They can only be granted by application to a court - so there hasn't been a jury verdict, but they have been to a magistrate.
But presumably, given your disquiet, you voted against them when they were introduced in 2003?
No, but it's one of the areas (you may have noticed others) where I've been having another think about what I believe in.
Rethinking your position? You really are out of the political game! It's all about no compromise all the time.
In all seriousness, although I dislike how much influence parties have and how little people rebel, there's nothing wrong, particularly on smaller or technical issues, in following the lead of the people and party one trusts and who may well have made a very good case at the time, even if time shows it may not be a good thing, or just not the best thing.
"Is there much evidence that CRB checks have improved child protection? It has become an industry in its own right, delays staff appointments, causes difficulties for Scouts and Sunday Schools that rely on volunteers (I went on a Scout family camp a few years back, and the major logistical difficulty was CRBing every attending parent).
If there was solid evidence of a reduction in child offences, then it would be a nessecary hassle. Has there been any drop in child offences since they were introduced?"
I don't know. I do know that in every fraud case I have ever been involved in there has usually been some sign in the past - usually small - of a propensity to deception which was overlooked or ignored for a variety of reasons. The answer is to not ignore those signs. It is not to fail to collect the information.
I understand the concerns with ludicrous bureaucracy and delays and can see why CRB'ing people who are just going away for the day or a weekend with a child can be absurd. Some more common sense and efficiency would help.
But saying that employers are not allowed to ask for CRB checks for their employees is daft. Any sensible employer should know whether a job applicant has had a criminal conviction. Would you be happy having your sensitive financial data handled by someone with a conviction for dishonesty?
I picked up a copy of Hillary's Hard Choices for all of £3 in a Waterston's post Christmas sale. I have yet to decide whether or not to make the somewhat larger investment of reading it.
The shadow hanging over this is the e-mail investigation which is being dragged out shamefully by the FBI. A long running suspicion is far better than an early conclusion and Hillary has been down this path so many times before. We had years and years of Whitewater which never amounted to anything at all.
I really don't like this aspect of American life, the use of the "investigation" to damage as much as any actual wrongdoing and it is probably inclining me to give Hillary more sympathy than she deserves. And it is about time the USA had a woman leader. It's not the Labour party after all.
Apologies Mr Herdson I'm sure your piece is as informative and well written as usual, I'm more concerned with the latest nanny state nonsense we have to endure.
This bloke has to tell the police 24 hours before he has sex. I'm struggling to think of a more ridiculous ruling.
Will they check to see if he keeps his word? What's the transgression if he doesn't. Viva health & safety and its ilk.
I'm sure more will come out about this man but this ruling makes a mockery of our justice system, he's either guilty - jail him, or he's innocent.
Mr Angry 63. It must of great comfort to you that there is something you can be outraged about nearly every single day of your life.. and post about it on here.
Are you outraged by this?
I'm not quite outraged, but I don't like the pre-crime prevention stuff at all.
Hopefully the sexual risk orders get challenged PDQ.
According to the article it is a temporary order pending a magistrates court in May.
Surely this is a reasonable approach where the criminal standard of proof for rape is not met, but a civil standard of proof is met?
I could see such orders being very useful in stamping out the sexploitation gangs that have bedeviled so many towns in recent years. One of several reasons that the rings were hard to prosecute was the difficulty of getting the victims to testify against men who they often saw as "boyfriends".
I am not outraged at all, and it shoud be tested in court. In principle it resembles a banning order or ASBO.
I cannot give 24 hrs notice of wanting sex, or should I say, if I did, by the time 24 hrs had elapsed, I would have forgotten that I had asked.
Age/memory is such a bind!
My understanding is that this order applies only to new sexual relationships, so there is scope for spontenaity within existing ones.
Bearing in mind that this mans rape trial went to a re-trial the evidence of problems cannot be insignificant. It is hard to see a rape case going to trial if the alleged victim did not deny consent.
We should just Leave. The EU is a rancid cesspool whose only collective target is its own perpetuation. The Euro was clearly designed by the KGB back in the day - a more perfect engine of financial and social destruction one could not imagine. The utterly disconnected from reality social justice warriors who run the show have also basically killed the future of our civilisation - what can you you do when 10% of France (for example) is already Muslim and even talking about the troubles this brings gets you in hot water. Their fetid and medieval but aggressive and expansionary culture will simply overwhelm our pantywaist handwringing self loathing remnant of a once-great and proud Judeo-Christian civilisation.
We are focussing on the immigration / civilisational risk right now. Fair dinkum. It's hugely important. But the money troubles are even worse and haven't gone away. The garlic zone is going to crumble this year as the markets and global debt overhang gets to discover what real recession is like. A Remain vote is a vote to handcuff ourselves to a sinking corpse.
It is deeply sad that rational, civilised, educated and moral people wish for reactionary leaders of the Farage/Wilders/Trump variety - simply because they are the ones who might, just might, crush the surrender monkeys and let us rediscover our pride. A vote for Trump is a vote for chaos and dissent - but also a vote for hope and a reassertion of our culture. A vote for Sanders or Clinton is a vote to start putting the burqas on now.
And I think @Cyclefree's argument that any offence could lead to blackmail or something else or whatever destroys the whole point of rehabilitation of offenders.
The % of men with convictions is enormous. If you can’t get a job after a stupid choice, then your excluded from chances to go straight.
In its judgment the court recognised the value of disclosing convictions if an applicant wanted to work with children or vulnerable adults, but said the current system is "disproportionate to that legitimate aim”.
The automatic checks interfere with a right to privacy because “as a conviction recedes into the past, it becomes part of the individual’s private life” and “the administering of a caution is part of an individual’s private life from the outset”.
It's a troubling decision. It is relevant to a job in a bank whether someone has a conviction for dishonesty. And there are plenty of other jobs where a conviction is relevant. Law, for instance. Security work. The police. Anywhere dealing with sensitive personal data. It does not enable the employer to have all the information they want about a candidate.
Certainly if a job applicant came to me and declined to be checked I would be concerned. I want to be able to make the assessment for myself. Someone's character is highly relevant to a job, most jobs in fact.
And if someone has a very minor irrelevant caution they want to keep private, it makes them subject to possible blackmail. This is a very real risk in places like banks and in their back offices: criminal gangs will find some small area of weakness in a person, usually junior and unimportant in the hierarchy and use that weakness as leverage, to get them to do something minor which lets the gang into the systems in some way.
Is there much evidence that CRB checks have improved child protection? It has become an industry in its own right, delays staff appointments, causes difficulties for Scouts and Sunday Schools that rely on volunteers (I went on a Scout family camp a few years back, and the major logistical difficulty was CRBing every attending parent).
If there was solid evidence of a reduction in child offences, then it would be a nessecary hassle. Has there been any drop in child offences since they were introduced?
That is my concern. It is a tick box mentality applied to child safety. The children are "safe" if the paperwork is ok. I have real doubts it has helped at all.
The main lesson of this week for me is that the man who runs the British economy isn't George (where's my hi-vis jacket ?) Osborne but Mario Draghi. Osborne kept quiet as the stock markets collapsed but a couple of sentences from Draghi sent prices soaring.
Of course, this is because Draghi has the current "magic money tree" known as the ECB at his disposal and has basically told the gamblers in the casino - "don't worry about losing your shirt at the blackjack table, I'll bail you out". Even now, we have this ludicrous monetary policy set to continue to 2018 keeping the pain going for savers.
The truth is being inside or outside the EU or the Eurozone makes no difference to global markets but if the market rallies and your managed funds start looking healthier, don't thank George, thank Mario.
On-topic, and once again thank you David. To be honest, you could have saved yourself a lot of verbage by deleting everything except "if nothing else comes out, it'll be her". Sanders might win New Hampshire but Hillary will stamp on him everywhere else and will win comfortably. I know one or two of our American contributors (who all seem to be staunch GOP supporters) are trying to play up the email scandal but we still await "the smoking gun".
As for the GOP and its morass, well, we still await for the anti-Trump challenger to emerge. Kasich, Fiorina, Bush, Carson and Rubio have all had a turn and now it seems to be Cruz and he seems to have more evangelical support than some of the others. The GOP "establishment" (whatever that is) either needs to throw in with Trump or pick one of the smaller beasts to go up against him. The divided nature of the anti-Trump vote gives the Donald the advantage and while Trump is an interesting figure, he is long on generalities and rhetoric and short on specifics - apparently he's going to get jobs back from China, I presume that means he's going to pay American workers Chinese wages - that will end well....
I hope Chris Rock makes a joke about it ... how about "Hi, my name's Chris Rock, and I'm your waiter for the evening."
Far more effective than the usual publicity seekers wanting a quota system.
Perhaps someone should tell Chris Rock that PB thinks he should make a joke about how his race has persistently been treated as inferiors in the USA Just like minstrel shows, or Weimar Republic cabaret, I'm sure comedy will continue to prove effective in effecting progressive political change
''The reason it's suspension is bad for Cameron is that the collapse of something as major as Schengen makes the EU look ever more chaotic and dangerous, a building about to topple over, the sort of place you should flee.''
The collapse of Schengen also undermines the notion that our demands from the EU are impossible due to the vast network of treaties, article A subsection 12 etc.
The public can see that this is all complete cr8p. Any EU rules, treaties or accords get thrown out of the window quickly when the bureaucrats want something done.
''The reason it's suspension is bad for Cameron is that the collapse of something as major as Schengen makes the EU look ever more chaotic and dangerous, a building about to topple over, the sort of place you should flee.''
The collapse of Schengen also undermines the notion that our demands from the EU are impossible due to the vast network of treaties, article A subsection 12 etc.
The public can see that this is all complete cr8p. Any EU rules, treaties or accords get thrown out of the window quickly when the bureaucrats want something done.
"Too often today, people are willing to tell us 'this isn't possible, that isnt possible' I say, whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible"
I'm not quite outraged, but I don't like the pre-crime prevention stuff at all.
Hopefully the sexual risk orders get challenged PDQ.
According to the article it is a temporary order pending a magistrates court in May.
Surely this is a reasonable approach where the criminal standard of proof for rape is not met, but a civil standard of proof is met?
I could see such orders being very useful in stamping out the sexploitation gangs that have bedeviled so many towns in recent years. One of several reasons that the rings were hard to prosecute was the difficulty of getting the victims to testify against men who they often saw as "boyfriends".
I am not outraged at all, and it shoud be tested in court. In principle it resembles a banning order or ASBO.
I cannot give 24 hrs notice of wanting sex, or should I say, if I did, by the time 24 hrs had elapsed, I would have forgotten that I had asked.
Age/memory is such a bind!
My understanding is that this order applies only to new sexual relationships, so there is scope for spontenaity within existing ones.
Bearing in mind that this mans rape trial went to a re-trial the evidence of problems cannot be insignificant. It is hard to see a rape case going to trial if the alleged victim did not deny consent.
