politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Coinciding with the traditional Boxing Day meets the tradit

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Coinciding with the traditional Boxing Day meets the traditional Boxing Day fox hunting poll

By 83% to 15% those sampled by @IpsosMORI say fox-hunting should NOT be made legal again. CON voters split 70-27% against legalisation

Read the full story here

FrancisUrquhart

A woman says she was barred from booking a flight three times - because she is called ISIS.

RACCCCCIIISTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3374598/Woman-called-ISIS-says-banned-flying-shares-middle-terrorists.html

GeoffM

Second! And I used to really enjoy foxhunting when I lived full time in the UK.

I hope (in vain I fear) that this trend of banning things which are disapproved of by loud minorities is at least slowed soon.

FrancisUrquhart

Damn James Taylor out.

Pulpstar

Lol - Paddy has paid out on LVG

Premier League Sack Race - L Van Gaal @ 3/10 (Pending)

Includes Early Payout

NickPalmer

The hunting thing has been very British - the ban was slow because of all the procedural manoeuvres, it wasn't very effective or especially actively enforced (supposedly the well-organised hunts organise chases of dead prey which "accidentally" divert into live prey - hard to prove), but, as with mobile phoning at the wheel, it's had an effect as much by implication as by direct effect - although you probably won't be prosecuted, you're doing something that you know is legally dodgy and most people at least mildly disapprove of.

The hunts are very keen to see the ban lifted for that reason, but I doubt if it will ever happen. Tory support for the ban is now quite substantial - around 50 MPs compared with a handful when it was introduced and lots of Tory MPs think about it a bit like Labour MPs on the monarchy - they're not especially keen on the ban, but don't think it's worth the hassle to challenge it.

As someone who's always been very much into animal welfare issues, I think it's a pity that hunting has been so dominant. I favour the ban, but the number of animals involved is negligible compared with farming and experiments designed with the expectation of causing suffering (you don't need a licence if no suffering is involved). There's been a bit of progress on both, but it's enormously slow, and MPs often think they can tick the welfare box merely by opposing fox-hunting. A serious effort to improve farm animal conditions and setting targets to reduce experiments over time would be much more significant.

MattW

This seems to me to be rather like the Renationalise the Railways thing.

The public has fallen for a silly narrative.

Mr Blair's desire to feed distracting morsels to his unhappy backbenchers in the late 1990s, and to accept £1 million from the Animal Rights Campaigners before the 1997 Election (Was it the "Lynx" group?) campaigners, has a hell of a lot to answer for.

I wonder of fewer Iraquis and others would be dead if they had spent those 700 hours of Parliamentary time on matters of weight?

AndyJS

Interesting that the more left-wing French still allow fox-hunting AFAIK.

HYUFD

'The Great Republican Revolt: The GOP planned a dynastic restoration in 2016. Instead, it triggered an internal class war. Can the party reconcile the demands of its donors with the interests of its rank and file?'
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Just finished watching the Top Gear Patagonia Special.

If the BBC ditched Evans, the new lineup might be alright.

HYUFD

The fractionally higher support for fox hunting in urban areas may have something to do with the growing number of foxes which are finding their way into suburban streets and gardens

Pulpstar

NickPalmer said:

The hunting thing has been very British - the ban was slow because of all the procedural manoeuvres, it wasn't very effective or especially actively enforced (supposedly the well-organised hunts organise chases of dead prey which "accidentally" divert into live prey - hard to prove), but, as with mobile phoning at the wheel, it's had an effect as much by implication as by direct effect - although you probably won't be prosecuted, you're doing something that you know is legally dodgy and most people at least mildly disapprove of.

The hunts are very keen to see the ban lifted for that reason, but I doubt if it will ever happen. Tory support for the ban is now quite substantial - around 50 MPs compared with a handful when it was introduced and lots of Tory MPs think about it a bit like Labour MPs on the monarchy - they're not especially keen on the ban, but don't think it's worth the hassle to challenge it.

As someone who's always been very much into animal welfare issues, I think it's a pity that hunting has been so dominant. I favour the ban, but the number of animals involved is negligible compared with farming and experiments designed with the expectation of causing suffering (you don't need a licence if no suffering is involved). There's been a bit of progress on both, but it's enormously slow, and MPs often think they can tick the welfare box merely by opposing fox-hunting. A serious effort to improve farm animal conditions and setting targets to reduce experiments over time would be much more significant.

Whilst our animal welfare laws aren't perfect, they are a damn sight better than the continent. In particular I'm always careful to buy British pork products.

Pulpstar

FPT: I see White Rabbit has joined me on the lay Rubio wagon ^^;

Sandpit

Ooh, maybe my prediction of the start of Leicester's demise being at Anfield on Boxing Day might be about to come to fruition.

NickPalmer

MattW said:

I wonder of fewer Iraquis and others would be dead if they had spent those 700 hours of Parliamentary time on matters of weight?

No, that's objectively unfair - the ONLY reason for all the time spent on this short Bill was interminable blocking devices and filibusters by a smallish number of Tories in both Commons and Lords. You could say that if opposition MPs had been remotely as interested in Iraq as in hunting, there might have been less enthusiastic support for the operation from the Opposition. Personally I think it's an irrelevant argument - there is not really a shortage of Parliamentary time if people actually want to debate something and one of the major parties agrees.

RobD

NickPalmer said:

MattW said:

I wonder of fewer Iraquis and others would be dead if they had spent those 700 hours of Parliamentary time on matters of weight?

No, that's objectively unfair - the ONLY reason for all the time spent on this short Bill was interminable blocking devices and filibusters by a smallish number of Tories in both Commons and Lords. You could say that if opposition MPs had been remotely as interested in Iraq as in hunting, there might have been less enthusiastic support for the operation from the Opposition. Personally I think it's an irrelevant argument - there is not really a shortage of Parliamentary time if people actually want to debate something and one of the major parties agrees.

But surely going in there must have been an appreciation that it wasn't going to be easy to get through, and would take up a lot of parliamentary time.

