However, I can quite believe that JC is personally polite and courteous. My son met him last week in the pub - he lives in his constituency - and said he was very polite and chatty to people in the pub, including him. He did not come across in person as the grouch he appears on television, which I can well believe, having known other politicians.
It is perfectly possible for someone to be courteous while holding revolting views. I think it a mistake for people to assume that because someone is the former, their views should somehow be excused or thought of as merely a form of exaggerated politeness to one's enemies.
The problem I have with Corbyn's associations is not that he is politely engaging with our enemies but that he does not think of them as enemies; he agrees with them. It's his poor judgment that is the issue not his manners.
Mr Palmer's assessment of Corbyn places a high premium on this and, for all his Europeness, it is a very English response! (IMO anyway)
Yes, there's something in that! Mainly I wanted to address the tendency (which I've met in all parts of the spectrum) to think that if one disagrees with someone they must be disgusting people. In the same way, I genuinely think that Oliver Letwin is one of the nicest people ion Parliament, while not really agreeing with many of his views. Typically, I noticed that someone thought I had an obscure political motive in saying that. I don't - Oliver is a good guy, full stop.
I do think, though, that you (and Phllip) mistake a willingness to give discussion and airtime to people with revolting views as an agreement with those views - it's entirely characteristic that he would like to have a discussion with Trump and with Tyson (the boxer not our Tyson). He, like me, believes in honest discussions more than he believes in any particular opinion (I wouldn't have responded civilly here over the years to lots of fairly unpleasant posts from some quarters - not you, of course - if I didn't).
I don't think there's any doubt that as a backbencher he's seen part of his role as giving a hearing to groups who we've thought of as anti-Western enemies, and his own disagreement with a lot of what the West has done over the years feeds into that. But it's a mistake to extrapolate that into agreement. He is not shy of expressing unpopular views, and if he agreed with Hamas he wouldn't pretend otherwise.
Anyway, I'm off to the States for a week, and will probably only contribute intermittently, so happy Christmas everyone!
On topic - what strikes me in the graphic of favourabilities is Cameron's positive score. Over 40% is very impressive, and I can't see Osborne, May or whoever* getting anything like that when they take over in 2018/19.
*With one exception, who I don't need to name.
He starts with total support from his own party (38%), plus scrapings from all the other parties ( 1% here, 1% there) and it's easy for him to breach 40.
That is the difference between Corbyn and Cameron, Corbyn will always be hated by the factions that lost the leadership race, hence he will never have the total support of his party unlike Cameron, plus the fact that Labour got 31 not 38, so it will be impossible for Corbyn to ever reach 40 even if he got total support from his party.
I think assuming that Cameron has total support from Conservatives is a bit of a stretch. Surely the BOOers aren't all going to give him positive approval over his pussyfooting in Brussels.
How to judge a party leader's performance relative to his party is a question which isam has raised a few times. I don't think there's a clear answer: major party leaders obviously get some support ex officio but equally their performance drives their party's poll ratings to a considerable extent. Minor party leaders tend to get less automatic hostility from major party supporters and as brands are often quite separate from their party.
There's a thread header in there somewhere if ever I can work out what I actually think on the subject.
Mr. Eagles, that's interesting. I didn't think it was illegal or against a regulation for a paper to openly support a given political party. Or was it something else that contravened the rules?
Data can only be used for the purpose for which it is collected. The judge appears to have determined that direct political campaigning is not what you have signed up to when you subscribe to a newspaper mailing list.
On topic - what strikes me in the graphic of favourabilities is Cameron's positive score. Over 40% is very impressive, and I can't see Osborne, May or whoever* getting anything like that when they take over in 2018/19.
*With one exception, who I don't need to name.
He starts with total support from his own party (38%), plus scrapings from all the other parties ( 1% here, 1% there) and it's easy for him to breach 40.
That is the difference between Corbyn and Cameron, Corbyn will always be hated by the factions that lost the leadership race, hence he will never have the total support of his party unlike Cameron, plus the fact that Labour got 31 not 38, so it will be impossible for Corbyn to ever reach 40 even if he got total support from his party.
I think assuming that Cameron has total support from Conservatives is a bit of a stretch. Surely the BOOers aren't all going to give him positive approval over his pussyfooting in Brussels.
For fear of Corbyn, they'll cling to Osborne. That'll be the extent of the Tory victory in 2020... I expect the Tories to be roundly thumped in 2025.
I see Blatter is sorry...that he is still being used as a punching bowl.
Honestly, why do people even use the word sorry in these situations? It's always 'I'm sorry this is going on, but I am completely innocent', so skip the I'm sorry bit already.
However, I can quite believe that JC is personally polite and courteous. My son met him last week in the pub - he lives in his constituency - and said he was very polite and chatty to people in the pub, including him. He did not come across in person as the grouch he appears on television, which I can well believe, having known other politicians.
