But you emphasise my point. "Our people", "our decision". A people is what it thinks it is.
No. Whatever a people thinks it is is not the point. The point is that politicians in Area (A) are making decisions that affect the voters of area (B) without the voters of area (B) being able to have a say or deliver a verdict on the actions of the politicians of area (A).
The EU is set up so that all sorts of people from areas A/C/D/E/F etc are making decisions that affect the lives of the voters of area (B), without the voters of area (B) having a say in those decisions.
''Prime Minister assures EU leaders he will "quicken the pace" and put a deal on the table next month ''
I sort of feel sorry for David Cameron because he himself probably thinks there's very little wrong with the EU as it is.
I don't think that's true. I think Cameron is your run-of-the-mill moderate eurosceptic. He thinks there's a lot wrong with the EU and would like to correct it. The question is whether he's willing to ignore those problems so as not to upset anyone or fight with conviction for the changes we need, and recommend Leave if necessary.
Out of curiosity, what would it take (short of wearing an 'I love the EU' t-shirt) to believe that Cameron isn't a eurosceptic? What actions would he need to perform to indicate to you that his avowed euroscepticism is a mere pose.
That's been tried
He used to wear EU cufflinks... Danny Finkekstein thought that didn't mean he wasn't a euro sceptic
Also note that the Netherlands is another country where the left are in turmoil, the main centrist party are still doing OK (PVV) but the left are split and polling terribly. Across Europe the left are repellent to normal people with their pro-immigration policies and the pro-multiculti crap. The one right wing party and leader which has supported the migrants are also falling back (Merkel, Germany) are beginning to suffer.
But you emphasise my point. "Our people", "our decision". A people is what it thinks it is.
No. Whatever a people thinks it is is not the point. The point is that politicians in Area (A) are making decisions that affect the voters of area (B) without the voters of area (B) being able to have a say or deliver a verdict on the actions of the politicians of area (A).
The EU is set up so that all sorts of people from areas A/C/D/E/F etc are making decisions that affect the lives of the voters of area (B), without the voters of area (B) having a say in those decisions.
west lothian.... *retires gracefully* (it's almost midnight)
''Prime Minister assures EU leaders he will "quicken the pace" and put a deal on the table next month ''
I sort of feel sorry for David Cameron because he himself probably thinks there's very little wrong with the EU as it is.
I don't think that's true. I think Cameron is your run-of-the-mill moderate eurosceptic. He thinks there's a lot wrong with the EU and would like to correct it. The question is whether he's willing to ignore those problems so as not to upset anyone or fight with conviction for the changes we need, and recommend Leave if necessary.
Out of curiosity, what would it take (short of wearing an 'I love the EU' t-shirt) to believe that Cameron isn't a eurosceptic? What actions would he need to perform to indicate to you that his avowed euroscepticism is a mere pose.
I dunno. Perhaps wearing EU flag cufflinks?
Or a billowy EU cape for when he's riding his bike.
But you emphasise my point. "Our people", "our decision". A people is what it thinks it is.
No. Whatever a people thinks it is is not the point. The point is that politicians in Area (A) are making decisions that affect the voters of area (B) without the voters of area (B) being able to have a say or deliver a verdict on the actions of the politicians of area (A).
The EU is set up so that all sorts of people from areas A/C/D/E/F etc are making decisions that affect the lives of the voters of area (B), without the voters of area (B) having a say in those decisions.
So I return to my earlier question, which you side-stepped. Is not the logical answer to transform the Commission into a genuine European government, either (preferably) selected from and reliant upon the confidence of the European Parliament, or (less ideally) directly elected?
What struck me was how weak last night's rebellion was, not how strong.
Not one of the Labour rebels actually went through the booth and voted with the Gov't. Pathetic !
I think that would have been perceived as anti Labour as much as anti Corbyn, so wouldn't be as hard on them as you.
More importantly, it was a ridiculous proposition. Such a black and white rule in a perpetually changing world is utterly absurd. It is unbelievable that 320 MPs voted for it.
Senior members of Jeremy Corbyn's own team say he has "lost control" over his own party and it is only a matter of time before he suffers his first resignation from the shadow cabinet.
On Wednesday night the Labour leader allowed members of his ministerial team to defy him by avoiding a crucial Commons vote just hours after threatening them with the sack if they rebelled.
In a sign of Mr Corbyn's lack of authority it emerged that senior Labour MPs had been given permission to be absent and abstain from voting against Conservative proposals to run a budget surplus.
The article mentions that Jezzer's undecided as to whether to dress up for a State Banquet next week. I guess it depends on whether the Oxfam shop in Hornsey has White Tie on the rails.
'Mr Corbyn is expected to confront the Chinese President over his human rights record.'
This is going to be interesting.
He may not like dressing up, but sometimes it really does need to be done. Dinner with the Queen and a foreign Head of State is one of those times.
I can well imagine the conversation between the Chinese, the PM and the Queen as to why there's a tramp sitting at the table with them. Whether Mr Corbyn likes it or not, these things really do matter, if only for the impression given to others.
Perhaps he should dress up as Charlie Chaplin and hope that he has a status with the Chinese similar to that of Norman Wisdom with the Albanians. You never know!
Or maybe he could come as the punk he is still trying to be, with a mohican and a safety pin through his nose. The Chinese would all want to have selfies with him then....
What struck me was how weak last night's rebellion was, not how strong.
Not one of the Labour rebels actually went through the booth and voted with the Gov't. Pathetic !
I think that would have been perceived as anti Labour as much as anti Corbyn, so wouldn't be as hard on them as you.
More importantly, it was a ridiculous proposition. Such a black and white rule in a perpetually changing world is utterly absurd. It is unbelievable that 320 MPs voted for it.
It isn't that black and white, there are so many caveats and ways to ignore it. The whole thing may as well not exist.
''Prime Minister assures EU leaders he will "quicken the pace" and put a deal on the table next month ''
I sort of feel sorry for David Cameron because he himself probably thinks there's very little wrong with the EU as it is.
I don't think that's true. I think Cameron is your run-of-the-mill moderate eurosceptic. He thinks there's a lot wrong with the EU and would like to correct it. The question is whether he's willing to ignore those problems so as not to upset anyone or fight with conviction for the changes we need, and recommend Leave if necessary.
Out of curiosity, what would it take (short of wearing an 'I love the EU' t-shirt) to believe that Cameron isn't a eurosceptic? What actions would he need to perform to indicate to you that his avowed euroscepticism is a mere pose.
Evidence that he was lobbying for further integration at EU summits.
That's an extraordinary ammount of slack to cut. Especially since I doubt there's the opposition to further integration at EU summits to warrant any need to lobby for it.
In what way are Harper and Crosby exploiting "Islamophobia?"
I think the writer's point is that the tories will play the islam card if Zac starts to fall behind.
What is the Islam card?
In all likelihood, there will be people who vote for Goldsmith because Khan is a Muslim; and there'll be people who vote for Khan, because Goldsmith is a Jew. And in parts of London, elections are heavily polarised by race and religion.
But, I'd be surprised if the Conservatives try to whip up feeling against Khan because he's a Muslim. Ken Livingstone was a good deal more shameless in trying to exploit ethnic animosity.
What % of those voting know Zac is a Jew (I didn't) and what % cares? If the people of London are voting on religious or cultural grounds we're in one hell of a mess.
