn't have thought there would be sufficient number for a naming convention ever to have grown up or if it did to have survived into modern parlance.
*I am now wracked with guilt having completely forgotten about the research I did. I can only plead drink as mitigation.
That is why it is important - vital - to investigate allegations against living people so that you can establish the facts and both the alleged victims and the alleged perpetrator can have their day in court.
It might be worth remembering at this point that there have been a number of trials of celebrities who were acquitted. So they are not guilty of what they were accused of and - it follows - their "victims" are not victims of crimes at all.
Some on here give the impression that it is more important to investigate dead people to establish facts when the one thing you can't do in the case of a dead person is establish any facts in such a way as to get official recognition. Official recognition is a guilty verdict after a trial. Unless you're going to start putting dead people on trial. But that, IMO, is a branch of the entertainment industry not the proper role of the police and the judicial system.
Well indeed Mr Llama, at least on that score we are in total agreement.
It would keep the plod off the sinecure gravy train and free to raid current paedos or perhaps employers of illegal aliens amongst many other unpoliced issues.
We have had lots of judicial investigations and they do not generally rely on the police though they may do.
Remember also that there are different standards of proof and so the bar in terms of what you set out as facts is lower than it would be in a criminal trial. Nor can you defame a dead person.
Trump 13
Bush 8
Walker 10
Christie 3
Paul 4
Kasich 3
Carson 4
Cruz 2
Rubio 2
Fiorina 1
Huckabee 2
Perry 1
Others 0
Of course, there are perception and momentum brownie points to be won from coming first in the horse race, but with proportional allocation of delegates in the early races, and the small number of delegates available until Super Tuesday, it really does not make much difference in the big scheme of things.
To find out, inter alia, did anyone else help? Was anyone else involved? How did they learn to make bombs? Who funded them? Was there a wider cell? Were other crimes being planned? Etc Etc.
The colonels on long leave were reasonable common after the Napoleonic wars, so quite recent. I thought LoEG was set in the Victorian era, but as I've never watched it...
You seem to have a black and white approach to this. Would you rather that resources had not been "wasted" investigating Jimmy Savile for example?
(Presumably you are not in favour of "cold case" investigations either.)
P.S. As an aside, I must say that finding myself in disagreement with your postings is a very rare occurrence for me. In fact I usually find myself in "violent agreement" with you!
@Cyclefree
My understanding was that the Wilts investigation wasn't into the truth of the allegations against Heath, but whether they dropped a criminal trial because they were afraid of one of the defendants(?) making allegations about Heath (from what I've read hearsay based rather than evidential) from the witness box.
That's a rather different matter and one that, I think, does need investigation because it suggests that, in order to protect a man's reputation, the police/CPS were prepared to see justice thwarted for the victims of the other alleged crime.
But I've been in Galway today, so haven't been reading the papers
Re Historic allegations:
To find out, inter alia, did anyone else help? Was anyone else involved? Was there a money trail? Was there a wider paedophile network? Were other crimes being planned? Etc Etc.
WSJ/NBC poll, sampled July 26-30, before the latest legal problems became known -
Clinton favorable among white women July/June 34% 44%
Clinton UNfavorable among white women July/June 53% 43%
The Monday debate was shown on C-Span, and consisted of all the candidates sitting in the front row of the audience, and coming up on stage to be questioned one by one. It was bland.
This evening we find out who the ten candidates are for Thursday. Fox News is running this, Fox decides who the top ten are, and Fox decides which polls decide this, the debate format and the presenters.
In other interesting tidbits, DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was asked by Chris Matthews on very lefty MsNBC what the difference was between the Democratic Party and Socialism. She couldn't answer. She appeared on one of the Sunday talk shows on a main network and was asked again. She still couldn't answer the question.
Bearing in mind that the accusations include cover ups by SYP and now Wilts police amongst others, can we rely on the police to investigate their own?