Baskerville

FPT. The London housing market is dynamic and multidimensional. Many purchasers are moving up... there is a chain of buyers. What this suggests is that more people at the top of the chain are moving out of the Smoke, rather than downsizing within the M25.
Yes, foreign money is a factor in some v. central areas, but the bulk of the market depends on that chain of people upgrading as their income grows. £500k sounds a lot, but it's less out of range if your current poky flat is already worth £350k.

DavidL

Surely this is an ex issue, close cousin of the proverbial parrot.

HYUFD

Baskerville said:

FPT. The London housing market is dynamic and multidimensional. Many purchasers are moving up... there is a chain of buyers. What this suggests is that more people at the top of the chain are moving out of the Smoke, rather than downsizing within the M25.
Yes, foreign money is a factor in some v. central areas, but the bulk of the market depends on that chain of people upgrading as their income grows. £500k sounds a lot, but it's less out of range if your current poky flat is already worth £350k.

Remember too that over half, 50.4%, of Londoners now rent while across the country as a whole only 37% rent with the majority still owning a property or having a mortgage, so in London it is only the rich or above average earners who can afford to buy

Richard_Nabavi

Yes, sadly, this disgraceful piece of class-warfare motivated nastiness, which has nothing to do with animal welfare, will remain on the statute books. More's the pity, but this particular injustice would require too much political capital to fix. It's certainly not going to be fixed in this parliament - there's no majority to do so, even if the SNP were principled - and probably never.

Sandpit

Great result Liverpool! Missed a sitter right at the end though.

Sunil_Prasannan

As the "only vegetarian in the PB Village", would like to point out that there are far more animal deaths involved in the meat industry. And foxes aren't vegetarian

Sunil_Prasannan

West Ham keep on drawing...

kle4

Why does anyone need the law changed? It was my understanding people still hunt foxes with hounds, and I don't find the argument people who would want to do it are that upset about it being seen as morally dubious because of the law. Mr Nabavi certainly has it right regardless that it would take too much political capital to fix.

And now the Xmas season is officially over, politically, it's time again to condemn those nasty Tories/Labour/SNP scum and their cowardly leaders Cameron the pig loving toff, Corbyn the Terrorist and Sturgeon the traitor.

On another matter, over the course of the past 2 days I've watched all four Hunger Games movies. Very, very mediocre stuff, and the last movie particularly poor. I was left wondering, until pretty much the very end, if I had ever seen a series protagonist more ineffectual. And also noting that for a supposedly brutal and oppressive regime obsessed with control, it's rare to see that government be defeated so easily - I'm really not sure the events of the movies made that much difference; notwithstanding their claims otherwise, given how quickly and easily it fell, I find it hard to believe the evil government would have lasted.

GeoffM

NickPalmer said:

MattW said:

I wonder of fewer Iraquis and others would be dead if they had spent those 700 hours of Parliamentary time on matters of weight?

No, that's objectively unfair - the ONLY reason for all the time spent on this short Bill was interminable blocking devices and filibusters by a smallish number of Tories in both Commons and Lords. You could say that if opposition MPs had been remotely as interested in Iraq as in hunting, there might have been less enthusiastic support for the operation from the Opposition. Personally I think it's an irrelevant argument - there is not really a shortage of Parliamentary time if people actually want to debate something and one of the major parties agrees.

Actually it's very fair. You personally and many like you quite openly made a value judgement that the life of a fox was worth more time than the life of an Iraqi human being.

Shame on you a thousand times over.

HYUFD

kle4 said:

Why does anyone need the law changed? It was my understanding people still hunt foxes with hounds, and I don't find the argument people who would want to do it are that upset about it being seen as morally dubious because of the law. Mr Nabavi certainly has it right regardless that it would take too much political capital to fix.

And now the Xmas season is officially over, politically, it's time again to condemn those nasty Tories/Labour/SNP scum and their cowardly leaders Cameron the pig loving toff, Corbyn the Terrorist and Sturgeon the traitor.

On another matter, over the course of the past 2 days I've watched all four Hunger Games movies. Very, very mediocre stuff, and the last movie particularly poor. I was left wondering, until pretty much the very end, if I had ever seen a series protagonist more ineffectual. And also noting that for a supposedly brutal and oppressive regime obsessed with control, it's rare to see that government be defeated so easily - I'm really not sure the events of the movies made that much difference; notwithstanding their claims otherwise, given how quickly and easily it fell, I find it hard to believe the evil government would have lasted.

I believe it was the rebel leader who authorised the bombing of Capitol crowds making it look like President Snow which led the regime to fall so quickly and then Katniss Everdene killed her at the end leaving the mob to deal with Snow

kle4

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Why does anyone need the law changed? It was my understanding people still hunt foxes with hounds, and I don't find the argument people who would want to do it are that upset about it being seen as morally dubious because of the law. Mr Nabavi certainly has it right regardless that it would take too much political capital to fix.

And now the Xmas season is officially over, politically, it's time again to condemn those nasty Tories/Labour/SNP scum and their cowardly leaders Cameron the pig loving toff, Corbyn the Terrorist and Sturgeon the traitor.

On another matter, over the course of the past 2 days I've watched all four Hunger Games movies. Very, very mediocre stuff, and the last movie particularly poor. I was left wondering, until pretty much the very end, if I had ever seen a series protagonist more ineffectual. And also noting that for a supposedly brutal and oppressive regime obsessed with control, it's rare to see that government be defeated so easily - I'm really not sure the events of the movies made that much difference; notwithstanding their claims otherwise, given how quickly and easily it fell, I find it hard to believe the evil government would have lasted.

I believe it was the rebel leader who authorised the bombing of Capitol crowds making it look like President Snow which led the regime to fall so quickly and then Katniss Everdene killed her at the end leaving the mob to deal with Snow

I meant in how, despite canonically having a massive population and technology advantage over all the combined districts, the rebellion was quickly and easily able to march right up and into the capital, and was going to win even without that particular act, as Snow admitted. The exact nature of the win might have been different, but given that shooting at the end seems to be the only thing the Katniss alone chose to do (they could and did use others for propaganda inspiration when they had to), she contributed little else and the rebellion seemed quite able to win against the government without much difficulty - it was only the desperate last stand at the presidential palace that was avoided.