How deeply depressing that in the 21st century, we seem to be going backwards on people voting on such a racist or sectarian basis. It seems that we've overcome the historic Protestant-Catholic hatred in mainland Britain, only to bring in fresh sectarianism from the Muslim world.
Proof that multiculturalism doesn't work... If it did there wouldn't be a 'Muslim vote'
That doesn't make sense, the whole point of multiculturalism is to have distinct, separate cultures in the same country. It's in the name.
The point is that the cultures are supposed to exist in subservience to a United country not that the country is segregated by different cultures
So, you are still clearly going to end up with block votes on cultural lines as you have separate cultural groupings. They can still be subservient to the host country but the point of multi-culturalism is to retain cultural dividing lines. That's a success for multi-culturalism not a failure.
Now, if the UK adopted an integrationist approach and there was still a 'Muslim vote' then that would be a failure for the approach taken.
Senior members of Jeremy Corbyn's own team say he has "lost control" over his own party and it is only a matter of time before he suffers his first resignation from the shadow cabinet.
On Wednesday night the Labour leader allowed members of his ministerial team to defy him by avoiding a crucial Commons vote just hours after threatening them with the sack if they rebelled.
In a sign of Mr Corbyn's lack of authority it emerged that senior Labour MPs had been given permission to be absent and abstain from voting against Conservative proposals to run a budget surplus.
The article mentions that Jezzer's undecided as to whether to dress up for a State Banquet next week. I guess it depends on whether the Oxfam shop in Hornsey has White Tie on the rails.
'Mr Corbyn is expected to confront the Chinese President over his human rights record.'
This is going to be interesting.
He may not like dressing up, but sometimes it really does need to be done. Dinner with the Queen and a foreign Head of State is one of those times.
I can well imagine the conversation between the Chinese, the PM and the Queen as to why there's a tramp sitting at the table with them. Whether Mr Corbyn likes it or not, these things really do matter, if only for the impression given to others.
If Corbyn actually turns up looking (relatively) like a tramp he should be arrested on suspicion of vagrancy and removed from the premises.
''Prime Minister assures EU leaders he will "quicken the pace" and put a deal on the table next month ''
I sort of feel sorry for David Cameron because he himself probably thinks there's very little wrong with the EU as it is.
I don't think that's true. I think Cameron is your run-of-the-mill moderate eurosceptic. He thinks there's a lot wrong with the EU and would like to correct it. The question is whether he's willing to ignore those problems so as not to upset anyone or fight with conviction for the changes we need, and recommend Leave if necessary.
Out of curiosity, what would it take (short of wearing an 'I love the EU' t-shirt) to believe that Cameron isn't a eurosceptic? What actions would he need to perform to indicate to you that his avowed euroscepticism is a mere pose.
That's been tried
He used to wear EU cufflinks... Danny Finkekstein thought that didn't mean he wasn't a euro sceptic
News to me that Danny Finkelstein thinks at all - he's always given me the impression of being profoundly simple.
Somehow I don't think that Mr Corbyn is going to be seated anywhere close to the Chinese president at this banquet. He'll be be allocated a seat on a side table near the gents.
It was like being sucked into a blackhole. I couldn't pull away - every two mins another outrageous bit of dissembling, ludicrous claim, being told to stop talking, huffing/puffing/swearing under their breath, verbal ectoplasm...and finally abusive limericks.
The latter will no doubt keep Twitter entertained for the afternoon.
Just started to read the article by accident because it didn't start "Don Brind says..."
Luckily by the time I'd got as far as "Or will the “good guys” win this time?" it was obvious that it was his usual crock of shit. Scrolled down to his signature and caught the last sentence in peripheral vision. Disgusting. Brind is a knob.
''Is not the logical answer to transform the Commission into a genuine European government, either (preferably) selected from and reliant upon the confidence of the European Parliament, or (less ideally) directly elected?''
One solution certainly. It's true that Merkel would then have to run the gamut of English tories in a parliament.
The voters of area (B) seem to prefer the solution where powers are returned to area (B) to shackle the powers of area (A/C/D/E) rather than pooling power with those areas.
Somehow I don't think that Mr Corbyn is going to be seated anywhere close to the Chinese president at this banquet. He'll be be allocated a seat on a side table near the gents.
I quite like the idea of the LOTO going up to the Chinese President and giving him a lecture about human rights. I don't like what it might do to our trade prospects, but I like the principle and the sheer balls he (might) have to do it. I certainly wouldn't do it in his position; I'd bow and scrape and laugh at his jokes and loathe myself.
In what way are Harper and Crosby exploiting "Islamophobia?"
I think the writer's point is that the tories will play the islam card if Zac starts to fall behind.
What is the Islam card?
In all likelihood, there will be people who vote for Goldsmith because Khan is a Muslim; and there'll be people who vote for Khan, because Goldsmith is a Jew. And in parts of London, elections are heavily polarised by race and religion.
But, I'd be surprised if the Conservatives try to whip up feeling against Khan because he's a Muslim. Ken Livingstone was a good deal more shameless in trying to exploit ethnic animosity.
What % of those voting know Zac is a Jew (I didn't) and what % cares? If the people of London are voting on religious or cultural grounds we're in one hell of a mess.
How deeply depressing that in the 21st century, we seem to be going backwards on people voting on such a racist or sectarian basis. It seems that we've overcome the historic Protestant-Catholic hatred in mainland Britain, only to bring in fresh sectarianism from the Muslim world.
Proof that multiculturalism doesn't work... If it did there wouldn't be a 'Muslim vote'
That doesn't make sense, the whole point of multiculturalism is to have distinct, separate cultures in the same country. It's in the name.
The point is that the cultures are supposed to exist in subservience to a United country not that the country is segregated by different cultures
So, you are still clearly going to end up with block votes on cultural lines as you have separate cultural groupings. They can still be subservient to the host country but the point of multi-culturalism is to retain cultural dividing lines. That's a success for multi-culturalism not a failure.
Now, if the UK adopted an integrationist approach and there was still a 'Muslim vote' then that would be a failure for the approach taken.
No I don't believe that the aim of multiculturalism was to have block votes on cultural lines. I think that would horrify its founders. I think it was to allow people to celebrate their own culture at a personal level while putting the country first, that people would feel British first and Muslim second for instance, and that Its aim was for integration, but it failed because it was mindless stupidity
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 3m3 minutes ago Scottish Crown Office confirms two Libyans have been identified as suspects in the on-going investigation into the 1988 #Lockerbie bombing
I have relatives that live out that way, and response times form the police are already ~40 minutes. It does seem like the police are being particularly brutally hit from the cuts.
G - Kids Company chiefs quizzed over client number discrepancies
In bad-tempered Commons grilling, MPs accuse charity founder Camila Batmanghelidjh of delivering ‘non-stop spiel of psychobabble’ The founder of Kids Company and her chair of trustees have been forced by MPs to defend huge discrepancies with social services chiefs over the number of children on their books.
During ferocious exchanges, Camilla Batmanghelidj, the charity’s founder, was accused of employing “a non-stop spiel, psychobabble” and a “torrent of verbal ectoplasm” rather than answer questions about the governance and management of an organisation which received more than £30m of taxpayers’ money.
On topic, I don't know how things will turn out (so to speak) in Canada but it does seem the Liberals, after a dreadful election last time, are coming back strongly to the detriment of the NDP. The regional focus of the Canadian vote makes forecasting interesting so good luck to anyone with a financial interest.
