Police held sheep identity parades for farmers from three counties whose ewes had gone missing, a court has heard.
A total of 14 farmers from both sides of the Pennines, in North Yorkshire, Cumbria and County Durham, identified 116 sheep as belonging to them, a jury heard.
I hate to say this but the Labour machine will be far more effective than Ukip who will be a group of enthusiastic but aimless door knockers. Labour will have data going back decades that Ukip can't compete with. I don't wish to sound defeatist, Bickley is a good man and the troops will give it a great shot but Ukip simply don't have the resources. Labour will win with a much reduced maj but still comfortably, postal votes will be the difference.
The Labour machine wasn't very effective in Heywood & Middleton next door. The polls said they'd win easily and in the end they held on by a whisker after a recount. Why would it be different in Oldham?
Mr. JS, partly agree, though UKIP then was at their high water mark.
That just isn't true if you read Stephen Bush's article in the New Statesman as I've pointed out several times on here in the last few days. According to the article Labour insiders believe UKIP has improved its support in Labour areas over the last 12 months, and I can't think of any reason why he would report this unless it were true.
They're normally the agitators out to commit illegal acts, else they wouldn't be trying to hide their identities.
The others wearing masks are the credulous idiots who believe the conspiracy theories about the 'state within a state stuff' and that they'll be executed on Dartmoor by Jason Bourne.
I hate to say this but the Labour machine will be far more effective than Ukip who will be a group of enthusiastic but aimless door knockers. Labour will have data going back decades that Ukip can't compete with. I don't wish to sound defeatist, Bickley is a good man and the troops will give it a great shot but Ukip simply don't have the resources. Labour will win with a much reduced maj but still comfortably, postal votes will be the difference.
The Labour machine wasn't very effective in Heywood & Middleton next door. The polls said they'd win easily and in the end they held on by a whisker after a recount. Why would it be different in Oldham?
I hate to say this but the Labour machine will be far more effective than Ukip who will be a group of xenthusiastic but aimless door knockers. Labour will have data going back decades that Ukip can't compete with. I don't wish to sound defeatist, Bickley is a good man and the troops will give it a great shot but Ukip simply don't have the resources. Labour will win with a much reduced maj but still comfortably, postal votes will be the difference.
I agree that UKIP will be enthusiastic but aimless. I expect that Labour will be much the same. This has long been a safe seat so I doubt whether they have any useful data.
I gather that when David Miliband resigned as an MP in 2013 the LAB HQ campaigners were shocked to discover that there was no canvassing data in South Shields whatsoever. Even things like leaflet distribution runs were not in place.
Miss Plato, leaving aside the fabled Virtue Of Morris Dancer, I get distracted from work easily enough as it is. I dislike watching stuff via the PC, but I do thank you for the suggestion [I know most people aren't so finickity].
Currently writing serious, dramatic, warlike fantasy stuff. Which led, naturally, to me writing several one-liners for the cross-dressing knight...
I hate to say this but the Labour machine will be far more effective than Ukip who will be a group of enthusiastic but aimless door knockers. Labour will have data going back decades that Ukip can't compete with. I don't wish to sound defeatist, Bickley is a good man and the troops will give it a great shot but Ukip simply don't have the resources. Labour will win with a much reduced maj but still comfortably, postal votes will be the difference.
Will it be the same pre-Jezza organisation, though? Given the new membership. I don't suppose it matters if the person shoving the leaflet through the letterbox is a raving trot or a decent centre-left type but I wonder about the discipline with so many newcomers?
Dr. Prasannan, Sir Ulrich von Liechtenstein was an expert jouster, and a cross-dresser.
When I read that snippet (in the Unofficial Manual dedicated to the Knight, which I can heartily recommend) I decided it would be a good thing to include a comparable fellow, although mine's a swordsman, primarily.
Dr. Prasannan, Sir Ulrich von Liechtenstein was an expert jouster, and a cross-dresser.
When I read that snippet (in the Unofficial Manual dedicated to the Knight, which I can heartily recommend) I decided it would be a good thing to include a comparable fellow, although mine's a swordsman, primarily.
I hate to say this but the Labour machine will be far more effective than Ukip who will be a group of enthusiastic but aimless door knockers. Labour will have data going back decades that Ukip can't compete with. I don't wish to sound defeatist, Bickley is a good man and the troops will give it a great shot but Ukip simply don't have the resources. Labour will win with a much reduced maj but still comfortably, postal votes will be the difference.
The Labour machine wasn't very effective in Heywood & Middleton next door. The polls said they'd win easily and in the end they held on by a whisker after a recount. Why would it be different in Oldham?
Labour were complacent in Heywood, Corbyn can't afford to slip up here. Postal votes won it then, they'll win it now, Ukip don't know who votes for them and won't have the time to get organised. I really hope I'm wrong, would love to see Bickley win.
I hate to say this but the Labour machine will be far more effective than Ukip who will be a group of xenthusiastic but aimless door knockers. Labour will have data going back decades that Ukip can't compete with. I don't wish to sound defeatist, Bickley is a good man and the troops will give it a great shot but Ukip simply don't have the resources. Labour will win with a much reduced maj but still comfortably, postal votes will be the difference.
I agree that UKIP will be enthusiastic but aimless. I expect that Labour will be much the same. This has long been a safe seat so I doubt whether they have any useful data.
I gather that when David Miliband resigned as an MP in 2013 the LAB HQ campaigners were shocked to discover that there was no canvassing data in South Shields whatsoever. Even things like leaflet distribution runs were not in place.
I'm amazed they even bother leafleting in South Shields, money can be better spent elsewhere
I hate to say this but the Labour machine will be far more effective than Ukip who will be a group of xenthusiastic but aimless door knockers. Labour will have data going back decades that Ukip can't compete with. I don't wish to sound defeatist, Bickley is a good man and the troops will give it a great shot but Ukip simply don't have the resources. Labour will win with a much reduced maj but still comfortably, postal votes will be the difference.
I agree that UKIP will be enthusiastic but aimless. I expect that Labour will be much the same. This has long been a safe seat so I doubt whether they have any useful data.
I gather that when David Miliband resigned as an MP in 2013 the LAB HQ campaigners were shocked to discover that there was no canvassing data in South Shields whatsoever. Even things like leaflet distribution runs were not in place.
