politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first GOP debate – has it changed your view?
My only “winner”, for want of a better term, was Carly Fiorina – the ex-CEO of Hewlett Packard who sounded fluid and convincing in the first session for those who started with the lowest poll ratings.
Let me guess, every Republican believed the following things:
- Everything Obama did in foreign policy is weak. The US needs to be more bellicose and torture more. - Everything Obama did in economic policy is socialism. To do better we need to cut taxes on the rich and remove people's healthcare. - Everything Obama did in social policy is evil. We need to ban all abortion to restore America.
I.e. Mitt Romney reheated. The American Right is an embarassment to conservatism. All nuance and thoughtfulness of a great tradition is thrown out in favour of simplistic chest thumping.
Dear Lord And Father of Mankind is one of my favorite hymns - I just hadn't thought about applying 'the still small voice of calm' to banking as a concept.
The only one that's more appropriate is 'Guide me O thou Great Redeemer' - but mainly because of the wonderful typo in Lord Northcliffe's (Daily Mail, Daily Mirror) funeral order: where they replaced 'land me safe on Canaan's side' with 'land my safe on Canaan's side'
As for banking culture I don't think that an industry that depends on fear and punishment to keep its staff in line has got it's culture right... I think you need to rely on the Teddy Roosevelt philosophy: "speak softly and carry a big stick"
Trump's comments re a third party run show why he won't win the nomination, simply re-emphasising that his is an attempt to use the Republican structure for his own ends rather than with any sense of joint mission. He might as well have said 'I am not a Republican but I am using the Republican Party because it is convenient to me'.
However, if he does intend to run as a third-party candidate, that almost certainly hands the election to the Democrats. That is the big story of the night.
The BBC’s flagship religious show Songs of Praise is being filmed from migrants’ camps in Calais, it emerged last night.
The corporation confirmed it is currently shooting an episode of the programme at the notorious ‘Jungle’ camp, which will be broadcast on a date to be finalised.
The BBC’s flagship religious show Songs of Praise is being filmed from migrants’ camps in Calais, it emerged last night.
The corporation confirmed it is currently shooting an episode of the programme at the notorious ‘Jungle’ camp, which will be broadcast on a date to be finalised.
Although from a purely programming perspective, it could be quite interesting.
The Ethiopian Orthodox church occasionally worships at our local church and it is a very different approach to Christianity liturgy
The report states that the ice is receding "because of Global Warming"
The definintiveness irritates the hell out of me. The BBC nor does anybody know that. They were saying that about polar ice , only for its volume to suddenly increase by 40%
Its the way the BBC tries to force their viewpoint on us that is so worrying. They are supposed to be unbiased.
The report states that the ice is receding "because of Global Warming"
The definintiveness irritates the hell out of me. The BBC nor does anybody know that. They were saying that about polar ice , only for its volume to suddenly increase by 40%
Its the way the BBC tries to force their viewpoint on us that is so worrying. They are supposed to be unbiased.
To be honest I suspect in this case it is lazy journalism and poor editing rather than any great conspiracy.
The report states that the ice is receding "because of Global Warming"
The definintiveness irritates the hell out of me. The BBC nor does anybody know that. They were saying that about polar ice , only for its volume to suddenly increase by 40%
Its the way the BBC tries to force their viewpoint on us that is so worrying. They are supposed to be unbiased.
I have gradually turned into a supporter of cutting the Beeb down to size over the last few years. Not quite a 180 degree shift, but not far off.
For me the driver has been poor journalistic quality, some of which is dire, and a monopolistic level of market share.
Trump's comments re a third party run show why he won't win the nomination, simply re-emphasising that his is an attempt to use the Republican structure for his own ends rather than with any sense of joint mission. He might as well have said 'I am not a Republican but I am using the Republican Party because it is convenient to me'.
However, if he does intend to run as a third-party candidate, that almost certainly hands the election to the Democrats. That is the big story of the night.
Its worse, in my view than the Burnham, 'party first', Kendall 'country first' exchange - this is simply 'me first'...
The report states that the ice is receding "because of Global Warming"
The definintiveness irritates the hell out of me. The BBC nor does anybody know that. They were saying that about polar ice , only for its volume to suddenly increase by 40%
Its the way the BBC tries to force their viewpoint on us that is so worrying. They are supposed to be unbiased.
To be honest I suspect in this case it is lazy journalism and poor editing rather than any great conspiracy.
You may be right. When the BBC does a programme about the polar ice cap increase and how it threatens the mantra they have been spouting about global warming, then I'll concur.
Let me guess, every Republican believed the following things:
- Everything Obama did in foreign policy is weak. The US needs to be more bellicose and torture more. - Everything Obama did in economic policy is socialism. To do better we need to cut taxes on the rich and remove people's healthcare. - Everything Obama did in social policy is evil. We need to ban all abortion to restore America.
I.e. Mitt Romney reheated. The American Right is an embarassment to conservatism. All nuance and thoughtfulness of a great tradition is thrown out in favour of simplistic chest thumping.
Mirror image of labour - but the left do not seem to be able to see it.
Dear Lord And Father of Mankind is one of my favorite hymns - I just hadn't thought about applying 'the still small voice of calm' to banking as a concept.
The only one that's more appropriate is 'Guide me O thou Great Redeemer' - but mainly because of the wonderful typo in Lord Northcliffe's (Daily Mail, Daily Mirror) funeral order: where they replaced 'land me safe on Canaan's side' with 'land my safe on Canaan's side'
As for banking culture I don't think that an industry that depends on fear and punishment to keep its staff in line has got it's culture right... I think you need to rely on the Teddy Roosevelt philosophy: "speak softly and carry a big stick"
Lord Londonderry was apparently ready to hit Ambassador Ribbentrop, if he gave the Hitler salute, while Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken, Zion City of our God, was being sung.
Surely it's more about whittling down the field at this stage? Still looks like a lay the favourite' market as you could make a scenario for most of them to get the nomination.
O/T Does anyone have the fantasy premier league code to hand? As a Lib Dem, I haven't had my fill of public humiliation for the year yet......
Morning. Is it worth seeking out the debate to watch a replay? If so, is it going to more or less exciting than the continuation of Australia's humiliation at Trent Bridge?
Morning. Is it worth seeking out the debate to watch a replay? If so, is it going to more or less exciting than the continuation of Australia's humiliation at Trent Bridge?
Watching the highlights package at the moment. Very enjoyable. What a catch from Stokes.
I find it difficult to get too excited about the Republican party's nonsense at this stage although I can understand the interest if you are minded to put money on it. As a party they have lost their way for me, even more than the Labour party here. There is a range of totemic policies but no intellectual coherence or thought. And Trump is just a joke.
Whoever came up with the idea that anyone could vote in the leadership election for the price of a pint, needs to be taken out and shot.
Did they really not think that other parties would try and game the system in their favour, as well as the Militant groups that took so long to get rid of 30 years ago?
Morning. Is it worth seeking out the debate to watch a replay? If so, is it going to more or less exciting than the continuation of Australia's humiliation at Trent Bridge?
Hard to believe it could be. On that note, maybe it was just because I'd been at work for 13 hours and was tired and missed it, but I swear the sky highlights programme actually left out one of the Aussie wickets. Too much happening for them to keep track?
Whoever came up with the idea that anyone could vote in the leadership election for the price of a pint, needs to be taken out and shot.
Did they really not think that other parties would try and game the system in their favour, as well as the Militant groups that took so long to get rid of 30 years ago?
With so many new joiners, the vast bulk of these aren't leftwing entryists or Tory jokers.
Whether their influence is any less baleful is an open question.