It is perfectly possible for someone to be courteous while holding revolting views. I think it a mistake for people to assume that because someone is the former, their views should somehow be excused or thought of as merely a form of exaggerated politeness to one's enemies.
The problem I have with Corbyn's associations is not that he is politely engaging with our enemies but that he does not think of them as enemies; he agrees with them. It's his poor judgment that is the issue not his manners.
Mr Palmer's assessment of Corbyn places a high premium on this and, for all his Europeness, it is a very English response! (IMO anyway)
Yes, there's something in that! Mainly I wanted to address the tendency (which I've met in all parts of the spectrum) to think that if one disagrees with someone they must be disgusting people. In the same way, I genuinely think that Oliver Letwin is one of the nicest people ion Parliament, while not really agreeing with many of his views. Typically, I noticed that someone thought I had an obscure political motive in saying that. I don't - Oliver is a good guy, full stop.
I do think, though, that you (and Phllip) mistake a willingness to give discussion and airtime to people with revolting views as an agreement with those views - it's entirely characteristic that he would like to have a discussion with Trump and with Tyson (the boxer not our Tyson). He, like me, believes in honest discussions more than he believes in any particular opinion (I wouldn't have responded civilly here over the years to lots of fairly unpleasant posts from some quarters - not you, of course - if I didn't).
I don't think there's any doubt that as a backbencher he's seen part of his role as giving a hearing to groups who we've thought of as anti-Western enemies, and his own disagreement with a lot of what the West has done over the years feeds into that. But it's a mistake to extrapolate that into agreement. He is not shy of expressing unpopular views, and if he agreed with Hamas he wouldn't pretend otherwise.
Anyway, I'm off to the States for a week, and will probably only contribute intermittently, so happy Christmas everyone!
Being the season of goodwill and all that, I'm going to be nice to the Guardian, which (despite its columnists) is now the best source of actual news, at least of those available without a paywall or restriction on the number of articles. The BBC, on the other hand, is just rubbish. Compare and contrast these two lead articles on the Spanish election:
The Beeb's article is not only incoherent, but manages the quite extraordinary feat of not actually bothering to report how many seats each party won. The Guardian's account, on the other hand, is clear, informative and well-written.
I agree. Guardian always been good but as a Tory, I've always had to ignore their loony left opinions. Guardian's facts are great, opinions awful.
The BBC's report is unusually bad. I read it this morning and it really is incoherent and uninformative. Poor marks to the journalist and editor concerned.
I probably visit the Guardian website more often than the BBC one and use the Sky news app on my phone as it is so much better than the BBC one. Although I do wonder about their news sense: I don't understand why a road traffic accident in Las Vegas is news outside Nevada
Listening to Heseltine on R4 this morning there are clearly problems ahead for the tories over the Eu, he effectively said cabinet ministers should back Cameron or resign.
Listening to Heseltine on R4 this morning there are clearly problems ahead for the tories over the Eu, he effectively said cabinet ministers should back Cameron or resign.
Listening to Heseltine on R4 this morning there are clearly problems ahead for the tories over the Eu, he effectively said cabinet ministers should back Cameron or resign.
Yesterday's man.
I agree, but what he was saying is potentially a serious issue
Listening to Heseltine on R4 this morning there are clearly problems ahead for the tories over the Eu, he effectively said cabinet ministers should back Cameron or resign.
People seem to think otherwise, but I struggle to see how someone could do otherwise. Cameron will presumably be saying he has achieved enough to make staying in worth it on this incredible crucial issue, and those who advocate leaving will either be saying he didn't achieve enough, or nothing would be enough, both of which are incompatible with the stated views and aims of their leader.
The only reason not to resign/be sacked seems to be this accusation some are wont to throw about dastardly Cameron forcing out ministers who disagree with him, but that seems a perfectly reasonable thing for PMs to do, if not something they should make a habit out of on the smaller issues, which this is not.
Listening to Heseltine on R4 this morning there are clearly problems ahead for the tories over the Eu, he effectively said cabinet ministers should back Cameron or resign.
Heseltine was IMHO the greatest post war politician never to get to be PM. My wife was at a publishing conference recently where he was speaking, and she said he was absolutely magnetic.
Listening to Heseltine on R4 this morning there are clearly problems ahead for the tories over the Eu, he effectively said cabinet ministers should back Cameron or resign.
Listening to Heseltine on R4 this morning there are clearly problems ahead for the tories over the Eu, he effectively said cabinet ministers should back Cameron or resign.
Yesterday's man.