As for the criticisms of Don and the topic itself, I'd make four observations:
1) No one forces anyone to comment on any and every thread. It does seem at times the same people are always here commenting on a daily basis and the forum gets a little cliquey in that regard.
2) The site is, in terms of posts, if not posters, strongly anti-Labour. OGH knows there's nothing like a strong pro-Labour piece to get the site traffic up.
3) The only threads more boring than those opposing the Government are those supporting it.
4) Why not put up your own piece ? OGH has published a couple of my ramblings down the years and most people seem capable of stringing a few sentences together (even if they are someone else's) so why not give it a go ? Put in a betting angle and you'll be home and dry.
No I don't believe that the aim of multiculturalism was to have block votes on cultural lines. I think that would horrify its founders. I think it was to allow people to celebrate their own culture at a personal level while putting the country first, that people would feel British first and Muslim second for instance, and that Its aim was for integration, but it failed because it was mindless stupidity
That's where they went wrong. 81% of British Muslims consider themselves Muslim first, compared to 7% who think of themselves as British first:
Just started to read the article by accident because it didn't start "Don Brind says..."
Luckily by the time I'd got as far as "Or will the “good guys” win this time?" it was obvious that it was his usual crock of shit. Scrolled down to his signature and caught the last sentence in peripheral vision. Disgusting. Brind is a knob.
TBH, police stations are a complete red herring - most don't get more than a handful of crimes reported as walk-ins per week. They provide a notion of local policing, but if you want to spend money wisely - they aren't the route.
I was very involved in a programme to close a couple of dozen stations in a RuralShire force and it caused a huge fuss until the actual figures filtered through to the most vocal campaigners. It was still very tough, but it was well worth doing.
I have relatives that live out that way, and response times form the police are already ~40 minutes. It does seem like the police are being particularly brutally hit from the cuts.
Mr. Isam, not a Londoner [as may have been noticed] but I'd guess unlikely. The Met has recent memories of both what worked and what didn't last time, and will not want a repeat of the 2011 lawlessness.
I have relatives that live out that way, and response times form the police are already ~40 minutes. It does seem like the police are being particularly brutally hit from the cuts.
Here's the nub of it:
"None of the sites being closed are currently open to the public.
The closures or lease surrenders would make revenue savings of at least £1.053m a year."
Mr. Isam, not a Londoner [as may have been noticed] but I'd guess unlikely. The Met has recent memories of both what worked and what didn't last time, and will not want a repeat of the 2011 lawlessness.
I'd guess no chance.
But if the bloke who shot the policeman had been shot by the police...
I have relatives that live out that way, and response times form the police are already ~40 minutes. It does seem like the police are being particularly brutally hit from the cuts.
Yeah, but what do the police actually do?
These rural police stations are virtually never open and, when they are, they can rarely help you. I had a rural car break in - they offered me a counselling service. I told them the only service I wanted was for them to apprehend the criminal (which they hate hearing) - unless the criminal is a total retard, and leaves blood for DNA and a calling card with their name and address, they simply can't be arsed even turning up.
The only time I see a copper is on the motorway doing a speed check. They now seem to be entitled bully-boys of the overweaning public sector, and out of shape (fat) too.
@Plato_Says I think there are most certainly efficiencies that can be achieved in the police service & unless its murder or rape (Or motoring offences) they'll claim they can't do much as it is at the moment !
But I think the levels of cuts proposed for the police force could be a touch too far. They do seem to be being hit particularly hard, and yr rank and file officer isn't hiring Jon Gaunt (Like the idiots at the met did) in order to make political points.
On topic, I don't know how things will turn out (so to speak) in Canada but it does seem the Liberals, after a dreadful election last time, are coming back strongly to the detriment of the NDP. The regional focus of the Canadian vote makes forecasting interesting so good luck to anyone with a financial interest.
As for the criticisms of Don and the topic itself, I'd make four observations:
1) No one forces anyone to comment on any and every thread. It does seem at times the same people are always here commenting on a daily basis and the forum gets a little cliquey in that regard.
2) The site is, in terms of posts, if not posters, strongly anti-Labour. OGH knows there's nothing like a strong pro-Labour piece to get the site traffic up.
3) The only threads more boring than those opposing the Government are those supporting it.
4) Why not put up your own piece ? OGH has published a couple of my ramblings down the years and most people seem capable of stringing a few sentences together (even if they are someone else's) so why not give it a go ? Put in a betting angle and you'll be home and dry.
There's a difference between a pro-Labour article and blind party propaganda. Just this morning we had a Tories are split thread which was well received because it made sense. There are so many pro-Labour articles that could be written without being propaganda like this article and so many of Don's other articles. HenryG has been mentioned as a decent article writer because he doesn't shy away from Labour's many, many failures. Don just ignores them. Someone who really has their party's interests in mind would be critical of the shite that went on last night and all of the other rubbish coming from Corbyn and his mob, not blind support of the Corbyn platform.
@Casino_Royale Shoot someone else's cat with an air rifle and the police won't even come looking for you. Do 97 on a clear motorway however and you're up before the beak.
In what way are Harper and Crosby exploiting "Islamophobia?"
I think the writer's point is that the tories will play the islam card if Zac starts to fall behind.
What is the Islam card?
In all likelihood, there will be people who vote for Goldsmith because Khan is a Muslim; and there'll be people who vote for Khan, because Goldsmith is a Jew. And in parts of London, elections are heavily polarised by race and religion.
But, I'd be surprised if the Conservatives try to whip up feeling against Khan because he's a Muslim. Ken Livingstone was a good deal more shameless in trying to exploit ethnic animosity.
What % of those voting know Zac is a Jew (I didn't) and what % cares? If the people of London are voting on religious or cultural grounds we're in one hell of a mess.
How deeply depressing that in the 21st century, we seem to be going backwards on people voting on such a racist or sectarian basis. It seems that we've overcome the historic Protestant-Catholic hatred in mainland Britain, only to bring in fresh sectarianism from the Muslim world.
Proof that multiculturalism doesn't work... If it did there wouldn't be a 'Muslim vote'
That doesn't make sense, the whole point of multiculturalism is to have distinct, separate cultures in the same country. It's in the name.
The point is that the cultures are supposed to exist in subservience to a United country not that the country is segregated by different cultures
So, you are still clearly going to end up with block votes on cultural lines as you have separate cultural groupings. They can still be subservient to the host country but the point of multi-culturalism is to retain cultural dividing lines. That's a success for multi-culturalism not a failure.
Now, if the UK adopted an integrationist approach and there was still a 'Muslim vote' then that would be a failure for the approach taken.
No I don't believe that the aim of multiculturalism was to have block votes on cultural lines. I think that would horrify its founders. I think it was to allow people to celebrate their own culture at a personal level while putting the country first, that people would feel British first and Muslim second for instance, and that Its aim was for integration, but it failed because it was mindless stupidity
Multiculturalism is a good policy for an Empire, rather than a nation state.
No I don't believe that the aim of multiculturalism was to have block votes on cultural lines. I think that would horrify its founders. I think it was to allow people to celebrate their own culture at a personal level while putting the country first, that people would feel British first and Muslim second for instance, and that Its aim was for integration, but it failed because it was mindless stupidity
Multiculturalism doesn't have a strict definition so there probably isn't much value to taking this discussion forward but I fundamentally think there is no way it can be an integrationist policy.