LibDems did fantastically well in the subsequent by-election:
I hate to say this but the Labour machine will be far more effective than Ukip who will be a group of enthusiastic but aimless door knockers. Labour will have data going back decades that Ukip can't compete with. I don't wish to sound defeatist, Bickley is a good man and the troops will give it a great shot but Ukip simply don't have the resources. Labour will win with a much reduced maj but still comfortably, postal votes will be the difference.
The Labour machine wasn't very effective in Heywood & Middleton next door. The polls said they'd win easily and in the end they held on by a whisker after a recount. Why would it be different in Oldham?
Labour were complacent in Heywood, Corbyn can't afford to slip up here. Postal votes won it then, they'll win it now, Ukip don't know who votes for them and won't have the time to get organised. I really hope I'm wrong, would love to see Bickley win.
It shouldn't be forgotten that Ed MIliband was almost certainly more popular with voters than Jeremy Corbyn is. Therefore Labour should be more worried about losing safe seats now than they were when Ed was leader.
Tonight's anti-austerity 'Million Mask March' is almost certain to descend into kicking, punching, screaming and smashing. That's not striking the balance between the right to political expression and the right to live in an ordered society
I've long thought that the way to solve this is to get people attending to put a quid into a bucket and so pay for the policing.
I hope you're joking?
It feels like something from a comedy sketch: "You can protest against poverty and bureaucracy once you've applied for your £25 protest pass which takes 4-6 to weeks to process".
Perhaps the pass can come with a bar code and a GPS chip.
I hate to say this but the Labour machine will be far more effective than Ukip who will be a group of xenthusiastic but aimless door knockers. Labour will have data going back decades that Ukip can't compete with. I don't wish to sound defeatist, Bickley is a good man and the troops will give it a great shot but Ukip simply don't have the resources. Labour will win with a much reduced maj but still comfortably, postal votes will be the difference.
I agree that UKIP will be enthusiastic but aimless. I expect that Labour will be much the same. This has long been a safe seat so I doubt whether they have any useful data.
I gather that when David Miliband resigned as an MP in 2013 the LAB HQ campaigners were shocked to discover that there was no canvassing data in South Shields whatsoever. Even things like leaflet distribution runs were not in place.
I'd expect that several safe seats on both sides have a lack of local information in place, especially as campaigns become more targeted to marginals, and in seats where the MP is an outsider/Londoner rather than a local campaigner.
How many leaflets do we think David Miliband ever posted through letterboxes in South Shields, and if he couldn't be bothered why would the troops around him care? They'd much rather be in the marginal a couple of seats down the road!
Rufus Sewell was so dastardly. I loved Paul Bettany in it - he's such a versatile actor, clowning nude, alter ego in Beautiful Mind and then cynical banker in Margin Call.
I hate to say this but the Labour machine will be far more effective than Ukip who will be a group of enthusiastic but aimless door knockers. Labour will have data going back decades that Ukip can't compete with. I don't wish to sound defeatist, Bickley is a good man and the troops will give it a great shot but Ukip simply don't have the resources. Labour will win with a much reduced maj but still comfortably, postal votes will be the difference.
The Labour machine wasn't very effective in Heywood & Middleton next door. The polls said they'd win easily and in the end they held on by a whisker after a recount. Why would it be different in Oldham?
Labour were complacent in Heywood, Corbyn can't afford to slip up here. Postal votes won it then, they'll win it now, Ukip don't know who votes for them and won't have the time to get organised. I really hope I'm wrong, would love to see Bickley win.
It shouldn't be forgotten that Ed MIliband was almost certainly more popular with voters than Jeremy Corbyn is. Therefore Labour should be more worried about losing safe seats now than they were when Ed was leader.
It would also help a lot if Government learnt how to draft legislation that is clear and limited in scope - not woolly generic rubbish that the police can then take and apply as widely as they fancy at any point in time. (cf Psychoactive Substances Bill as the latest and most egregious example)
The problem is that there needs to be a balance between precision and generality, otherwise people would find loopholes and legislation would need to be constantly updated. I agree that some legislation is worryingly vague, however. In particular, I know the Computer Misuse Act 1990 is kind of scary in how ridiculously general it is.
Many of the problems have been caused by several successive authoritarian governments from Thatcher onwards, each introducing more government powers and putting more restrictions on people's freedoms. I find it particularly frustrating as the current Conservative Party leadership have at times given lip-service to the idea of "freedom" while being as bad, if not worse, in introducing policies that restrict individual freedoms and increasing government powers.
Well, I'm going to repost too.
At the risk of being controversial, why should causing distress and anxiety be a criminal offence? (As opposed to bloody bad manners.)
There is too much legislation which is rushed in in response to a few cases and which seems to operate on the basis that the law - and only the law - should be used to get rid of anything bad in society. It's a fundamentally infantile view and a worrying trend, IMO.
And now have to go off to do some work. Will check in later.
Indeed, within biosafety and biosecurity, I constantly rail against additional regulation, as it is behaviours you need to change, and law enforcement cannot stand behind every scientist to enforce compliance with regulations.
We preach a three layered system of measures: 1. coercive - laws and regulations that can be enforced with penalties for non-compliance 2. normative - eg codes of conduct, self-governance and guidelines, based on what is deemed to be in societal interests 3. mimetic - or enlightened self-interest. The things people do, like best practice, or continual improvement, because it is the right way to do things.
Not everything should or could be governed by coercive measures. What the balance of these three layers should or could be changes significantly with context. In fast moving technology areas, where law lags developments, almost all of the emphasis is on normative and mimetic measures.
Rufus Sewell was so dastardly. I loved Paul Bettany in it - he's such a versatile actor, clowning nude, alter ego in Beautiful Mind and then cynical banker in Margin Call.
Rufus Sewell was so dastardly. I loved Paul Bettany in it - he's such a versatile actor, clowning nude, alter ego in Beautiful Mind and then cynical banker in Margin Call.
Rufus Sewell was so dastardly. I loved Paul Bettany in it - he's such a versatile actor, clowning nude, alter ego in Beautiful Mind and then cynical banker in Margin Call.
I hate to say this but the Labour machine will be far more effective than Ukip who will be a group of enthusiastic but aimless door knockers. Labour will have data going back decades that Ukip can't compete with. I don't wish to sound defeatist, Bickley is a good man and the troops will give it a great shot but Ukip simply don't have the resources. Labour will win with a much reduced maj but still comfortably, postal votes will be the difference.