I really had no conception of the level of or importance of Capitol resistance to Snow either.

foxinsoxuk

Sandpit said:

Great result Liverpool! Missed a sitter right at the end though.

Leicester still top of the league and 9 points ahead of Liverpool.

Not our best day though.

SquareRoot

All too easy to view a fox as some cuddly furry animal. .. until you see what they do to a pen full of chickens if they get in , frenetic killing of everything in sight..

AlastairMeeks

Did they have an "oh Lord, not this again?" option?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. kle4, neither read the books nor seen the films, but interesting that the good guys win, contrary to older dystopian stories.

kle4

SquareRoot said:

All too easy to view a fox as some cuddly furry animal. .. until you see what they do to a pen full of chickens if they get in , frenetic killing of everything in sight..

Oh the horror, animal acts like animal. I don't care if the law is repealed or not, and if farmers want to tell me they are a pest that needs to be kept under control at the very least or eliminated, well, I am sure they know more about that than I do, but it's amazing how that can transition into trying to suggest foxes are somehow uniquely evil creatures.

dugarbandier

GeoffM said:

NickPalmer said:

MattW said:

I wonder of fewer Iraquis and others would be dead if they had spent those 700 hours of Parliamentary time on matters of weight?

No, that's objectively unfair - the ONLY reason for all the time spent on this short Bill was interminable blocking devices and filibusters by a smallish number of Tories in both Commons and Lords. You could say that if opposition MPs had been remotely as interested in Iraq as in hunting, there might have been less enthusiastic support for the operation from the Opposition. Personally I think it's an irrelevant argument - there is not really a shortage of Parliamentary time if people actually want to debate something and one of the major parties agrees.

Actually it's very fair. You personally and many like you quite openly made a value judgement that the life of a fox was worth more time than the life of an Iraqi human being.

Shame on you a thousand times over.

to be fair, tho. that's bollocks

TheScreamingEagles

Picked up some awesome bargains in the sales, Liverpool won, England did well in the cricket and I've written a thread for tomorrow about Mark Reckless.

Best Boxing Day ever.

kle4

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kle4, neither read the books nor seen the films, but interesting that the good guys win, contrary to older dystopian stories.

Quite a common trend thesedays apparently - the dystopias are more fragile, the heroes more optimistic and effective. Which I'm ok with, but it should have felt like more of a challenge - some of these dystopias seem like they fall apart the instant anyone asks a question, and everyone is all ready to rise up at the first sign of defiance, making you wonder how they lasted so long.

dugarbandier

Sunil_Prasannan said:

As the "only vegetarian in the PB Village", would like to point out that there are far more animal deaths involved in the meat industry. And foxes aren't vegetarian

I've never eaten one, Sunil, but I suspect they aren't very tasty either

GeoffM

kle4 said:

SquareRoot said:

All too easy to view a fox as some cuddly furry animal. .. until you see what they do to a pen full of chickens if they get in , frenetic killing of everything in sight..

Oh the horror, animal acts like animal. I don't care if the law is repealed or not, and if farmers want to tell me they are a pest that needs to be kept under control at the very least or eliminated, well, I am sure they know more about that than I do, but it's amazing how that can transition into trying to suggest foxes are somehow uniquely evil creatures.

Animals cannot be "evil" as they never ate fruit from the tree.

Genesis 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

HYUFD

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Why does anyone need the law changed? It was my understanding people still hunt foxes with hounds, and I don't find the argument people who would want to do it are that upset about it being seen as morally dubious because of the law. Mr Nabavi certainly has it right regardless that it would take too much political capital to fix.

And now the Xmas season is officially over, politically, it's time again to condemn those nasty Tories/Labour/SNP scum and their cowardly leaders Cameron the pig loving toff, Corbyn the Terrorist and Sturgeon the traitor.

On another matter, over the course of the past 2 days I've watched all four Hunger Games movies. Very, very mediocre stuff, and the last movie particularly poor. I was left wondering, until pretty much the very end, if I had ever seen a series protagonist more ineffectual. And also noting that for a supposedly brutal and oppressive regime obsessed with control, it's rare to see that government be defeated so easily - I'm really not sure the events of the movies made that much difference; notwithstanding their claims otherwise, given how quickly and easily it fell, I find it hard to believe the evil government would have lasted.

I believe it was the rebel leader who authorised the bombing of Capitol crowds making it look like President Snow which led the regime to fall so quickly and then Katniss Everdene killed her at the end leaving the mob to deal with Snow

I meant in how, despite canonically having a massive population and technology advantage over all the combined districts, the rebellion was quickly and easily able to march right up and into the capital, and was going to win even without that particular act, as Snow admitted. The exact nature of the win might have been different, but given that shooting at the end seems to be the only thing the Katniss alone chose to do (they could and did use others for propaganda inspiration when they had to), she contributed little else and the rebellion seemed quite able to win against the government without much difficulty - it was only the desperate last stand at the presidential palace that was avoided.

I really had no conception of the level of or importance of Capitol resistance to Snow either.

The rebellion seemed to have ample planes, ammunition and weaponary so it was not that surprising but it is a work of fiction after all

GeoffM

dugarbandier said:

GeoffM said:

NickPalmer said:

MattW said:

I wonder of fewer Iraquis and others would be dead if they had spent those 700 hours of Parliamentary time on matters of weight?

No, that's objectively unfair - the ONLY reason for all the time spent on this short Bill was interminable blocking devices and filibusters by a smallish number of Tories in both Commons and Lords. You could say that if opposition MPs had been remotely as interested in Iraq as in hunting, there might have been less enthusiastic support for the operation from the Opposition. Personally I think it's an irrelevant argument - there is not really a shortage of Parliamentary time if people actually want to debate something and one of the major parties agrees.

Actually it's very fair. You personally and many like you quite openly made a value judgement that the life of a fox was worth more time than the life of an Iraqi human being.