No I don't believe that the aim of multiculturalism was to have block votes on cultural lines. I think that would horrify its founders. I think it was to allow people to celebrate their own culture at a personal level while putting the country first, that people would feel British first and Muslim second for instance, and that Its aim was for integration, but it failed because it was mindless stupidity
Multiculturalism doesn't have a strict definition so there probably isn't much value to taking this discussion forward but I fundamentally think there is no way it can be an integrationist policy.
I agree with you it can't be integrationist, but I think the people who introduced it thought it would be... They arrogantly supposed British was best and everyone wanted to be British
There's a difference between a pro-Labour article and blind party propaganda. Just this morning we had a Tories are split thread which was well received because it made sense. There are so many pro-Labour articles that could be written without being propaganda like this article and so many of Don's other articles. HenryG has been mentioned as a decent article writer because he doesn't shy away from Labour's many, many failures. Don just ignores them. Someone who really has their party's interests in mind would be critical of the shite that went on last night and all of the other rubbish coming from Corbyn and his mob, not blind support of the Corbyn platform.
That's not really the point, though. I've never known David Herdson write an article critical of the Conservative Party though there are a few Conservatives who are critical of their party on occasion whereas for all too many it's a case of "my party right or wrong".
Don is perfectly entitled as a member of the Labour party to write an article supporting the Labour position - you (and many others on here) may not agree with it or like it and you're entitled to that view but simply because you have a negative view of Labour doesn't mean a) you are correct and b) members of the Labour party see it in the same way.
If you are in a party and find yourself in persistent opposition to the policies of that party being espoused by the leader, then it's a matter for your conscience whether you choose to remain a member of that party.
You can't expect every Labour article to be critical of Corbyn because that's your view - indeed, one of the points of sites like this is to promulgate challenging views which don't reflect the orthodoxy or even the opinions of the majority. The anguished response to said pieces is good news for those who want to see high levels of site traffic.
There's a difference between a pro-Labour article and blind party propaganda. Just this morning we had a Tories are split thread which was well received because it made sense. There are so many pro-Labour articles that could be written without being propaganda like this article and so many of Don's other articles. HenryG has been mentioned as a decent article writer because he doesn't shy away from Labour's many, many failures. Don just ignores them. Someone who really has their party's interests in mind would be critical of the shite that went on last night and all of the other rubbish coming from Corbyn and his mob, not blind support of the Corbyn platform.
If you're far enough to the right, everyone on the left looks the same, but I believe that Don isn't a Corbyn supporter, he's an ABC man who favours trying to make the best of it. HenryG gets pasted here too *except* when he's having a go at Labour. It's healthy to see someone else's viewpoint even if you disagree with it - otherwise, there are plenty of completely one-sided forums to go to. I'd be happy to see SeanF writing a regular column again from the UKIP viewpoint, for the same reason, though I expect I'll disagree with it every time. And maybe the forum actually needs a real Corbyn supporter to write a piece now and then, just to complete the range. I might have a go - the challenge is always to make the piece betting-specific.
There's a difference between a pro-Labour article and blind party propaganda. Just this morning we had a Tories are split thread which was well received because it made sense. There are so many pro-Labour articles that could be written without being propaganda like this article and so many of Don's other articles. HenryG has been mentioned as a decent article writer because he doesn't shy away from Labour's many, many failures. Don just ignores them. Someone who really has their party's interests in mind would be critical of the shite that went on last night and all of the other rubbish coming from Corbyn and his mob, not blind support of the Corbyn platform.
I've never known David Herdson write an article critical of the Conservative Party though there are a few Conservatives who are critical of their party on occasion whereas for all too many it's a case of "my party right or wrong".
David has certainly considered scenarios that are not encouraging for the Tories, not least ones where UKIP might have caused problems.
You can't in all conscience expect him to write one where he currently sees Labour being a threat....
There's a difference between a pro-Labour article and blind party propaganda. Just this morning we had a Tories are split thread which was well received because it made sense. There are so many pro-Labour articles that could be written without being propaganda like this article and so many of Don's other articles. HenryG has been mentioned as a decent article writer because he doesn't shy away from Labour's many, many failures. Don just ignores them. Someone who really has their party's interests in mind would be critical of the shite that went on last night and all of the other rubbish coming from Corbyn and his mob, not blind support of the Corbyn platform.
That's not really the point, though. I've never known David Herdson write an article critical of the Conservative Party though there are a few Conservatives who are critical of their party on occasion whereas for all too many it's a case of "my party right or wrong".
Don is perfectly entitled as a member of the Labour party to write an article supporting the Labour position - you (and many others on here) may not agree with it or like it and you're entitled to that view but simply because you have a negative view of Labour doesn't mean a) you are correct and b) members of the Labour party see it in the same way.
If you are in a party and find yourself in persistent opposition to the policies of that party being espoused by the leader, then it's a matter for your conscience whether you choose to remain a member of that party.
You can't expect every Labour article to be critical of Corbyn because that's your view - indeed, one of the points of sites like this is to promulgate challenging views which don't reflect the orthodoxy or even the opinions of the majority. The anguished response to said pieces is good news for those who want to see high levels of site traffic.
I've written articles critical of various Conservatives and of various Conservative policies over the years, though generally I try not to be supportive or critical of parties at all but to work out where things are going, which implies an objective - as best I can - rather than subjective view.
RTE says ‘yes, minister’ as politicians run the show - literally, ministers use crib - as civil servants write answers to questions they already knew! All very Quiz Show
I have relatives that live out that way, and response times form the police are already ~40 minutes. It does seem like the police are being particularly brutally hit from the cuts.
Yeah, but what do the police actually do?
These rural police stations are virtually never open and, when they are, they can rarely help you. I had a rural car break in - they offered me a counselling service. I told them the only service I wanted was for them to apprehend the criminal (which they hate hearing) - unless the criminal is a total retard, and leaves blood for DNA and a calling card with their name and address, they simply can't be arsed even turning up.
The only time I see a copper is on the motorway doing a speed check. They now seem to be entitled bully-boys of the overweaning public sector, and out of shape (fat) too.
Main Police Front Counters are usually linked to custody. So I imagine you can guess what they do.
But legislation requires most of their business. For example
Registering Sex Offenders Signing Bail Registering Foreign Nationals Producing Documents Found Property.
I agree all of this could be done by other agencies or privatised. All rural stations could be closed just leaving a main 24.7 one open in the area. However the area could be vast, for many to attend. I imagine even though they never use them the rural areas will complain , when they start to shut all around the uk.
It does seem stange why anyone would attend if they did not have to. Most normal people would ring up to report anything.
But even if you shut them all to members of the public, the Police officers have to work from somewhere. Maybe they could work from home with an i pad.
Apparently the case was originally dismissed without interviewing Leon Brittan, which the letter states is irregular, and seems on the face of it to be so. That's presumably why after Tom Watson's intervention the case was reopened.
I think Tom Watson is a corpulent little toad with a punchable face as much as the next man, but as far as this case goes he did what I hope we would all do in his shoes - pursue justice for the alleged victim.