The Labour machine wasn't very effective in Heywood & Middleton next door. The polls said they'd win easily and in the end they held on by a whisker after a recount. Why would it be different in Oldham?
Labour were complacent in Heywood, Corbyn can't afford to slip up here. Postal votes won it then, they'll win it now, Ukip don't know who votes for them and won't have the time to get organised. I really hope I'm wrong, would love to see Bickley win.
It shouldn't be forgotten that Ed MIliband was almost certainly more popular with voters than Jeremy Corbyn is. Therefore Labour should be more worried about losing safe seats now than they were when Ed was leader.
Labour will still hold on. People forget that Lab are in opposition and opposition parties rarely lose by-elections (Bradford West was an exception)
Tonight's anti-austerity 'Million Mask March' is almost certain to descend into kicking, punching, screaming and smashing. That's not striking the balance between the right to political expression and the right to live in an ordered society
“But, but, but”, wail the organisers of these protests, “it wasn’t that bad. There were only a handful of arrests. It was only a few idiots. The vast majority of the marchers were peaceful”.
Tough. There are too many arrests. There are too many idiots. Not enough marchers are acting peacefully.
I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, but it does seem notable that if you told people there will be violence and arrests (by a small minority, of course) at every single one of these types of events, some will defend the action as justified, some will deflect onto the disproportionate response of the police, some will go the route Dan has, but absolutely no one will be surprised that it happened in the first place. It is expected, and thus accepted, to a certain degree.
Or you simply accept that some violence, damage and arrests will likely happen and that it's simply an unfortunate but inevitable side-effect of the freedom to protest, which should be a fundamental part of our society and values.
Plenty of other personal freedoms have unfortunate side-effects, that doesn't mean they should necessarily be curbed.
Not often I agree with you to be honest Oliver but in this case you are dead right. Of course what they are setting up (I don't mean consciously but effectively) is the ability to disrupt or prevent any protest through the use of a few carefully placed Agent provocateurs in the march.
Labour always stays true to it's roots. Dave and Ed Miliband, those working class northern brothers representing their own in South Shields and Doncaster.
Labour always stays true to it's roots. Dave and Ed Miliband, those working class northern brothers representing their own in South Shields and Doncaster.
Labour always stays true to it's roots. Dave and Ed Miliband, those working class northern brothers representing their own in South Shields and Doncaster.
22% at BE, 24% at GE - respectable but a mile behind Labour.
Sam Burgess leaves Bath to rejoin South Sydney Rabbitohs
Been terribly messed about. Your a forward, no a back, no a forward, yes definitely a forward, now come and play for England in the backs....
His agent will be happy. Burgess will at least be be earning more in Australia and I suspect his profile will be higher than ever over there. His brother had a great game on Sunday as did James Graham, also playing in Australia. Sam Burgess will again be a big plus for what used to be called the Great Britain RL team.
I think the general unhelpful response to him after the world cup exit has encouraged him to go back to what he knows best.
If the wearing of authoritarian political uniforms is banned, then why do we allow the wearing of Islamist uniforms? Some of them even have face coverings so you can't identify the wearer.
''I think the general unhelpful response to him after the world cup exit has encouraged him to go back to what he knows best. ''
Changing to union did not do him, or England, any favours. Lancaster was almost obliged to pick him, and yet his club performances in union did not really warrant inclusion. The whole thing was a bit awkward.
Indeed, within biosafety and biosecurity, I constantly rail against additional regulation, as it is behaviours you need to change, and law enforcement cannot stand behind every scientist to enforce compliance with regulations.
We preach a three layered system of measures: 1. coercive - laws and regulations that can be enforced with penalties for non-compliance 2. normative - eg codes of conduct, self-governance and guidelines, based on what is deemed to be in societal interests 3. mimetic - or enlightened self-interest. The things people do, like best practice, or continual improvement, because it is the right way to do things.
Not everything should or could be governed by coercive measures. What the balance of these three layers should or could be changes significantly with context. In fast moving technology areas, where law lags developments, almost all of the emphasis is on normative and mimetic measures.
Mrs Free, Isn't item 3 on the list only possible when there is a generally accepted set of ways to behave "nicely and properly". In the absence of widely accepted social norms then option 1 is the only way that if available. Even that is now under threat because the people who make the laws only got n% of the vote.
Identity politics and multiculturalism have, it could be argued, destroyed 2 and 3 and are now making inroads into item 1.
Tonight's anti-austerity 'Million Mask March' is almost certain to descend into kicking, punching, screaming and smashing. That's not striking the balance between the right to political expression and the right to live in an ordered society
“But, but, but”, wail the organisers of these protests, “it wasn’t that bad. There were only a handful of arrests. It was only a few idiots. The vast majority of the marchers were peaceful”.
Tough. There are too many arrests. There are too many idiots. Not enough marchers are acting peacefully.
I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, but it does seem notable that if you told people there will be violence and arrests (by a small minority, of course) at every single one of these types of events, some will defend the action as justified, some will deflect onto the disproportionate response of the police, some will go the route Dan has, but absolutely no one will be surprised that it happened in the first place. It is expected, and thus accepted, to a certain degree.
Or you simply accept that some violence, damage and arrests will likely happen and that it's simply an unfortunate but inevitable side-effect of the freedom to protest, which should be a fundamental part of our society and values.
Plenty of other personal freedoms have unfortunate side-effects, that doesn't mean they should necessarily be curbed.
Not often I agree with you to be honest Oliver but in this case you are dead right. Of course what they are setting up (I don't mean consciously but effectively) is the ability to disrupt or prevent any protest through the use of a few carefully placed Agent provocateurs in the march.
So you are volunteering to be the victim of violence or have your property destroyed or damaged?
Police held sheep identity parades for farmers from three counties whose ewes had gone missing, a court has heard.
A total of 14 farmers from both sides of the Pennines, in North Yorkshire, Cumbria and County Durham, identified 116 sheep as belonging to them, a jury heard.
On the great PB food filling debate I have to say that back in the day there was worldwide disquiet about potential changes to Auchentennach Fine Pies when the Liberals changed to the Liberal Democrats especially after all the difficulties with the Alliance.
More recently on the plus side we are now able to charge a premium price following the events of May ....
There must be a worry supplies will eventually dry up...
Have you tried pies with a kipper filling?
I fear the Auchentennach Fine Pie export market to the EU would collapse.