Shame on you a thousand times over.

to be fair, tho. that's bollocks

On what grounds?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. kle4, some reckon that YA dystopian series/books are just allegories for growing up [or not...], challenging the system etc.

Be interesting to know what grimdark represents. The gnawing realisation of the futility of human endeavour and inevitability of death? Mmm, festive

Trying to come up with a similar short term for Sir Edric's shenanigans. Mirthjape may work. Winelark? Winefolly?

HYUFD

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Why does anyone need the law changed? It was my understanding people still hunt foxes with hounds, and I don't find the argument people who would want to do it are that upset about it being seen as morally dubious because of the law. Mr Nabavi certainly has it right regardless that it would take too much political capital to fix.

And now the Xmas season is officially over, politically, it's time again to condemn those nasty Tories/Labour/SNP scum and their cowardly leaders Cameron the pig loving toff, Corbyn the Terrorist and Sturgeon the traitor.

On another matter, over the course of the past 2 days I've watched all four Hunger Games movies. Very, very mediocre stuff, and the last movie particularly poor. I was left wondering, until pretty much the very end, if I had ever seen a series protagonist more ineffectual. And also noting that for a supposedly brutal and oppressive regime obsessed with control, it's rare to see that government be defeated so easily - I'm really not sure the events of the movies made that much difference; notwithstanding their claims otherwise, given how quickly and easily it fell, I find it hard to believe the evil government would have lasted.

I believe it was the rebel leader who authorised the bombing of Capitol crowds making it look like President Snow which led the regime to fall so quickly and then Katniss Everdene killed her at the end leaving the mob to deal with Snow

I meant in how, despite canonically having a massive population and technology advantage over all the combined districts, the rebellion was quickly and easily able to march right up and into the capital, and was going to win even without that particular act, as Snow admitted. The exact nature of the win might have been different, but given that shooting at the end seems to be the only thing the Katniss alone chose to do (they could and did use others for propaganda inspiration when they had to), she contributed little else and the rebellion seemed quite able to win against the government without much difficulty - it was only the desperate last stand at the presidential palace that was avoided.

I really had no conception of the level of or importance of Capitol resistance to Snow either.

If you wanted a really classic movie, though perhaps for the wrong reasons, 'Diana' with Naomi Watts on C5 has just finished, it has an 8% rating on Rotten Tomatoes

TheScreamingEagles

On topic, nope I've tried my best for many years, but I can't get excited about fox hunting

richardDodd

Who cares..

TOPPING

NickPalmer said:

The hunting thing has been very British - the ban was slow because of all the procedural manoeuvres, it wasn't very effective or especially actively enforced (supposedly the well-organised hunts organise chases of dead prey which "accidentally" divert into live prey - hard to prove), but, as with mobile phoning at the wheel, it's had an effect as much by implication as by direct effect - although you probably won't be prosecuted, you're doing something that you know is legally dodgy and most people at least mildly disapprove of.

The hunts are very keen to see the ban lifted for that reason, but I doubt if it will ever happen. Tory support for the ban is now quite substantial - around 50 MPs compared with a handful when it was introduced and lots of Tory MPs think about it a bit like Labour MPs on the monarchy - they're not especially keen on the ban, but don't think it's worth the hassle to challenge it.

As someone who's always been very much into animal welfare issues, I think it's a pity that hunting has been so dominant. I favour the ban, but the number of animals involved is negligible compared with farming and experiments designed with the expectation of causing suffering (you don't need a licence if no suffering is involved). There's been a bit of progress on both, but it's enormously slow, and MPs often think they can tick the welfare box merely by opposing fox-hunting. A serious effort to improve farm animal conditions and setting targets to reduce experiments over time would be much more significant.

Good analysis, Nick.

rcs1000

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kle4, some reckon that YA dystopian series/books are just allegories for growing up [or not...], challenging the system etc.

Be interesting to know what grimdark represents. The gnawing realisation of the futility of human endeavour and inevitability of death? Mmm, festive

Trying to come up with a similar short term for Sir Edric's shenanigans. Mirthjape may work. Winelark? Winefolly?

I always assumed the Hunger Games books were an allegory for a federal Europe.

You know where the plucky federalists have to defeat the evil national parliaments, that kind of thing.

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, nope I've tried my best for many years, but I can't get excited about fox hunting

Probably helps to be a fox!

dugarbandier

GeoffM said:

dugarbandier said:

GeoffM said:

NickPalmer said:

MattW said:

I wonder of fewer Iraquis and others would be dead if they had spent those 700 hours of Parliamentary time on matters of weight?

No, that's objectively unfair - the ONLY reason for all the time spent on this short Bill was interminable blocking devices and filibusters by a smallish number of Tories in both Commons and Lords. You could say that if opposition MPs had been remotely as interested in Iraq as in hunting, there might have been less enthusiastic support for the operation from the Opposition. Personally I think it's an irrelevant argument - there is not really a shortage of Parliamentary time if people actually want to debate something and one of the major parties agrees.

Actually it's very fair. You personally and many like you quite openly made a value judgement that the life of a fox was worth more time than the life of an Iraqi human being.

Shame on you a thousand times over.

to be fair, tho. that's bollocks

On what grounds?

on the grounds that Nick and colleagues never made such a judgement.

Anyhow, I'm away to my bed.

(I'm not arsed about foxes either way tbh)

Merry Christmas

TheScreamingEagles

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kle4, some reckon that YA dystopian series/books are just allegories for growing up [or not...], challenging the system etc.

Be interesting to know what grimdark represents. The gnawing realisation of the futility of human endeavour and inevitability of death? Mmm, festive

Trying to come up with a similar short term for Sir Edric's shenanigans. Mirthjape may work. Winelark? Winefolly?

I always assumed the Hunger Games books were an allegory for a federal Europe.

You know where the plucky federalists have to defeat the evil national parliaments, that kind of thing.

Nah, is in fact about Theseus and the Minotaur.