It may have gone to retrial but the man was not convicted. So a man who is innocent in the eyes of the law is to have his private life so curtailed that he cannot enter into a new relationship with a woman without giving 24 hours notice to the police. And presumably that woman is not permitted to have sex with him without this notice having been given. Come off it.
CRB checks are said to impinge on someone's right to a private life and then we have this. How much greater an infringement of someone's private life can there be?
I SOOOOO want the Donald to win. Just for the hilarities.
Increasingly it looks like he might. I can even see him beating H Clinton. There's just something offputting about her (quite apart from the overwhelming sense of dynastic privilege - what, another CLinton/Bush???).
I SOOOOO want the Donald to win. Just for the hilarities.
Increasingly it looks like he might. I can even see him beating H Clinton. There's just something offputting about her (quite apart from the overwhelming sense of dynastic privilege - what, another CLinton/Bush???).
The Donald is in tune with the Zeitgeist.
Agreed. And it would annoy the bejesus out of my lefty mates. The gits and shiggles would be epic.
We should just Leave. The EU is a rancid cesspool whose only collective target is its own perpetuation. The Euro was clearly designed by the KGB back in the day - a more perfect engine of financial and social destruction one could not imagine. The utterly disconnected from reality social justice warriors who run the show have also basically killed the future of our civilisation - what can you you do when 10% of France (for example) is already Muslim and even talking about the troubles this brings gets you in hot water. Their fetid and medieval but aggressive and expansionary culture will simply overwhelm our pantywaist handwringing self loathing remnant of a once-great and proud Judeo-Christian civilisation.
We are focussing on the immigration / civilisational risk right now. Fair dinkum. It's hugely important. But the money troubles are even worse and haven't gone away. The garlic zone is going to crumble this year as the markets and global debt overhang gets to discover what real recession is like. A Remain vote is a vote to handcuff ourselves to a sinking corpse.
It is deeply sad that rational, civilised, educated and moral people wish for reactionary leaders of the Farage/Wilders/Trump variety - simply because they are the ones who might, just might, crush the surrender monkeys and let us rediscover our pride. A vote for Trump is a vote for chaos and dissent - but also a vote for hope and a reassertion of our culture. A vote for Sanders or Clinton is a vote to start putting the burqas on now.
All the PIIGS, except Greece, have declining government debt to GDP. All the PIIGS run current account surpluses. All the PIIGS have lower private sector debt to GDP than the UK.
Portugal might get into financial trouble this year, and Greece is still a fuck up, but Italy and Spain are both in significantly better shape than they were two years ago: whether from s labour market flexibility perspective, a banking solvency perspective, a government deficit perspective, or a trade perspective.
We should just Leave. The EU is a rancid cesspool whose only collective target is its own perpetuation. The Euro was clearly designed by the KGB back in the day - a more perfect engine of financial and social destruction one could not imagine. The utterly disconnected from reality social justice warriors who run the show have also basically killed the future of our civilisation - what can you you do when 10% of France (for example) is already Muslim and even talking about the troubles this brings gets you in hot water. Their fetid and medieval but aggressive and expansionary culture will simply overwhelm our pantywaist handwringing self loathing remnant of a once-great and proud Judeo-Christian civilisation.
We are focussing on the immigration / civilisational risk right now. Fair dinkum. It's hugely important. But the money troubles are even worse and haven't gone away. The garlic zone is going to crumble this year as the markets and global debt overhang gets to discover what real recession is like. A Remain vote is a vote to handcuff ourselves to a sinking corpse.
It is deeply sad that rational, civilised, educated and moral people wish for reactionary leaders of the Farage/Wilders/Trump variety - simply because they are the ones who might, just might, crush the surrender monkeys and let us rediscover our pride. A vote for Trump is a vote for chaos and dissent - but also a vote for hope and a reassertion of our culture. A vote for Sanders or Clinton is a vote to start putting the burqas on now.
Excellent stuff Patrick.
A strange fear has overtaken us, a fear of upsetting people through trivia, a fear of self reliance and independence, far easier to hide behind the ever expanding state. I'm flabbergasted how people on here put so much faith in politicians when through the decades they've proven , in the main, to be dreadful. Cameron talked of rolling back the state yet at the same time is a committed Europhile, a complete dichotomy.
I'm growing ever more confident and optimistic we'll vote Out.
I don't like the idea of broadbrush orders completely controlling the sex lives of anyone who has been convicted of no offence. I'd need a lot of explaining why the control couldn't take the form of notifying within 24 hours after the event. Most healthy sex lives will have some degree of spontaneity.
Moreover, it seems he is not just controlled in relation to sex with under 18 year olds, men who attend gyms or Gorean women (or whatever his potential niche is), the order covers any sex at all. That seems a colossal infringement of his right to a private life. There is no sense of proportionality at all.
Every now and then we get a good example of why human rights legislation has its advantages. This is one.
The main lesson of this week for me is that the man who runs the British economy isn't George (where's my hi-vis jacket ?) Osborne but Mario Draghi. Osborne kept quiet as the stock markets collapsed but a couple of sentences from Draghi sent prices soaring.
Of course, this is because Draghi has the current "magic money tree" known as the ECB at his disposal and has basically told the gamblers in the casino - "don't worry about losing your shirt at the blackjack table, I'll bail you out". Even now, we have this ludicrous monetary policy set to continue to 2018 keeping the pain going for savers.
The truth is being inside or outside the EU or the Eurozone makes no difference to global markets but if the market rallies and your managed funds start looking healthier, don't thank George, thank Mario.
On-topic, and once again thank you David. To be honest, you could have saved yourself a lot of verbage by deleting everything except "if nothing else comes out, it'll be her". Sanders might win New Hampshire but Hillary will stamp on him everywhere else and will win comfortably. I know one or two of our American contributors (who all seem to be staunch GOP supporters) are trying to play up the email scandal but we still await "the smoking gun".
As for the GOP and its morass, well, we still await for the anti-Trump challenger to emerge. Kasich, Fiorina, Bush, Carson and Rubio have all had a turn and now it seems to be Cruz and he seems to have more evangelical support than some of the others. The GOP "establishment" (whatever that is) either needs to throw in with Trump or pick one of the smaller beasts to go up against him. The divided nature of the anti-Trump vote gives the Donald the advantage and while Trump is an interesting figure, he is long on generalities and rhetoric and short on specifics - apparently he's going to get jobs back from China, I presume that means he's going to pay American workers Chinese wages - that will end well....
I think you accidentally hit on the point
"your managed funds start looking healthier"
They are not *actually* healthier, they just look it.
A huge part of the problem that the world faces at the moment is the mispricing of assets. In perpetuating what is known as "the Greenspan put" Draghi is just screwing things up.
Bear markets may be nasty, but unless you are a forced seller or you panic it won't actually hurt you (I'm ignoring, for the moment, the confidence feedback loop as I'm not convinced stockmarket gyrations really impact the public consciousness).
Sorry guys - hedgies, speculators, whatever. If you lose your shirts, you lose your shirts. That's what it means to be in the grey market.
(BTW London house prices trading 15-20% off asking prices at the moment. Not a good time to be a seller)
In response to @Plato_Says "And I think @Cyclefree's argument that any offence could lead to blackmail or something else or whatever destroys the whole point of rehabilitation of offenders.
The % of men with convictions is enormous. If you can’t get a job after a stupid choice, then your excluded from chances to go straight."
No it doesn't. Being rehabilitated means being honest about what you have done, showing you have learnt the lessons and getting a second chance. You don't deserve that second chance if you want to hide what you've done. Because what that tells me is that you have probably not learnt the lessons you need to learn. We do in fact have some people employed who have had minor convictions in the past but we know about them - hence the blackmail risk is not there - and have made an assessment that we are comfortable with them as employees.
Dishonesty is not a good character trait to have in an employee and preventing an employer from having the information necessary to make an assessment of an employee's honesty is a stupid move.
So you know my race, skin colour and voting record?
Lighten up (and that's not a racist remark). Actors are always full of themselves and whinge about almost anything. There are serious racial concerns in America but this isn't one of them.
So you know my race, skin colour and voting record?
Lighten up (and that's not a racist remark). Actors are always full of themselves and whinge about almost anything. There are serious racial concerns in America but this isn't one of them.
A rather interesting cross purpose set of interests here. Cleverly done but somehow I just feel it's another enforced change to our way of life that's creeping in hidden behind another reason.
"Hundreds of petrol station shops are removing alcohol from sale after being taken over by a Muslim-owned company. The outlets are part of the fast growing Euro Garages, which has 350 petrol stations across the country. The business is worth £1.3billion and has embarked on an aggressive expansion plan which involves buying petrol stations previously run by the likes of BP, Esso and Shell."
Luckily (for those of us who often walk to a petrol station to top up on wine/beer etc), it is entirely possible the free market will ensure that such a strategy fails: sales will probs fall to such an extent that it the strategy is abandoned.
Mr. Taffys, if Cameron doesn't get a February deal and the migrant crisis deepens until the referendum (which would then likely be in 2017), that could provide a plausible route to victory for Leave.
Re the disclosure of previous wrongdoing. I know a guy who got sacked for theft from a bank. He applied to become a police officer. He masked his CV by putting in the name of a firm who had gone into liquidation around the time that the banked sacked him.
So you know my race, skin colour and voting record?
Lighten up (and that's not a racist remark). Actors are always full of themselves and whinge about almost anything. There are serious racial concerns in America but this isn't one of them.
I have absolutely no problem with your opinions about race in America but you should tell that Chris Rock that a Tory-leaning comment section on a British blog has worked out how to effect racial justice better than millions of African-Americans
All the PIIGS, except Greece, have declining government debt to GDP. All the PIIGS run current account surpluses. All the PIIGS have lower private sector debt to GDP than the UK.
Portugal might get into financial trouble this year, and Greece is still a fuck up, but Italy and Spain are both in significantly better shape than they were two years ago: whether from s labour market flexibility perspective, a banking solvency perspective, a government deficit perspective, or a trade perspective.
The markets have been clearing their throats so far this year in readiness for the impact to come, as decades of unsustainable 'lend, pretend and extend' policy making reaches its denouement. If something can't last it won't. When the Lehman x 10 shock hits two things will happen. Government revenues will collapse and spending will rise, including bailouts, last resort lending, QE and all the rest. I guess we'll find out just how much ammunition the financial systems of the world still have really. Feel free to bet on the resilience of the Eurozone banking system. I won't.
I fully admit to being a full-on Eeyore in this respect and read far too much Zerohedge. I also think I'm right and the market chaos thus far I have been saying will come for a while. It is my belief that unless we have the referendum PDQ it will take place in the context of a financial perfect storm and a simultaneous cultural one.
So you know my race, skin colour and voting record?
Lighten up (and that's not a racist remark). Actors are always full of themselves and whinge about almost anything. There are serious racial concerns in America but this isn't one of them.