With regard to security at Sharm El-Sheikh airport, some people are posting online comments saying it was shockingly bad, whereas others are saying they couldn't see anything wrong with it. It's the same old infuriating thing where if you stage a fake disturbance in a crowded bar, and then ask each person individually what happened, they usually come up with different stories which don't bear any relation to each other.
With regard to security at Sharm El-Sheikh airport, some people are posting online comments saying it was shockingly bad, whereas others are saying they couldn't see anything wrong with it. It's the same old infuriating thing where if you stage a fake disturbance in a crowded bar, and then ask each person individually what happened, they usually come up with different stories which don't bear any relation to each other.
My favourite false perception study example was a BBC programme about 5 years ago where they staged a disturbance in a bar and then asked people who weren't expecting it to happen who they thought started it. In reality it was started by a woman, but all of the older men said that a man had instigated it. The researchers concluded that this was because when the older men were younger a woman would have been very unlikely to start a disturbance in a bar and so they automatically discounted that possibility, which meant it had to be a man as far as they were concerned.
Police held sheep identity parades for farmers from three counties whose ewes had gone missing, a court has heard.
A total of 14 farmers from both sides of the Pennines, in North Yorkshire, Cumbria and County Durham, identified 116 sheep as belonging to them, a jury heard.
Police held sheep identity parades for farmers from three counties whose ewes had gone missing, a court has heard.
A total of 14 farmers from both sides of the Pennines, in North Yorkshire, Cumbria and County Durham, identified 116 sheep as belonging to them, a jury heard.
Tonight's anti-austerity 'Million Mask March' is almost certain to descend into kicking, punching, screaming and smashing. That's not striking the balance between the right to political expression and the right to live in an ordered society
“But, but, but”, wail the organisers of these protests, “it wasn’t that bad. There were only a handful of arrests. It was only a few idiots. The vast majority of the marchers were peaceful”.
Tough. There are too many arrests. There are too many idiots. Not enough marchers are acting peacefully.
I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, but it does seem notable that if you told people there will be violence and arrests (by a small minority, of course) at every single one of these types of events, some will defend the action as justified, some will deflect onto the disproportionate response of the police, some will go the route Dan has, but absolutely no one will be surprised that it happened in the first place. It is expected, and thus accepted, to a certain degree.
Or you simply accept that some violence, damage and arrests will likely happen and that it's simply an unfortunate but inevitable side-effect of the freedom to protest, which should be a fundamental part of our society and values.
Plenty of other personal freedoms have unfortunate side-effects, that doesn't mean they should necessarily be curbed.
Not often I agree with you to be honest Oliver but in this case you are dead right. Of course what they are setting up (I don't mean consciously but effectively) is the ability to disrupt or prevent any protest through the use of a few carefully placed Agent provocateurs in the march.
So you are volunteering to be the victim of violence or have your property destroyed or damaged?
I have been on the receiving end of plenty of violence in the past. And had property destroyed. That does not mean I think we have the right to ban protest just in case it gets violent, just as I don't think we should ban free speech because some people use it for causing offence.
The problem for Labour is that UKIP voters and Tory voters aren't that bothered by working tax credits and there aren't too many Lib Dems to squeeze. However a core strategy should suffice in the by-election. It will be interesting to see how well Corbyn can hold onto the Labour core vote.
Not so sure this is as good a poster as its authors no doubt think it is. If I were driving by, I probably wouldn't read it. All I'd see is a UKIP poster - not a Labour poster.
Indeed, within biosafety and biosecurity, I constantly rail against additional regulation, as it is behaviours you need to change, and law enforcement cannot stand behind every scientist to enforce compliance with regulations.
We preach a three layered system of measures: 1. coercive - laws and regulations that can be enforced with penalties for non-compliance 2. normative - eg codes of conduct, self-governance and guidelines, based on what is deemed to be in societal interests 3. mimetic - or enlightened self-interest. The things people do, like best practice, or continual improvement, because it is the right way to do things.
Not everything should or could be governed by coercive measures. What the balance of these three layers should or could be changes significantly with context. In fast moving technology areas, where law lags developments, almost all of the emphasis is on normative and mimetic measures.
Mrs Free, Isn't item 3 on the list only possible when there is a generally accepted set of ways to behave "nicely and properly". In the absence of widely accepted social norms then option 1 is the only way that if available. Even that is now under threat because the people who make the laws only got n% of the vote.
Identity politics and multiculturalism have, it could be argued, destroyed 2 and 3 and are now making inroads into item 1.
Not so, Mr Llama - in fact entirely the other way around. I don't see how you pass legislation if there is no agreement on what is generally acceptable - at least not without massive social angst (see abortion in the US in the 80s-90s, gays in the naughties, etc...)
3 and 2 are voluntary. Of those, 2 is based on society's peer pressure, so yes does suggest a sense of what is acceptable. 3 is enlightened self interest and is adopted by leaders first, and then copied by others as they realize it is 'the right way of doing things'. Both 2 and 3 are normative, as they create the norms upon which eventually laws are based.
At the risk of being controversial, why should causing distress and anxiety be a criminal offence? (As opposed to bloody bad manners.)
There is too much legislation which is rushed in in response to a few cases and which seems to operate on the basis that the law - and only the law - should be used to get rid of anything bad in society. It's a fundamentally infantile view and a worrying trend, IMO.
And now have to go off to do some work. Will check in later.
I think this is quite difficult and requires very clear definition of terms. In Scotland we had a common law offence of breach of the peace for centuries which basically involved causing fear and alarm in the lieges.
Someone shouting abuse at someone in the street is committing an offence and we are entitled to assume that the State will intervene when distress or alarm is caused. [Snipped]
I suppose I am querying why shouting abuse at someone in the street should be an offence. And the assumption that the State should intervene when distress or alarm is caused.
I would like to understand what the rationale is for this. Incitement to violence I can understand. But just shouting abuse? Why? Distress and alarm can be caused by lots of things and I don't see why it is assumed that the State's role should be to intervene in all or even any case.
I'd like to understand the arguments for this. It seems to me too often that we are working backwards from the upset i.e. I am upset at what you are doing or saying, ergo you should be stopped. I don't really think that's the right way to approach matters.
Not so sure this is as good a poster as its authors no doubt think it is. If I were driving by, I probably wouldn't read it. All I'd see is a UKIP poster - not a Labour poster.
That was my reading too. Those who don't read the poster, and get to the end of it, will see a big UKIP sign and a picture of the candidate.