There's a difference between a pro-Labour article and blind party propaganda. Just this morning we had a Tories are split thread which was well received because it made sense. There are so many pro-Labour articles that could be written without being propaganda like this article and so many of Don's other articles. HenryG has been mentioned as a decent article writer because he doesn't shy away from Labour's many, many failures. Don just ignores them. Someone who really has their party's interests in mind would be critical of the shite that went on last night and all of the other rubbish coming from Corbyn and his mob, not blind support of the Corbyn platform.
If you're far enough to the right, everyone on the left looks the same, but I believe that Don isn't a Corbyn supporter, he's an ABC man who favours trying to make the best of it. HenryG gets pasted here too *except* when he's having a go at Labour. It's healthy to see someone else's viewpoint even if you disagree with it - otherwise, there are plenty of completely one-sided forums to go to. I'd be happy to see SeanF writing a regular column again from the UKIP viewpoint, for the same reason, though I expect I'll disagree with it every time. And maybe the forum actually needs a real Corbyn supporter to write a piece now and then, just to complete the range. I might have a go - the challenge is always to make the piece betting-specific.
It's the last sentence that's most relevant. How on earth does this bilge by Don do that?
Apparently the case was originally dismissed without interviewing Leon Brittan, which the letter states is irregular, and seems on the face of it to be so. That's presumably why after Tom Watson's intervention the case was reopened.
I think Tom Watson is a corpulent little toad with a punchable face as much as the next man, but as far as this case goes he did what I hope we would all do in his shoes - pursue justice for the alleged victim.
No. Watson was pursuing a political witch hunt. A crusade to get Watson on the news. He was using the victims of abuse as a stepping stone in his desire for a higher public profile.
And don't trust everything Watson puts in a letter. I believe Brittan had been interviewed by this point - it is just that Watson didn't know about it.
There's a difference between a pro-Labour article and blind party propaganda. Just this morning we had a Tories are split thread which was well received because it made sense. There are so many pro-Labour articles that could be written without being propaganda like this article and so many of Don's other articles. HenryG has been mentioned as a decent article writer because he doesn't shy away from Labour's many, many failures. Don just ignores them. Someone who really has their party's interests in mind would be critical of the shite that went on last night and all of the other rubbish coming from Corbyn and his mob, not blind support of the Corbyn platform.
That's not really the point, though. I've never known David Herdson write an article critical of the Conservative Party though there are a few Conservatives who are critical of their party on occasion whereas for all too many it's a case of "my party right or wrong".
Don is perfectly entitled as a member of the Labour party to write an article supporting the Labour position - you (and many others on here) may not agree with it or like it and you're entitled to that view but simply because you have a negative view of Labour doesn't mean a) you are correct and b) members of the Labour party see it in the same way.
If you are in a party and find yourself in persistent opposition to the policies of that party being espoused by the leader, then it's a matter for your conscience whether you choose to remain a member of that party.
You can't expect every Labour article to be critical of Corbyn because that's your view - indeed, one of the points of sites like this is to promulgate challenging views which don't reflect the orthodoxy or even the opinions of the majority. The anguished response to said pieces is good news for those who want to see high levels of site traffic.
I've written articles critical of various Conservatives and of various Conservative policies over the years, though generally I try not to be supportive or critical of parties at all but to work out where things are going, which implies an objective - as best I can - rather than subjective view.
That's the thing. I quite enjoy reading articles from a different perspective. But when it's just a "all these right wingers are just racists and bigots", as this piece is, then it's pointless.
Mr. 1983, pursuing justice and informing the police are good things. Publicly naming someone accused of a heinous crime which has no hard evidence and hiding behind Parliamentary privilege are not.
Canada is different from the UK in May for several reasons not least the fact Justin Trudeau is far more charismatic than Ed Miliband and Harper far less so than Cameron and the Tories have been on power for almost a decade not five years. Final polls in the UK had it tied with the Tories ahead in more than Labour, in Canada the Liberals now lead in almost every poll. Finally, Harper has no UKIP vote to squeeze unlike Cameron while Trudeau can squeeze the NDP vote. Canada 2015 seems more like Australia 2007 when another Crosby client, John Howard was defeated after a decade in power
On topic, I don't know how things will turn out (so to speak) in Canada but it does seem the Liberals, after a dreadful election last time, are coming back strongly to the detriment of the NDP. The regional focus of the Canadian vote makes forecasting interesting so good luck to anyone with a financial interest.
As for the criticisms of Don and the topic itself, I'd make four observations:
1) No one forces anyone to comment on any and every thread. It does seem at times the same people are always here commenting on a daily basis and the forum gets a little cliquey in that regard.
2) The site is, in terms of posts, if not posters, strongly anti-Labour. OGH knows there's nothing like a strong pro-Labour piece to get the site traffic up.
3) The only threads more boring than those opposing the Government are those supporting it.
4) Why not put up your own piece ? OGH has published a couple of my ramblings down the years and most people seem capable of stringing a few sentences together (even if they are someone else's) so why not give it a go ? Put in a betting angle and you'll be home and dry.
There's a difference between a pro-Labour article and blind party propaganda. Just this morning we had a Tories are split thread which was well received because it made sense. There are so many pro-Labour articles that could be written without being propaganda like this article and so many of Don's other articles. HenryG has been mentioned as a decent article writer because he doesn't shy away from Labour's many, many failures. Don just ignores them. Someone who really has their party's interests in mind would be critical of the shite that went on last night and all of the other rubbish coming from Corbyn and his mob, not blind support of the Corbyn platform.
There's a difference between a pro-Labour article and blind party propaganda. Just this morning we had a Tories are split thread which was well received because it made sense. There are so many pro-Labour articles that could be written without being propaganda like this article and so many of Don's other articles. HenryG has been mentioned as a decent article writer because he doesn't shy away from Labour's many, many failures. Don just ignores them. Someone who really has their party's interests in mind would be critical of the shite that went on last night and all of the other rubbish coming from Corbyn and his mob, not blind support of the Corbyn platform.
That's not really the point, though. I've never known David Herdson write an article critical of the Conservative Party though there are a few Conservatives who are critical of their party on occasion whereas for all too many it's a case of "my party right or wrong".
Don is perfectly entitled as a member of the Labour party to write an article supporting the Labour position - you (and many others on here) may not agree with it or like it and you're entitled to that view but simply because you have a negative view of Labour doesn't mean a) you are correct and b) members of the Labour party see it in the same way.
If you are in a party and find yourself in persistent opposition to the policies of that party being espoused by the leader, then it's a matter for your conscience whether you choose to remain a member of that party.
You can't expect every Labour article to be critical of Corbyn because that's your view - indeed, one of the points of sites like this is to promulgate challenging views which don't reflect the orthodoxy or even the opinions of the majority. The anguished response to said pieces is good news for those who want to see high levels of site traffic.
TBF, David is critical / thoughtful in his pieces & sometimes adds betting angles. Don's could have been copied out of the Mirror editorial pages.
On topic, I don't know how things will turn out (so to speak) in Canada but it does seem the Liberals, after a dreadful election last time, are coming back strongly to the detriment of the NDP. The regional focus of the Canadian vote makes forecasting interesting so good luck to anyone with a financial interest.
As for the criticisms of Don and the topic itself, I'd make four observations:
1) No one forces anyone to comment on any and every thread. It does seem at times the same people are always here commenting on a daily basis and the forum gets a little cliquey in that regard.
2) The site is, in terms of posts, if not posters, strongly anti-Labour. OGH knows there's nothing like a strong pro-Labour piece to get the site traffic up.