On topic, it's hard to disagree that Sanders seems incredibly unlikely to win, and 12-1 sounds about right. One reason why many lefties secretly rather enjoy the idea of Trump getting the GOP nomination is that it's part of a perfect storm that might make it happen (the other part is Clinton not being able to win for one reason or another). Clearly Sanders is open to conventional attack - too far left, would be deadlocked with Congress. But Trump appears to have a trademark of being nuts in the sense of being dangerously unpredictable, and on the whole, I think that people would in November vote for a leftist rather than a nutter as President. A leftist probably won't get them (and thus us) into a nuclear war, for instance, but who knows what Trump might do?
We should just Leave. The EU is a rancid cesspool whose only collective target is its own perpetuation. The Euro was clearly designed by the KGB back in the day - a more perfect engine of financial and social destruction one could not imagine. The utterly disconnected from reality social justice warriors who run the show have also basically killed the future of our civilisation - what can you you do when 10% of France (for example) is already Muslim and even talking about the troubles this brings gets you in hot water. Their fetid and medieval but aggressive and expansionary culture will simply overwhelm our pantywaist handwringing self loathing remnant of a once-great and proud Judeo-Christian civilisation.
We are focussing on the immigration / civilisational risk right now. Fair dinkum. It's hugely important. But the money troubles are even worse and haven't gone away. The garlic zone is going to crumble this year as the markets and global debt overhang gets to discover what real recession is like. A Remain vote is a vote to handcuff ourselves to a sinking corpse.
It is deeply sad that rational, civilised, educated and moral people wish for reactionary leaders of the Farage/Wilders/Trump variety - simply because they are the ones who might, just might, crush the surrender monkeys and let us rediscover our pride. A vote for Trump is a vote for chaos and dissent - but also a vote for hope and a reassertion of our culture. A vote for Sanders or Clinton is a vote to start putting the burqas on now.
All the PIIGS, except Greece, have declining government debt to GDP. All the PIIGS run current account surpluses. All the PIIGS have lower private sector debt to GDP than the UK.
Portugal might get into financial trouble this year, and Greece is still a fuck up, but Italy and Spain are both in significantly better shape than they were two years ago: whether from s labour market flexibility perspective, a banking solvency perspective, a government deficit perspective, or a trade perspective.
True, but eurogeddon, having laid waste to the periphery, is now arguably attacking the core, like some flesh eating virus that devours extremities before heading for the heart.
The ultimate problem for euroland is stagnant growth in the big countries, Germany, France, Italy.
I would agree with all of that. I would even go further and say in most all shops during the mornings I see blinds drawn down over the alcohol sections much like cigarettes are behind closed doors. They also have a right to sell what they choose of course.
It really was the reason ( excuse? ) they used that was the interesting cross purpose. " immoral to sell to drivers" . Maybe but slowly ever so slowly we see changes happening within this country. Halal is off course the most obvious example to most people something twenty years or more ago would not have been an issue. I am more than use to these sort of requirements having lived and worked throughout the Middle East amongst other places for over 30 years, where such requirements are the norm.
Changes are a disgrace. Why only 40 years ago the only place one could buy olive oil was Timothy Whites the chemists, and now the stuff is everywhere. And so many other foreign foods clogging up the shelves too, like lemon grass and coconut milk.
Have you noticed that policemen are looking younger as well?
------- Your changes are more access not less and I would agree just wander down the local wine aisle at Tesco and you can buy wines from everywhere. I have forgotten how many thousands of tonnes of olive oil and coconut oil I have transported in my lifetime to the UK so not resistant to change.
I agree totally they can stock whatever they like.
NPXMP makes a good point to avoid drunk driving but that really is the thin end of the wedge. They can go one street to a store or to the local pub across the road and buy booze and just drive anyway
The main point I was trying to make, perhaps somewhat clumsily, was the change is a withdrawal of supply not an increase in access as some who have argued up thread. It was stated as to stop drunk driving which while being very commendable is not really the whole reason. I would have preferred them just to say we don't believe in this.
If we look at the extreme groups in Germany ( both sides of the argument) the latest is an Islamic group calling for a total ban on alcohol throughout Germany. ( I mentioned it here in the last couple of days) This to stop their members becoming drunk and sexually assaulting women. Is a real out on the edge extreme view but who would have considered this even 2 years ago let alone 20. That's the point here. Having arrived , within 12 months the attitude has changed and not really for the better as far as I have observed and as my German colleagues regularly comment.
To clarify I am working in Germany half of my time now and have been for the last three years
I suppose someone will now shout "racist". .. Ho hum
I'm growing ever more confident and optimistic we'll vote Out.
Although I don't share any of your opinions on the EU I believe that you are absolutely correct to be confident of an OUT vote.
The main problem that we on the REMAIN side face is that Cameron is helping the OUT side with his renegotiating efforts. It's very hard to sell the idea of the EU as a positive when we have a PM who (increasingly unconvincingly) claims to be in favour of REMAIN yet is busy trying to cut the UK adrift from significant parts of the EU.
"If the EU is so good then how come Cameron wants us to only be bit part players in it?" Would be a very fair question to ask someone like myself who wants to REMAIN. In all honestly I can't give an easy answer to that. Because of Cameron's mucking about the REMAIN campaign falls at the very first hurdle.
I wanted a REMAIN/OUT referendum not a tatteredREMAINS/OUT referendum and, really, I'm not convinced I'll turn out to vote if it's tatteredREMAINS versus OUT.
I admit I seldom watch films and the Oscars pass me by. Actors, and luvvies in particular, don't rank high on my list of priorities. I suspect the nominations are a mass of subjective views and very likely to be racist, sexist and any other other -ist that is possible. Trying to make subjective views objective seems a exercise in futility. I like certain films that others will hate, does that make me wrong?
As far as I'm concerned, they can nominate black actors only and I'd lose no sleep over it.
''Mr. Taffys, if Cameron doesn't get a February deal and the migrant crisis deepens until the referendum (which would then likely be in 2017), that could provide a plausible route to victory for Leave.''
Indeed Mr Morris. I am starting to think we will never get a referendum under Cameron. He would rather throw in the towel than fight and lose.
He will delay and delay and delay, as the situation in Europe only deteriorates. And in the summer of 2017 with his party in a towering rage over his failure to deliver, he will step down.
So you know my race, skin colour and voting record?
Lighten up (and that's not a racist remark). Actors are always full of themselves and whinge about almost anything. There are serious racial concerns in America but this isn't one of them.
Black Oscars Matter
Very much a Rich Peoples' Problem.
I nominate Bill Cosby for the role of good guy in 'Pulling The Wool Over Our Eyes'. A stamina sapping performance over more than 20 years
They are not *actually* healthier, they just look it.
A huge part of the problem that the world faces at the moment is the mispricing of assets. In perpetuating what is known as "the Greenspan put" Draghi is just screwing things up.
Bear markets may be nasty, but unless you are a forced seller or you panic it won't actually hurt you (I'm ignoring, for the moment, the confidence feedback loop as I'm not convinced stockmarket gyrations really impact the public consciousness).
Sorry guys - hedgies, speculators, whatever. If you lose your shirts, you lose your shirts. That's what it means to be in the grey market.
This was the problem from 2008 onward. Northern Rock showed the potential social, political, economic and cultural consequences of a banking collapse. Queues outside banks, panic, civil disorder and riots were all seen as the inevitable consequence of bank failures.
After Lehmann, the global financial system agreed no bank could be allowed to fail and Governments agreed so RBS, HBOS and the like were propped up with taxpayer money and effectively nationalised.
Allister Heath, whose politics I detest but whose financial analysis was always good reading in City AM, argued your point but added all institutions needed to have policies and procedures in place to allow for a managed default in the way Lehmann didn't. Yes, share holders and creditors would have to take the pain but as you say, that's part of the free market.
Draghi bucks this as Brown/Darling did by throwing an apparently endless supply of money from the ECB at the Eurozone but that's not economics, that's politics.
Racial justice in America? Now that is a serious problem.. On that, we can agree.
But acting? It's a pretendy things, isn't it? Just behind expressive dance in priorities. OK, I may be treading on people's dreams, but that's my subjective view. And, of course, I may be wrong.
I would agree with all of that. I would even go further and say in most all shops during the mornings I see blinds
Changes are a disgrace. Why only 40 years ago the only place one could buy olive oil was Timothy Whites the chemists, and now the stuff is everywhere. And so many other foreign foods clogging up the shelves too, like lemon grass and coconut milk.
Have you noticed that policemen are looking younger as well?
------- Your changes are more access not less and I would agree just wander down the local wine aisle at Tesco and you can buy wines from everywhere. I have forgotten how many thousands of tonnes of olive oil and coconut oil I have transported in my lifetime to the UK so not resistant to change.
I agree totally they can stock whatever they like.
NPXMP makes a good point to avoid drunk driving but that really is the thin end of the wedge. They can go one street to a store or to the local pub across the road and buy booze and just drive anyway
The main point I was trying to make, perhaps somewhat clumsily, was the change is a withdrawal of supply not an increase in access as some who have argued up thread. It was stated as to stop drunk driving which while being very commendable is not really the whole reason. I would have preferred them just to say we don't believe in this.
If we look at the extreme groups in Germany ( both sides of the argument) the latest is an Islamic group calling for a total ban on alcohol throughout Germany. ( I mentioned it here in the last couple of days) This to stop their members becoming drunk and sexually assaulting women. Is a real out on the edge extreme view but who would have considered this even 20 years ago. That's the point here. Having arrived , within 12 months the attitude has changed and not really for the better as far as I have observed and as my German colleagues regularly comment.
To clarify I am working in Germany half of my time now and have been for the last three years
I suppose someone will now shout "racist". .. Ho hum
In and of itself, it's not a problem. If they won't stock alcohol, someone else will.
Curiously, the hardest place I've found to get a drink in the UK was Southall, as devout Hindus and Sikhs won't touch alcohol.
The ruling that CRB checks are unlawful hasn't caught attention here so far. Apparently for serious or sex register offences they're appropriate, but not for routine use.
In its judgment the court recognised the value of disclosing convictions if an applicant wanted to work with children or vulnerable adults, but said the current system is "disproportionate to that legitimate aim”.
The automatic checks interfere with a right to privacy because “as a conviction recedes into the past, it becomes part of the individual’s private life” and “the administering of a caution is part of an individual’s private life from the outset”.
It's a troubling decision. It is relevant to a job in a bank whether someone has a conviction for dishonesty.
Is there much evidence that CRB checks have improved child protection? It has become an industry in its own right, delays staff appointments, causes difficulties for Scouts and Sunday Schools that rely on volunteers (I went on a Scout family camp a few years back, and the major logistical difficulty was CRBing every attending parent).
If there was solid evidence of a reduction in child offences, then it would be a nessecary hassle. Has there been any drop in child offences since they were introduced?
That is my concern. It is a tick box mentality applied to child safety. The children are "safe" if the paperwork is ok. I have real doubts it has helped at all.
I feel the same about the Care Quality Commission. They were more bothered about whether our statutory training was up to date than evidence that the training was effective.
My large multi-hospital University NHS Trust has not had a new case of MRSA in a year, and C Diff is 1% of what it was 5 years ago. Rather stronger evidence of good practice than any evidence that the ward clerk has had a recent appraisal! but that was what they wanted.