To a casual, quick eye it could look more like a UKIP attack on the Tories.
Before Harry Hayfield gives us the full picture I should point out that Adrian Sanders is the Lib Dem candidate in the Torbay Clifton by-election today. It was the ward he represented before he became the MP. News also of another ex-Lib Dem MP - Paul Burstow has said he will not stand again having been appointed Professor of Social Work at City University and Chair of the Tavistock NHS Trust. Sorry - Social Care not Social Work
Not so sure this is as good a poster as its authors no doubt think it is. If I were driving by, I probably wouldn't read it. All I'd see is a UKIP poster - not a Labour poster.
Many UKIP voters - those who are hard working types with jobs - are just as much anti "dole-dosser" and "welfare-sponger" as your typical right wing Tory. Those voters will probably see it as a positive that UKIP voted with the Tories on this. So might well think this a UKIP poster appealing to Tories at first glance.
Not sure it's a very clever Labour poster - the core vote Labour "sponger" voter in Oldham it may be targeted at is probably going to be too thick to read/take in such a wordy poster anyway...
Not so sure this is as good a poster as its authors no doubt think it is. If I were driving by, I probably wouldn't read it. All I'd see is a UKIP poster - not a Labour poster.
That was my reading too. Those who don't read the poster, and get to the end of it, will see a big UKIP sign and a picture of the candidate.
To a casual, quick eye it could look more like a UKIP attack on the Tories.
At the risk of being controversial, why should causing distress and anxiety be a criminal offence? (As opposed to bloody bad manners.)
There is too much legislation which is rushed in in response to a few cases and which seems to operate on the basis that the law - and only the law - should be used to get rid of anything bad in society. It's a fundamentally infantile view and a worrying trend, IMO.
And now have to go off to do some work. Will check in later.
I think this is quite difficult and requires very clear definition of terms. In Scotland we had a common law offence of breach of the peace for centuries which basically involved causing fear and alarm in the lieges.
Someone shouting abuse at someone in the street is committing an offence and we are entitled to assume that the State will intervene when distress or alarm is caused. [Snipped]
I suppose I am querying why shouting abuse at someone in the street should be an offence. And the assumption that the State should intervene when distress or alarm is caused.
I would like to understand what the rationale is for this. Incitement to violence I can understand. But just shouting abuse? Why? Distress and alarm can be caused by lots of things and I don't see why it is assumed that the State's role should be to intervene in all or even any case.
I'd like to understand the arguments for this. It seems to me too often that we are working backwards from the upset i.e. I am upset at what you are doing or saying, ergo you should be stopped. I don't really think that's the right way to approach matters.
There must be a mandate to intervene.
Something in some way intolerable usually invokes that mandate.
'Shouting abuse' would most likely fall foul of the noise mandates, perhaps something to with incitement, and perhaps some racial/gender stuff.
The law is entirely what we choose it to be.
Witch ducking has (perhaps sadly) gone out of fashion. There are quite a lot of people in our community that I'd shoot on site if there weren't laws against that sort of thing.
At the risk of being controversial, why should causing distress and anxiety be a criminal offence? (As opposed to bloody bad manners.)
There is too much legislation which is rushed in in response to a few cases and which seems to operate on the basis that the law - and only the law - should be used to get rid of anything bad in society. It's a fundamentally infantile view and a worrying trend, IMO.
And now have to go off to do some work. Will check in later.
Indeed, within biosafety and biosecurity, I constantly rail against additional regulation, as it is behaviours you need to change, and law enforcement cannot stand behind every scientist to enforce compliance with regulations.
We preach a three layered system of measures: 1. coercive - laws and regulations that can be enforced with penalties for non-compliance 2. normative - eg codes of conduct, self-governance and guidelines, based on what is deemed to be in societal interests 3. mimetic - or enlightened self-interest. The things people do, like best practice, or continual improvement, because it is the right way to do things.
Not everything should or could be governed by coercive measures. What the balance of these three layers should or could be changes significantly with context. In fast moving technology areas, where law lags developments, almost all of the emphasis is on normative and mimetic measures.
Thank you. I'm a fan of the normative category e.g. social pressure about how one behaves in public to or around strangers. It seems to me that it's when those social norms have broken down or people are too afraid to stand by them, for instance, to interfere when you see someone behaving badly in public, that we end up relying on the law and coercive measures. But the law cannot enforce good manners which are very much more than concern with etiquette. Fundamentally, they are about kindness to strangers, to ensure that we can rub along with each other in the public space accordng to generally accepted assumptions.
In the financial field we are trying to move to the mimetic - at least I try and emphasise that where I work - to try and get people to understand that behaving well is essential to being a professional, to being able to sleep at night and be comfortable with what you do. Your moral compass, if you will. And you should want to do it for your own sake and not just because it's against the law or some policy.
I thought the tax credit cuts were quite popular among C2DE voters? Certainly more popular than giving away the Falklands and supporting the IRA...
That's who it's aimed at: working-class Labour voters who might be concerned about Corbyn's stances on terrorism and who might be tempted by UKIP, but who also baulk at Tory economics. Not least those people who are on tax credits themselves (35% of people in Oldham West were in receipt of them as of the 2011 census).
Not so sure this is as good a poster as its authors no doubt think it is. If I were driving by, I probably wouldn't read it. All I'd see is a UKIP poster - not a Labour poster.
Many UKIP voters - those who are hard working types with jobs - are just as much anti "dole-dosser" and "welfare-sponger" as your typical right wing Tory.
Yes they are - but, rightly or wrongly, the public generally doesn't see tax credits as "welfare".
There was a report recently where a Tory MP reported meeting a constituent who was furious at the government going after tax-credit claimants "while so many scroungers are still living it up on Jobseekers".
The bizarre world of Scottish Labour is getting even more strange and unfathomable.
Their latest wheeze is that they will magic money into the air by promising not to cut taxes. Claiming, somewhat strangely they can use this non-existent money to reverse the tax credits change.
What stands out though, is their lack of ambition. At the moment they only want to "raise" £250m in new money by not cutting APD. Why not promise not to cut Income Tax by 50% and raise £10bn?
The labour message of vote UKIP get tory probably isn't bad.
Be interesting to see what UKIP come up with.
The point is that the UKIP votes in parliament come via Carswell, who is semi detached. Will he be told to abstain on everything now? Of course labour are misrepresenting the policy, but that's no surprise
The labour message of vote UKIP get tory probably isn't bad.