FrancisUrquhart

BREAKING NEWS: Crowds flee in panic and jump over the side of escalators to escape after man with a machete attacks at least one person at shopping centre, prompting fears of terror attack

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3374765/Armed-police-called-Glades-Shopping-Centre-reports-man-holding-machete.html

Big_G_NorthWales

FrancisUrquhart said:

BREAKING NEWS: Crowds flee in panic and jump over the side of escalators to escape after man with a machete attacks at least one person at shopping centre, prompting fears of terror attack

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3374765/Armed-police-called-Glades-Shopping-Centre-reports-man-holding-machete.html

Where ?

FrancisUrquhart

Surprised Channel4 didn't ask the Rolex wearing chosen one to do their alternative Xmas speech this year. He has spoken anyway...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12069924/Islamic-State-leader-Baghdadi-goads-West-in-rare-audio-statement.html

FrancisUrquhart

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BREAKING NEWS: Crowds flee in panic and jump over the side of escalators to escape after man with a machete attacks at least one person at shopping centre, prompting fears of terror attack

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3374765/Armed-police-called-Glades-Shopping-Centre-reports-man-holding-machete.html

Where ?

Glades shopping centre in Bromley, Kent

FrancisUrquhart

Former South African President FW De Klerk has criticised a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oxford University's Oriel College.

Mr De Klerk said South Africa's white Afrikaner population had many reasons to dislike Rhodes but "never thought of removing his name from our history".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-35181303

richardDodd

FU Has the boy checked his watch recently..it can relay all sorts of info

Sunil_Prasannan

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've written a thread for tomorrow about Mark Reckless.

Your feeble skills are no match for the power of the Dark Side!

Sunil_Prasannan

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, nope I've tried my best for many years, but I can't get excited about fox hunting

Not even Halal fox hunting?

Sunil_Prasannan

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Why does anyone need the law changed? It was my understanding people still hunt foxes with hounds, and I don't find the argument people who would want to do it are that upset about it being seen as morally dubious because of the law. Mr Nabavi certainly has it right regardless that it would take too much political capital to fix.

And now the Xmas season is officially over, politically, it's time again to condemn those nasty Tories/Labour/SNP scum and their cowardly leaders Cameron the pig loving toff, Corbyn the Terrorist and Sturgeon the traitor.

On another matter, over the course of the past 2 days I've watched all four Hunger Games movies. Very, very mediocre stuff, and the last movie particularly poor. I was left wondering, until pretty much the very end, if I had ever seen a series protagonist more ineffectual. And also noting that for a supposedly brutal and oppressive regime obsessed with control, it's rare to see that government be defeated so easily - I'm really not sure the events of the movies made that much difference; notwithstanding their claims otherwise, given how quickly and easily it fell, I find it hard to believe the evil government would have lasted.

I believe it was the rebel leader who authorised the bombing of Capitol crowds making it look like President Snow which led the regime to fall so quickly and then Katniss Everdene killed her at the end leaving the mob to deal with Snow

I meant in how, despite canonically having a massive population and technology advantage over all the combined districts, the rebellion was quickly and easily able to march right up and into the capital, and was going to win even without that particular act, as Snow admitted. The exact nature of the win might have been different, but given that shooting at the end seems to be the only thing the Katniss alone chose to do (they could and did use others for propaganda inspiration when they had to), she contributed little else and the rebellion seemed quite able to win against the government without much difficulty - it was only the desperate last stand at the presidential palace that was avoided.

I really had no conception of the level of or importance of Capitol resistance to Snow either.

If you wanted a really classic movie, though perhaps for the wrong reasons, 'Diana' with Naomi Watts on C5 has just finished, it has an 8% rating on Rotten Tomatoes

I just watched Home Alone 3 which features a very young Scarlett Johansson.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've written a thread for tomorrow about Mark Reckless.

And the AV thread recedes ever further into the distance.

DavidL

I have to say that Matt is so spot on about the EU debate that it is almost painful: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/

Sunil_Prasannan

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've written a thread for tomorrow about Mark Reckless.

And the AV thread recedes ever further into the distance.

Rank your preferences in order from 1 to 3. Should TSE:

A) Go ahead with his AV thread?

B ) Delay his AV thread?

C) Completely forget about his AV thread?

madasafish

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've written a thread for tomorrow about Mark Reckless.

And the AV thread recedes ever further into the distance.

Rank your preferences in order from 1 to 3. Should TSE:

A) Go ahead with his AV thread?

B ) Delay his AV thread?

C) Completely forget about his AV thread?

He'll have nothing left to write about if he Goes ahead with his AV thread.

So I vote with a delay for the 2020 GE...

DavidL

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've written a thread for tomorrow about Mark Reckless.

And the AV thread recedes ever further into the distance.

Rank your preferences in order from 1 to 3. Should TSE:

A) Go ahead with his AV thread?

B ) Delay his AV thread?

C) Completely forget about his AV thread?

I am completely confused. First you talk about 1-3 then you have A, B, C . How are we supposed to cope?

FPTP may be enormously unfair but at least it is simple.

madasafish

SquareRoot said:

All too easy to view a fox as some cuddly furry animal. .. until you see what they do to a pen full of chickens if they get in , frenetic killing of everything in sight..

Trapping is far more effective at killing foxes than hunting..

We have foxes in the filed behind our house and they use a part of our garden as a toilet.. Rank.

My neighbour is a retired farmer and traps and shoots them...

FrancisUrquhart

Am I the only one that just can't get exercised one way or another about fox hunting?

If the government tomorrow said it was totally legal again for people to not only get dressed up in the silly outfits, but to chase a fox and potentially kill it, I wouldn't be outraged.

But equally if they said actually we don't want people chasing foxes at all in any way, shape or form, I wouldn't be outraged either.

Just seems like there are million more important things to be concerned about.

Sunil_Prasannan

Why are ITV showing "From Russia With Love" so late? 11.25!

Sunil_Prasannan

FrancisUrquhart said:

Am I the only one that just can't get exercised one way or another about fox hunting?

If the government tomorrow said it was totally legal again for people to not only get dressed up in the silly outfits, but to chase a fox and potentially kill it, I wouldn't be outraged.