3) The only threads more boring than those opposing the Government are those supporting it.
4) Why not put up your own piece ? OGH has published a couple of my ramblings down the years and most people seem capable of stringing a few sentences together (even if they are someone else's) so why not give it a go ? Put in a betting angle and you'll be home and dry.
There's a difference between a pro-Labour article and blind party propaganda. Just this morning we had a Tories are split thread which was well received because it made sense. There are so many pro-Labour articles that could be written without being propaganda like this article and so many of Don's other articles. HenryG has been mentioned as a decent article writer because he doesn't shy away from Labour's many, many failures. Don just ignores them. Someone who really has their party's interests in mind would be critical of the shite that went on last night and all of the other rubbish coming from Corbyn and his mob, not blind support of the Corbyn platform.
Get over it.
What do you think your post added to the discussion?
Apparently the case was originally dismissed without interviewing Leon Brittan, which the letter states is irregular, and seems on the face of it to be so. That's presumably why after Tom Watson's intervention the case was reopened.
I think Tom Watson is a corpulent little toad with a punchable face as much as the next man, but as far as this case goes he did what I hope we would all do in his shoes - pursue justice for the alleged victim.
He should have done it in private, not stand up and trash a man's reputation in public when there was minimal, if any, credible evidence.
On topic, I don't know how things will turn out (so to speak) in Canada but it does seem the Liberals, after a dreadful election last time, are coming back strongly to the detriment of the NDP. The regional focus of the Canadian vote makes forecasting interesting so good luck to anyone with a financial interest.
As for the criticisms of Don and the topic itself, I'd make four observations:
1) No one forces anyone to comment on any and every thread. It does seem at times the same people are always here commenting on a daily basis and the forum gets a little cliquey in that regard.
2) The site is, in terms of posts, if not posters, strongly anti-Labour. OGH knows there's nothing like a strong pro-Labour piece to get the site traffic up.
3) The only threads more boring than those opposing the Government are those supporting it.
4) Why not put up your own piece ? OGH has published a couple of my ramblings down the years and most people seem capable of stringing a few sentences together (even if they are someone else's) so why not give it a go ? Put in a betting angle and you'll be home and dry.
There's a difference between a pro-Labour article and blind party propaganda. Just this morning we had a Tories are split thread which was well received because it made sense. There are so many pro-Labour articles that could be written without being propaganda like this article and so many of Don's other articles. HenryG has been mentioned as a decent article writer because he doesn't shy away from Labour's many, many failures. Don just ignores them. Someone who really has their party's interests in mind would be critical of the shite that went on last night and all of the other rubbish coming from Corbyn and his mob, not blind support of the Corbyn platform.
Whinging little Tory , at least they got their gigs on merit and not through cronyism.
On topic, I don't know how things will turn out (so to speak) in Canada but it does seem the Liberals, after a dreadful election last time, are coming back strongly to the detriment of the NDP. The regional focus of the Canadian vote makes forecasting interesting so good luck to anyone with a financial interest.
As for the criticisms of Don and the topic itself, I'd make four observations:
1) No one forces anyone to comment on any and every thread. It does seem at times the same people are always here commenting on a daily basis and the forum gets a little cliquey in that regard.
2) The site is, in terms of posts, if not posters, strongly anti-Labour. OGH knows there's nothing like a strong pro-Labour piece to get the site traffic up.
3) The only threads more boring than those opposing the Government are those supporting it.
4) Why not put up your own piece ? OGH has published a couple of my ramblings down the years and most people seem capable of stringing a few sentences together (even if they are someone else's) so why not give it a go ? Put in a betting angle and you'll be home and dry.
There's a difference between a pro-Labour article and blind party propaganda. Just this morning we had a Tories are split thread which was well received because it made sense. There are so many pro-Labour articles that could be written without being propaganda like this article and so many of Don's other articles. HenryG has been mentioned as a decent article writer because he doesn't shy away from Labour's many, many failures. Don just ignores them. Someone who really has their party's interests in mind would be critical of the shite that went on last night and all of the other rubbish coming from Corbyn and his mob, not blind support of the Corbyn platform.
Get over it.
What do you think your post added to the discussion?
The fact that it was just another whinging , whining little Tory. Never happy.
You don't have to agree with an article to find it useful. Don Brind has correctly drawn attention to the fact that race and culture have become very hot topics in the Canadian election. He places this as part of a theme in Lyndon Crosby-run campaigns and speculates on the potential relevance of that to the London Mayoral race.
You may disagree with his thesis. But he puts forward a view and the exercise of working out if and why you disagree with it is helpful.
On topic, I don't know how things will turn out (so to speak) in Canada but it does seem the Liberals, after a dreadful election last time, are coming back strongly to the detriment of the NDP. The regional focus of the Canadian vote makes forecasting interesting so good luck to anyone with a financial interest.
As for the criticisms of Don and the topic itself, I'd make four observations:
1) No one forces anyone to comment on any and every thread. It does seem at times the same people are always here commenting on a daily basis and the forum gets a little cliquey in that regard.
2) The site is, in terms of posts, if not posters, strongly anti-Labour. OGH knows there's nothing like a strong pro-Labour piece to get the site traffic up.
3) The only threads more boring than those opposing the Government are those supporting it.
4) Why not put up your own piece ? OGH has published a couple of my ramblings down the years and most people seem capable of stringing a few sentences together (even if they are someone else's) so why not give it a go ? Put in a betting angle and you'll be home and dry.
There's a difference between a pro-Labour article and blind party propaganda. Just this morning we had a Tories are split thread which was well received because it made sense. There are so many pro-Labour articles that could be written without being propaganda like this article and so many of Don's other articles. HenryG has been mentioned as a decent article writer because he doesn't shy away from Labour's many, many failures. Don just ignores them. Someone who really has their party's interests in mind would be critical of the shite that went on last night and all of the other rubbish coming from Corbyn and his mob, not blind support of the Corbyn platform.
Get over it.
What do you think your post added to the discussion?
The fact that it was just another whinging , whining little Tory. Never happy.
Anyway, there are a few ways race could become an issue.
Khan's ethnic minority quotas is an obvious one. Another is the migration issue, both regarding our current very high levels and (better for the Government) the Teutonic madness of inviting the world and his sister.
I was surprised by Mascara Man's playing of the race card over the changes to renting property, very similar to the Labour-designed legal requirement on employers.
Of course, this also has a wider context regarding identity politics, which is vile nonsense of the first water. Defining people by their race, gender or other demographics is a horrendous approach to politics.
You don't have to agree with an article to find it useful. Don Brind has correctly drawn attention to the fact that race and culture have become very hot topics in the Canadian election. He places this as part of a theme in Lyndon Crosby-run campaigns and speculates on the potential relevance of that to the London Mayoral race.
You may disagree with his thesis. But he puts forward a view and the exercise of working out if and why you disagree with it is helpful.
He could have done the same thing without calling anyone on one side of the argument Islamophobic and racist, and everyone on the other side of the argument "the good guys".
Islamophobia and racism are real things that motivate some horrible acts. Liberally throwing them about for partisan reasons just causes the terms to lose meaning, and mean the victims of genuine bigotry get ignored.
Today’s meeting of the public administration select committee has a reasonable claim to being the single weirdest event in recent parliamentary history. This was three solid hours of bewildering excuses, recriminations and non sequiturs.