I can see a CRB being required for Hospitals and Schools, and why financial institutions are interested in crimes of honesty, but is it right that this Yorkshire man found not guilty of rape be prevented from working in a bank for example?
On topic, it's hard to disagree that Sanders seems incredibly unlikely to win, and 12-1 sounds about right. One reason why many lefties secretly rather enjoy the idea of Trump getting the GOP nomination is that it's part of a perfect storm that might make it happen (the other part is Clinton not being able to win for one reason or another). Clearly Sanders is open to conventional attack - too far left, would be deadlocked with Congress. But Trump appears to have a trademark of being nuts in the sense of being dangerously unpredictable, and on the whole, I think that people would in November vote for a leftist rather than a nutter as President. A leftist probably won't get them (and thus us) into a nuclear war, for instance, but who knows what Trump might do?
I would agree with much of that. The one reservation I would have is that I think large chunks of the American electorate equate leftiness with lunacy anyway, so would see little practical difference.
Nevertheless the thought of Trump getting within touching distance of a nuclear button is too horrifying to joke about.
@MullingKintyre: Alex Salmond sets up private firm to handle publishing cash & can therefore avoid paying income tax in Scotland! https://t.co/fegcpyUyEo
You cannot beat Tory **nkers, you mean he has set up a company like millions of other people.
We should just Leave. The EU is a rancid cesspool whose only collective target is its own perpetuation. The Euro was clearly designed by the KGB back in the day - a more perfect engine of financial and social destruction one could not imagine. The utterly disconnected from reality social justice warriors who run the show have also basically killed the future of our civilisation - what can you you do when 10% of France (for example) is already Muslim and even talking about the troubles this brings gets you in hot water. Their fetid and medieval but aggressive and expansionary culture will simply overwhelm our pantywaist handwringing self loathing remnant of a once-great and proud Judeo-Christian civilisation.
We are focussing on the immigration / civilisational risk right now. Fair dinkum. It's hugely important. But the money troubles are even worse and haven't gone away. The garlic zone is going to crumble this year as the markets and global debt overhang gets to discover what real recession is like. A Remain vote is a vote to handcuff ourselves to a sinking corpse.
It is deeply sad that rational, civilised, educated and moral people wish for reactionary leaders of the Farage/Wilders/Trump variety - simply because they are the ones who might, just might, crush the surrender monkeys and let us rediscover our pride. A vote for Trump is a vote for chaos and dissent - but also a vote for hope and a reassertion of our culture. A vote for Sanders or Clinton is a vote to start putting the burqas on now.
All the PIIGS, except Greece, have declining government debt to GDP. All the PIIGS run current account surpluses. All the PIIGS have lower private sector debt to GDP than the UK.
Portugal might get into financial trouble this year, and Greece is still a fuck up, but Italy and Spain are both in significantly better shape than they were two years ago: whether from s labour market flexibility perspective, a banking solvency perspective, a government deficit perspective, or a trade perspective.
Careful you are in danger of shedding some reality into the world of fruit loops. Plus we are not on the Euro and so not shackled to anything. Plus again even if out of the EU we would still have to trade and deal with it and negotiate with it. The EU is not going anywhere and is staying right on our borders and its success or failure will impact on us all the time. Most immigration from the EU is Christian immigration. Most Muslim immigration most Hindu immigration most Buddhist immigration - speak it softly most coloured immigration - is mainly as a result of our colonial past. It's pretty pathetic that the anti EU campaign is reduced to a spittlefest of anti colour/ Muslim / Arab invective. Do they really expect this BNP-lite approach to work?
@MullingKintyre: Alex Salmond sets up private firm to handle publishing cash & can therefore avoid paying income tax in Scotland! https://t.co/fegcpyUyEo
Cyber Nat outrage at tax dodging Westminster politician to follow shortly. Not.
Cretin who knows nothing , fails to make difference between forming a company and tax dodging. Hopefully you are not responsible for anything tougher than dressing yourself.
I admit I seldom watch films and the Oscars pass me by. Actors, and luvvies in particular, don't rank high on my list of priorities. I suspect the nominations are a mass of subjective views and very likely to be racist, sexist and any other other -ist that is possible. Trying to make subjective views objective seems a exercise in futility. I like certain films that others will hate, does that make me wrong?
As far as I'm concerned, they can nominate black actors only and I'd lose no sleep over it.
Reported on Twitter that Germany has lost track of 600,000 migrants. Unsure of veracity, of course.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Taffys, disagree. Even if Cameron tried that, and I don't think he will, the PCP would end his reign.
If they've lost track of these people then they shouldn't quote a number. They can only say that they've lost control and chaos reigns. The numbers are anyone's guess.
I'm a Bale-ite. Fundamentally, Labour's weakness is an intellectual collapse of its right, not a revival of its left.
I think that's right but I don't think the moderate left needs new ideas so much as to remember how to make the case for the ideas it already has. (This may be the same as saying that what it really lacks is the right people.)
One thing: Leave, if it happens, could be as galvanising a moment for the left as the right. (I know you're of the view that Remain will win.)
I admit I seldom watch films and the Oscars pass me by. Actors, and luvvies in particular, don't rank high on my list of priorities. I suspect the nominations are a mass of subjective views and very likely to be racist, sexist and any other other -ist that is possible. Trying to make subjective views objective seems a exercise in futility. I like certain films that others will hate, does that make me wrong?
As far as I'm concerned, they can nominate black actors only and I'd lose no sleep over it.
Preferably the luvvie halfwits held their butt licking lovefests in private and did not burden us with their pathetic whining every year.
Reported on Twitter that Germany has lost track of 600,000 migrants. Unsure of veracity, of course.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Taffys, disagree. Even if Cameron tried that, and I don't think he will, the PCP would end his reign.
Actually many of the 600 000 may not exist. Many had registered several times. The evidence came from the 150 questioned in Cologne. Half had registered more than once, as a dodge to get dispersed to a different city.
I would have thought the Germans better record keepers than that, but perhaps just stereotyping by me!
On topic, it's hard to disagree that Sanders seems incredibly unlikely to win, and 12-1 sounds about right. One reason why many lefties secretly rather enjoy the idea of Trump getting the GOP nomination is that it's part of a perfect storm that might make it happen (the other part is Clinton not being able to win for one reason or another). Clearly Sanders is open to conventional attack - too far left, would be deadlocked with Congress. But Trump appears to have a trademark of being nuts in the sense of being dangerously unpredictable, and on the whole, I think that people would in November vote for a leftist rather than a nutter as President. A leftist probably won't get them (and thus us) into a nuclear war, for instance, but who knows what Trump might do?
That's why the U.S. people need someone other than Trump, Sanders or Clinton.
Why hello there, Mr. Kasich ....... are you here to be the next President and to deliver my 100/1 bet on you? Eat your heart out Mr. Smithson with that skinny 50/1 winner eight years ago, about which we've never heard the last. Speaking of big-priced bets, I hope those of you interested spotted my 200/1 opening tip for SPOTY 2016 which I posted up in bold in the early hours. None of your economy trips to France and Spain for me and Her Indoors .... we're aiming for Sandy Lane next Christmas!
Against any other Republican Sanders would have no chance against Trump he certainly does in a race which would pit minorities and Hispanics and the young and more educated voters behind Sanders against the white working class behind Trump. I still think Hillary will win the nomination and beat Trump for the presidency but were Sanders to be elected president that would transform British politics overnight and be a huge boost to Corbyn who could now add Sanders to Syriza and Podemos and the surge of the populist left. Add in Tory splits over EU ref and defections to UKIP a downtown in the economy and the Tories picking say an Owen Patterson to succeed Cameron and you see perhaps the only circumstance in which Corbyn becomes PM
I suggest the longer Cameron waits before finalising negotiations with the EU, the more likely other EU countries are to see the sense of his proposals for their own countries.
Cameron should plan to have the referendum in 2017.
I seem to recall a bit of debate about these numbers ages ago, but they're being used
Ethnic minority voters have long been one of Labour's greatest electoral assets. In 2010, 68 per cent voted for the party, compared to just 16 per cent for the Conservatives. But in 2015 this pattern went into reverse. Labour's share declined to 52 per cent, while the Tories' more than doubled to 33 per cent (according to a British Future/Survation poll): the best result in their history.
This dramatic shift has attracted surprisingly little comment since the election but in a speech today Chuka Umunna will aim to change that. Addressing Unison’s 2016 National Black Members’ Conference, the former shadow business secretary will warn that Labour is "shedding votes from different ethnic minority communities to the Tories" and that it has "not a hope in hell of retaining all our current seats, let alone make any enough gains and winning the next general election if we continue to lose ethnic minority votes at this rate."
Maybe others have a different experience, but I live in the suburbs of London and I am not being terrorised by Somali gangsters.
There are genuine issues about mass immigration and integration, but when the debate is framed by those kind of headlines reasonable people stop listening.
The 24 hour sex case guy is bizzare. OK So in FACT he may have raped someone (But we can never know), but by LAW he is an innocent man. That's as good as we can get. As I was told repeatedly a few threads back it is the law that matters, and the police should bear this in mind. It sounds like he could well have a supreme/euro court against such a nonsense really, which is precisely what the police don't want.
THe police and magistrates seem to have been presumed some level of guilt even though he has been convicted of no crime. It's odd, and I can see it crumpling into a heap of (rightly for once !) Human rights legislation at a higher level. It's the sort of nonsense that gives HRL legs I guess.
Quick Oscars question. This fuss about not enough black skinned nominations, how many are there typically compared to now?
I'm in the Rampling corner here.
Me too, just crap actors whinging and trying to say they should get an Oscar just becaise they are non white. Pathetic cretins.
Well, I haven't seen anywhere near enough films to know if there were in fact a lot of worthy performances by non-white actors to deserve to be on the lists - given it is a pretty arbitrary thing to determine, I am sure there are plenty who could argue they could have been on there, as there are some very good non-white actors - but the blanket statements of the list being 'too white' does seem to suggest that if there was a year where the best performances did not include enough non-white people, well then tough sh/t, we need a certain quota to fill.
Morning. So it's Sanders, Clinton, Cruz, Trump - all with massive negatives among the ordinary people of the US, yet it's highly likely one of them will be being sworn in as President a year from now.
I think I'm going to have a few coins on Rubio at 7/1- interesting to note that Betfair have him at exactly the same price for the nomination and the Presidency!
On topic, it's hard to disagree that Sanders seems incredibly unlikely to win, and 12-1 sounds about right. One reason why many lefties secretly rather enjoy the idea of Trump getting the GOP nomination is that it's part of a perfect storm that might make it happen (the other part is Clinton not being able to win for one reason or another). Clearly Sanders is open to conventional attack - too far left, would be deadlocked with Congress. But Trump appears to have a trademark of being nuts in the sense of being dangerously unpredictable, and on the whole, I think that people would in November vote for a leftist rather than a nutter as President. A leftist probably won't get them (and thus us) into a nuclear war, for instance, but who knows what Trump might do?