The report states that the ice is receding "because of Global Warming"
The definintiveness irritates the hell out of me. The BBC nor does anybody know that. They were saying that about polar ice , only for its volume to suddenly increase by 40%
Its the way the BBC tries to force their viewpoint on us that is so worrying. They are supposed to be unbiased.
To be honest I suspect in this case it is lazy journalism and poor editing rather than any great conspiracy.
You may be right. When the BBC does a programme about the polar ice cap increase and how it threatens the mantra they have been spouting about global warming, then I'll concur.
"The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.
In January 2009, a poll of 3146 earth scientists found that 82% answered yes to the question: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”. Of the 77 climatologists actively engaged in research, 75 answered yes (97.4%).
The scientists most likely to answer no were petroleum geologists and meteorologists."
So why should the BBC not report the facts, as it reported the increase in volume of the Arctic ice cap? The scientists working for oil companies are much more likely to have an agenda than the BBC.
Dear Lord And Father of Mankind is one of my favorite hymns - I just hadn't thought about applying 'the still small voice of calm' to banking as a concept.
The only one that's more appropriate is 'Guide me O thou Great Redeemer' - but mainly because of the wonderful typo in Lord Northcliffe's (Daily Mail, Daily Mirror) funeral order: where they replaced 'land me safe on Canaan's side' with 'land my safe on Canaan's side'
As for banking culture I don't think that an industry that depends on fear and punishment to keep its staff in line has got it's culture right... I think you need to rely on the Teddy Roosevelt philosophy: "speak softly and carry a big stick"
Mr. Song, 97% also answered 'yes' to 'would you like continually getting paid for studying this area?'.
The IPCC's forecasts have been wrong. The hockey stick was a crock. Doubts have been cast over temperature data (the response of some scientists has been to decide the temperatures are underestimated, changing the facts to fit their view [a religious approach] rather than their view to fit the facts [a scientific one]).
Mr. Song, 97% also answered 'yes' to 'would you like continually getting paid for studying this area?'.
The IPCC's forecasts have been wrong. The hockey stick was a crock. Doubts have been cast over temperature data (the response of some scientists has been to decide the temperatures are underestimated, changing the facts to fit their view [a religious approach] rather than their view to fit the facts [a scientific one]).
I heard a bit on the radio last night were batwomen was trying to defend giving out cash payments to kids so they could pay for gas and leccy, and comparing that to middle class kids getting pocket money.
I am sorry but that is not a valid comparison, and a kids charity shouldn't be using tax payer money for doing that. If parents aren't heating and powering their homes, a) why, b) why aren't the parents asking for help, c) what proof do kids have to give for that and was there any checks they actually used to the cash for it, or did they just nip down the shops and spend it?
When I was a teenager, I knew plenty of kids who would have abused such generosity by making up stories. I remember one whose parents had separated and he concocted stories how the other parent wasn't providing him with lunch / lunch money and he played them off against one another until he got mountains of food and cash every day.
The report states that the ice is receding "because of Global Warming"
The definintiveness irritates the hell out of me. The BBC nor does anybody know that. They were saying that about polar ice , only for its volume to suddenly increase by 40%
Its the way the BBC tries to force their viewpoint on us that is so worrying. They are supposed to be unbiased.
To be honest I suspect in this case it is lazy journalism and poor editing rather than any great conspiracy.
You may be right. When the BBC does a programme about the polar ice cap increase and how it threatens the mantra they have been spouting about global warming, then I'll concur.
"The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.
In January 2009, a poll of 3146 earth scientists found that 82% answered yes to the question: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”. Of the 77 climatologists actively engaged in research, 75 answered yes (97.4%).
The scientists most likely to answer no were petroleum geologists and meteorologists."
So why should the BBC not report the facts, as it reported the increase in volume of the Arctic ice cap? The scientists working for oil companies are much more likely to have an agenda than the BBC.
I agree. The BBC should report facts, opinions by scientists are not facts. Scientists used tho think the world was square, that the Sun went round the earth. There were 364 economists who wrote a letter to the Times.. They were wrong too.
Middle-aged, posh and overweight women seem to have a mesmerising effect on Conservative men. A real blind spot. And if she's a bit ethnic, the Guardian readers follow suit.
She's a classic bull sh*tter, and I don't say that because, as Mr Dancer opined, that she'd had an argument with a paint factory.
When cornered, it will always be "Wot about the kids?"
The report states that the ice is receding "because of Global Warming"
The definintiveness irritates the hell out of me. The BBC nor does anybody know that. They were saying that about polar ice , only for its volume to suddenly increase by 40%
Its the way the BBC tries to force their viewpoint on us that is so worrying. They are supposed to be unbiased.
To be honest I suspect in this case it is lazy journalism and poor editing rather than any great conspiracy.
You may be right. When the BBC does a programme about the polar ice cap increase and how it threatens the mantra they have been spouting about global warming, then I'll concur.
"The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.
In January 2009, a poll of 3146 earth scientists found that 82% answered yes to the question: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”. Of the 77 climatologists actively engaged in research, 75 answered yes (97.4%).
The scientists most likely to answer no were petroleum geologists and meteorologists."
So why should the BBC not report the facts, as it reported the increase in volume of the Arctic ice cap? The scientists working for oil companies are much more likely to have an agenda than the BBC.
I agree. The BBC should report facts, opinions by scientists are not facts. Scientists used tho think the world was square, that the Sun went round the earth. There were 364 economists who wrote a letter to the Times.. They were wrong too.
Daft comment. It was scientists who died asserting that the Earth went around the Sun.
Middle-aged, posh and overweight women seem to have a mesmerising effect on Conservative men. A real blind spot. And if she's a bit ethnic, the Guardian readers follow suit.
She's a classic bull sh*tter, and I don't say that because, as Mr Dancer opined, that she'd had an argument with a paint factory.
When cornered, it will always be "Wot about the kids?"
We don't know she is middle aged....she says even she doesn't know her own real age :-)
I heard a bit on the radio last night were batwomen was trying to defend giving out cash payments to kids so they could pay for gas and leccy, and comparing that to middle class kids getting pocket money.
I am sorry but that is not a valid comparison, and a kids charity shouldn't be using tax payer money for doing that. If parents aren't heating and powering their homes, a) why, b) why aren't the parents asking for help, c) what proof do kids have to give for that and was there any checks they actually used to the cash for it, or did they just nip down the shops and spend it?
When I was a teenager, I knew plenty of kids who would have abused such generosity by making up stories. I remember one whose parents had separated and he concocted stories how the other parent wasn't providing him with lunch / lunch money and he played them off against one another until he got mountains of food and cash every day.
Watching Camila B last night, reminded me of a child who says, it is my ball and if I cannot play with it, then I will take it away and burst it. If she had any degree of responsibility she would put the children first. However, as she was in full denial mode, as was Yentob, then it was quite apparent that she should not manage anything again and nor should he.
Middle-aged, posh and overweight women seem to have a mesmerising effect on Conservative men. A real blind spot. And if she's a bit ethnic, the Guardian readers follow suit.
So much Guardian...
This year the Tories gained their first majority in parliament after almost 20 years. Also this year, Kids Company was forced to close down after 19 years. Coincidence or “compassionate Conservatism” in action? Alfred Litten London
Middle-aged, posh and overweight women seem to have a mesmerising effect on Conservative men. A real blind spot. And if she's a bit ethnic, the Guardian readers follow suit.
She's a classic bull sh*tter, and I don't say that because, as Mr Dancer opined, that she'd had an argument with a paint factory.
When cornered, it will always be "Wot about the kids?"
Yep. She was just a more colourful version of those smack-heads who get themselves a charity tin and rattle it in your face defying you not to give "for the kiddies..."
Middle-aged, posh and overweight women seem to have a mesmerising effect on Conservative men. A real blind spot. And if she's a bit ethnic, the Guardian readers follow suit.