Be interesting to see what UKIP come up with.
The point is that the UKIP votes in parliament come via Carswell, who is semi detached. Will he be told to abstain on everything now? Of course labour are misrepresenting the policy, but that's no surprise
Carswell is in the enviable position that he votes with his party unanimously on every vote.
UKIP isn't so much a party as it is a rambling argument. There's lots to like about them. I don't personally think that their plans are amongst those things to like.
THis by-election is really a lose-lose for Labour. If they win, it's not a big deal or proof that Corbyn can appeal beyond a narrow range of voters. After all, this seat voted for the only man in the Parliamentary Labour party who was even more of a dinosaur than McDonnell and Corbyn. If they could stomach him, they'll stomach anyone. So it doesn't really provide a boost to them.
However, if they lose it, it's a real fiasco. With the exception of a very ill-timed by-election in 1968 a year after the time when apparently the pound in your pocket or your purse or your bank was not devalued, this seat and its predecessors has been solidly Labour since 1964. Indeed, Oldham itself has been mostly solidly Labour since 1945 although they had a near squeak of it in 2010. If Corbyn cannot win here, it should be taken quite seriously as a sign he cannot win anywhere.
It is also a big test for Corbyn's new team - Milne etc. And the early signs are that while unlikely an upset remains possible. The early poster is unpromising - wordy and confused, not to mention poorly phrased (hardly surprising if a former Grauniad journalist wrote it). However, notice that it only attacks the enemy, rather than offering any real reason to vote for Labour.
This of course ties in with Corbyn's character. He is, contrary to the believes of the naive dupes who voted for him, offering absolutely nothing new. He is offering dogmatic solutions based on a long-discredited ideology that he is clinging to with the fanatacism of a Scientologist. His essential suggestion is, if it makes money, nationalise it. That way, politicians get the money instead of capitalists (anyone who doubts that, see here, the first paragraph). What he does offer is negative personal attacks, a disingenuous, even dangerous level of bile and hatred against his opponents, whom he sees for some reason as inherently evil (even though, whatever their faults, it is hard to see Cameron and Osborne as actually evil). The irony being that in accepting they are evil and therefore to be fought by any means necessary, he therefore transforms himself into something truly hideous.
With a sober team behind him, that would not matter. But he has John McDonnell, who is even more unpleasant than he is, Angela Eagle, who is almost completely stupid (and is I suspect in any case irrelevant) Seumas Milne, a man whose literary talent is limited and who owes his position as a leading Marxist solely to his father's vast wealth, and of course Tom Watson, who combines in one unsavoury package the worst features of all of them and who will surely be running this campaign with the same zeal as the campaign he ran in Sheffield Hallam, stripping West Yorkshire including Morley and Outwood of Labour activists to do it.
@IAmBirmingham: Riot vans and police outnumber protesters in #Birmingham as only 20 people show up for a #MillionMaskMarch protest. https://t.co/sswlRvI2P8
@IAmBirmingham: Riot vans and police outnumber protesters in #Birmingham as only 20 people show up for a #MillionMaskMarch protest. https://t.co/sswlRvI2P8
I guess that means each protester is wearing/carrying 50,000 masks.
Plagiarising the "Ed in Salmond's pocket" look... well its a proven winner!
Maybe UKIP could entice the muslim vote by responding with a "We say no to invading Islamic countries and killing your brothers" poster
Vaguely apropos of this I noticed that EPG said this (in response to a post of mine about Sadiq Khan) yesterday:-
"I agree that British foreign policy shouldn't needlessly inflame youths who are trying to blow Britain up, does this make me an ethnic Islamic fascist?"
Well of course it doesn't. But I do think that British foreign policy should be determined by what is in Britain's interests. If what is in our interests annoys some youths with violent tendencies, too bad. The idea that we should make our country's interests hostage to those of violent intent within our country seems to me to be no different to appeasement. All the more so when it comes to those of violent intent in other countries (which is what Sadiq Khan seemed to be suggesting and which I was criticising).
Some Muslims may not like aspects of our foreign policy. But because they are Muslim does not give them some greater right to comment on or have their views heeded in relation to foreign policy affecting Muslims abroad. And any Muslim who says that we should desist from doing something because they will otherwise blow us up should be treated as the violent blackmailer that they are. Those who say that they are not in favour of violence but, oh dear, their more hot-headed friends may not control themselves seem to me to be not much better than blackmailers themselves.
Probably the majority of Continental Europeans are nominally Catholic. We don't determine our policy towards the EU on the basis of the views of the 3 mio Catholics in this country. Rightly so. The same should apply to people of other religions.
@IAmBirmingham: Riot vans and police outnumber protesters in #Birmingham as only 20 people show up for a #MillionMaskMarch protest. https://t.co/sswlRvI2P8
I guess that means each protester is wearing/carrying 50,000 masks.
1,2,3, Million...
Depends on what you smoke. Happily Labour have embraced the uncertainty, and all their figures are based on the minimal cloud-head's view of borrowing, and the maximal noddy view of spending. You can't say fairer than that!
All the speculation about comparing this by-election to the Heywood one is false for 3 reasons ( which could increase to 4 if Labour field a candidate that actually fits the constituency ):
1. UKIP in the 2010-15 period was an unknown quantity, you could never be sure where and how it would have performed on the constituency level, mostly because it's ascent from 3 to 13% happened quickly, Heywood was a surprise because there was no information available by past performance.
Now though we had a GE election just a few months ago, so we know where UKIP can perform on constituencies up and down the country.
2. Oldham has different demographics than Heywood, 20% more asians, also Oldham is more an inner city constituency than a suburban one that Heywood was, so Labour has an added large advantage.
3. Simon Danzuck was in charge of the Heywood by-election Labour campaign, even the local Labour party hated him and mostly refused to campaign and receive orders from him. This time he will not even come close to Oldham and certainly he even won't campaign for Labour.
4. Labour has a unique ability to parachute terrible candidates in by-elections, Heywood was not an exception, this will also not apply in the case they actually choose a candidate that represents their voters.
On the other hand UKIP has the added advantage of showing to Tory voters that indeed it is pointless to vote Tory in that constituency since UKIP came second a few months ago.
I give a reasonable estimate that Labour will coast with 50-65% of the vote with UKIP at around 30% perhaps 35% max, with the Tories down to 10% or a tad lower.