Well yes. He has his own agenda as well. It seems to me no one should resign no matter what the result. Its the peoples choice, a referendum, not an election. The referendum will happen and people will deal with it. The country and cabinet ministers are coping now, the negotiation terms by definition will be an improvement, so it will be a strange choice to resign after 5 to 8 years in happy government (5 with the lib dems!) when the terms were worse.
Heseltine was IMHO the greatest post war politician never to get to be PM. My wife was at a publishing conference recently where he was speaking, and she said he was absolutely magnetic.
Listening to Heseltine on R4 this morning there are clearly problems ahead for the tories over the Eu, he effectively said cabinet ministers should back Cameron or resign.
I was involved in a workshop with Oliver Letwin some years ago- as charming and courteous a man as you could imagine, someone who didn't appear to have any edge of any kind, which is the rarest of things.
However, I can quite believe that JC is personally polite and courteous. My son met him last week in the pub - he lives in his constituency - and said he was very polite and chatty to people in the pub, including him. He did not come across in person as the grouch he appears on television, which I can well believe, having known other politicians.
It is perfectly possible for someone to be courteous while holding revolting views. I think it a mistake for people to assume that because someone is the former, their views should somehow be excused or thought of as merely a form of exaggerated politeness to one's enemies.
The problem I have with Corbyn's associations is not that he is politely engaging with our enemies but that he does not think of them as enemies; he agrees with them. It's his poor judgment that is the issue not his manners.
Mr Palmer's assessment of Corbyn places a high premium on this and, for all his Europeness, it is a very English response! (IMO anyway)
Yes, there's something in that! Mainly I wanted to address the tendency (which I've met in all parts of the spectrum) to think that if one disagrees with someone they must be disgusting people. In the same way, I genuinely think that Oliver Letwin is one of the nicest people ion Parliament, while not really agreeing with many of his views. Typically, I noticed that someone thought I had an obscure political motive in saying that. I don't - Oliver is a good guy, full stop.
I do think, though, that you (and Phllip) mistake a willingness to give discussion and airtime to people with revolting views as an agreement with those views - it's entirely characteristic that he would like to have a discussion with Trump and with Tyson (the boxer not our Tyson). He, like me, believes in honest discussions more than he believes in any particular opinion (I wouldn't have responded civilly here over the years to lots of fairly unpleasant posts from some quarters - not you, of course - if I didn't).
I don't think there's any doubt that as a backbencher he's seen part of his role as giving a hearing to groups who we've thought of as anti-Western enemies, and his own disagreement with a lot of what the West has done over the years feeds into that. But it's a mistake to extrapolate that into agreement. He is not shy of expressing unpopular views, and if he agreed with Hamas he wouldn't pretend otherwise.
Anyway, I'm off to the States for a week, and will probably only contribute intermittently, so happy Christmas everyone!
I'd be very disappointed if Cameron didn't allow ministers to campaign during the Referendum period proper according to their conscious. This isn't a Party issue. And outlasts a generation or more.
Listening to Heseltine on R4 this morning there are clearly problems ahead for the tories over the Eu, he effectively said cabinet ministers should back Cameron or resign.
Yesterday's man.
Well yes. He has his own agenda as well. It seems to me no one should resign no matter what the result. Its the peoples choice, a referendum, not an election. The referendum will happen and people will deal with it. The country and cabinet ministers are coping now, the negotiation terms by definition will be an improvement, so it will be a strange choice to resign after 5 to 8 years in happy government (5 with the lib dems!) when the terms were worse.
Mr. Eagles, was away from the computer, so cheers for posting that, particularly bit about the absence of in-race ads.
The BBC's approach to F1 has been cretinous. They abandoned exclusive rights when it was the only sporting event they have that met audience targets (the other being Wimbledon, although F1 was more popular), and now they've discarded it entirely. Hope Channel 4 give it better treatment.
I'd guess it's just half a season. Do we know yet?
That is when the M15 were not meeting with the IRA too. I don't think we'll ever get to know the full extent of those murky links during the "troubles"- the good old days of terrorism when everyone knew who everyone else was, were involved in regular dialogue, and knew the limits of their enemies actions.
Breaking: Channel 4 have taken over Formula One from the BBC.
Ch4 has always been good at covering minority sports.
Whilst the BBC has no ad breaks, they managed to cut away from the (Boxing day) King George two boxing days ago to go to what was "nearly" a goal in the football (On the radio).
OT, I see Alistair Cook brought up a hundred with a Six, his second of the innings, in a warmup game today - I hope such a rare event was caught on camera.
I'd be very disappointed if Cameron didn't allow ministers to campaign during the Referendum period proper according to their conscious. This isn't a Party issue. And outlasts a generation or more.
Listening to Heseltine on R4 this morning there are clearly problems ahead for the tories over the Eu, he effectively said cabinet ministers should back Cameron or resign.
Yesterday's man.