So much Guardian...
This year the Tories gained their first majority in parliament after almost 20 years. Also this year, Kids Company was forced to close down after 19 years. Coincidence or “compassionate Conservatism” in action? Alfred Litten London
It is quite amazing...and I don't think "Alfred" will be the only one thinking this, despite what is now being revealed. There are plenty of things that you can blame the government for, in this case it is probably funding it for too long. Obviously Alfred doesn't wonder how a charity can shallow £3 million, spend £800k to cover the wages for one month and then have to shut down because it has still run out of cash.
I heard a bit on the radio last night were batwomen was trying to defend giving out cash payments to kids so they could pay for gas and leccy, and comparing that to middle class kids getting pocket money.
I am sorry but that is not a valid comparison, and a kids charity shouldn't be using tax payer money for doing that. If parents aren't heating and powering their homes, a) why, b) why aren't the parents asking for help, c) what proof do kids have to give for that and was there any checks they actually used to the cash for it, or did they just nip down the shops and spend it?
When I was a teenager, I knew plenty of kids who would have abused such generosity by making up stories. I remember one whose parents had separated and he concocted stories how the other parent wasn't providing him with lunch / lunch money and he played them off against one another until he got mountains of food and cash every day.
Watching Camila B last night, reminded me of a child who says, it is my ball and if I cannot play with it, then I will take it away and burst it. If she had any degree of responsibility she would put the children first. However, as she was in full denial mode, as was Yentob, then it was quite apparent that she should not manage anything again and nor should he.
They both need to understand that when one is in a hole, it is best to stop digging. Batmanwoman needs to go away and spend some time with her outfits, Yentob should really know when it's best to just shut up rather than keeping the story in the news for yet another day. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11788924/Alan-Yentob-I-was-right-to-act-on-BBC-coverage.html By the way, why do the BBC pay him over 300k a year for what is obviously only a part time job?
Whoever came up with the idea that anyone could vote in the leadership election for the price of a pint, needs to be taken out and shot.
Did they really not think that other parties would try and game the system in their favour, as well as the Militant groups that took so long to get rid of 30 years ago?
It's a great achievement for Labour to have captured so many members of the social media twitterati as new sign-ups and proves that £3 is well within the market price of a Like. Labour's problem, however, is that it has captured so many members of the social media twitterati as new sign-ups.
Ever since it became a serious force, the party hierarchy has kept ultimate control away from the membership, whether through certain powers being restricted to MPs, or to reliable union bosses. Even prior to Miliband's reforms, many members of the activist base have a reasonable understanding of what it takes to win an election. By contrast, the Facebook-Twitter bubble represents the precise opposite of reaching out to swing voters: a self-contained and self-reinforcing collective.
I heard a bit on the radio last night were batwomen was trying to defend giving out cash payments to kids so they could pay for gas and leccy, and comparing that to middle class kids getting pocket money.
I am sorry but that is not a valid comparison, and a kids charity shouldn't be using tax payer money for doing that. If parents aren't heating and powering their homes, a) why, b) why aren't the parents asking for help, c) what proof do kids have to give for that and was there any checks they actually used to the cash for it, or did they just nip down the shops and spend it?
When I was a teenager, I knew plenty of kids who would have abused such generosity by making up stories. I remember one whose parents had separated and he concocted stories how the other parent wasn't providing him with lunch / lunch money and he played them off against one another until he got mountains of food and cash every day.
Watching Camila B last night, reminded me of a child who says, it is my ball and if I cannot play with it, then I will take it away and burst it. If she had any degree of responsibility she would put the children first. However, as she was in full denial mode, as was Yentob, then it was quite apparent that she should not manage anything again and nor should he.
They both need to understand that when one is in a hole, it is best to stop digging. Batmanwoman needs to go away and spend some time with her outfits, Yentob should really know when it's best to just shut up rather than keeping the story in the news for yet another day. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11788924/Alan-Yentob-I-was-right-to-act-on-BBC-coverage.html By the way, why do the BBC pay him over 300k a year for what is obviously only a part time job?
Part time....part time...I think there are "abused" zero hour contractors that work more hours in a slow week than he does.
I heard a bit on the radio last night were batwomen was trying to defend giving out cash payments to kids so they could pay for gas and leccy, and comparing that to middle class kids getting pocket money.
I am sorry but that is not a valid comparison, and a kids charity shouldn't be using tax payer money for doing that. If parents aren't heating and powering their homes, a) why, b) why aren't the parents asking for help, c) what proof do kids have to give for that and was there any checks they actually used to the cash for it, or did they just nip down the shops and spend it?
When I was a teenager, I knew plenty of kids who would have abused such generosity by making up stories. I remember one whose parents had separated and he concocted stories how the other parent wasn't providing him with lunch / lunch money and he played them off against one another until he got mountains of food and cash every day.
Watching Camila B last night, reminded me of a child who says, it is my ball and if I cannot play with it, then I will take it away and burst it. If she had any degree of responsibility she would put the children first. However, as she was in full denial mode, as was Yentob, then it was quite apparent that she should not manage anything again and nor should he.
They both need to understand that when one is in a hole, it is best to stop digging. Batmanwoman needs to go away and spend some time with her outfits, Yentob should really know when it's best to just shut up rather than keeping the story in the news for yet another day. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11788924/Alan-Yentob-I-was-right-to-act-on-BBC-coverage.html By the way, why do the BBC pay him over 300k a year for what is obviously only a part time job?
Apparently Yentob has a ~£6m pension pot from the BBC, perhaps he should donate half of this to the charity.
KC trustees failed to build cash reserves, despite many warnings by their financial advisers over many years. - A vital safeguard in bad times, as pointed out yesterday on PB by those personally involved with charities.
Seems as though Alan Yentob, Trustee chair, believed the money would just keep rolling in – wonder where he got that idea from?
The report states that the ice is receding "because of Global Warming"
The definintiveness irritates the hell out of me. The BBC nor does anybody know that. They were saying that about polar ice , only for its volume to suddenly increase by 40%
Its the way the BBC tries to force their viewpoint on us that is so worrying. They are supposed to be unbiased.
To be honest I suspect in this case it is lazy journalism and poor editing rather than any great conspiracy.
You may be right. When the BBC does a programme about the polar ice cap increase and how it threatens the mantra they have been spouting about global warming, then I'll concur.
" The scientists working for oil companies are much more likely to have an agenda than the BBC."
If you ignore scientists working for oil companies because they are biased, surely you should ignore any scientists who gets any grant into researching climate change? You cannot say one side is devilishly biased for chasing money, whilst the other is angelic for ... chasing funding.
People such as Phil Jones and his colleagues at the CRU of UEA (yes, him), who has received £13 million in research grants.
At least there's interesting proof that Jones is biased ...
KC trustees failed to build cash reserves, despite many warnings by their financial advisers over many years. - A vital safeguard in bad times, as pointed out yesterday on PB by those personally involved with charities.
Seems as though Alan Yentob, Trustee chair, believed the money would just keep rolling in – wonder where he got that idea from?
KC trustees failed to build cash reserves, despite many warnings by their financial advisers over many years. - A vital safeguard in bad times, as pointed out yesterday on PB by those personally involved with charities.
Seems as though Alan Yentob, Trustee chair, believed the money would just keep rolling in – wonder where he got that idea from?
That is because he has never had to generate a profit, just spend taxpayer's money - so what does he know about the real world and business efficiency. However he has done very well with a £2m country house near Glastonbury and a very valuable house in N London.
Middle-aged, posh and overweight women seem to have a mesmerising effect on Conservative men. A real blind spot. And if she's a bit ethnic, the Guardian readers follow suit.
So much Guardian...