Joking aside, I think the top 10 will be Trump, Bush, Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Paul, Christie, Kasich and Huckabee. Bye bye Perry, Fiorina and Santorum. No need to say the same to Pataki, Gilmore, Graham, and Jindal - they never got into the race, really.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/its-all-about-the-big-vision-as-andy-burnham-steps-up-the-campaign-to-lead-labour-10437312.html
Economy 30%
Terrorism 11%
Health care 11%
Immigration 7%
Foreign Policy 7%
Federal deficit 7%
Race relations 5%
Climate change 5%
Gay marriage 3%
Taxes 3%
Abortion 2%
However being popular does not a good PM make.
I don't know if the format, questioners etc will be the same for both debates.
The interesting factor is using polls - which mainly have an MOE of about 3 to 4% - to decide if somebody with a 6% rating should get the nod over a 5% rating. The campaigns are lobbying Fox News like it's going out of style.
It's the economy stupid.
FFS. Labour must stop with these nonsense policies. May as well guarantee that everyone gets be millionaire, and lives happily ever at this rate. We'll probably all find pots of gold at the end of the rainbow too.
Man updates his PC to Windows 10 ... only for his wife to find his entire PORN collection transformed into a slideshow on repeat
Reddit user FalloutBoS left his PC on overnight to update to Windows 10
His wife woke in the morning to find his porn collection as a screensaver
The user posted the story as a warning to others updating to new OS
Pictures are automatically taken from the My Pictures folder to make slideshows that run on the screen when inactive
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3184771/Man-updates-PC-Windows-10-wife-entire-PORN-collection-transformed-slideshow-repeat.html#ixzz3hsLfDeyI
From the previous article, just in case any body missed it;
By your logic we wouldn't have the police investigate anything other than the most serious current unsolved crime until that crime was solved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JozAmXo2bDE
They said yes!
The other 'security breach' with the wifi password sharing - if you read and answer the options when you install the situation doesn't arise.
I would much rather that Savile had been investigated while he was alive. So that something could have been done about him. Why he wasn't is a proper subject for investigation. But investigating whether he did or did not rape X on such and such a day 40 years ago is frankly pointless because the facts cannot be established and he cannot be prosecuted.
If the complainant made the allegation at the time then of course it is proper to look at that and understand why it was not taken forward - and down thread I gave some examples as to why that might be. Some of those reasons might not involve a crime. And that is why we have a historical inquiry under a judge to look at why authorities did not take this stuff seriously even when they were told. The police should concentrate on what might be crimes.
Pplease remember that Person A can be guilty of obstruction of justice or conspiracy even if Person B is not guilty of the crime the investigation of which Person A was seeking to obstruct. It is not necessary to investigate Person B - particularly if they were dead - to establish a potential crime against Person A. If we concentrate on what Heath may or may not have done we risk ignoring Person A.
I would very much like, for instance, the authorities to look into and take action into any possible cover ups etc in Rotherham and places like that.
The police do not have unlimited resources. 4 police forces investigating Heath's alleged crimes - though I take @Charles' point that they may be investigating the police reaction rather than the alleged crimes themselves - means that they are not investigating other stuff. And the other stuff that they may not be investigating may be actual child abuse now being committed by people who can be tried and put behind bars. That seems to me - but apparently no-one else - a waste of police resources. Especially when we have a judge led inquiry to look at the historical stuff.
I am all in favour of "cold" cases. But they are different: they are usually old crimes where new evidence or the use of forensic techniques not previously available to the police enable them to solve what was previously an unsolved crime. I think they are a good idea. In such cases, because they are very time consuming and expensive, the police will usually only pursue them if there is a chance of an actual prosecution at the end.
PS I may have a black and white approach. But I certainly have little patience with the false pseudo-therapeutic sentimentality which infests so much public discourse these days.
If asking you a simple question is being a smart arse there isn't much point in trying to engage you in conversation. I am disappointed, but there we are.