But equally if they said actually we don't want people chasing foxes at all in any way, shape or form, I wouldn't be outraged either.

Just seems like there are million more important things to be concerned about.

Civil liberties sort of stuff?

DavidL

The way Blair kept his more moronic back benchers onside with ever more protracted debates about fox hunting every time they got restless about the use of private companies to provide public services honestly made me wonder about the merits of representative democracy. Who on earth would want to be represented by someone that stupid or easily diverted from real issues?

But it really did not seem to matter how blatant he was. Those buttons kept getting pressed and the responses were equally predictable and sad.

With the benefit of hindsight perhaps the rise of Corbyn is not so remarkable after all. I mean he may be thick but there are so many levels...

blackburn63

Comfy win for Spurs today, they're beginning to look like a very professional outfit.

Far more pleasing was bumping into and shaking hands with Spurs legend Ledley King outside the ground, but for injury he would have been an all time great.

Tim_B

'Sports World' on BBC World Service this morning had a panel discussion on whether Jose Marinho will become manager at Man U. The unanimous view was "fairly soon now". The other suggestion was someone who has "been involved with the club a long time" - Ryan Biggs?

kle4

When even many people who get excited by polling and obscure political minutiae can't get worked up over an issue, as with Fox hunting, it is probably a good indication indications normal people don't care are probably accurate.

Charles

madasafish said:

SquareRoot said:

All too easy to view a fox as some cuddly furry animal. .. until you see what they do to a pen full of chickens if they get in , frenetic killing of everything in sight..

Trapping is far more effective at killing foxes than hunting..

We have foxes in the filed behind our house and they use a part of our garden as a toilet.. Rank.

My neighbour is a retired farmer and traps and shoots them...

Trapping is great for killing foxes.

And dogs. And badgers. And lots of other animals that wander about at night.

Shooting is the best form of pest control. But it's difficult, expensive and there are few sufficiently skilled marksmen to do it in the scale needed with appropriate humanity. The Burns report recommended that hunting was the next best option for pest control.

Alistair

Regarding the buy to let taxation lawsuit, don't the buy to let landlords simply need to incorporate as a business and then they get to treat the mortgage interest as a a standard business expense?

MTimT

GeoffM said:

kle4 said:

SquareRoot said:

All too easy to view a fox as some cuddly furry animal. .. until you see what they do to a pen full of chickens if they get in , frenetic killing of everything in sight..

Oh the horror, animal acts like animal. I don't care if the law is repealed or not, and if farmers want to tell me they are a pest that needs to be kept under control at the very least or eliminated, well, I am sure they know more about that than I do, but it's amazing how that can transition into trying to suggest foxes are somehow uniquely evil creatures.

Animals cannot be "evil" as they never ate fruit from the tree.

Genesis 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

We had one horse who would test that theory ...

Toms

Charles said:

madasafish said:

SquareRoot said:

All too easy to view a fox as some cuddly furry animal. .. until you see what they do to a pen full of chickens if they get in , frenetic killing of everything in sight..

Trapping is far more effective at killing foxes than hunting..

We have foxes in the filed behind our house and they use a part of our garden as a toilet.. Rank.

My neighbour is a retired farmer and traps and shoots them...

Trapping is great for killing foxes.

And dogs. And badgers. And lots of other animals that wander about at night.

Shooting is the best form of pest control. But it's difficult, expensive and there are few sufficiently skilled marksmen to do it in the scale needed with appropriate humanity. The Burns report recommended that hunting was the next best option for pest control.

Or to ensure a really slow painful death we could turn that American dentist Cecil-killer loose on 'em with his cross bow.

NickPalmer

Some odd comments on the thread:

Richard N's belief that it was class warfare is wrong. Hare coursing, which I believe was a predominantly working-class sport, was banned at the same time and for the same reasons. I was involved throughout and I don't recall anyone ever mentioning class, toffs, or anything similar - no doubt there were some class warrior types who took a view on it, but they weren't involved in our effort to get it through. It's a bit of paranoia among hunt supporters to see it as a hideous lefty plot. Ask Ann Widdecombe or Tracey Crouch if you don't believe me.

GeoffM's belief that backbenchers were able to choose to assign Parliamentary time to Iraq or hunting simply misunderstands how the assignment of Parliamentary time works. It's like saying that people who voted in the Scottish referendum were failing to attend sufficiently to other issues. Time is assigned by the party leaderships (plus a little time for PMBs). When there's a debate, you can take part or not, but you can't insist that another subject is debated instead.

DavidL's belief that Blair span out the process by having ever-more protracted debates is wrong. The legislation was nitially a PMB and would have passed except for filibustering. It was then given government time, reluctantly, after sustained backbench pressure. The time used was entirely due to filibustering by oppoonents.

What is certainly true is that Blair's wasn't interested in the issue and saw it as an odd preoccupation of backbenchers which was grudgingly conceded as we felt so strongly about it. Whether we were right to feel strongly is a separate issue - as I've said, I'm keen on animal welfare issues in general but it wouldn't have been top of my list, any more than circus animals (just a few animals involved, though it's disgusting). Since it was up for debate though, we got stuck into getting it through.The attempt to see it as saying something about left/right politics is largely mistaken.

richardDodd

The Martian..another Ridley Scott stunner..

TwistedFireStopper

I can't see the point in overturning the ban. I live in the middle of fox hunting country, and regularly see the Quorn riding around my village. They don't seem too upset about the ban. I dunno if they adhere to the rules, but I often see a bloke on a quad bike dragging something around, and they all set off after him. it seems as popular as ever, to be honest, and they get a huge turnout on Boxing Day.
I tend to come down on the side of the fox. As a civilised nation, we shouldn't be condoning anything that inflicts unnecessary suffering on an animal, and the usual suspects who quite rightly condemn halal slaughter should have a word with themselves, and not think of this through politically tribal eyes.

TwistedFireStopper

richardDodd said:

The Martian..another Ridley Scott stunner..

Sicario is the best film I've seen in a long while. A really tense, brooding couple of hours.