At one point, Alan Yentob – chairman of Kids Company’s trustees, as well as a senior BBC executive – accused a 75-year-old widow of plaguing him with “abusive limericks”. Sadly he didn’t recite them. Perhaps he’s saving that for an episode of Imagine.
I hope this means that BFS can play a full part in Indy Ref 2 ?
Let's hope so !
@kevverage: McIntyre-Kemp told a Holyrood committee Biz for Scot had 1,500 "entrepreneurs & directors" as members. Simply untrue http://t.co/Rbuf9UW5cP
@kevverage: That figure was at best email sign-ups with no fee required and no qualification checks
I know because my dog joined Business for Scotland
@cathynewman: Labour's deputy leader @tom_watson under fresh pressure over allegations he made about the child abuse scandal. Exclusive report at 7 on 4
Somehow I don't think that Mr Corbyn is going to be seated anywhere close to the Chinese president at this banquet. He'll be be allocated a seat on a side table near the gents.
There must be a standard table plan. I guess they will try to put him next to someone interested in motorbikes and sidecars. In the great scheme of things he is entitled to raise anything with the Chinese president. So does Cameron. Does he get an automatic meeting? Does he have to ask?
It's the last sentence that's most relevant. How on earth does this bilge by Don do that?
It's possible to bet on the Canadian election, which is the main theme of the article, and on the London election, which is the subsidiary theme. It's not really in dispute that Canadian Conservatives have been campaigning heavily on the hijab issue. We might agree or disagree but it appears to have backfired with floating voters.
That said, the odds for Conservative most seats look quite long at 6.6 (https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.119830308 ) - because of the way the election system there works, it's possible that the Conservatives could come first in seats even if they lose out in votes.
I have relatives that live out that way, and response times form the police are already ~40 minutes. It does seem like the police are being particularly brutally hit from the cuts.
Perhaps instead of adding huge layers of cost via the Police and Crime Commissioners, the Westminster government should try some joined up thinking and ask what possible benefit multiple, inefficient head offices is for a service which does the same things wherever it operates.
Then save hundreds of millions getting rid of those pointless head offices and running a national police service.
Another steal they can take from the SNP as they continue to learn from the North how to run competent, efficient government.
You don't have to agree with an article to find it useful. Don Brind has correctly drawn attention to the fact that race and culture have become very hot topics in the Canadian election. He places this as part of a theme in Lyndon Crosby-run campaigns and speculates on the potential relevance of that to the London Mayoral race.
You may disagree with his thesis. But he puts forward a view and the exercise of working out if and why you disagree with it is helpful.
Race and culture have become hot topics in almost every western democracy thanks to the left's decision to activate the so-called "culture wars".
No I don't believe that the aim of multiculturalism was to have block votes on cultural lines. I think that would horrify its founders. I think it was to allow people to celebrate their own culture at a personal level while putting the country first, that people would feel British first and Muslim second for instance, and that Its aim was for integration, but it failed because it was mindless stupidity
Multiculturalism doesn't have a strict definition so there probably isn't much value to taking this discussion forward but I fundamentally think there is no way it can be an integrationist policy.
Examples of multiculturalism : -
Jim Crow Laws Apartheid Wearing of recognised symbols (such as yellow stars)
Then save hundreds of millions getting rid of those pointless head offices and running a national police service.
Another steal they can take from the SNP as they continue to learn from the North how to run competent, efficient government.
Despite having fewer offences to investigate, however, Police Scotland manages to clear up 50,000 fewer crimes each year than the eight old constabularies did a decade ago. Basic policing mistakes that just were not made in the old days now fill the newspapers: in July a woman was left lying next to her dead boyfriend in a car in Bannockburn for three days after the crash was reported to police; she later died. A few weeks ago an elderly disabled woman died when police waited 20 hours after a call from a concerned family member before forcing entry to her home, where she lay collapsed next to her dead husband. A recent survey found that a third of Police Scotland’s staff planned to leave the force within three years: the merger, as Theresa May put it, is a case study in what not to do.
On topic, I don't know how things will turn out (so to speak) in Canada but it does seem the Liberals, after a dreadful election last time, are coming back strongly to the detriment of the NDP. The regional focus of the Canadian vote makes forecasting interesting so good luck to anyone with a financial interest.
As for the criticisms of Don and the topic itself, I'd make four observations:
1) No one forces anyone to comment on any and every thread. It does seem at times the same people are always here commenting on a daily basis and the forum gets a little cliquey in that regard.
2) The site is, in terms of posts, if not posters, strongly anti-Labour. OGH knows there's nothing like a strong pro-Labour piece to get the site traffic up.
3) The only threads more boring than those opposing the Government are those supporting it.
4) Why not put up your own piece ? OGH has published a couple of my ramblings down the years and most people seem capable of stringing a few sentences together (even if they are someone else's) so why not give it a go ? Put in a betting angle and you'll be home and dry.
There's a difference between a pro-Labour article and blind party propaganda. Just this morning we had a Tories are split thread which was well received because it made sense. There are so many pro-Labour articles that could be written without being propaganda like this article and so many of Don's other articles. HenryG has been mentioned as a decent article writer because he doesn't shy away from Labour's many, many failures. Don just ignores them. Someone who really has their party's interests in mind would be critical of the shite that went on last night and all of the other rubbish coming from Corbyn and his mob, not blind support of the Corbyn platform.
Get over it.
What do you think your post added to the discussion?
The fact that it was just another whinging , whining little Tory. Never happy.
Oh dear, Malcaholic, appears to have discovered someone has left the COSHH, cabinet unlocked.
Comments
No. Whatever a people thinks it is is not the point. The point is that politicians in Area (A) are making decisions that affect the voters of area (B) without the voters of area (B) being able to have a say or deliver a verdict on the actions of the politicians of area (A).
The EU is set up so that all sorts of people from areas A/C/D/E/F etc are making decisions that affect the lives of the voters of area (B), without the voters of area (B) having a say in those decisions.
He used to wear EU cufflinks... Danny Finkekstein thought that didn't mean he wasn't a euro sceptic
West lothian would only be a good comparison if we sent MPs to the German parliament.
Now, if the UK adopted an integrationist approach and there was still a 'Muslim vote' then that would be a failure for the approach taken.
ISLAMIC State (ISIS) is on the verge of defeat after Russia cut off its arm supplies, according to reports.
Russian jets have made 41 sorties and carried out 40 attacks against the twisted terror group in the past 24 hours, a defence official claimed.'
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/612212/ISIS-Islamic-State-Russia-arms-Vladimir-Putin-Aleppo-Idlib-Latakia
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34540626
Luckily by the time I'd got as far as "Or will the “good guys” win this time?" it was obvious that it was his usual crock of shit. Scrolled down to his signature and caught the last sentence in peripheral vision. Disgusting. Brind is a knob.
'Scottish prosecutors say they want to interview two Libyans they have identified as suspects over Lockerbie bombing.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34543983
No doubt they'll claim to be ill, and the Scots won't bother them again.
One solution certainly. It's true that Merkel would then have to run the gamut of English tories in a parliament.
The voters of area (B) seem to prefer the solution where powers are returned to area (B) to shackle the powers of area (A/C/D/E) rather than pooling power with those areas.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 3m3 minutes ago
Scottish Crown Office confirms two Libyans have been identified as suspects in the on-going investigation into the 1988 #Lockerbie bombing
Off you toddle then..