Well yes. He has his own agenda as well. It seems to me no one should resign no matter what the result. Its the peoples choice, a referendum, not an election. The referendum will happen and people will deal with it. The country and cabinet ministers are coping now, the negotiation terms by definition will be an improvement, so it will be a strange choice to resign after 5 to 8 years in happy government (5 with the lib dems!) when the terms were worse.
No one is stopping ministers from campaigning on either side in a referendum campaign. The question is whether they should be allowed to retain ministerial status if they campaign against the government's recommendation. If it is so important, how could a minister remain in a government with any credibility that is putting forward a proposal that he or she opposes?
Live radio commentary of one F1 race was broken into intermittently in order to play radio coverage of synchronised diving.
ITV disrespected Sheffield and showed their pro-Leeds bias in a similar manner
The name of the fanzine was derived from the events of 21 April 1991, when Yorkshire Television elected to show War of the Monster Trucks in preference to the post match celebrations of the Owls' famous and unlikely 1-0 League Cup Final victory over Manchester United.[3] This acrimonious decision has been cited over the years by both Sheffield Wednesday and Sheffield United fans as a prime example of Yorkshire Television's alleged bias towards West Yorkshire in general and Leeds in particular.
The Tories would be stupid not to go for Boris as the next leader. He is the perfect antidote for an anti politician type to be picked as leader. My personal opinion is that Osborne will rally behind Boris when push comes to shove. I remain to be convinced that Osborne wants the job- he's not an obvious as Brown was, and may ultimately settle in a role as kingmaker rather than king.
Your first point perplexes me. You aren't a minister if you must resign. The other is that it's a referendum. That's exceptional, not garden variety politics.
I'd be very disappointed if Cameron didn't allow ministers to campaign during the Referendum period proper according to their conscious. This isn't a Party issue. And outlasts a generation or more.
Listening to Heseltine on R4 this morning there are clearly problems ahead for the tories over the Eu, he effectively said cabinet ministers should back Cameron or resign.
Yesterday's man.
Well yes. He has his own agenda as well. It seems to me no one should resign no matter what the result. Its the peoples choice, a referendum, not an election. The referendum will happen and people will deal with it. The country and cabinet ministers are coping now, the negotiation terms by definition will be an improvement, so it will be a strange choice to resign after 5 to 8 years in happy government (5 with the lib dems!) when the terms were worse.
No one is stopping ministers from campaigning on either side in a referendum campaign. The question is whether they should be allowed to retain ministerial status if they campaign against the government's recommendation. If it is so important, how could a minister remain in a government with any credibility that is putting forward a proposal that he or she opposes?
''I remain to be convinced that Osborne wants the job- he's not an obvious as Brown was, and may ultimately settle in a role as kingmaker rather than king. ''
I would suggest his last budget showed he wants the job and wants it desperately. Osborne for leader took precedence over the country's finances.
The question of whether ministers will be bound to support Cameron in the referendum is a numeric one. If there are only a couple of Cabinet refuseniks, I think the PM will go down the collective responsibility route. If it's a significant number, he'll have no choice but to follow the Harold Wilson precedent of allowing cabinet ministers to campaign on either side.
Of course it's not just about cabinet ministers, but junior ministers as well. I can't see how he can realistically avoid giving them a free hand is this - there would be just too many resignations if he tried to insist on collective responsibility.
Heseltine was IMHO the greatest post war politician never to get to be PM. My wife was at a publishing conference recently where he was speaking, and she said he was absolutely magnetic.
Listening to Heseltine on R4 this morning there are clearly problems ahead for the tories over the Eu, he effectively said cabinet ministers should back Cameron or resign.
My friend's son was his butler.
I mentioned Heseltine but the problem actually isn't his, it's Cameron. If he refuses to let ministers campaign for OUT he's open to all sorts of problems, likewise if he does.
Political historians will draw comparisons with previous, similar conundrums
Your first point perplexes me. You aren't a minister if you must resign. The other is that it's a referendum. That's exceptional, not garden variety politics.
I'd be very disappointed if Cameron didn't allow ministers to campaign during the Referendum period proper according to their conscious. This isn't a Party issue. And outlasts a generation or more.
Listening to Heseltine on R4 this morning there are clearly problems ahead for the tories over the Eu, he effectively said cabinet ministers should back Cameron or resign.
Yesterday's man.
Well yes. He has his own agenda as well. It seems to me no one should resign no matter what the result. Its the peoples choice, a referendum, not an election. The referendum will happen and people will deal with it. The country and cabinet ministers are coping now, the negotiation terms by definition will be an improvement, so it will be a strange choice to resign after 5 to 8 years in happy government (5 with the lib dems!) when the terms were worse.