This year the Tories gained their first majority in parliament after almost 20 years. Also this year, Kids Company was forced to close down after 19 years. Coincidence or “compassionate Conservatism” in action? Alfred Litten London
It is quite amazing...and I don't think "Alfred" will be the only one thinking this, despite what is now being revealed. There are plenty of things that you can blame the government for, in this case it is probably funding it for too long. Obviously Alfred doesn't wonder how a charity can shallow £3 million, spend £800k to cover the wages for one month and then have to shut down because it has still run out of cash. Hopefully this story will be the spark for the necessary and overdue reforms to the charity sector and the way it interacts with government.
The Trustees of KC should be gone after hard for throwing away public money on their own payroll, that is just one example of the arrogance of those who perceive themselves to be untouchable.
10-1 at Ladbrokes. Watson deserves favouritism but seems to be completely overcooked at 1-12.
Some mention Corbyn's failure to follow the whip as a reason he should be leader. In the same light, I see Watson's two resignations from the front bench as a reason he should not be deputy.
Middle-aged, posh and overweight women seem to have a mesmerising effect on Conservative men. A real blind spot. And if she's a bit ethnic, the Guardian readers follow suit.
So much Guardian...
This year the Tories gained their first majority in parliament after almost 20 years. Also this year, Kids Company was forced to close down after 19 years. Coincidence or “compassionate Conservatism” in action? Alfred Litten London
It is quite amazing...and I don't think "Alfred" will be the only one thinking this, despite what is now being revealed. There are plenty of things that you can blame the government for, in this case it is probably funding it for too long. Obviously Alfred doesn't wonder how a charity can shallow £3 million, spend £800k to cover the wages for one month and then have to shut down because it has still run out of cash.
The report states that the ice is receding "because of Global Warming"
The definintiveness irritates the hell out of me. The BBC nor does anybody know that. They were saying that about polar ice , only for its volume to suddenly increase by 40%
Its the way the BBC tries to force their viewpoint on us that is so worrying. They are supposed to be unbiased.
To be honest I suspect in this case it is lazy journalism and poor editing rather than any great conspiracy.
You may be right. When the BBC does a programme about the polar ice cap increase and how it threatens the mantra they have been spouting about global warming, then I'll concur.
"The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.
In January 2009, a poll of 3146 earth scientists found that 82% answered yes to the question: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”. Of the 77 climatologists actively engaged in research, 75 answered yes (97.4%).
The scientists most likely to answer no were petroleum geologists and meteorologists."
So why should the BBC not report the facts, as it reported the increase in volume of the Arctic ice cap? The scientists working for oil companies are much more likely to have an agenda than the BBC.
I agree. The BBC should report facts, opinions by scientists are not facts. Scientists used tho think the world was square, that the Sun went round the earth. There were 364 economists who wrote a letter to the Times.. They were wrong too.
Daft comment. It was scientists who died asserting that the Earth went around the Sun.
Ignorant comment, missing out a response to the other points. Was it a certain Mr Campbell, who advocated searching any opposition piece for minor inaccuracies and only addressing those rather than the wider point?
I heard a bit on the radio last night were batwomen was trying to defend giving out cash payments to kids so they could pay for gas and leccy, and comparing that to middle class kids getting pocket money.
I am sorry but that is not a valid comparison, and a kids charity shouldn't be using tax payer money for doing that. If parents aren't heating and powering their homes, a) why, b) why aren't the parents asking for help, c) what proof do kids have to give for that and was there any checks they actually used to the cash for it, or did they just nip down the shops and spend it?
When I was a teenager, I knew plenty of kids who would have abused such generosity by making up stories. I remember one whose parents had separated and he concocted stories how the other parent wasn't providing him with lunch / lunch money and he played them off against one another until he got mountains of food and cash every day.
Watching Camila B last night, reminded me of a child who says, it is my ball and if I cannot play with it, then I will take it away and burst it. If she had any degree of responsibility she would put the children first. However, as she was in full denial mode, as was Yentob, then it was quite apparent that she should not manage anything again and nor should he.
They both need to understand that when one is in a hole, it is best to stop digging. Batmanwoman needs to go away and spend some time with her outfits, Yentob should really know when it's best to just shut up rather than keeping the story in the news for yet another day. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11788924/Alan-Yentob-I-was-right-to-act-on-BBC-coverage.html By the way, why do the BBC pay him over 300k a year for what is obviously only a part time job?
Apparently Yentob has a ~£6m pension pot from the BBC, perhaps he should donate half of this to the charity.
Yentob should be sacked for his blatant attempt to shut down any criticism of the Widow Batman-Twanky by turning up to a BBC interview with her.
Middle-aged, posh and overweight women seem to have a mesmerising effect on Conservative men. A real blind spot. And if she's a bit ethnic, the Guardian readers follow suit.
So much Guardian...
This year the Tories gained their first majority in parliament after almost 20 years. Also this year, Kids Company was forced to close down after 19 years. Coincidence or “compassionate Conservatism” in action? Alfred Litten London
It is quite amazing...and I don't think "Alfred" will be the only one thinking this, despite what is now being revealed. There are plenty of things that you can blame the government for, in this case it is probably funding it for too long. Obviously Alfred doesn't wonder how a charity can shallow £3 million, spend £800k to cover the wages for one month and then have to shut down because it has still run out of cash.
I always associate the name 'Alfred' with the stuffed gorilla who died at Bristol zoo and had pride of place in Bristol Museum.
Came after a few of us realised we were going down self- and traditional routes (sometimes from opposite directions) and thought it'd be an interesting area about which to write.
I heard a bit on the radio last night were batwomen was trying to defend giving out cash payments to kids so they could pay for gas and leccy, and comparing that to middle class kids getting pocket money.
I am sorry but that is not a valid comparison, and a kids charity shouldn't be using tax payer money for doing that. If parents aren't heating and powering their homes, a) why, b) why aren't the parents asking for help, c) what proof do kids have to give for that and was there any checks they actually used to the cash for it, or did they just nip down the shops and spend it?
When I was a teenager, I knew plenty of kids who would have abused such generosity by making up stories. I remember one whose parents had separated and he concocted stories how the other parent wasn't providing him with lunch / lunch money and he played them off against one another until he got mountains of food and cash every day.
Watching Camila B last night, reminded me of a child who says, it is my ball and if I cannot play with it, then I will take it away and burst it. If she had any degree of responsibility she would put the children first. However, as she was in full denial mode, as was Yentob, then it was quite apparent that she should not manage anything again and nor should he.
By the way, why do the BBC pay him over 300k a year for what is obviously only a part time job?
Because they can? It's only 2000 licence fees; nothing really.
I heard a bit on the radio last night were batwomen was trying to defend giving out cash payments to kids so they could pay for gas and leccy, and comparing that to middle class kids getting pocket money.
I am sorry but that is not a valid comparison, and a kids charity shouldn't be using tax payer money for doing that. If parents aren't heating and powering their homes, a) why, b) why aren't the parents asking for help, c) what proof do kids have to give for that and was there any checks they actually used to the cash for it, or did they just nip down the shops and spend it?
When I was a teenager, I knew plenty of kids who would have abused such generosity by making up stories. I remember one whose parents had separated and he concocted stories how the other parent wasn't providing him with lunch / lunch money and he played them off against one another until he got mountains of food and cash every day.
Watching Camila B last night, reminded me of a child who says, it is my ball and if I cannot play with it, then I will take it away and burst it. If she had any degree of responsibility she would put the children first. However, as she was in full denial mode, as was Yentob, then it was quite apparent that she should not manage anything again and nor should he.