That's why the U.S. people need someone other than Trump, Sanders or Clinton.
Why hello there, Mr. Kasich ....... are you here to be the next President and to deliver my 100/1 bet on you? Eat your heart out Mr. Smithson with that skinny 50/1 winner eight years ago, about which we've never heard the last. Speaking of big-priced bets, I hope those of you interested spotted my 200/1 opening tip for SPOTY 2016 which I posted up in bold in the early hours. None of your economy trips to France and Spain for me and Her Indoors .... we're aiming for Sandy Lane next Christmas!
I'm on Kasich too, although everything depends on him getting at least a decent 2nd place in NH.
100/1 is probably fair right now.
If he wins NH, he'll be down to single-digit odds - In a couple of weeks the betting slips can be either ripped up or framed.
I seem to recall a bit of debate about these numbers ages ago, but they're being used
Ethnic minority voters have long been one of Labour's greatest electoral assets. In 2010, 68 per cent voted for the party, compared to just 16 per cent for the Conservatives. But in 2015 this pattern went into reverse. Labour's share declined to 52 per cent, while the Tories' more than doubled to 33 per cent (according to a British Future/Survation poll): the best result in their history.
This dramatic shift has attracted surprisingly little comment since the election but in a speech today Chuka Umunna will aim to change that. Addressing Unison’s 2016 National Black Members’ Conference, the former shadow business secretary will warn that Labour is "shedding votes from different ethnic minority communities to the Tories" and that it has "not a hope in hell of retaining all our current seats, let alone make any enough gains and winning the next general election if we continue to lose ethnic minority votes at this rate."
Not all that surprising really and inevitable to some extent as that first generation of Asian migrants have seen their businesses flourish and many thousands of their offspring have well paid professional qualifications.
A rather interesting cross purpose set of interests here. Cleverly done but somehow I just feel it's another enforced change to our way of life that's creeping in hidden behind another reason.
"Hundreds of petrol station shops are removing alcohol from sale after being taken over by a Muslim-owned company. The outlets are part of the fast growing Euro Garages, which has 350 petrol stations across the country. The business is worth £1.3billion and has embarked on an aggressive expansion plan which involves buying petrol stations previously run by the likes of BP, Esso and Shell."
Owners are free to not stock whatever products that they choose in their shops. It is not very difficult to buy alcoholic refreshment in this country.
Indeed it was not unusual for temperance inclined property developers to deliberately not build public houses in residential areas in the heyday of the Victorian and Edwardian Britain. Not so long ago there were parts of Wales that didn't serve alcohol on a Sunday, and "dry counties" are quite common in part of the USA.
I wo
Changes are a disgrace. Why only 40 years ago the only place one could buy olive oil was Timothy Whites the chemists, and now the stuff is everywhere. And so many other foreign foods clogging up the shelves too, like lemon grass and coconut milk.
Have you noticed that policemen are looking younger as well?
I agree, time was a child could go to a care home and there was basically no chance of them getting raped by marauding gangs of Pakistani groomers
Yes, it was so much better when white Catholic Priests were doing it....heck - they even raped boys too! Clearly a step backwards.....
I SOOOOO want the Donald to win. Just for the hilarities.
Increasingly it looks like he might. I can even see him beating H Clinton. There's just something offputting about her (quite apart from the overwhelming sense of dynastic privilege - what, another CLinton/Bush???).
The Donald is in tune with the Zeitgeist.
My conspiracy theory this week is the GOP Establishment would prefer Trump over tea partiers Rubio and Cruz because Trump is seen as another Reagan or G W Bush -- a front man to handle PR while the grown-ups get on with running the government and especially foreign policy. Because Trump is not and has never been a politician, he will not enter the White House with an established team to fill cabinet or staff roles.
Trump is a billionaire no one can tell him what to do, the establishment choices are Rubio and Bush, they may fractionally prefer Trump to Cruz but not by much. Indeed the Bush family loathe Trump after he deprived Jeb of his birthright and I fully expect the Bushes to vote for Hillary over Trump in the privacy of the booth if that is the choice and given Bush Snr and Jnr now have good relations with Bill
I seem to recall a bit of debate about these numbers ages ago, but they're being used
Ethnic minority voters have long been one of Labour's greatest electoral assets. In 2010, 68 per cent voted for the party, compared to just 16 per cent for the Conservatives. But in 2015 this pattern went into reverse. Labour's share declined to 52 per cent, while the Tories' more than doubled to 33 per cent (according to a British Future/Survation poll): the best result in their history.
This dramatic shift has attracted surprisingly little comment since the election but in a speech today Chuka Umunna will aim to change that. Addressing Unison’s 2016 National Black Members’ Conference, the former shadow business secretary will warn that Labour is "shedding votes from different ethnic minority communities to the Tories" and that it has "not a hope in hell of retaining all our current seats, let alone make any enough gains and winning the next general election if we continue to lose ethnic minority votes at this rate."
Not all that surprising really and inevitable to some extent as that first generation of Asian migrants have seen their businesses flourish and many thousands of their offspring have well paid professional qualifications.
Morning. So it's Sanders, Clinton, Cruz, Trump - all with massive negatives among the ordinary people of the US, yet it's highly likely one of them will be being sworn in as President a year from now.
I think I'm going to have a few coins on Rubio at 7/1- interesting to note that Betfair have him at exactly the same price for the nomination and the Presidency!
Afraid not. He's 5/2 for the nomination, 7/1 for POTUS.
Pity, I was about to load up my betfair account for the mother of all arbs!
Morning. So it's Sanders, Clinton, Cruz, Trump - all with massive negatives among the ordinary people of the US, yet it's highly likely one of them will be being sworn in as President a year from now.
I think I'm going to have a few coins on Rubio at 7/1- interesting to note that Betfair have him at exactly the same price for the nomination and the Presidency!
Rubio has next to no chance now, he is the GOP Burnham to Trump's Corbyn. Zogby last week had Trump beating Rubio 64% to 27% head to head with Republican voters
My Chinese wife asked why all the fuss about race is always about black people. Where's the fuss about lack of oriental Oscar nominees? Or Indian ones?
In response to @Plato_Says "And I think @Cyclefree's argument that any offence could lead to blackmail or something else or whatever destroys the whole point of rehabilitation of offenders.
The % of men with convictions is enormous. If you can’t get a job after a stupid choice, then your excluded from chances to go straight."
No it doesn't. Being rehabilitated means being honest about what you have done, showing you have learnt the lessons and getting a second chance. You don't deserve that second chance if you want to hide what you've done. Because what that tells me is that you have probably not learnt the lessons you need to learn. We do in fact have some people employed who have had minor convictions in the past but we know about them - hence the blackmail risk is not there - and have made an assessment that we are comfortable with them as employees.
Dishonesty is not a good character trait to have in an employee and preventing an employer from having the information necessary to make an assessment of an employee's honesty is a stupid move.
I think employers that are hiring for cash handling, or jobs that may come into contact with cash can ask specifically for fraud/theft convictions to need to be put down on the form, in much the same way that jobs that come in contact with children need sexual offences putting down. Although not desirable for anyone, you can make the argument that hiring for the accounts department it should be put down whereas perhaps not for say hiring an engineer.
On topic, it's hard to disagree that Sanders seems incredibly unlikely to win, and 12-1 sounds about right. One reason why many lefties secretly rather enjoy the idea of Trump getting the GOP nomination is that it's part of a perfect storm that might make it happen (the other part is Clinton not being able to win for one reason or another). Clearly Sanders is open to conventional attack - too far left, would be deadlocked with Congress. But Trump appears to have a trademark of being nuts in the sense of being dangerously unpredictable, and on the whole, I think that people would in November vote for a leftist rather than a nutter as President. A leftist probably won't get them (and thus us) into a nuclear war, for instance, but who knows what Trump might do?
That's why the U.S. people need someone other than Trump, Sanders or Clinton.
Why hello there, Mr. Kasich ....... are you here to be the next President and to deliver my 100/1 bet on you? Eat your heart out Mr. Smithson with that skinny 50/1 winner eight years ago, about which we've never heard the last. Speaking of big-priced bets, I hope those of you interested spotted my 200/1 opening tip for SPOTY 2016 which I posted up in bold in the early hours. None of your economy trips to France and Spain for me and Her Indoors .... we're aiming for Sandy Lane next Christmas!
I'm on Kasich too, although everything depends on him getting at least a decent 2nd place in NH.
100/1 is probably fair right now.
If he wins NH, he'll be down to single-digit odds - In a couple of weeks the betting slips can be either ripped up or framed.
Hopefully the latter!
Kasich is the result almost everyone on the forum wins on I think (Of whose betslips I know about) so he would be a great pb.com result
Against any other Republican Sanders would have no chance against Trump he certainly does in a race which would pit minorities and Hispanics and the young and more educated voters behind Sanders against the white working class behind Trump. I still think Hillary will win the nomination and beat Trump for the presidency but were Sanders to be elected president that would transform British politics overnight and be a huge boost to Corbyn who could now add Sanders to Syriza and Podemos and the surge of the populist left. Add in Tory splits over EU ref and defections to UKIP a downtown in the economy and the Tories picking say an Owen Patterson to succeed Cameron and you see perhaps the only circumstance in which Corbyn becomes PM</
Better off voters would support Trump (through gritted teeth) against Sanders.
Regardless, Corbyn's rating is -40%. No Opposition Leader comes back from that.
My Chinese wife asked why all the fuss about race is always about black people. Where's the fuss about lack of oriental Oscar nominees? Or Indian ones?
It's quite simple - the stereotype of Chinese people is as successful. The same for Indians (from India!). Therefore, in the eyes of regressive progressives, they don't count as "real" minorities.
Hence comments about "all white" companies in Silicon Valley - in fact various minority groups are generally well represented. But they they don't count....
Morning. So it's Sanders, Clinton, Cruz, Trump - all with massive negatives among the ordinary people of the US, yet it's highly likely one of them will be being sworn in as President a year from now.
I think I'm going to have a few coins on Rubio at 7/1- interesting to note that Betfair have him at exactly the same price for the nomination and the Presidency!
Afraid not. He's 5/2 for the nomination, 7/1 for POTUS.
Pity, I was about to load up my betfair account for the mother of all arbs!
Mmm, maybe my page didn't refresh properly or someone just gobbled it up. Now shows 3.3 for the nomination and 7.8 for the Presidency not so much value.
There's a few potential arbs on Betfair, the lay price on the next president being female is very close to the back price on Hilary for example, with no other women close to being in contention. It would only take a couple of hundred quid one way or the other for an arb to open up there.
2.46 on a Republican win might have a little value in a two horse race, the rules will void that market if a 3rd party wins.
@MullingKintyre: Alex Salmond sets up private firm to handle publishing cash & can therefore avoid paying income tax in Scotland! https://t.co/fegcpyUyEo
You cannot beat Tory **nkers, you mean he has set up a company like millions of other people.
I'm growing ever more confident and optimistic we'll vote Out.