I am not so sure that knocking on doors is the right option. its so last century. Ask Nick Palmer.. Where were the Tory activists ??
..... But.... But... But.... IOS told us Labours ground game was supreme, or was it second to none. Shame he not around to ask what went wrong.
Well quite , so he did , but IOS must have been Sion Simon or someone very like him
Anyone red Peter Donaldson's obit?? This is most amusing, especially as Dyke is such a barrow boy type..
"In 2003, when the then director general Greg Dyke announced a plan to “Cut the Crap” from the BBC and sent advice to all members of staff as to how this should be achieved, Donaldson threw his copy in the bin before writing to Dyke to inform him that he had “taken your advice – and cut the crap”. ""
@IAmBirmingham: Riot vans and police outnumber protesters in #Birmingham as only 20 people show up for a #MillionMaskMarch protest. https://t.co/sswlRvI2P8
I guess that means each protester is wearing/carrying 50,000 masks.
I find it ironic that the anti-capitalist are wearing novelty masks churned out by er, capitalists.
''I give a reasonable estimate that Labour will coast with 50-65% of the vote with UKIP at around 30% perhaps 35% max, with the Tories down to 10% or a tad lower.''
Thing is, the tories are the same old tories, and UKIP the same old UKIP. Do the electorate think that labour is the same old labour? If yes, I'm sure you are right.But if not....
Comments
http://i.imgur.com/Un8idyh.jpg
Mangalitsa of Magalica - Hungarian, apparently.
Sadly, the best thing they could find to do with this rare breed was to turn it into the world's most expensive sausages (£37).
Their picture was advertising British Sausage Week.
Mangalica is DELICIOUS. The rare breed has been kept going for that reason. Those sausages are in a good cause.
That would surprise me. It could be expectations management.
When I read that snippet (in the Unofficial Manual dedicated to the Knight, which I can heartily recommend) I decided it would be a good thing to include a comparable fellow, although mine's a swordsman, primarily.
With only a slightly larger part, the guy who played Edward the Black Prince would have walked away with that movie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Shields_by-election,_2013
It feels like something from a comedy sketch: "You can protest against poverty and bureaucracy once you've applied for your £25 protest pass which takes 4-6 to weeks to process".
Perhaps the pass can come with a bar code and a GPS chip.
How many leaflets do we think David Miliband ever posted through letterboxes in South Shields, and if he couldn't be bothered why would the troops around him care? They'd much rather be in the marginal a couple of seats down the road!
We preach a three layered system of measures:
1. coercive - laws and regulations that can be enforced with penalties for non-compliance
2. normative - eg codes of conduct, self-governance and guidelines, based on what is deemed to be in societal interests
3. mimetic - or enlightened self-interest. The things people do, like best practice, or continual improvement, because it is the right way to do things.
Not everything should or could be governed by coercive measures. What the balance of these three layers should or could be changes significantly with context. In fast moving technology areas, where law lags developments, almost all of the emphasis is on normative and mimetic measures.
Arsenal are a shorter price to win the Champions League on Betfair than Spurs are to win the Premiership
He's also surprisingly much better than expected as the washed-up Brit tennis player in 'Wimbledon'
He's so yummy.
Plenty of other personal freedoms have unfortunate side-effects, that doesn't mean they should necessarily be curbed.
Not often I agree with you to be honest Oliver but in this case you are dead right. Of course what they are setting up (I don't mean consciously but effectively) is the ability to disrupt or prevent any protest through the use of a few carefully placed Agent provocateurs in the march.
Burgess will at least be be earning more in Australia and I suspect his profile will be higher than ever over there. His brother had a great game on Sunday as did James Graham, also playing in Australia. Sam Burgess will again be a big plus for what used to be called the Great Britain RL team.
I think the general unhelpful response to him after the world cup exit has encouraged him to go back to what he knows best.
Maybe the green haired, weird earing hole, cisgender trans rights type activists will put off the muslims?
Changing to union did not do him, or England, any favours. Lancaster was almost obliged to pick him, and yet his club performances in union did not really warrant inclusion. The whole thing was a bit awkward.
Identity politics and multiculturalism have, it could be argued, destroyed 2 and 3 and are now making inroads into item 1.
So you are volunteering to be the victim of violence or have your property destroyed or damaged?
Did they identify them from a view at the rear?
Will it be a nice clean fight like that one waged by Phil Woolas in Oldham East not too long ago.
As for Corbyn's activists, how many of them were active in distributing anti Labour leaflets in May this year?
They all look the same in the dark.
That space there is a huge missed opportunity.
Nice to see Zaphod Beeblebrox looking well, though.
Maybe UKIP could entice the muslim vote by responding with a "We say no to invading Islamic countries and killing your brothers" poster
I have been on the receiving end of plenty of violence in the past. And had property destroyed. That does not mean I think we have the right to ban protest just in case it gets violent, just as I don't think we should ban free speech because some people use it for causing offence.
3 and 2 are voluntary. Of those, 2 is based on society's peer pressure, so yes does suggest a sense of what is acceptable. 3 is enlightened self interest and is adopted by leaders first, and then copied by others as they realize it is 'the right way of doing things'. Both 2 and 3 are normative, as they create the norms upon which eventually laws are based.
I would like to understand what the rationale is for this. Incitement to violence I can understand. But just shouting abuse? Why? Distress and alarm can be caused by lots of things and I don't see why it is assumed that the State's role should be to intervene in all or even any case.
I'd like to understand the arguments for this. It seems to me too often that we are working backwards from the upset i.e. I am upset at what you are doing or saying, ergo you should be stopped. I don't really think that's the right way to approach matters.
Be interesting to see what UKIP come up with.
To a casual, quick eye it could look more like a UKIP attack on the Tories.
News also of another ex-Lib Dem MP - Paul Burstow has said he will not stand again having been appointed Professor of Social Work at City University and Chair of the Tavistock NHS Trust.
Sorry - Social Care not Social Work
Not sure it's a very clever Labour poster - the core vote Labour "sponger" voter in Oldham it may be targeted at is probably going to be too thick to read/take in such a wordy poster anyway...
To a casual, quick eye it could look more like a UKIP attack on the Tories.
Something in some way intolerable usually invokes that mandate.
'Shouting abuse' would most likely fall foul of the noise mandates, perhaps something to with incitement, and perhaps some racial/gender stuff.