They both need to understand that when one is in a hole, it is best to stop digging. Batmanwoman needs to go away and spend some time with her outfits, Yentob should really know when it's best to just shut up rather than keeping the story in the news for yet another day. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11788924/Alan-Yentob-I-was-right-to-act-on-BBC-coverage.html By the way, why do the BBC pay him over 300k a year for what is obviously only a part time job?
Incompetent, indifferent or simply ignorant?
Drug dealers across South London will be feeling the pain now that Weed Friday has come to an end. Will they be organising a mass rally in Whitehall to protest against the closure of the charity?
The report states that the ice is receding "because of Global Warming"
The definintiveness irritates the hell out of me. The BBC nor does anybody know that. They were saying that about polar ice , only for its volume to suddenly increase by 40%
Its the way the BBC tries to force their viewpoint on us that is so worrying. They are supposed to be unbiased.
To be honest I suspect in this case it is lazy journalism and poor editing rather than any great conspiracy.
You may be right. When the BBC does a programme about the polar ice cap increase and how it threatens the mantra they have been spouting about global warming, then I'll concur.
"The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.
In January 2009, a poll of 3146 earth scientists found that 82% answered yes to the question: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”. Of the 77 climatologists actively engaged in research, 75 answered yes (97.4%).
The scientists most likely to answer no were petroleum geologists and meteorologists."
So why should the BBC not report the facts, as it reported the increase in volume of the Arctic ice cap? The scientists working for oil companies are much more likely to have an agenda than the BBC.
I agree. The BBC should report facts, opinions by scientists are not facts. Scientists used tho think the world was square, that the Sun went round the earth. There were 364 economists who wrote a letter to the Times.. They were wrong too.
Daft comment. It was scientists who died asserting that the Earth went around the Sun.
Ignorant comment, missing out a response to the other points. Was it a certain Mr Campbell, who advocated searching any opposition piece for minor inaccuracies and only addressing those rather than the wider point?
Perhaps you could let us know of scientists who thought the world was square then? New one on me.
The report states that the ice is receding "because of Global Warming"
The definintiveness irritates the hell out of me. The BBC nor does anybody know that. They were saying that about polar ice , only for its volume to suddenly increase by 40%
Its the way the BBC tries to force their viewpoint on us that is so worrying. They are supposed to be unbiased.
To be honest I suspect in this case it is lazy journalism and poor editing rather than any great conspiracy.
You may be right. When the BBC does a programme about the polar ice cap increase and how it threatens the mantra they have been spouting about global warming, then I'll concur.
"The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.
In January 2009, a poll of 3146 earth scientists found that 82% answered yes to the question: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”. Of the 77 climatologists actively engaged in research, 75 answered yes (97.4%).
The scientists most likely to answer no were petroleum geologists and meteorologists."
So why should the BBC not report the facts, as it reported the increase in volume of the Arctic ice cap? The scientists working for oil companies are much more likely to have an agenda than the BBC.
I agree. The BBC should report facts, opinions by scientists are not facts. Scientists used tho think the world was square, that the Sun went round the earth. There were 364 economists who wrote a letter to the Times.. They were wrong too.
Daft comment. It was scientists who died asserting that the Earth went around the Sun.
Ignorant comment, missing out a response to the other points. Was it a certain Mr Campbell, who advocated searching any opposition piece for minor inaccuracies and only addressing those rather than the wider point?
Nope, my point is valid. To say that scientists advocated a flat Earth or a geocentric universe misses quite a lot. We need scientists to say what they think more than ever.
We can't model climate. Some of the data used is dodgy, feedback mechanisms are not all known or understood or predicable, and not all the researchers are willing to risk the funding they get. This is applicable to both sides of the debate.
CO2 is bad news in big quantities, future predictions of mans CO2 production are wrong, we will add more than the projections. We know the world can function within a wide band of atmospheric CO2 ppm, but it is dumb to push it up to levels outside known boundaries.
Apart from not knowing how the unknown amount of CO2 will change the behaviour of climate we are well informed.
In short I think our knowledge is 20% to 30% of that required to predict, understand and forecast.
What should we do? Reduce CO2 released to the atmosphere. It is the only sensible action, as constant addition will at some point tip the balance over the critical point.
The report states that the ice is receding "because of Global Warming"
The definintiveness irritates the hell out of me. The BBC nor does anybody know that. They were saying that about polar ice , only for its volume to suddenly increase by 40%
Its the way the BBC tries to force their viewpoint on us that is so worrying. They are supposed to be unbiased.
To be honest I suspect in this case it is lazy journalism and poor editing rather than any great conspiracy.
You may be right. When the BBC does a programme about the polar ice cap increase and how it threatens the mantra they have been spouting about global warming, then I'll concur.
"The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.
In January 2009, a poll of 3146 earth scientists found that 82% answered yes to the question: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”. Of the 77 climatologists actively engaged in research, 75 answered yes (97.4%).
The scientists most likely to answer no were petroleum geologists and meteorologists."
So why should the BBC not report the facts, as it reported the increase in volume of the Arctic ice cap? The scientists working for oil companies are much more likely to have an agenda than the BBC.
I agree. The BBC should report facts, opinions by scientists are not facts. Scientists used tho think the world was square, that the Sun went round the earth. There were 364 economists who wrote a letter to the Times.. They were wrong too.
Daft comment. It was scientists who died asserting that the Earth went around the Sun.
Ignorant comment, missing out a response to the other points. Was it a certain Mr Campbell, who advocated searching any opposition piece for minor inaccuracies and only addressing those rather than the wider point?
Perhaps you could let us know of scientists who thought the world was square then? New one on me.
He obviously meant flat, is that a new one on you?
Mr Dancer, would it be impertinent to ask how many copies of your books you have sold? Please feel free to ignore the question if it is indeed impertinent.
As the only female 66/1 on Carla Fiorina was always value and she will get momentum.Carson 33/1 as the only African American did well enough to suggest he has a chance .Both could end up as VP candidates.Christie 28/1 Huckleby33/1 Cruz 40/1 did well Big loser was Trump - what kind of an idiot attacks the popular female host Megan Kelly in the debate or has a strategy of saying he might stand as an independent
We can't model climate. Some of the data used is dodgy, feedback mechanisms are not all known or understood or predicable, and not all the researchers are willing to risk the funding they get. This is applicable to both sides of the debate.
CO2 is bad news in big quantities, future predictions of mans CO2 production are wrong, we will add more than the projections. We know the world can function within a wide band of atmospheric CO2 ppm, but it is dumb to push it up to levels outside known boundaries.
Apart from not knowing how the unknown amount of CO2 will change the behaviour of climate we are well informed.
In short I think our knowledge is 20% to 30% of that required to predict, understand and forecast.
What should we do? Reduce CO2 released to the atmosphere. It is the only sensible action, as constant addition will at some point tip the balance over the critical point.
Your assumptions seem plausible (though they might not be correct).
But you are wrong about your conclusion being the only sensible action. For instance, how much do we try to reduce CO2 output? How does that conflict with economic activity and lifestyles? At one point does it become more cost effective to mitigate effects rather than reducing CO2, hardening infrastructure and populations worldwide (ad at the same time, guarding against other disasters).
Spending billions blindly reducing CO2 with the knowledge we have atm seems as dangerous as the potential problems caused by increasing CO2.
Mr Dancer, would it be impertinent to ask how many copies of your books you have sold? Please feel free to ignore the question if it is indeed impertinent.
Earlier it was a bit harder to keep track of, and, to be honest, after I released Journey to Altmortis I stopped paying attention to that. I do know Bane of Souls has sold the most by a distance (in four figures). I wouldn't give a precise answer even if I knew, mind.
Sales have been insufficient but the good reviews (one book averaging 4*, the other two 4.5*) hopefully means if/when I sell more those earlier releases get a look from new readers.