No one is stopping ministers from campaigning on either side in a referendum campaign. The question is whether they should be allowed to retain ministerial status if they campaign against the government's recommendation. If it is so important, how could a minister remain in a government with any credibility that is putting forward a proposal that he or she opposes?
So the Cabinet must have collective responsibility on unimportant matters but on really important matters it needn't bother? That sounds a bit back to front to me.
The question of whether ministers will be bound to support Cameron in the referendum is a numeric one. If there are only a couple of Cabinet refuseniks, I think the PM will go down the collective responsibility route. If it's a significant number, he'll have no choice but to follow the Harold Wilson precedent of allowing cabinet ministers to campaign on either side.
Of course it's not just about cabinet ministers, but junior ministers as well. I can't see how he can realistically avoid giving them a free hand is this - there would be just too many resignations if he tried to insist on collective responsibility.
In practice, that's correct. But make no mistake, that's a sign of David Cameron's weakness and of the Conservative party's divisions.
Did you know that Geoffrey Boycott- absolute disgrace that he has not been knighted, as much as I despise the honours system- hit more test sixes than David Gower- the most elegant batsmen I can remember seeing.
OT, I see Alistair Cook brought up a hundred with a Six, his second of the innings, in a warmup game today - I hope such a rare event was caught on camera.
Your first point perplexes me. You aren't a minister if you must resign. The other is that it's a referendum. That's exceptional, not garden variety politics.
I'd be very disappointed if Cameron didn't allow ministers to campaign during the Referendum period proper according to their conscious. This isn't a Party issue. And outlasts a generation or more.
Listening to Heseltine on R4 this morning there are clearly problems ahead for the tories over the Eu, he effectively said cabinet ministers should back Cameron or resign.
Yesterday's man.
Well yes. He has his own agenda as well. It seems to me no one should resign no matter what the result. Its the peoples choice, a referendum, not an election. The referendum will happen and people will deal with it. The country and cabinet ministers are coping now, the negotiation terms by definition will be an improvement, so it will be a strange choice to resign after 5 to 8 years in happy government (5 with the lib dems!) when the terms were worse.
No one is stopping ministers from campaigning on either side in a referendum campaign. The question is whether they should be allowed to retain ministerial status if they campaign against the government's recommendation. If it is so important, how could a minister remain in a government with any credibility that is putting forward a proposal that he or she opposes?
So the Cabinet must have collective responsibility on unimportant matters but on really important matters it needn't bother? That sounds a bit back to front to me.
Positively Corbynesque.
We saw the mockery and opprobrium heaped on Labour and Corbyn when they had a free vote on Syria
I tell you [the ethics committee] have no right to go against the president.
The live text of the conference outright states Blatter seems confused and forgetful of what he is saying and what questions are asked. Laying the groundwork for a defence?
He also contradicts his defence of being incompetent (I cannot monitor everyone all of the time - as he said about failing to notice corruption 6 months ago) by stating he is not a fool. Big mistake.
Breaking: Channel 4 have taken over Formula One from the BBC.
Ch4 has always been good at covering minority sports.
Whilst the BBC has no ad breaks, they managed to cut away from the (Boxing day) King George two boxing days ago to go to what was "nearly" a goal in the football (On the radio).
The worst experience I've had with BBC Radio was at the Open in 2011. I went to Royal St George's on the Friday and had planned to listen to 5live's coverage through headphones and my small radio. Unfortunately that was a big day (I can't remember why exactly) in the phone hacking case and the BBC thought it was more important to tell me about developments in that rather than Tom Watson's hole in one on the sixth!
Did you know that Geoffrey Boycott- absolute disgrace that he has not been knighted, as much as I despise the honours system- hit more test sixes than David Gower- the most elegant batsmen I can remember seeing.
OT, I see Alistair Cook brought up a hundred with a Six, his second of the innings, in a warmup game today - I hope such a rare event was caught on camera.
Hah, I'll bet he brings that up with Gower all the time.
Honestly, so many people call him Sir Geoffrey as a nickname I sometimes forget he doesn't have a knighthood.
In practice, that's correct. But make no mistake, that's a sign of David Cameron's weakness and of the Conservative party's divisions.
Of course. The Conservative Party has been deeply divided on this for a quarter of a century. At the moment things are fairly amicable in the sense that those with strong views on both sides have effectively agreed to disagree, uniting around the not unreasonable common ground that the government will try its best to improve the terms and leave the decision to the referendum. Whether that relatively amicable mood survives the referendum campaign and result remains to be seen.
I tell you [the ethics committee] have no right to go against the president.
The live text of the conference outright states Blatter seems confused and forgetful of what he is saying and what questions are asked. Laying the groundwork for a defence?
He also contradicts his defence of being incompetent (I cannot monitor everyone all of the time - as he said about failing to notice corruption 6 months ago) by stating he is not a fool. Big mistake.