In the case of Heath, we cannot ever know or establish whether or not he did or did not attack someone in 1961 or whenever. All that can be investigated is whether an allegation was made and how that was dealt with. That is an allegation into the police or whichever authority received the complaint. It is not an investigation into Heath's alleged crime.
If the allegation is against the police it most certainly should not be investigated by them. Either the IPCC or the Goddard inquiry would seem to me to be most appropriate.
An allegation is made now about Heath but which was not made then. It does not raise questions of cover up. It may raise questions about the climate at the time. Again, a matter for the Goddard inquiry. But the police? If Heath were still alive, yes - because he could be prosecuted.
There are ~56 million people in England and Wales, of which about 46 million are adults. If we assume that ~40% of those adults are single, then there are about 20 million singletons and about 13 million couples.
So that's 33 million singles/couples chasing 23 million accommodation units.
So for Andy to make good his promise, he's going to have to build or otherwise create 10 million accomodation units.
I am obviously oversimplifying here, but he may just possibly have bitten off more than he can chew...
(NB For historical reasons, Scotland and Northern Ireland don't have the same housing problems as E&W. do)
http://www.thewrap.com/19-bill-cosby-accusers-complete-breakdown-of-the-allegations-so-far/
The World Service website is so awful I can't find anything.
Myra Ling-Ling Forde, 67, has twice been jailed for operating as a madam out of her terraced property in the Wiltshire town where Sir Edward made his home after leaving office.
But in the early 1990s it is alleged she had a prosecution dropped after threatening to expose Sir Edward as a paedophile."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11783304/Sir-Ted-Heath-The-Filipino-brothel-keeper-who-sparked-child-sex-abuse-inquiry.html
(Could he add in Al "Sexed Up Dossier" Campbell too please? Pretty please?)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/malaysia-issues-arrest-warrant-for-gordon-browns-sisterinlaw-after-she-publishes-stories-on-leader-najib-razaks-financial-affairs-10438669.html
An hour later, I suddenly had an idea and retrieved my wife's handbag from a local restaurant where she had left it after a meal the previous evening. I informed the police. They couldn't have been nicer. They thanked me for letting them know and said they were relieved it had been found.
It was a positive experience (apart from the guilt at wasting police time!).
Just asking mind.
My membership card arrived today.
With this news Jezza could be rocketing to my first choice.
Jez we can!
Oh dear. In the absence of bowing out gracefully, or bowing out disgracefully- old man Jezza's taken a bit of a nuclear option
Kids Company charity in closure warning
"According to one official familiar with the matter, £800,000 was paid out immediately to staff. Officials are now working out how much of the grant they will be able to recover."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33641889
£800k in payroll....how many people do they have working for them and how much are they paying them?
And where the money required for this would come from....magic money tree?
Maybe, just maybe (and even that is unrealistic) an autistic, policywonk in the farther reaches of some frozen government department may be slightly (and I mean slightly) interested in this policy....but seriously Andy.
I much prefer his proposal to give us all some more houses- I want to be the goalie for Man City too- can you sort out that out Andy?
Jeremy Corbyn: [to himself: thinking] "Earth and water"?
[Corbyn unsheathes and points his sword at the Blairite Messenger's throat]
Blairite Messenger: Madman! You're a madman!
Jeremy Corbyn: Earth and water? You'll find plenty of both down there.
Blairite Messenger: No man, Blairite or Marxist, no man threatens a messenger!
Jeremy Corbyn: You bring the ashes and ruins of conquered Trades Unions to Islington's city steps. You insult my wife. You threaten my Party with slavery and death! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, Bankster. Perhaps you should have done the same!
Blairite Messenger: This is blasphemy! This is madness!
Jeremy Corbyn: Madness...? This is LABOUR!
[kicks the Blairite Messenger down the well]
The problem is, when you look at the alternatives- Andy Burnham who is rapidly descending into some caricature of the thick of it, LizStone Kendell, and Yvette Who? old man Jezza is very appealing with his "I'm a crazy old bastard" tag line.