At the risk of giving you an essay in response to a line, I've also got many things lined up for release. Temple (re-release) and Treasure should be out this year, Kingdom Asunder is 95% done, Sir Edric's Kingdom should be finished this year. I've also gotten quite far along planning Traitor's Prize [sequel to Kingdom Asunder] and Sir Edric and the Plague. If I can maintain momentum of releases, (and I've got three short stories waiting thumbs up/down for anthologies as well as the monthly Zodiac Eclipse episodes) then I'm hoping that'll translate into momentum of sales.
Lots of downsides to writing but one big up side is that if the next book sells big, the readers may then look at the earlier works and perhaps buy them. That's also an advantage to writing series over stand-alones (although stand-alone books are easier to write).
Edited extra bit: Mr. K, it's over on Amazon, search for Thaddeus White
Edited extra bit 2: Mr. Borough, sounds like a cunning tip.
Is it me, or are lots of long shots being tradeable at worst and actually winning at best?
We can't model climate. Some of the data used is dodgy, feedback mechanisms are not all known or understood or predicable, and not all the researchers are willing to risk the funding they get. This is applicable to both sides of the debate.
CO2 is bad news in big quantities, future predictions of mans CO2 production are wrong, we will add more than the projections. We know the world can function within a wide band of atmospheric CO2 ppm, but it is dumb to push it up to levels outside known boundaries.
Apart from not knowing how the unknown amount of CO2 will change the behaviour of climate we are well informed.
In short I think our knowledge is 20% to 30% of that required to predict, understand and forecast.
What should we do? Reduce CO2 released to the atmosphere. It is the only sensible action, as constant addition will at some point tip the balance over the critical point.
The only sensible thing that mankind could do - but which they wont - is to: 1. Reduce it's numbers 2. Plant new forests and add to those existing. 3. Let the world go on spinning on its axis.
As the only female 66/1 on Carla Fiorina was always value and she will get momentum.Carson 33/1 as the only African American did well enough to suggest he has a chance .Both could end up as VP candidates.Christie 28/1 Huckleby33/1 Cruz 40/1 did well Big loser was Trump - what kind of an idiot attacks the popular female host Megan Kelly in the debate or has a strategy of saying he might stand as an independent
We can't model climate. Some of the data used is dodgy, feedback mechanisms are not all known or understood or predicable, and not all the researchers are willing to risk the funding they get. This is applicable to both sides of the debate.
CO2 is bad news in big quantities, future predictions of mans CO2 production are wrong, we will add more than the projections. We know the world can function within a wide band of atmospheric CO2 ppm, but it is dumb to push it up to levels outside known boundaries.
Apart from not knowing how the unknown amount of CO2 will change the behaviour of climate we are well informed.
In short I think our knowledge is 20% to 30% of that required to predict, understand and forecast.
What should we do? Reduce CO2 released to the atmosphere. It is the only sensible action, as constant addition will at some point tip the balance over the critical point.
Your assumptions seem plausible (though they might not be correct).
But you are wrong about your conclusion being the only sensible action. For instance, how much do we try to reduce CO2 output? How does that conflict with economic activity and lifestyles? At one point does it become more cost effective to mitigate effects rather than reducing CO2, hardening infrastructure and populations worldwide (ad at the same time, guarding against other disasters).
Spending billions blindly reducing CO2 with the knowledge we have atm seems as dangerous as the potential problems caused by increasing CO2.
I don't agree, adding more CO2 constantly will at some point tip it over the sustainable level.
If you are in a hot bath that has cooled down and turn the hot water tap on (assuming it is good and scolding hot), the bath will be be warmer, comfortable, hot, and too hot. I don't see the constant addition of CO2 as any different. At some point you can't take any more.
In reality, man is a carbuncle on the side of the planet, and the real change will come from a natural source, a massive volcano or two will change the balance faster than we could ever do.
As the only female 66/1 on Carla Fiorina was always value and she will get momentum.Carson 33/1 as the only African American did well enough to suggest he has a chance .Both could end up as VP candidates.Christie 28/1 Huckleby33/1 Cruz 40/1 did well Big loser was Trump - what kind of an idiot attacks the popular female host Megan Kelly in the debate or has a strategy of saying he might stand as an independent
UKIP Isle of Wight @Iainmckie_UKIP 28m28 minutes ago #isleofwight MP Andrew Turner declined to attend a public meeting regarding the future of the Island's jeopardised railway.
We can't model climate. Some of the data used is dodgy, feedback mechanisms are not all known or understood or predicable, and not all the researchers are willing to risk the funding they get. This is applicable to both sides of the debate.
CO2 is bad news in big quantities, future predictions of mans CO2 production are wrong, we will add more than the projections. We know the world can function within a wide band of atmospheric CO2 ppm, but it is dumb to push it up to levels outside known boundaries.
Apart from not knowing how the unknown amount of CO2 will change the behaviour of climate we are well informed.
In short I think our knowledge is 20% to 30% of that required to predict, understand and forecast.
What should we do? Reduce CO2 released to the atmosphere. It is the only sensible action, as constant addition will at some point tip the balance over the critical point.
Your assumptions seem plausible (though they might not be correct).
But you are wrong about your conclusion being the only sensible action. For instance, how much do we try to reduce CO2 output? How does that conflict with economic activity and lifestyles? At one point does it become more cost effective to mitigate effects rather than reducing CO2, hardening infrastructure and populations worldwide (ad at the same time, guarding against other disasters).
Spending billions blindly reducing CO2 with the knowledge we have atm seems as dangerous as the potential problems caused by increasing CO2.
I don't agree, adding more CO2 constantly will at some point tip it over the sustainable level.
If you are in a hot bath that has cooled down and turn the hot water tap on (assuming it is good and scolding hot), the bath will be be warmer, comfortable, hot, and too hot. I don't see the constant addition of CO2 as any different. At some point you can't take any more.
In reality, man is a carbuncle on the side of the planet, and the real change will come from a natural source, a massive volcano or two will change the balance faster than we could ever do.
That analogy is not particularly good. In fact, I really hope the official models avoid that sort of simplification. Perhaps they do not, which is why the models have been so wrong...
But note, I am not saying don't reduce CO2; it needs to be a balance of measures. Concentrating blindly on one will miss where we can get best bang for our buck.
UKIP Isle of Wight @Iainmckie_UKIP 28m28 minutes ago #isleofwight MP Andrew Turner declined to attend a public meeting regarding the future of the Island's jeopardised railway.
MP probably at Trent Bridge, the rotter!
I expect UKIP are demanding that the line revert to steam, and Third Class carriages are reintroduced for foreigners.
We can't model climate. Some of the data used is dodgy, feedback mechanisms are not all known or understood or predicable, and not all the researchers are willing to risk the funding they get. This is applicable to both sides of the debate.
CO2 is bad news in big quantities, future predictions of mans CO2 production are wrong, we will add more than the projections. We know the world can function within a wide band of atmospheric CO2 ppm, but it is dumb to push it up to levels outside known boundaries.
Apart from not knowing how the unknown amount of CO2 will change the behaviour of climate we are well informed.
In short I think our knowledge is 20% to 30% of that required to predict, understand and forecast.
What should we do? Reduce CO2 released to the atmosphere. It is the only sensible action, as constant addition will at some point tip the balance over the critical point.
The only sensible thing that mankind could do - but which they wont - is to: 1. Reduce it's numbers 2. Plant new forests and add to those existing. 3. Let the world go on spinning on its axis.
Mr, K., As regards for point 1 I think there are grounds for optimism. We may not actually reduce in numbers but the population does look set to stabilise and there is evidence to suggest that the number of children in the world has already peaked.
UKIP Isle of Wight @Iainmckie_UKIP 28m28 minutes ago #isleofwight MP Andrew Turner declined to attend a public meeting regarding the future of the Island's jeopardised railway.