And now off to see Star Wars again - I left it feeling a little ambivalent the first time, and have been feeling more and more positive about it since (the opposite reaction to some), so we'll see how it holds up.
And now off to see Star Wars again - I left it feeling a little ambivalent the first time, and have been feeling more and more positive about it since (the opposite reaction to some), so we'll see how it holds up.
Don't forget George Osborne is in the credits.
That should make you feel even more happy about the film.
Wait a minute, weren't you referred to in the last episode of Doctor Who?
[NB I stopped watching it halfway through].
Mr. Thoughts, I'm not too fussed, provided Legard isn't doing commentary. The race feed is universal, after all. I tend not to watch the preamble or post-race discussion anyway.
So the Cabinet must have collective responsibility on unimportant matters but on really important matters it needn't bother? That sounds a bit back to front to me.
Twaddle; for a lawyer you have no context:
When the Death-Penalty and the Abortion-Bills were discussed they were treated as 'a matter of conscience'. The Sovereignty of England's Parliament should be treated as the same...!
Wait a minute, weren't you referred to in the last episode of Doctor Who?
[NB I stopped watching it halfway through].
Mr. Thoughts, I'm not too fussed, provided Legard isn't doing commentary. The race feed is universal, after all. I tend not to watch the preamble or post-race discussion anyway.
You want James Allen to do the commentary don't you ?
Mr. Eagles, I had minor ID theft (I think, some money was erroneously taken from my credit card). I concur entirely that contactless cards sound bloody stupid.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, he was apparently given a line to take (Murray-esque excitability, which isn't his natural demeanour). Allen's fine on the radio. I'd take Allen over Legard any day of the week.
As someone who has been the victim of ID theft that was the bank's fault, let me assure you it is always customer's problem.
That's different though. Credit card companies and banks won't charge you for transactions after the card has been cancelled. It's a silly scare story, though of course it's always good advice to check transactions and most definitely to check them after a card goes missing.
Mr. Eagles, I had minor ID theft (I think, some money was erroneously taken from my credit card). I concur entirely that contactless cards sound bloody stupid.
All seven cards in my wallet are contactless. They must save me literally seconds every day when I use contactless instead of entering my PIN
Mr. Eagles, I had minor ID theft (I think, some money was erroneously taken from my credit card). I concur entirely that contactless cards sound bloody stupid.
All seven cards in my wallet are contactless. They must save me literally seconds every day when I use contactless instead of entering my PIN
I have been wondering what happens when thieves get a mobile contactless device - and just wander round pubs and clubs (in fact, any gathering) hoovering up cash as they walk about? Is this possible? What range do they work at?
I have no contactless cards in my wallet, and it will stay that way.
I'd be very disappointed if Cameron didn't allow ministers to campaign during the Referendum period proper according to their conscious. This isn't a Party issue. And outlasts a generation or more.
Listening to Heseltine on R4 this morning there are clearly problems ahead for the tories over the Eu, he effectively said cabinet ministers should back Cameron or resign.
Yesterday's man.
Well yes. He has his own agenda as well. It seems to me no one should resign no matter what the result. Its the peoples choice, a referendum, not an election. The referendum will happen and people will deal with it. The country and cabinet ministers are coping now, the negotiation terms by definition will be an improvement, so it will be a strange choice to resign after 5 to 8 years in happy government (5 with the lib dems!) when the terms were worse.
I think Ministers should be allowed to campaign for us to leave.
But I think it's another thing for Ministers of the Crown to say "My boss, the Prime Minister failed in his negotiations, and that is why we should leave."
Contactless cards is the dumbest thing going. Introduce Chip and Pin, then add in a massive loophole, and the technology isn't secure either. People with the right technical know how can exploit that system without you ever taking your card our of your wallet and / or when you present it at the machine.
Mr. Eagles, I had minor ID theft (I think, some money was erroneously taken from my credit card). I concur entirely that contactless cards sound bloody stupid.
All seven cards in my wallet are contactless. They must save me literally seconds every day when I use contactless instead of entering my PIN
The contactless cards are for the benefit of retailers who can reduce the staffing at salespoints if the service time is reduced by seconds for each customer.
The contactless cards are for the benefit of retailers who can reduce the staffing at salespoints if the service time is reduced by seconds for each customer.
... and for the benefit of those in the queue who are just trying to buy a sandwich!
Mr. Pulpstar, not sure I agree. Think it's likelier they were holding the announcement in case he won it.
Mr. Evershed, quite. Sounds like the idiocy of London buses not accepting cash. Things are changing for the convenience of organisations and businesses at the expense of customers and taxpayers.