Although I don't share any of your opinions on the EU I believe that you are absolutely correct to be confident of an OUT vote.
The main problem that we on the REMAIN side face is that Cameron is helping the OUT side with his renegotiating efforts. It's very hard to sell the idea of the EU as a positive when we have a PM who (increasingly unconvincingly) claims to be in favour of REMAIN yet is busy trying to cut the UK adrift from significant parts of the EU.
"If the EU is so good then how come Cameron wants us to only be bit part players in it?" Would be a very fair question to ask someone like myself who wants to REMAIN. In all honestly I can't give an easy answer to that. Because of Cameron's mucking about the REMAIN campaign falls at the very first hurdle.
I wanted a REMAIN/OUT referendum not a tatteredREMAINS/OUT referendum and, really, I'm not convinced I'll turn out to vote if it's tatteredREMAINS versus OUT.
I'm not sure.
There are plenty of people who are very heavily flirting with Leave (and are outraged by the EU migrant crisis) but still seem to be unsure how they will vote on the day, including several regulars on this forum.
I don't know if it's fear of change, or some sort of warped Stockholm syndrome going on, but I bet many of those currently declaring an inclination to Leave will vote Remain on the day.
There's even one regular poster on here who thinks he might vote Remain whilst wanting Leave to win.
My Chinese wife asked why all the fuss about race is always about black people. Where's the fuss about lack of oriental Oscar nominees? Or Indian ones?
It's quite simple - the stereotype of Chinese people is as successful. The same for Indians (from India!). Therefore, in the eyes of regressive progressives, they don't count as "real" minorities.
Hence comments about "all white" companies in Silicon Valley - in fact various minority groups are generally well represented. But they they don't count....
My Chinese wife asked why all the fuss about race is always about black people. Where's the fuss about lack of oriental Oscar nominees? Or Indian ones?
It's quite simple - the stereotype of Chinese people is as successful. The same for Indians (from India!). Therefore, in the eyes of regressive progressives, they don't count as "real" minorities.
Hence comments about "all white" companies in Silicon Valley - in fact various minority groups are generally well represented. But they they don't count....
I suspect you're right and it reflects back extremely painfully on the black population. Maybe their relative failure is innate rather than inflicted.
In response to @Plato_Says "And I think @Cyclefree's argument that any offence could lead to blackmail or something else or whatever destroys the whole point of rehabilitation of offenders.
The % of men with convictions is enormous. If you can’t get a job after a stupid choice, then your excluded from chances to go straight."
No it doesn't. Being rehabilitated means being honest about what you have done, showing you have learnt the lessons and getting a second chance. You don't deserve that second chance if you want to hide what you've done. Because what that tells me is that you have probably not learnt the lessons you need to learn. We do in fact have some people employed who have had minor convictions in the past but we know about them - hence the blackmail risk is not there - and have made an assessment that we are comfortable with them as employees.
Dishonesty is not a good character trait to have in an employee and preventing an employer from having the information necessary to make an assessment of an employee's honesty is a stupid move.
I think employers that are hiring for cash handling, or jobs that may come into contact with cash can ask specifically for fraud/theft convictions to need to be put down on the form, in much the same way that jobs that come in contact with children need sexual offences putting down. Although not desirable for anyone, you can make the argument that hiring for the accounts department it should be put down whereas perhaps not for say hiring an engineer.
Is it not that the issue here is that the disclosures and CRB checks are superseding the Rehibilitation of Offenders Act, so people are being forced to disclose eg stealing sweets from the sweet shop as a teenager, when now in their thirties and with no intention of stealing anything from their employer? Also that employers do take a zero-tolerance approach to anything that comes out, rather than assessing each case on the facts.
I don't know if it's fear of change, or some sort of warped Stockholm syndrome going on, but I bet many of those currently declaring an inclination to Leave will vote Remain on the day.
It's in the back of my mind that voting leave has a possibility of alot of stuff going tits up (Will Sheffield's Euro funding be replaced by hypothecated funds ?); everyone else I know is voting remain from my Conservative parents through to my OH's leftish family... that sort of thing. It shouldn't stop ME voting leave, but I can see some of those back of mind concerns/worries preventing others on the day.
Why Khan will probably win twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/690837109150720000
Maybe others have a different experience, but I live in the suburbs of London and I am not being terrorised by Somali gangsters.
There are genuine issues about mass immigration and integration, but when the debate is framed by those kind of headlines reasonable people stop listening.
I agree. There is an issue to be discussed but the Mail is just terrorising its own readers. Mind you most of them buy it for the puzzle and gossip pages. The people in the picture looked decent law abiding folk happily spending money and raising taxes for the government.
Quite. This is my exact issue. I've none but know others that do. Those CVs are rejected automatically in a sift and those reluctant to supply CRB form assumed guilty.
In response to @Plato_Says "And I think @Cyclefree's argument that any offence could lead to blackmail or something else or whatever destroys the whole point of rehabilitation of offenders.
The % of men with convictions is enormous. If you can’t get a job after a stupid choice, then your excluded from chances to go straight."
No it doesn't. Being rehabilitated means being honest about what you have done, showing you have learnt the lessons and getting a second chance. You don't deserve that second chance if you want to hide what you've done. Because what that tells me is that you have probably not learnt the lessons you need to learn. We do in fact have some people employed who have had minor convictions in the past but we know about them - hence the blackmail risk is not there - and have made an assessment that we are comfortable with them as employees.
Dishonesty is not a good character trait to have in an employee and preventing an employer from having the information necessary to make an assessment of an employee's honesty is a stupid move.
I think employers that are hiring for cash handling, or jobs that may come into contact with cash can ask specifically for fraud/theft convictions to need to be put down on the form, in much the same way that jobs that come in contact with children need sexual offences putting down. Although not desirable for anyone, you can make the argument that hiring for the accounts department it should be put down whereas perhaps not for say hiring an engineer.
Is it not that the issue here is that the disclosures and CRB checks are superseding the Rehibilitation of Offenders Act, so people are being forced to disclose eg stealing sweets from the sweet shop as a teenager, when now in their thirties and with no intention of stealing anything from their employer? Also that employers do take a zero-tolerance approach to anything that comes out, rather than assessing each case on the facts.
@Sandpit check your vanilla inbox. It's not a vindictive message, but I believe employers should have the right (FOr specific jobs) to know about such convictions. The lady in question should have every opportunity to pursue a career - but if it involves handling cash then the employer should know about her previous.
I seem to recall a bit of debate about these numbers ages ago, but they're being used
Ethnic minority voters have long been one of Labour's greatest electoral assets. In 2010, 68 per cent voted for the party, compared to just 16 per cent for the Conservatives. But in 2015 this pattern went into reverse. Labour's share declined to 52 per cent, while the Tories' more than doubled to 33 per cent (according to a British Future/Survation poll): the best result in their history.
This dramatic shift has attracted surprisingly little comment since the election but in a speech today Chuka Umunna will aim to change that. Addressing Unison’s 2016 National Black Members’ Conference, the former shadow business secretary will warn that Labour is "shedding votes from different ethnic minority communities to the Tories" and that it has "not a hope in hell of retaining all our current seats, let alone make any enough gains and winning the next general election if we continue to lose ethnic minority votes at this rate."
Reported on Twitter that Germany has lost track of 600,000 migrants. Unsure of veracity, of course.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Taffys, disagree. Even if Cameron tried that, and I don't think he will, the PCP would end his reign.
Actually many of the 600 000 may not exist. Many had registered several times. The evidence came from the 150 questioned in Cologne. Half had registered more than once, as a dodge to get dispersed to a different city.
I would have thought the Germans better record keepers than that, but perhaps just stereotyping by me!
They register more than once so they can claim benefits in different names.
But no one seriously disputes that 1-1.5m migrants arrived in the EU last year. They were counted in Greece (the main entry point), and elsewhere
Who does 1 or 1.5 million? Your spread is only 50% for gawds sake. Given that self imposed spread it becomes easy to 'agree'. Your grasp of statistics is as bad as the Lancets with their claims of Iraq deaths.
Quite. This is my exact issue. I've none but know others that do. Those CVs are rejected automatically in a sift and those reluctant to supply CRB form assumed guilty.
In response to @Plato_Says "And I think @Cyclefree's argument that any offence could lead to blackmail or something else or whatever destroys the whole point of rehabilitation of offenders.
The % of men with convictions is enormous. If you can’t get a job after a stupid choice, then your excluded from chances to go straight."
No it doesn't. Being rehabilitated means being honest about what you have done, showing you have learnt the lessons and getting a second chance. You don't deserve that second chance if you want to hide what you've done. Because what that tells me is that you have probably not learnt the lessons you need to learn. We do in fact have some people employed who have had minor convictions in the past but we know about them - hence the blackmail risk is not there - and have made an assessment that we are comfortable with them as employees.
Dishonesty is not a good character trait to have in an employee and preventing an employer from having the information necessary to make an assessment of an employee's honesty is a stupid move.
I think employers that are hiring for cash handling, or jobs that may come into contact with cash can ask specifically for fraud/theft convictions to need to be put down on the form, in much the same way that jobs that come in contact with children need sexual offences putting down. Although not desirable for anyone, you can make the argument that hiring for the accounts department it should be put down whereas perhaps not for say hiring an engineer.
Is it not that the issue here is that the disclosures and CRB checks are superseding the Rehibilitation of Offenders Act, so people are being forced to disclose eg stealing sweets from the sweet shop as a teenager, when now in their thirties and with no intention of stealing anything from their employer? Also that employers do take a zero-tolerance approach to anything that comes out, rather than assessing each case on the facts.
Copied you in to my message too. Certain crimes should be declared for certain jobs, as sexual offences currently have to be.
I don't know if it's fear of change, or some sort of warped Stockholm syndrome going on, but I bet many of those currently declaring an inclination to Leave will vote Remain on the day.
It's in the back of my mind that voting leave has a possibility of alot of stuff going tits up (Will Sheffield's Euro funding be replaced by hypothecated funds ?); everyone else I know is voting remain from my Conservative parents through to my OH's leftish family... that sort of thing. It shouldn't stop ME voting leave, but I can see some of those back of mind concerns/worries preventing others on the day.
Whereas things have already gone tits up whilst we're still a member, are continuing to go tits up, and there's plenty of warning signs about just how high up those tits might go with the EU in the future.
But.. I get it. Change is hard. It's not just about facts: change is a long, drawn-out and highly emotional process of dawning realisation and then, eventually, deciding enough is enough, taking a deep breath, and volunteering for any potential disruption. It's basic risk aversion. And it takes time.
It's not unlike leaving a long-term highly unsatisfactory and mildly abusive relationship, or coming to terms with grief for a lost loved one.
All the evidence that our membership of the EU is a growing disaster is there in plain sight, for all to see.
I'm just not sure there's enough time before the vote for everyone at the start of this process to emotionally work that all through.
Kinda on topic, I just discovered from a piece on The Daily Show last week that gambling on the election is illegal in the USA.