MP probably at Trent Bridge, the rotter!
I expect UKIP are demanding that the line revert to steam, and Third Class carriages are reintroduced for foreigners.
Actually UKIP have purloined the Rocket from the Science Museum and making it ready for use.
UKIP Isle of Wight @Iainmckie_UKIP 28m28 minutes ago #isleofwight MP Andrew Turner declined to attend a public meeting regarding the future of the Island's jeopardised railway.
MP probably at Trent Bridge, the rotter!
I expect UKIP are demanding that the line revert to steam, and Third Class carriages are reintroduced for foreigners.
The Isle of Wight has two railways, one uses steam and one very old ex-London Underground trains. The former is doing well the latter looks set to close. Maybe returning the latter to steam and linking the two railways into one system would actually be a sensible idea.
UKIP Isle of Wight @Iainmckie_UKIP 28m28 minutes ago #isleofwight MP Andrew Turner declined to attend a public meeting regarding the future of the Island's jeopardised railway.
MP probably at Trent Bridge, the rotter!
I expect UKIP are demanding that the line revert to steam, and Third Class carriages are reintroduced for foreigners.
Actually UKIP have purloined the Rocket from the Science Museum and making it ready for use.
Ho - hum! Another day of boring news that seems to go around in circles in the holiday period:
1. The cattle in Calais 2. The Dem steers needle the Rep hefers 3. The end of the calves enclosure.
Boring news? With the Ashes going on its anything but boring.
Lets go out swinging the bat and declare around lunch time then have two sessions to get the Ashes won and sealed by the end of the day.
There is no reason not to aim to bat all day today and all day tomorrow. Contrary to what the Aussies might think, this is not a T20 game.
LOL! Yes my tongue was somewhat planted firmly in my cheek with that suggestion. The last thing I expect Captain Cook to do is declare on day two of any Test.
Ho - hum! Another day of boring news that seems to go around in circles in the holiday period:
1. The cattle in Calais 2. The Dem steers needle the Rep hefers 3. The end of the calves enclosure.
Boring news? With the Ashes going on its anything but boring.
Lets go out swinging the bat and declare around lunch time then have two sessions to get the Ashes won and sealed by the end of the day.
There is no reason not to aim to bat all day today and all day tomorrow. Contrary to what the Aussies might think, this is not a T20 game.
I agree. As we saw at Lords when roles were reversed a very long and miserable time in the field brings wickets. Australia are a bowler short (at least). England should be able to score at a decent rate while keeping them running around and grind them to dust.
I hope England are bowled out today because it would mean that there is still enough in the pitch but I will be disappointed if it is before tea.
Ho - hum! Another day of boring news that seems to go around in circles in the holiday period:
1. The cattle in Calais 2. The Dem steers needle the Rep hefers 3. The end of the calves enclosure.
Boring news? With the Ashes going on its anything but boring.
Lets go out swinging the bat and declare around lunch time then have two sessions to get the Ashes won and sealed by the end of the day.
There is no reason not to aim to bat all day today and all day tomorrow. Contrary to what the Aussies might think, this is not a T20 game.
LOL! Yes my tongue was somewhat planted firmly in my cheek with that suggestion. The last thing I expect Captain Cook to do is declare on day two of any Test.
Be nice to give the Aussies a target of 700 to aim at to avoid the innings defeat....
"Dear Lord And Father of Mankind is one of my favorite hymns."
Mine too.
John Greenleaf Whittier ... crazy name, crazy fella, as Private Eye used to say.
I listened to the Salvation Army band play it in Canterbury High St recently, it was wonderful
When I was at the Home Office I had the opening two lines stuck on the ceiling above my office chair. Then when the latest example of staff/HMG idiocy hit my desk and I looked up in despair and frustration I would see them and draw strength from them.
Comments
(30 years ago today)
- Everything Obama did in foreign policy is weak. The US needs to be more bellicose and torture more.
- Everything Obama did in economic policy is socialism. To do better we need to cut taxes on the rich and remove people's healthcare.
- Everything Obama did in social policy is evil. We need to ban all abortion to restore America.
I.e. Mitt Romney reheated. The American Right is an embarassment to conservatism. All nuance and thoughtfulness of a great tradition is thrown out in favour of simplistic chest thumping.
Dear Lord And Father of Mankind is one of my favorite hymns - I just hadn't thought about applying 'the still small voice of calm' to banking as a concept.
The only one that's more appropriate is 'Guide me O thou Great Redeemer' - but mainly because of the wonderful typo in Lord Northcliffe's (Daily Mail, Daily Mirror) funeral order: where they replaced 'land me safe on Canaan's side' with 'land my safe on Canaan's side'
As for banking culture I don't think that an industry that depends on fear and punishment to keep its staff in line has got it's culture right... I think you need to rely on the Teddy Roosevelt philosophy: "speak softly and carry a big stick"
However, if he does intend to run as a third-party candidate, that almost certainly hands the election to the Democrats. That is the big story of the night.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3187436/BBC-Songs-Praise-Jungle-migrant-camp-Calais.html
The Ethiopian Orthodox church occasionally worships at our local church and it is a very different approach to Christianity liturgy
Nellie the Elephant packed her trunk
And said goodbye to the White House
Off she went with a trumpety-trump
Trump, trump, trump
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33802458
The report states that the ice is receding "because of Global Warming"
The definintiveness irritates the hell out of me. The BBC nor does anybody know
that. They were saying that about polar ice , only for its volume to suddenly increase
by 40%
Its the way the BBC tries to force their viewpoint on us that is so worrying. They are supposed to be unbiased.
For me the driver has been poor journalistic quality, some of which is dire, and a monopolistic
level of market share.
http://news.sky.com/story/1531708/labour-half-eligible-to-vote-are-new-sign-ups
O/T Does anyone have the fantasy premier league code to hand? As a Lib Dem, I haven't had my fill of public humiliation for the year yet......
I find it difficult to get too excited about the Republican party's nonsense at this stage although I can understand the interest if you are minded to put money on it. As a party they have lost their way for me, even more than the Labour party here. There is a range of totemic policies but no intellectual coherence or thought. And Trump is just a joke.
Did they really not think that other parties would try and game the system in their favour, as well as the Militant groups that took so long to get rid of 30 years ago?
Whether their influence is any less baleful is an open question.
In January 2009, a poll of 3146 earth scientists found that 82% answered yes to the question: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”. Of the 77 climatologists actively engaged in research, 75 answered yes (97.4%).
The scientists most likely to answer no were petroleum geologists and meteorologists."
So why should the BBC not report the facts, as it reported the increase in volume of the Arctic ice cap? The scientists working for oil companies are much more likely to have an agenda than the BBC.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climate-myths-many-leading-scientists-question-climate-change#.VZ5eW_lVhHw
This is quite a good list of the most familiar http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3DnJQz7zsF1JrB3rZ8yQ86w/the-uks-top-100-hymns
Miss Plato, Andy Burnham's American cousin?
Mr. Song, 97% also answered 'yes' to 'would you like continually getting paid for studying this area?'.
The IPCC's forecasts have been wrong. The hockey stick was a crock. Doubts have been cast over temperature data (the response of some scientists has been to decide the temperatures are underestimated, changing the facts to fit their view [a religious approach] rather than their view to fit the facts [a scientific one]).
Never heard of Carly Fiorina. Good name, though.
2. In Root Alone
3. Be Still, For The Presence Of Stokes catch
4. Dear Broad And Father Of Mankind
5. Here I Am, Broad (I, The Lord Of Sea And Sky)
6. And Can It Be (8-15)
7. Abide With Me (England)
8. Guide Me, O Thou Great Captain Cook
Kids Company has been accused of failing to act on claims older men using their classes were forcing younger girls to have sex with them.