Dog whistle stuff from Don - dreadful.
Them effnicks will all vote for each avah !!
http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/update/2015-10-15/34-police-stations-and-offices-to-close-across-devon-cornwall/?
I have relatives that live out that way, and response times form the police are already ~40 minutes. It does seem like the police are being particularly brutally hit from the cuts.
In bad-tempered Commons grilling, MPs accuse charity founder Camila Batmanghelidjh of delivering ‘non-stop spiel of psychobabble’
The founder of Kids Company and her chair of trustees have been forced by MPs to defend huge discrepancies with social services chiefs over the number of children on their books.
During ferocious exchanges, Camilla Batmanghelidj, the charity’s founder, was accused of employing “a non-stop spiel, psychobabble” and a “torrent of verbal ectoplasm” rather than answer questions about the governance and management of an organisation which received more than £30m of taxpayers’ money.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/15/kids-company-chiefs-deny-cash-willy-nilly-camila-batmanghelidjh
Watching Alan Yentob cringe every time Ms Batman opened her gob was painful to see.
On topic, I don't know how things will turn out (so to speak) in Canada but it does seem the Liberals, after a dreadful election last time, are coming back strongly to the detriment of the NDP. The regional focus of the Canadian vote makes forecasting interesting so good luck to anyone with a financial interest.
As for the criticisms of Don and the topic itself, I'd make four observations:
1) No one forces anyone to comment on any and every thread. It does seem at times the same people are always here commenting on a daily basis and the forum gets a little cliquey in that regard.
2) The site is, in terms of posts, if not posters, strongly anti-Labour. OGH knows there's nothing like a strong pro-Labour piece to get the site traffic up.
3) The only threads more boring than those opposing the Government are those supporting it.
4) Why not put up your own piece ? OGH has published a couple of my ramblings down the years and most people seem capable of stringing a few sentences together (even if they are someone else's) so why not give it a go ? Put in a betting angle and you'll be home and dry.
http://www.pewglobal.org/files/pdf/254.pdf
I was very involved in a programme to close a couple of dozen stations in a RuralShire force and it caused a huge fuss until the actual figures filtered through to the most vocal campaigners. It was still very tough, but it was well worth doing.
'A police officer has been shot in east London, Scotland Yard has confirmed
The male officer was shot during a firearms operation in Scriven Street in the Haggerston area of Hackney, at around 12.45pm.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11933668/Police-officer-shot-in-east-London.html?WT.mc_id=e_DM55638&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FPM_New&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FPM_New_2015_10_15&utm_campaign=DM55638
"None of the sites being closed are currently open to the public.
The closures or lease surrenders would make revenue savings of at least £1.053m a year."
But if the bloke who shot the policeman had been shot by the police...
These rural police stations are virtually never open and, when they are, they can rarely help you. I had a rural car break in - they offered me a counselling service. I told them the only service I wanted was for them to apprehend the criminal (which they hate hearing) - unless the criminal is a total retard, and leaves blood for DNA and a calling card with their name and address, they simply can't be arsed even turning up.
The only time I see a copper is on the motorway doing a speed check. They now seem to be entitled bully-boys of the overweaning public sector, and out of shape (fat) too.
But I think the levels of cuts proposed for the police force could be a touch too far. They do seem to be being hit particularly hard, and yr rank and file officer isn't hiring Jon Gaunt (Like the idiots at the met did) in order to make political points.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-donations/electoral-commission-concludes-assessment-of-allegations-against-business-for-scotland-and-the-scottish-national-party
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
Jean Charles de Menezes?
Don is perfectly entitled as a member of the Labour party to write an article supporting the Labour position - you (and many others on here) may not agree with it or like it and you're entitled to that view but simply because you have a negative view of Labour doesn't mean a) you are correct and b) members of the Labour party see it in the same way.
If you are in a party and find yourself in persistent opposition to the policies of that party being espoused by the leader, then it's a matter for your conscience whether you choose to remain a member of that party.
You can't expect every Labour article to be critical of Corbyn because that's your view - indeed, one of the points of sites like this is to promulgate challenging views which don't reflect the orthodoxy or even the opinions of the majority. The anguished response to said pieces is good news for those who want to see high levels of site traffic.
You can't in all conscience expect him to write one where he currently sees Labour being a threat....
RTE says ‘yes, minister’ as politicians run the show - literally, ministers use crib - as civil servants write answers to questions they already knew! All very Quiz Show
Main Police Front Counters are usually linked to custody.
So I imagine you can guess what they do.
But legislation requires most of their business.
For example
Registering Sex Offenders
Signing Bail
Registering Foreign Nationals
Producing Documents
Found Property.
I agree all of this could be done by other agencies or privatised.
All rural stations could be closed just leaving a main 24.7 one open in the area.
However the area could be vast, for many to attend.
I imagine even though they never use them the rural areas will complain , when they start to shut all around the uk.
It does seem stange why anyone would attend if they did not have to.
Most normal people would ring up to report anything.
But even if you shut them all to members of the public, the Police officers have to work from somewhere.
Maybe they could work from home with an i pad.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34509582
Apparently the case was originally dismissed without interviewing Leon Brittan, which the letter states is irregular, and seems on the face of it to be so. That's presumably why after Tom Watson's intervention the case was reopened.
I think Tom Watson is a corpulent little toad with a punchable face as much as the next man, but as far as this case goes he did what I hope we would all do in his shoes - pursue justice for the alleged victim.
And don't trust everything Watson puts in a letter. I believe Brittan had been interviewed by this point - it is just that Watson didn't know about it.
You may disagree with his thesis. But he puts forward a view and the exercise of working out if and why you disagree with it is helpful.
Why not give it a rest Malky.
Khan's ethnic minority quotas is an obvious one. Another is the migration issue, both regarding our current very high levels and (better for the Government) the Teutonic madness of inviting the world and his sister.
I was surprised by Mascara Man's playing of the race card over the changes to renting property, very similar to the Labour-designed legal requirement on employers.
Of course, this also has a wider context regarding identity politics, which is vile nonsense of the first water. Defining people by their race, gender or other demographics is a horrendous approach to politics.
Islamophobia and racism are real things that motivate some horrible acts. Liberally throwing them about for partisan reasons just causes the terms to lose meaning, and mean the victims of genuine bigotry get ignored.
Let's hope so !
@kevverage: That figure was at best email sign-ups with no fee required and no qualification checks
I know because my dog joined Business for Scotland
Camila Batmanghelidjh – the former CEO of Kids Company – stiffened. This time, Bernard Jenkin had gone too far.
“On what basis,” she inquired haughtily, “have you decided that this was a ‘failing’ charity?”
The Conservative MP for Harwich & N Essex met her glare equably. “It’s gone bust,” he said.
Classic.
That said, the odds for Conservative most seats look quite long at 6.6 (https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.119830308 ) - because of the way the election system there works, it's possible that the Conservatives could come first in seats even if they lose out in votes.
Then save hundreds of millions getting rid of those pointless head offices and running a national police service.
Another steal they can take from the SNP as they continue to learn from the North how to run competent, efficient government.
Jim Crow Laws
Apartheid
Wearing of recognised symbols (such as yellow stars)
A few puppies in the pet shop getting kicked tonight.