JosiasJessop

NickPalmer said:

Some odd comments on the thread:

Richard N's belief that it was class warfare is wrong. Hare coursing, which I believe was a predominantly working-class sport, was banned at the same time and for the same reasons. I was involved throughout and I don't recall anyone ever mentioning class, toffs, or anything similar - no doubt there were some class warrior types who took a view on it, but they weren't involved in our effort to get it through. It's a bit of paranoia among hunt supporters to see it as a hideous lefty plot. Ask Ann Widdecombe or Tracey Crouch if you don't believe me.

(Snip)

" I was involved throughout and I don't recall anyone ever mentioning class, toffs, or anything similar - no doubt there were some class warrior types who took a view on it, but they weren't involved in our effort to get it through."

Didn't Peter Bradley says as much? From 2004:

riting in The Telegraph, Peter Bradley, the parliamentary private secretary to Alun Michael, the rural affairs minister, reveals that the real reason that Labour MPs feel so strongly about the ban is because it is aimed at killing 'the old order' and is the first time in history that a Labour government has taken on 'the gentry'.
Mr Bradley says: 'We ought at last to own up to it: the struggle over the Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal freedom: it was class war.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1477114/Government-finally-admits-hunt-ban-is-part-of-the-class-struggle.html

I'm pretty sure that others said, or have said since, similar.

matt

richardDodd said:

The Martian..another Ridley Scott stunner..

Yes, and unusually perhaps, better than the book, which felt more than a touch McGuyver in places and needed some pruning. The de-bloating needed to turn it into a film suited it. Don't see it as a film which will suit the Oscar electorate, although would be good to hear alternate views.

GeoffM

NickPalmer said:

Some odd comments on the thread:

{snip a whole pile of self-justifying bollocks}
GeoffM's belief that backbenchers were able to choose to assign Parliamentary time to Iraq or hunting simply misunderstands how the assignment of Parliamentary time works.
{snip lots of other straw man stuff}

I don't believe any such thing and didn't say that. Apart from that, good point.

Charles

NickPalmer said:

Some odd comments on the thread:

Richard N's belief that it was class warfare is wrong. ... I was involved throughout and I don't recall anyone ever mentioning class, toffs, or anything similar

I believe Tony Banks made some pretty unpleasant class based comments at the time

richardDodd

In the Fox Hunting debate the fate of the Fox is totally irrelevant..

JosiasJessop

matt said:

richardDodd said:

The Martian..another Ridley Scott stunner..

Yes, and unusually perhaps, better than the book, which felt more than a touch McGuyver in places and needed some pruning. The de-bloating needed to turn it into a film suited it. Don't see it as a film which will suit the Oscar electorate, although would be good to hear alternate views.

As a techie who knows a dangerous little about such things, I preferred the book of the Martian to the film. Then again, I've spent far too much of my life reading technical documents, after which the book was very light reading.

You are right on one thing though: the author throws a few too many hardships the poor man's way, and the film's trimming probably worked to its benefit. I didn't feel that way immediately after I left the cinema though, when I felt they had trimmed too much (especially the buggy flip at the end, which I regularly reproduce in Elite: Dangerous Horizons).

I quite possibly would have preferred the film to the book if I'd seen the film before the book though. And as I can't turn back time I'll never know.

MikeK

Great News!

By a process of elimination and following the story, I can say unequivocally that
JON SNOW LIVES!

richardDodd

SNOW has been brain dead for years....

flightpath01

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

Some odd comments on the thread:

Richard N's belief that it was class warfare is wrong. ... I was involved throughout and I don't recall anyone ever mentioning class, toffs, or anything similar

I believe Tony Banks made some pretty unpleasant class based comments at the time

Yes and I believe the comment from Mr Palmer is of a fairly typical standard.

kle4

JosiasJessop said:

matt said:

richardDodd said:

The Martian..another Ridley Scott stunner..

Yes, and unusually perhaps, better than the book, which felt more than a touch McGuyver in places and needed some pruning. The de-bloating needed to turn it into a film suited it. Don't see it as a film which will suit the Oscar electorate, although would be good to hear alternate views.

As a techie who knows a dangerous little about such things, I preferred the book of the Martian to the film. Then again, I've spent far too much of my life reading technical documents, after which the book was very light reading.

You are right on one thing though: the author throws a few too many hardships the poor man's way, and the film's trimming probably worked to its benefit. I didn't feel that way immediately after I left the cinema though, when I felt they had trimmed too much (especially the buggy flip at the end, which I regularly reproduce in Elite: Dangerous Horizons).

I quite possibly would have preferred the film to the book if I'd seen the film before the book though. And as I can't turn back time I'll never know.

I read the book afterwards (and listened to the audiobook), and it was great. I would agree it did need some pruning, there was a little too much detail and too many hardships to work in a movie, but I think maybe one or two more hardships would have worked in the film, especially for the long and perilous journey from acidalia to sciapirelli, which in the movie appears to be pretty easy.

I was fascinated that Dair a few days ago compared it unfavourably to Gravity in terms of suspense, which I totally disagreed with. The Martian was a story of survival which never threw so much at the protagonist to make it unbelievable (and thus unsuspenseful) they could possibly survive, and the long time frame and technobabble on Mars and Earth to solve problems made it more believable and a more emotional story about human ingenuity I felt. Gravity I really felt was purely a disaster movie in space - beautifully filmed, but lacking in anything beyond that (despite token attempts). The Martian had humour, suspense, good character moments, it wasn't one note, as well as being beautifully filmed.

I must say I had assumed two things about the movie which turned out not to be true (very mild spoilery, but I'll be vague)

1) A scene in which characters, including one played by Sean Bean are discussing a secret plan labelled 'project Elrond' and discuss how it is named from Lord of the Rings - I'd assumed that was a nod to Sean Bean's casting, but no, it's in the book.