Court News Early Christmas present for Hatton Garden reporters as 'Jimmy two baths' is called to give evidence for defendant 'Billy the fish'
The crime of the century undertaken by the world best criminals (as reported at the time) really has turned into a bit of a joke. Ocean's Eleven it was most definitely not, more OAPs do a bank job.
Re ID theft and fraud. Credit Card company (CCC) = Have you applied for a CC from us? Me = No CCC = OK we will block that and we can set up a warning category for you (extra ID checks then made). Me = Will you report it to the police? CCC = No, just the central body of CCC folk. If you want to report to the police that is up to you. "No crime committed" (Duh) Police = We have a Central body to report this and can do that online. Me = I do that. Then 2 months later no acknowledgement, nothing.
Did you know that Geoffrey Boycott- absolute disgrace that he has not been knighted, as much as I despise the honours system- hit more test sixes than David Gower- the most elegant batsmen I can remember seeing.
OT, I see Alistair Cook brought up a hundred with a Six, his second of the innings, in a warmup game today - I hope such a rare event was caught on camera.
Hah, I'll bet he brings that up with Gower all the time.
Honestly, so many people call him Sir Geoffrey as a nickname I sometimes forget he doesn't have a knighthood.
OK, let’s start with jobs. Many millennials are weirdly perfectionist about work in a way that we Gen-Xers just don’t get...They’ll usually say that it’s not what they expected. But what they did expect?
...To many millennials, this seems to come as a genuine surprise. It shouldn’t: the clue is in the name. This isn’t just my experience either: there’s plenty of research that suggests millennials think that jobs should suit them, rather than the businesses that pay their salary. One such study from the university of New Hampshire found “these employees have unrealistic expectations and a strong resistance toward accepting negative feedback.”
I'd be very disappointed if Cameron didn't allow ministers to campaign during the Referendum period proper according to their conscious. This isn't a Party issue. And outlasts a generation or more.
Listening to Heseltine on R4 this morning there are clearly problems ahead for the tories over the Eu, he effectively said cabinet ministers should back Cameron or resign.
Yesterday's man.
Well yes. He has his own agenda as well. It seems to me no one should resign no matter what the result. Its the peoples choice, a referendum, not an election. The referendum will happen and people will deal with it. The country and cabinet ministers are coping now, the negotiation terms by definition will be an improvement, so it will be a strange choice to resign after 5 to 8 years in happy government (5 with the lib dems!) when the terms were worse.
I think Ministers should be allowed to campaign for us to leave.
But I think it's another thing for Ministers of the Crown to say "My boss, the Prime Minister failed in his negotiations, and that is why we should leave."
If this is the best the Nats have for winning an Indyref, then I confidently predict that Scotland will remain in the Union for the next thousand years
Mr. Evershed, quite. Sounds like the idiocy of London buses not accepting cash. Things are changing for the convenience of organisations and businesses at the expense of customers and taxpayers.
Quite the opposite. 99% of bus journeys in London were being made by Oyster or contactless before the change. Getting rid of cash saves TfL (a taxpayer funded organisation) millions in insurance and cash processing costs.
Comments
I do think, though, that you (and Phllip) mistake a willingness to give discussion and airtime to people with revolting views as an agreement with those views - it's entirely characteristic that he would like to have a discussion with Trump and with Tyson (the boxer not our Tyson). He, like me, believes in honest discussions more than he believes in any particular opinion (I wouldn't have responded civilly here over the years to lots of fairly unpleasant posts from some quarters - not you, of course - if I didn't).
I don't think there's any doubt that as a backbencher he's seen part of his role as giving a hearing to groups who we've thought of as anti-Western enemies, and his own disagreement with a lot of what the West has done over the years feeds into that. But it's a mistake to extrapolate that into agreement. He is not shy of expressing unpopular views, and if he agreed with Hamas he wouldn't pretend otherwise.
Anyway, I'm off to the States for a week, and will probably only contribute intermittently, so happy Christmas everyone!
There's a thread header in there somewhere if ever I can work out what I actually think on the subject.
Honestly, why do people even use the word sorry in these situations? It's always 'I'm sorry this is going on, but I am completely innocent', so skip the I'm sorry bit already.
A merry xmas.
The only reason not to resign/be sacked seems to be this accusation some are wont to throw about dastardly Cameron forcing out ministers who disagree with him, but that seems a perfectly reasonable thing for PMs to do, if not something they should make a habit out of on the smaller issues, which this is not.
But unfortunately his views live on at the very top of the Conservative party, albeit hidden behind a facade of very light Euroscepticism.
He has his own agenda as well.
It seems to me no one should resign no matter what the result. Its the peoples choice, a referendum, not an election.
The referendum will happen and people will deal with it. The country and cabinet ministers are coping now, the negotiation terms by definition will be an improvement, so it will be a strange choice to resign after 5 to 8 years in happy government (5 with the lib dems!) when the terms were worse.