A former employee told BBC's Newsnight that girls aged 16 to 18 were blackmailed into sex by men in their 20s.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3187670/Kids-Company-staff-knew-sex-abuse-claims.html
I heard a bit on the radio last night were batwomen was trying to defend giving out cash payments to kids so they could pay for gas and leccy, and comparing that to middle class kids getting pocket money.
I am sorry but that is not a valid comparison, and a kids charity shouldn't be using tax payer money for doing that. If parents aren't heating and powering their homes, a) why, b) why aren't the parents asking for help, c) what proof do kids have to give for that and was there any checks they actually used to the cash for it, or did they just nip down the shops and spend it?
When I was a teenager, I knew plenty of kids who would have abused such generosity by making up stories. I remember one whose parents had separated and he concocted stories how the other parent wasn't providing him with lunch / lunch money and he played them off against one another until he got mountains of food and cash every day.
Union lackey backing underground strike posed as member of the public then caught out big time live on air
http://order-order.com/2015/08/06/average-joe-caller-outed-as-rmt-union-lackey/#:WkuxqXK4II-q2A
"Dear Lord And Father of Mankind is one of my favorite hymns."
Mine too.
John Greenleaf Whittier ... crazy name, crazy fella, as Private Eye used to say.
She's a classic bull sh*tter, and I don't say that because, as Mr Dancer opined, that she'd had an argument with a paint factory.
When cornered, it will always be "Wot about the kids?"
It is quite amazing...and I don't think "Alfred" will be the only one thinking this, despite what is now being revealed. There are plenty of things that you can blame the government for, in this case it is probably funding it for too long. Obviously Alfred doesn't wonder how a charity can shallow £3 million, spend £800k to cover the wages for one month and then have to shut down because it has still run out of cash.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11788924/Alan-Yentob-I-was-right-to-act-on-BBC-coverage.html
By the way, why do the BBC pay him over 300k a year for what is obviously only a part time job?
Ever since it became a serious force, the party hierarchy has kept ultimate control away from the membership, whether through certain powers being restricted to MPs, or to reliable union bosses. Even prior to Miliband's reforms, many members of the activist base have a reasonable understanding of what it takes to win an election. By contrast, the Facebook-Twitter bubble represents the precise opposite of reaching out to swing voters: a self-contained and self-reinforcing collective.
Seems as though Alan Yentob, Trustee chair, believed the money would just keep rolling in – wonder where he got that idea from?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/06/kids-company-directors-were-warned-to-build-up-reserves
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/how-to-self-publish.html
If you ignore scientists working for oil companies because they are biased, surely you should ignore any scientists who gets any grant into researching climate change? You cannot say one side is devilishly biased for chasing money, whilst the other is angelic for ... chasing funding.
People such as Phil Jones and his colleagues at the CRU of UEA (yes, him), who has received £13 million in research grants.
At least there's interesting proof that Jones is biased ...
Hopefully this story will be the spark for the necessary and overdue reforms to the charity sector and the way it interacts with government.
The Trustees of KC should be gone after hard for throwing away public money on their own payroll, that is just one example of the arrogance of those who perceive themselves to be untouchable.
A loose cannon.
And so it is that Camila Batmanghelidjh returns to her everyday existence, and becomes Camila Brucewayneghelidjh
I always associate the name 'Alfred' with the stuffed gorilla who died at Bristol zoo and had pride of place in Bristol Museum.
Mr. kle4, you're very welcome.
Came after a few of us realised we were going down self- and traditional routes (sometimes from opposite directions) and thought it'd be an interesting area about which to write.
Drug dealers across South London will be feeling the pain now that Weed Friday has come to an end. Will they be organising a mass rally in Whitehall to protest against the closure of the charity?
We can't model climate. Some of the data used is dodgy, feedback mechanisms are not all known or understood or predicable, and not all the researchers are willing to risk the funding they get. This is applicable to both sides of the debate.
CO2 is bad news in big quantities, future predictions of mans CO2 production are wrong, we will add more than the projections. We know the world can function within a wide band of atmospheric CO2 ppm, but it is dumb to push it up to levels outside known boundaries.
Apart from not knowing how the unknown amount of CO2 will change the behaviour of climate we are well informed.
In short I think our knowledge is 20% to 30% of that required to predict, understand and forecast.
What should we do? Reduce CO2 released to the atmosphere. It is the only sensible action, as constant addition will at some point tip the balance over the critical point.
“I hear Hoddle’s found God, that must have been a hell of a pass.”
1. The cattle in Calais
2. The Dem steers needle the Rep hefers
3. The end of the calves enclosure.
Big loser was Trump - what kind of an idiot attacks the popular female host Megan Kelly in the debate or has a strategy of saying he might stand as an independent
But you are wrong about your conclusion being the only sensible action. For instance, how much do we try to reduce CO2 output? How does that conflict with economic activity and lifestyles? At one point does it become more cost effective to mitigate effects rather than reducing CO2, hardening infrastructure and populations worldwide (ad at the same time, guarding against other disasters).
Spending billions blindly reducing CO2 with the knowledge we have atm seems as dangerous as the potential problems caused by increasing CO2.
Earlier it was a bit harder to keep track of, and, to be honest, after I released Journey to Altmortis I stopped paying attention to that. I do know Bane of Souls has sold the most by a distance (in four figures). I wouldn't give a precise answer even if I knew, mind.
Sales have been insufficient but the good reviews (one book averaging 4*, the other two 4.5*) hopefully means if/when I sell more those earlier releases get a look from new readers.
At the risk of giving you an essay in response to a line, I've also got many things lined up for release. Temple (re-release) and Treasure should be out this year, Kingdom Asunder is 95% done, Sir Edric's Kingdom should be finished this year. I've also gotten quite far along planning Traitor's Prize [sequel to Kingdom Asunder] and Sir Edric and the Plague. If I can maintain momentum of releases, (and I've got three short stories waiting thumbs up/down for anthologies as well as the monthly Zodiac Eclipse episodes) then I'm hoping that'll translate into momentum of sales.
Lots of downsides to writing but one big up side is that if the next book sells big, the readers may then look at the earlier works and perhaps buy them. That's also an advantage to writing series over stand-alones (although stand-alone books are easier to write).
Edited extra bit: Mr. K, it's over on Amazon, search for Thaddeus White
Edited extra bit 2: Mr. Borough, sounds like a cunning tip.
Is it me, or are lots of long shots being tradeable at worst and actually winning at best?
Lets go out swinging the bat and declare around lunch time then have two sessions to get the Ashes won and sealed by the end of the day.
1. Reduce it's numbers
2. Plant new forests and add to those existing.
3. Let the world go on spinning on its axis.
If you are in a hot bath that has cooled down and turn the hot water tap on (assuming it is good and scolding hot), the bath will be be warmer, comfortable, hot, and too hot. I don't see the constant addition of CO2 as any different. At some point you can't take any more.
In reality, man is a carbuncle on the side of the planet, and the real change will come from a natural source, a massive volcano or two will change the balance faster than we could ever do.
#isleofwight MP Andrew Turner declined to attend a public meeting regarding the future of the Island's jeopardised railway.
MP probably at Trent Bridge, the rotter!
But note, I am not saying don't reduce CO2; it needs to be a balance of measures. Concentrating blindly on one will miss where we can get best bang for our buck.
I hope England are bowled out today because it would mean that there is still enough in the pitch but I will be disappointed if it is before tea.
https://torrentfreak.com/itunes-is-illegal-under-uk-copyright-law-150805/
That said, I do agree Cameron et al. are completely bloody fools when it comes to technology (the encryption ban being the most obvious example).