The piece talks about betting on the US election in the UK and gave a bunch of pro sports-bettors in the US a briefing on the candidates before asking them to recommend bets.
I don't know if it's fear of change, or some sort of warped Stockholm syndrome going on, but I bet many of those currently declaring an inclination to Leave will vote Remain on the day.
It's in the back of my mind that voting leave has a possibility of alot of stuff going tits up (Will Sheffield's Euro funding be replaced by hypothecated funds ?); everyone else I know is voting remain from my Conservative parents through to my OH's leftish family... that sort of thing. It shouldn't stop ME voting leave, but I can see some of those back of mind concerns/worries preventing others on the day.
Whereas things have already gone tits up whilst we're still a member, are continuing to go tits up, and there's plenty of warning signs about just how high up those tits might go with the EU in the future.
But.. I get it. Change is hard. It's not just about facts: change is a long, drawn-out and highly emotional process of dawning realisation and then, eventually, deciding enough is enough, taking a deep breath, and volunteering for any potential disruption. It's basic risk aversion. And it takes time.
It's not unlike leaving a long-term highly unsatisfactory and mildly abusive relationship, or coming to terms with grief for a lost loved one.
All the evidence that our membership of the EU is a growing disaster is there in plain sight, for all to see.
I'm just not sure there's enough time before the vote for everyone at the start of this process to emotionally work that all through.
This is why it's suspected that Cameron will go for an early vote (ie summer this year)... in addition to the fact that the EU is rapidly going down the pan (economic crisis is about to gear up, as is the migration crisis).
@Casino_Royale We here on this forum will tend to be alot less risk averse than the general populus (It is a betting forum after all). And Remain is the option that will appeal to risk averse people, all else being equal. LEAVE has to push the migrant angle due to this, but it's an in built advantage REMAIN has that I can't see disappearing with the vote.
Against any other Republican Sanders would have no chance against Trump he certainly does in a race which would pit minorities and Hispanics and the young and more educated voters behind Sanders against the white working class behind Trump. I still think Hillary will win the nomination and beat Trump for the presidency but were Sanders to be elected president that would transform British politics overnight and be a huge boost to Corbyn who could now add Sanders to Syriza and Podemos and the surge of the populist left. Add in Tory splits over EU ref and defections to UKIP a downtown in the economy and the Tories picking say an Owen Patterson to succeed Cameron and you see perhaps the only circumstance in which Corbyn becomes PM</
Better off voters would support Trump (through gritted teeth) against Sanders.
Regardless, Corbyn's rating is -40%. No Opposition Leader comes back from that.</p>
Better off voters maybe though if Bloomberg ran he could beat both with wealthy suburbanites, better educated college graduates and postgrads would back Sanders over Trump, though there is obviously an overlap between wealth and education
Comments
In all seriousness, although I dislike how much influence parties have and how little people rebel, there's nothing wrong, particularly on smaller or technical issues, in following the lead of the people and party one trusts and who may well have made a very good case at the time, even if time shows it may not be a good thing, or just not the best thing.
"Is there much evidence that CRB checks have improved child protection? It has become an industry in its own right, delays staff appointments, causes difficulties for Scouts and Sunday Schools that rely on volunteers (I went on a Scout family camp a few years back, and the major logistical difficulty was CRBing every attending parent).
If there was solid evidence of a reduction in child offences, then it would be a nessecary hassle. Has there been any drop in child offences since they were introduced?"
I don't know. I do know that in every fraud case I have ever been involved in there has usually been some sign in the past - usually small - of a propensity to deception which was overlooked or ignored for a variety of reasons. The answer is to not ignore those signs. It is not to fail to collect the information.
I understand the concerns with ludicrous bureaucracy and delays and can see why CRB'ing people who are just going away for the day or a weekend with a child can be absurd. Some more common sense and efficiency would help.
But saying that employers are not allowed to ask for CRB checks for their employees is daft. Any sensible employer should know whether a job applicant has had a criminal conviction. Would you be happy having your sensitive financial data handled by someone with a conviction for dishonesty?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
Bearing in mind that this mans rape trial went to a re-trial the evidence of problems cannot be insignificant. It is hard to see a rape case going to trial if the alleged victim did not deny consent.
We are focussing on the immigration / civilisational risk right now. Fair dinkum. It's hugely important. But the money troubles are even worse and haven't gone away. The garlic zone is going to crumble this year as the markets and global debt overhang gets to discover what real recession is like. A Remain vote is a vote to handcuff ourselves to a sinking corpse.
It is deeply sad that rational, civilised, educated and moral people wish for reactionary leaders of the Farage/Wilders/Trump variety - simply because they are the ones who might, just might, crush the surrender monkeys and let us rediscover our pride. A vote for Trump is a vote for chaos and dissent - but also a vote for hope and a reassertion of our culture. A vote for Sanders or Clinton is a vote to start putting the burqas on now.
"I'm in the Rampling corner here."
I hope Chris Rock makes a joke about it ... how about "Hi, my name's Chris Rock, and I'm your waiter for the evening."
Far more effective than the usual publicity seekers wanting a quota system.
The % of men with convictions is enormous. If you can’t get a job after a stupid choice, then your excluded from chances to go straight. That is my concern. It is a tick box mentality applied to child safety. The children are "safe" if the paperwork is ok. I have real doubts it has helped at all.
I'll come on topic in a moment.
The main lesson of this week for me is that the man who runs the British economy isn't George (where's my hi-vis jacket ?) Osborne but Mario Draghi. Osborne kept quiet as the stock markets collapsed but a couple of sentences from Draghi sent prices soaring.
Of course, this is because Draghi has the current "magic money tree" known as the ECB at his disposal and has basically told the gamblers in the casino - "don't worry about losing your shirt at the blackjack table, I'll bail you out". Even now, we have this ludicrous monetary policy set to continue to 2018 keeping the pain going for savers.
The truth is being inside or outside the EU or the Eurozone makes no difference to global markets but if the market rallies and your managed funds start looking healthier, don't thank George, thank Mario.
On-topic, and once again thank you David. To be honest, you could have saved yourself a lot of verbage by deleting everything except "if nothing else comes out, it'll be her". Sanders might win New Hampshire but Hillary will stamp on him everywhere else and will win comfortably. I know one or two of our American contributors (who all seem to be staunch GOP supporters) are trying to play up the email scandal but we still await "the smoking gun".
As for the GOP and its morass, well, we still await for the anti-Trump challenger to emerge. Kasich, Fiorina, Bush, Carson and Rubio have all had a turn and now it seems to be Cruz and he seems to have more evangelical support than some of the others. The GOP "establishment" (whatever that is) either needs to throw in with Trump or pick one of the smaller beasts to go up against him. The divided nature of the anti-Trump vote gives the Donald the advantage and while Trump is an interesting figure, he is long on generalities and rhetoric and short on specifics - apparently he's going to get jobs back from China, I presume that means he's going to pay American workers Chinese wages - that will end well....
Just like minstrel shows, or Weimar Republic cabaret, I'm sure comedy will continue to prove effective in effecting progressive political change
I say, whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible"
CRB checks are said to impinge on someone's right to a private life and then we have this. How much greater an infringement of someone's private life can there be?
And it would annoy the bejesus out of my lefty mates.
The gits and shiggles would be epic.
I think you'll find that Chris Rock probably will make a joke abut it. Will you call him an Uncle Tom then?
All the PIIGS run current account surpluses.
All the PIIGS have lower private sector debt to GDP than the UK.
Portugal might get into financial trouble this year, and Greece is still a fuck up, but Italy and Spain are both in significantly better shape than they were two years ago: whether from s labour market flexibility perspective, a banking solvency perspective, a government deficit perspective, or a trade perspective.
A strange fear has overtaken us, a fear of upsetting people through trivia, a fear of self reliance and independence, far easier to hide behind the ever expanding state. I'm flabbergasted how people on here put so much faith in politicians when through the decades they've proven , in the main, to be dreadful. Cameron talked of rolling back the state yet at the same time is a committed Europhile, a complete dichotomy.
I'm growing ever more confident and optimistic we'll vote Out.
Moreover, it seems he is not just controlled in relation to sex with under 18 year olds, men who attend gyms or Gorean women (or whatever his potential niche is), the order covers any sex at all. That seems a colossal infringement of his right to a private life. There is no sense of proportionality at all.
Every now and then we get a good example of why human rights legislation has its advantages. This is one.
We'll see whether Khan supports them for London workplaces if he becomes mayor.
"your managed funds start looking healthier"
They are not *actually* healthier, they just look it.
A huge part of the problem that the world faces at the moment is the mispricing of assets. In perpetuating what is known as "the Greenspan put" Draghi is just screwing things up.
Bear markets may be nasty, but unless you are a forced seller or you panic it won't actually hurt you (I'm ignoring, for the moment, the confidence feedback loop as I'm not convinced stockmarket gyrations really impact the public consciousness).
Sorry guys - hedgies, speculators, whatever. If you lose your shirts, you lose your shirts. That's what it means to be in the grey market.
(BTW London house prices trading 15-20% off asking prices at the moment. Not a good time to be a seller)
The % of men with convictions is enormous. If you can’t get a job after a stupid choice, then your excluded from chances to go straight."
No it doesn't. Being rehabilitated means being honest about what you have done, showing you have learnt the lessons and getting a second chance. You don't deserve that second chance if you want to hide what you've done. Because what that tells me is that you have probably not learnt the lessons you need to learn. We do in fact have some people employed who have had minor convictions in the past but we know about them - hence the blackmail risk is not there - and have made an assessment that we are comfortable with them as employees.
Dishonesty is not a good character trait to have in an employee and preventing an employer from having the information necessary to make an assessment of an employee's honesty is a stupid move.
So you know my race, skin colour and voting record?
Lighten up (and that's not a racist remark). Actors are always full of themselves and whinge about almost anything. There are serious racial concerns in America but this isn't one of them.
Three cheers for the free market.
This is what happens when you compare a map of MPs voting to keep poppers to map of Britain's coalfields v/@thei100 https://t.co/1CAVi0YyHT
https://twitter.com/OxfordWords/status/690565638172102656
I know a guy who got sacked for theft from a bank.
He applied to become a police officer.
He masked his CV by putting in the name of a firm who had gone into liquidation around the time that the banked sacked him.
I fully admit to being a full-on Eeyore in this respect and read far too much Zerohedge. I also think I'm right and the market chaos thus far I have been saying will come for a while. It is my belief that unless we have the referendum PDQ it will take place in the context of a financial perfect storm and a simultaneous cultural one.
I would agree with all of that. I would even go further and say in most all shops during the mornings I see blinds drawn down over the alcohol sections much like cigarettes are behind closed doors. They also have a right to sell what they choose of course.
It really was the reason ( excuse? ) they used that was the interesting cross purpose. " immoral to sell to drivers" . Maybe but slowly ever so slowly we see changes happening within this country. Halal is off course the most obvious example to most people something twenty years or more ago would not have been an issue. I am more than use to these sort of requirements having lived and worked throughout the Middle East amongst other places for over 30 years, where such requirements are the norm.