I was involved in a workshop with Oliver Letwin some years ago- as charming and courteous a man as you could imagine, someone who didn't appear to have any edge of any kind, which is the rarest of things.
The BBC's approach to F1 has been cretinous. They abandoned exclusive rights when it was the only sporting event they have that met audience targets (the other being Wimbledon, although F1 was more popular), and now they've discarded it entirely. Hope Channel 4 give it better treatment.
I'd guess it's just half a season. Do we know yet?
Whilst not good, the blame lies with the BBC, not Channel 4.
Live radio commentary of one F1 race was broken into intermittently in order to play radio coverage of synchronised diving.
The name of the fanzine was derived from the events of 21 April 1991, when Yorkshire Television elected to show War of the Monster Trucks in preference to the post match celebrations of the Owls' famous and unlikely 1-0 League Cup Final victory over Manchester United.[3] This acrimonious decision has been cited over the years by both Sheffield Wednesday and Sheffield United fans as a prime example of Yorkshire Television's alleged bias towards West Yorkshire in general and Leeds in particular.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Monster_Trucks
I tell you [the ethics committee] have no right to go against the president.
I would suggest his last budget showed he wants the job and wants it desperately. Osborne for leader took precedence over the country's finances.
Of course it's not just about cabinet ministers, but junior ministers as well. I can't see how he can realistically avoid giving them a free hand is this - there would be just too many resignations if he tried to insist on collective responsibility.
I mentioned Heseltine but the problem actually isn't his, it's Cameron. If he refuses to let ministers campaign for OUT he's open to all sorts of problems, likewise if he does.
Political historians will draw comparisons with previous, similar conundrums
Besides, Patel or Greening are the obvious superior choices.
Mr. Eagles, I forget, are you from Sheffield? When you aren't feigning Lancastrianism?
We saw the mockery and opprobrium heaped on Labour and Corbyn when they had a free vote on Syria
He also contradicts his defence of being incompetent (I cannot monitor everyone all of the time - as he said about failing to notice corruption 6 months ago) by stating he is not a fool. Big mistake.
Many of Dave's MPs can't abide him, but the wider party is very pro Cameron. In that sense, he is in a similar position to Jeremy Corbyn.
I am known by the sobriquet 'The Yorkshiremanc'
Honestly, so many people call him Sir Geoffrey as a nickname I sometimes forget he doesn't have a knighthood.
Meanwhile Osborne's piling up his own opponents.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3368332/Firms-anger-Osborne-s-meddling-including-introduction-living-wage.html
Cancelled cards can still be used by thieves for several days, it is claimed
Contactless payment cards that have been cancelled by consumers can still be exploited by thieves for several days, it has emerged
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/12061474/Contactless-cards-spark-security-fears.html
What about the approvals ratings amongst tory voters? aren't they extremely high? (Most are not members though, I guess).
That should make you feel even more happy about the film.
Wait a minute, weren't you referred to in the last episode of Doctor Who?
[NB I stopped watching it halfway through].
Mr. Thoughts, I'm not too fussed, provided Legard isn't doing commentary. The race feed is universal, after all. I tend not to watch the preamble or post-race discussion anyway.
When the Death-Penalty and the Abortion-Bills were discussed they were treated as 'a matter of conscience'. The Sovereignty of England's Parliament should be treated as the same...!
:piano-wire-4-lawyers:
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, he was apparently given a line to take (Murray-esque excitability, which isn't his natural demeanour). Allen's fine on the radio. I'd take Allen over Legard any day of the week.
Court News
Early Christmas present for Hatton Garden reporters as 'Jimmy two baths' is called to give evidence for defendant 'Billy the fish'
I have no contactless cards in my wallet, and it will stay that way.
So the survey tells us nothing about the relative chances of the contestants in 2020 and beyond.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/d65fc069-ca52-41dd-a7be-674ca1614e14
But I think it's another thing for Ministers of the Crown to say "My boss, the Prime Minister failed in his negotiations, and that is why we should leave."
Mr. Evershed, quite. Sounds like the idiocy of London buses not accepting cash. Things are changing for the convenience of organisations and businesses at the expense of customers and taxpayers.
Credit Card company (CCC) = Have you applied for a CC from us?
Me = No
CCC = OK we will block that and we can set up a warning category for you (extra ID checks then made).
Me = Will you report it to the police?
CCC = No, just the central body of CCC folk. If you want to report to the police that is up to you. "No crime committed" (Duh)
Police = We have a Central body to report this and can do that online.
Me = I do that. Then 2 months later no acknowledgement, nothing.
That said, it has proved somewhat enlightening regarding these mysterious uninsured deposit boxes where people kept all manner of goods.
The Solresol word for hippopotamus is doremiremi.
https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/678662054283239424