The law is entirely what we choose it to be.
Witch ducking has (perhaps sadly) gone out of fashion. There are quite a lot of people in our community that I'd shoot on site if there weren't laws against that sort of thing.
In the financial field we are trying to move to the mimetic - at least I try and emphasise that where I work - to try and get people to understand that behaving well is essential to being a professional, to being able to sleep at night and be comfortable with what you do. Your moral compass, if you will. And you should want to do it for your own sake and not just because it's against the law or some policy.
There was a report recently where a Tory MP reported meeting a constituent who was furious at the government going after tax-credit claimants "while so many scroungers are still living it up on Jobseekers".
16,200 children betrayed... 300 million unborn babes disillusioned? 400 future generations will suffer?
There's an 's' that has got into the poster. It should read;
'Labour stand-up (comedy) for working families"
Their latest wheeze is that they will magic money into the air by promising not to cut taxes. Claiming, somewhat strangely they can use this non-existent money to reverse the tax credits change.
What stands out though, is their lack of ambition. At the moment they only want to "raise" £250m in new money by not cutting APD. Why not promise not to cut Income Tax by 50% and raise £10bn?
Amateurs.
UKIP isn't so much a party as it is a rambling argument. There's lots to like about them. I don't personally think that their plans are amongst those things to like.
However, if they lose it, it's a real fiasco. With the exception of a very ill-timed by-election in 1968 a year after the time when apparently the pound in your pocket or your purse or your bank was not devalued, this seat and its predecessors has been solidly Labour since 1964. Indeed, Oldham itself has been mostly solidly Labour since 1945 although they had a near squeak of it in 2010. If Corbyn cannot win here, it should be taken quite seriously as a sign he cannot win anywhere.
It is also a big test for Corbyn's new team - Milne etc. And the early signs are that while unlikely an upset remains possible. The early poster is unpromising - wordy and confused, not to mention poorly phrased (hardly surprising if a former Grauniad journalist wrote it). However, notice that it only attacks the enemy, rather than offering any real reason to vote for Labour.
This of course ties in with Corbyn's character. He is, contrary to the believes of the naive dupes who voted for him, offering absolutely nothing new. He is offering dogmatic solutions based on a long-discredited ideology that he is clinging to with the fanatacism of a Scientologist. His essential suggestion is, if it makes money, nationalise it. That way, politicians get the money instead of capitalists (anyone who doubts that, see here, the first paragraph). What he does offer is negative personal attacks, a disingenuous, even dangerous level of bile and hatred against his opponents, whom he sees for some reason as inherently evil (even though, whatever their faults, it is hard to see Cameron and Osborne as actually evil). The irony being that in accepting they are evil and therefore to be fought by any means necessary, he therefore transforms himself into something truly hideous.
With a sober team behind him, that would not matter. But he has John McDonnell, who is even more unpleasant than he is, Angela Eagle, who is almost completely stupid (and is I suspect in any case irrelevant) Seumas Milne, a man whose literary talent is limited and who owes his position as a leading Marxist solely to his father's vast wealth, and of course Tom Watson, who combines in one unsavoury package the worst features of all of them and who will surely be running this campaign with the same zeal as the campaign he ran in Sheffield Hallam, stripping West Yorkshire including Morley and Outwood of Labour activists to do it.
It could all end rather badly.
"I agree that British foreign policy shouldn't needlessly inflame youths who are trying to blow Britain up, does this make me an ethnic Islamic fascist?"
Well of course it doesn't. But I do think that British foreign policy should be determined by what is in Britain's interests. If what is in our interests annoys some youths with violent tendencies, too bad. The idea that we should make our country's interests hostage to those of violent intent within our country seems to me to be no different to appeasement. All the more so when it comes to those of violent intent in other countries (which is what Sadiq Khan seemed to be suggesting and which I was criticising).
Some Muslims may not like aspects of our foreign policy. But because they are Muslim does not give them some greater right to comment on or have their views heeded in relation to foreign policy affecting Muslims abroad. And any Muslim who says that we should desist from doing something because they will otherwise blow us up should be treated as the violent blackmailer that they are. Those who say that they are not in favour of violence but, oh dear, their more hot-headed friends may not control themselves seem to me to be not much better than blackmailers themselves.
Probably the majority of Continental Europeans are nominally Catholic. We don't determine our policy towards the EU on the basis of the views of the 3 mio Catholics in this country. Rightly so. The same should apply to people of other religions.
Depends on what you smoke. Happily Labour have embraced the uncertainty, and all their figures are based on the minimal cloud-head's view of borrowing, and the maximal noddy view of spending. You can't say fairer than that!
1. UKIP in the 2010-15 period was an unknown quantity, you could never be sure where and how it would have performed on the constituency level, mostly because it's ascent from 3 to 13% happened quickly, Heywood was a surprise because there was no information available by past performance.
Now though we had a GE election just a few months ago, so we know where UKIP can perform on constituencies up and down the country.
2. Oldham has different demographics than Heywood, 20% more asians, also Oldham is more an inner city constituency than a suburban one that Heywood was, so Labour has an added large advantage.
3. Simon Danzuck was in charge of the Heywood by-election Labour campaign, even the local Labour party hated him and mostly refused to campaign and receive orders from him.
This time he will not even come close to Oldham and certainly he even won't campaign for Labour.
4. Labour has a unique ability to parachute terrible candidates in by-elections, Heywood was not an exception, this will also not apply in the case they actually choose a candidate that represents their voters.
On the other hand UKIP has the added advantage of showing to Tory voters that indeed it is pointless to vote Tory in that constituency since UKIP came second a few months ago.
I give a reasonable estimate that Labour will coast with 50-65% of the vote with UKIP at around 30% perhaps 35% max, with the Tories down to 10% or a tad lower.
My coat? Why thank you!
Anyone red Peter Donaldson's obit?? This is most amusing, especially as Dyke is such a barrow boy type..
"In 2003, when the then director general Greg Dyke announced a plan to “Cut the Crap” from the BBC and sent advice to all members of staff as to how this should be achieved, Donaldson threw his copy in the bin before writing to Dyke to inform him that he had “taken your advice – and cut the crap”. ""
I find it ironic that the anti-capitalist are wearing novelty masks churned out by er, capitalists.
Thing is, the tories are the same old tories, and UKIP the same old UKIP. Do the electorate think that labour is the same old labour? If yes, I'm sure you are right.But if not....