Changes are a disgrace. Why only 40 years ago the only place one could buy olive oil was Timothy Whites the chemists, and now the stuff is everywhere. And so many other foreign foods clogging up the shelves too, like lemon grass and coconut milk.
Have you noticed that policemen are looking younger as well?
-------
Your changes are more access not less and I would agree just wander down the local wine aisle at Tesco and you can buy wines from everywhere. I have forgotten how many thousands of tonnes of olive oil and coconut oil I have transported in my lifetime to the UK so not resistant to change.
I agree totally they can stock whatever they like.
NPXMP makes a good point to avoid drunk driving but that really is the thin end of the wedge. They can go one street to a store or to the local pub across the road and buy booze and just drive anyway
The main point I was trying to make, perhaps somewhat clumsily, was the change is a withdrawal of supply not an increase in access as some who have argued up thread. It was stated as to stop drunk driving which while being very commendable is not really the whole reason. I would have preferred them just to say we don't believe in this.
If we look at the extreme groups in Germany ( both sides of the argument) the latest is an Islamic group calling for a total ban on alcohol throughout Germany. ( I mentioned it here in the last couple of days) This to stop their members becoming drunk and sexually assaulting women. Is a real out on the edge extreme view but who would have considered this even 2 years ago let alone 20. That's the point here. Having arrived , within 12 months the attitude has changed and not really for the better as far as I have observed and as my German colleagues regularly comment.
To clarify I am working in Germany half of my time now and have been for the last three years
I suppose someone will now shout "racist". .. Ho hum
The main problem that we on the REMAIN side face is that Cameron is helping the OUT side with his renegotiating efforts. It's very hard to sell the idea of the EU as a positive when we have a PM who (increasingly unconvincingly) claims to be in favour of REMAIN yet is busy trying to cut the UK adrift from significant parts of the EU.
"If the EU is so good then how come Cameron wants us to only be bit part players in it?" Would be a very fair question to ask someone like myself who wants to REMAIN. In all honestly I can't give an easy answer to that. Because of Cameron's mucking about the REMAIN campaign falls at the very first hurdle.
I wanted a REMAIN/OUT referendum not a tatteredREMAINS/OUT referendum and, really, I'm not convinced I'll turn out to vote if it's tatteredREMAINS versus OUT.
I admit I seldom watch films and the Oscars pass me by. Actors, and luvvies in particular, don't rank high on my list of priorities. I suspect the nominations are a mass of subjective views and very likely to be racist, sexist and any other other -ist that is possible. Trying to make subjective views objective seems a exercise in futility. I like certain films that others will hate, does that make me wrong?
As far as I'm concerned, they can nominate black actors only and I'd lose no sleep over it.
Indeed Mr Morris. I am starting to think we will never get a referendum under Cameron. He would rather throw in the towel than fight and lose.
He will delay and delay and delay, as the situation in Europe only deteriorates. And in the summer of 2017 with his party in a towering rage over his failure to deliver, he will step down.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Taffys, disagree. Even if Cameron tried that, and I don't think he will, the PCP would end his reign.
After Lehmann, the global financial system agreed no bank could be allowed to fail and Governments agreed so RBS, HBOS and the like were propped up with taxpayer money and effectively nationalised.
Allister Heath, whose politics I detest but whose financial analysis was always good reading in City AM, argued your point but added all institutions needed to have policies and procedures in place to allow for a managed default in the way Lehmann didn't. Yes, share holders and creditors would have to take the pain but as you say, that's part of the free market.
Draghi bucks this as Brown/Darling did by throwing an apparently endless supply of money from the ECB at the Eurozone but that's not economics, that's politics.
Racial justice in America? Now that is a serious problem.. On that, we can agree.
But acting? It's a pretendy things, isn't it? Just behind expressive dance in priorities. OK, I may be treading on people's dreams, but that's my subjective view. And, of course, I may be wrong.
Changes are a disgrace. Why only 40 years ago the only place one could buy olive oil was Timothy Whites the chemists, and now the stuff is everywhere. And so many other foreign foods clogging up the shelves too, like lemon grass and coconut milk.
Have you noticed that policemen are looking younger as well?
-------
Your changes are more access not less and I would agree just wander down the local wine aisle at Tesco and you can buy wines from everywhere. I have forgotten how many thousands of tonnes of olive oil and coconut oil I have transported in my lifetime to the UK so not resistant to change.
I agree totally they can stock whatever they like.
NPXMP makes a good point to avoid drunk driving but that really is the thin end of the wedge. They can go one street to a store or to the local pub across the road and buy booze and just drive anyway
The main point I was trying to make, perhaps somewhat clumsily, was the change is a withdrawal of supply not an increase in access as some who have argued up thread. It was stated as to stop drunk driving which while being very commendable is not really the whole reason. I would have preferred them just to say we don't believe in this.
If we look at the extreme groups in Germany ( both sides of the argument) the latest is an Islamic group calling for a total ban on alcohol throughout Germany. ( I mentioned it here in the last couple of days) This to stop their members becoming drunk and sexually assaulting women. Is a real out on the edge extreme view but who would have considered this even 20 years ago. That's the point here. Having arrived , within 12 months the attitude has changed and not really for the better as far as I have observed and as my German colleagues regularly comment.
To clarify I am working in Germany half of my time now and have been for the last three years
I suppose someone will now shout "racist". .. Ho hum
In and of itself, it's not a problem. If they won't stock alcohol, someone else will.
Curiously, the hardest place I've found to get a drink in the UK was Southall, as devout Hindus and Sikhs won't touch alcohol.
I feel the same about the Care Quality Commission. They were more bothered about whether our statutory training was up to date than evidence that the training was effective.
My large multi-hospital University NHS Trust has not had a new case of MRSA in a year, and C Diff is 1% of what it was 5 years ago. Rather stronger evidence of good practice than any evidence that the ward clerk has had a recent appraisal! but that was what they wanted.
I can see a CRB being required for Hospitals and Schools, and why financial institutions are interested in crimes of honesty, but is it right that this Yorkshire man found not guilty of rape be prevented from working in a bank for example?
Nevertheless the thought of Trump getting within touching distance of a nuclear button is too horrifying to joke about.
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/690837109150720000
Most immigration from the EU is Christian immigration. Most Muslim immigration most Hindu immigration most Buddhist immigration - speak it softly most coloured immigration - is mainly as a result of our colonial past.
It's pretty pathetic that the anti EU campaign is reduced to a spittlefest of anti colour/ Muslim / Arab invective. Do they really expect this BNP-lite approach to work?
'If there's an award for black male actor in a mediocre film about the NFL and has an angry wife - Will Smith would be a shoo in.'
‘How the Labour Party loves beating its head against the wall…this time it looks serious’ – John Warden https://t.co/ei6wv6N20l
One thing: Leave, if it happens, could be as galvanising a moment for the left as the right. (I know you're of the view that Remain will win.)
I would have thought the Germans better record keepers than that, but perhaps just stereotyping by me!
Why hello there, Mr. Kasich ....... are you here to be the next President and to deliver my 100/1 bet on you? Eat your heart out Mr. Smithson with that skinny 50/1 winner eight years ago, about which we've never heard the last.
Speaking of big-priced bets, I hope those of you interested spotted my 200/1 opening tip for SPOTY 2016 which I posted up in bold in the early hours. None of your economy trips to France and Spain for me and Her Indoors .... we're aiming for Sandy Lane next Christmas!
Cameron should plan to have the referendum in 2017.
There are genuine issues about mass immigration and integration, but when the debate is framed by those kind of headlines reasonable people stop listening.
THe police and magistrates seem to have been presumed some level of guilt even though he has been convicted of no crime. It's odd, and I can see it crumpling into a heap of (rightly for once !) Human rights legislation at a higher level. It's the sort of nonsense that gives HRL legs I guess.
I think I'm going to have a few coins on Rubio at 7/1- interesting to note that Betfair have him at exactly the same price for the nomination and the Presidency!
100/1 is probably fair right now.
If he wins NH, he'll be down to single-digit odds - In a couple of weeks the betting slips can be either ripped up or framed.
Hopefully the latter!
Not all that surprising really and inevitable to some extent as that first generation of Asian migrants have seen their businesses flourish and many thousands of their offspring have well paid professional qualifications.
This is one of the uglier sides of identity politics that I'd love to see the back of. Not all that surprising really and inevitable to some extent as that first generation of Asian migrants have seen their businesses flourish and many thousands of their offspring have well paid professional qualifications.
Pity, I was about to load up my betfair account for the mother of all arbs!
Although not desirable for anyone, you can make the argument that hiring for the accounts department it should be put down whereas perhaps not for say hiring an engineer.
Hence comments about "all white" companies in Silicon Valley - in fact various minority groups are generally well represented. But they they don't count....
There's a few potential arbs on Betfair, the lay price on the next president being female is very close to the back price on Hilary for example, with no other women close to being in contention. It would only take a couple of hundred quid one way or the other for an arb to open up there.
2.46 on a Republican win might have a little value in a two horse race, the rules will void that market if a 3rd party wins.
Yoons, fingers always on the pulse.
There are plenty of people who are very heavily flirting with Leave (and are outraged by the EU migrant crisis) but still seem to be unsure how they will vote on the day, including several regulars on this forum.
I don't know if it's fear of change, or some sort of warped Stockholm syndrome going on, but I bet many of those currently declaring an inclination to Leave will vote Remain on the day.
There's even one regular poster on here who thinks he might vote Remain whilst wanting Leave to win.
It's in the back of my mind that voting leave has a possibility of alot of stuff going tits up (Will Sheffield's Euro funding be replaced by hypothecated funds ?); everyone else I know is voting remain from my Conservative parents through to my OH's leftish family... that sort of thing.
It shouldn't stop ME voting leave, but I can see some of those back of mind concerns/worries preventing others on the day.
It's invidious.
Considering the massive Labour votes piled up in the inner cities I find those numbers unlikely.
Your grasp of statistics is as bad as the Lancets with their claims of Iraq deaths.
In fact Dr Fox makes a valid point.
But.. I get it. Change is hard. It's not just about facts: change is a long, drawn-out and highly emotional process of dawning realisation and then, eventually, deciding enough is enough, taking a deep breath, and volunteering for any potential disruption. It's basic risk aversion. And it takes time.
It's not unlike leaving a long-term highly unsatisfactory and mildly abusive relationship, or coming to terms with grief for a lost loved one.
All the evidence that our membership of the EU is a growing disaster is there in plain sight, for all to see.
I'm just not sure there's enough time before the vote for everyone at the start of this process to emotionally work that all through.
The piece talks about betting on the US election in the UK and gave a bunch of pro sports-bettors in the US a briefing on the candidates before asking them to recommend bets.
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/glmvjj/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-taking-bets-on-the-election (Not sure if geolocked in UK)
LEAVE has to push the migrant angle due to this, but it's an in built advantage REMAIN has that I can't see disappearing with the vote.