2) The involvement of the Chinese, which felt like a potential 'we filmed this additional scene and added this plot point to make it play well in China' that some movies apparently do now.

flightpath01

TwistedFireStopper said:

I can't see the point in overturning the ban. I live in the middle of fox hunting country, and regularly see the Quorn riding around my village. They don't seem too upset about the ban. I dunno if they adhere to the rules, but I often see a bloke on a quad bike dragging something around, and they all set off after him. it seems as popular as ever, to be honest, and they get a huge turnout on Boxing Day.
I tend to come down on the side of the fox. As a civilised nation, we shouldn't be condoning anything that inflicts unnecessary suffering on an animal, and the usual suspects who quite rightly condemn halal slaughter should have a word with themselves, and not think of this through politically tribal eyes.

I saw a very well attended hunt whilst out driving earlier today. Like you I suspect hunting activities (or the activities of the hunt) are continuing quite happily and the law needs no further attention.
How foxes are getting by I do not know since it is still quite legal to club trap stab shoot snare gas garrote or poison them.

flightpath01

Charles said:

madasafish said:

SquareRoot said:

All too easy to view a fox as some cuddly furry animal. .. until you see what they do to a pen full of chickens if they get in , frenetic killing of everything in sight..

Trapping is far more effective at killing foxes than hunting..

We have foxes in the filed behind our house and they use a part of our garden as a toilet.. Rank.

My neighbour is a retired farmer and traps and shoots them...

Trapping is great for killing foxes.

And dogs. And badgers. And lots of other animals that wander about at night.

Shooting is the best form of pest control. But it's difficult, expensive and there are few sufficiently skilled marksmen to do it in the scale needed with appropriate humanity. The Burns report recommended that hunting was the next best option for pest control.

On the other hand shooting might be a very good way to cull unsuspecting members of the public who have been persuaded to explore the joys of the countryside.

flightpath01

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Why are ITV showing "From Russia With Love" so late? 11.25!

Ladies in bikinis fighting each other in the mud?

Tim_B

flightpath01 said:

Charles said:

madasafish said:

SquareRoot said:

All too easy to view a fox as some cuddly furry animal. .. until you see what they do to a pen full of chickens if they get in , frenetic killing of everything in sight..

Trapping is far more effective at killing foxes than hunting..

We have foxes in the filed behind our house and they use a part of our garden as a toilet.. Rank.

My neighbour is a retired farmer and traps and shoots them...

Trapping is great for killing foxes.

And dogs. And badgers. And lots of other animals that wander about at night.

Shooting is the best form of pest control. But it's difficult, expensive and there are few sufficiently skilled marksmen to do it in the scale needed with appropriate humanity. The Burns report recommended that hunting was the next best option for pest control.

On the other hand shooting might be a very good way to cull unsuspecting members of the public who have been persuaded to explore the joys of the countryside.

If they've strayed off the path or left a gate open, give 'em both barrels.

JosiasJessop

kle4 said:

I read the book afterwards (and listened to the audiobook), and it was great. I would agree it did need some pruning, there was a little too much detail and too many hardships to work in a movie, but I think maybe one or two more hardships would have worked in the film, especially for the long and perilous journey from acidalia to sciapirelli, which in the movie appears to be pretty easy.

I was fascinated that Dair a few days ago compared it unfavourably to Gravity in terms of suspense, which I totally disagreed with. The Martian was a story of survival which never threw so much at the protagonist to make it unbelievable (and thus unsuspenseful) they could possibly survive, and the long time frame and technobabble on Mars and Earth to solve problems made it more believable and a more emotional story about human ingenuity I felt. Gravity I really felt was purely a disaster movie in space - beautifully filmed, but lacking in anything beyond that (despite token attempts). The Martian had humour, suspense, good character moments, it wasn't one note, as well as being beautifully filmed.

I must say I had assumed two things about the movie which turned out not to be true (very mild spoilery, but I'll be vague)

1) A scene in which characters, including one played by Sean Bean are discussing a secret plan labelled 'project Elrond' and discuss how it is named from Lord of the Rings - I'd assumed that was a nod to Sean Bean's casting, but no, it's in the book.

2) The involvement of the Chinese, which felt like a potential 'we filmed this additional scene and added this plot point to make it play well in China' that some movies apparently do now.

Those are interesting thoughts, thanks.

On the second point: I assumed that it was because the author needed a large mass to be sent on a certain orbit, and the Russians or ESA did not have such massive launchers, or seem to have the particular will to build them in the book's timeline. I think the Chinese are allegedly planning such launchers though, after the Long March 5-7 families, e.g Long March 9.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/chinese-super-heavy-launcher-designs-exceed-saturn-v

As an aside, Mars 500 was interesting in the context of the Martian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARS-500

Tim_B

flightpath01 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Why are ITV showing "From Russia With Love" so late? 11.25!

Ladies in bikinis fighting each other in the mud?

It's the Bond movie which stays closest to the book.

It was also the first movie to have a pre-credit sequence and -offically- a John Barry written score.

TheScreamingEagles

Rallings & Thrasher in the Sunday Times predict Labour will lose 200 of the 1,200 seats they are defending.

john_zims

@NickPalmer


'As someone who's always been very much into animal welfare issues,

Except for Halal slaughter when your compassion is conveniently silenced.

TheScreamingEagles

If things remain as they are NESV in May will be Con 32% (-1) Lab 31% (-8) LD 16% (+1) UKIP 12% (+7)

Changes since 2012

JosiasJessop

TheScreamingEagles said:

Rallings & Thrasher in the Sunday Times predict Labour will lose 200 of the 1,200 seats they are defending.

How does that compare with other collapses?

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

If things remain as they are NESV in May will be Con 32% (-1) Lab 31% (-8) LD 16% (+1) UKIP 12% (+7)

Changes since 2012

... JCICIPM?

Scrapheap_as_was

Surge... fantasy footie... cough.

JosiasJessop

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Rallings & Thrasher in the Sunday Times predict Labour will lose 200 of the 1,200 seats they are defending.

How does that compare with other collapses?

Edit: Ouch:
The Conservative Party lost over 2,000 councillors in the election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_1995

Edit: and that was a reply, rather than an edit. I'll go and sit on the dunce's step.