I see that Tom O'Carroll, former head of Paedophile Information Exchange, has joined the Labour Party, according to the Times.
And been suspended, when some of the few sensible Labour MPs left (yes, there are some) raised merry hell.
There's some rule preventing them from expelling him pdq - though frankly I'd take whatever legal risk they might run.
They'd be stupid not to follow procedure. A legal challenge forcing them to take him back would look even worse. The worst of damage is already done though.
Do political parties do due diligence on membership applications? I wouldn't have known who this guy was and I'd like to know how it comes to light (unless he's shouting it from the rooftops that Labour let him in).
There was a big story about him and PIE and Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt and the NCCL about 2 years back. All over the press. The Labour party made a big fuss about the Mail smear campaign on Harman and co. Is everyone in the Labour party deaf, dumb and blind?
I see that Tom O'Carroll, former head of Paedophile Information Exchange, has joined the Labour Party, according to the Times.
And been suspended, when some of the few sensible Labour MPs left (yes, there are some) raised merry hell.
There's some rule preventing them from expelling him pdq - though frankly I'd take whatever legal risk they might run.
They'd be stupid not to follow procedure. A legal challenge forcing them to take him back would look even worse. The worst of damage is already done though.
Do political parties do due diligence on membership applications? I wouldn't have known who this guy was and I'd like to know how it comes to light (unless he's shouting it from the rooftops that Labour let him in).
Doing a google search on membership applicants would be a good start.
I see that Tom O'Carroll, former head of Paedophile Information Exchange, has joined the Labour Party, according to the Times.
And been suspended, when some of the few sensible Labour MPs left (yes, there are some) raised merry hell.
There's some rule preventing them from expelling him pdq - though frankly I'd take whatever legal risk they might run.
They'd be stupid not to follow procedure. A legal challenge forcing them to take him back would look even worse. The worst of damage is already done though.
There are some legal cases worth fighting. I would hope that the Labour party rulebook has some general rule about not bringing the party into disrepute or similar. They need to be seen unequivocally not on the side of paedophiles, though as you say they have already suffered the damage.
I'm sure that there will be some such rule. Which is why you kick him out following the procedure.
If they don't, they risk any legal challenge going against them which would make it look as if they had to accept him as a member permanently (when in fact it would mean they'd just have to reinstate it until they could expel him legally).
I see that Tom O'Carroll, former head of Paedophile Information Exchange, has joined the Labour Party, according to the Times.
And been suspended, when some of the few sensible Labour MPs left (yes, there are some) raised merry hell.
There's some rule preventing them from expelling him pdq - though frankly I'd take whatever legal risk they might run.
They'd be stupid not to follow procedure. A legal challenge forcing them to take him back would look even worse. The worst of damage is already done though.
Do political parties do due diligence on membership applications? I wouldn't have known who this guy was and I'd like to know how it comes to light (unless he's shouting it from the rooftops that Labour let him in).
It's sad that the Spiegel has just turned into Mrs Merkel's mouthpiece over the last few years. They have almost zero independent thinking.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the EU members despite a lot of "positive" talk ultimately do not care if the UK REMAINs or not. They would prefer that outcome but not at any price.
I see that Tom O'Carroll, former head of Paedophile Information Exchange, has joined the Labour Party, according to the Times.
And been suspended, when some of the few sensible Labour MPs left (yes, there are some) raised merry hell.
There's some rule preventing them from expelling him pdq - though frankly I'd take whatever legal risk they might run.
They'd be stupid not to follow procedure. A legal challenge forcing them to take him back would look even worse. The worst of damage is already done though.
Do political parties do due diligence on membership applications? I wouldn't have known who this guy was and I'd like to know how it comes to light (unless he's shouting it from the rooftops that Labour let him in).
Not as routine, as far as I know.
Well you wouldn't expect that. Political parties are not exactly overrun with staff. That is why they need so many volunteers.
So today we have Merkel's mouthpiece and Thusk both saying that the agreement is subject to review and modification by the European Parliament AFTER the referendum, and in fact cannot be guaranteed at all. We also have a senior Commission lawyer and an retired ECJ Judge saying that the idea of a "legally binding" agreement on the Treaties is "bullshit". I assume something went right with the negotiations somewhere...
I see that Tom O'Carroll, former head of Paedophile Information Exchange, has joined the Labour Party, according to the Times.
And been suspended, when some of the few sensible Labour MPs left (yes, there are some) raised merry hell.
There's some rule preventing them from expelling him pdq - though frankly I'd take whatever legal risk they might run.
They'd be stupid not to follow procedure. A legal challenge forcing them to take him back would look even worse. The worst of damage is already done though.
Do political parties do due diligence on membership applications? I wouldn't have known who this guy was and I'd like to know how it comes to light (unless he's shouting it from the rooftops that Labour let him in).
There was a big story about him and PIE and Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt and the NCCL about 2 years back. All over the press. The Labour party made a big fuss about the Mail smear campaign on Harman and co. Is everyone in the Labour party deaf, dumb and blind?
But the administrator processing the application wouldn't see the name Tom O'Carroll and immediately recall who he was. I'm not defending the Labour Party - I'm just wondering what lengths parties can and do go to to prevent bad press.
It's sad that the Spiegel has just turned into Mrs Merkel's mouthpiece over the last few years. They have almost zero independent thinking.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the EU members despite a lot of "positive" talk ultimately do not care if the UK REMAINs or not. They would prefer that outcome but not at any price.
The fact is this is take it or leave it. Closer integration or out.
I don't have any details so this is pure speculation but I wonder if the drop in house prices overall in Scotland is less to do with any tax and more to do with a big drop in prices in the North East as a result of the oil price collapse. With all the redundancies going on and the builders still throwing up houses all over the place I wonder if a localised drop is enough to have a small national effect in Scotland?
Like I say I have not had a look at the figures at all so this could be entirely wrong.
Very likely given the over inflated prices in that area previously.
So today we have Merkel's mouthpiece and Thusk both saying that the agreement is subject to review and modification by the European Parliament AFTER the referendum, and in fact cannot be guaranteed at all. We also have a senior Commission lawyer and an retired ECJ Judge saying that the idea of a "legally binding" agreement on the Treaties is "bullshit". I assume something went right with the negotiations somewhere...
So Cameron should just wait until its done. Why have a vote before deal is signed off?? Craziness.
If Cameron needs Euro Parliament to sign off, why don't he just postpone referendum until they've done that??
Because our Epic Negotiator (Cameron) agreed to the procedure where they haggle a deal (which will be a bit crap), and then he tries to sell it to the Council of Europe (who either reject it, or make it more crap), it is then put in a drawer until after the referendum, when it is taken out, dusted off and given the EUParl to consider, who are then at liberty to change or reject the whole thing... cracking deal.
So Cameron should just wait until its done. Why have a vote before deal is signed off?? Craziness.
a) because he is worrying about the optical of thousands of migrants pushing down fences in centre Europe when the weather is warmer b) because he agreed not to! (a. means he is an optimist, it is going to happen way before the referendum, and b. means he is an idiot)
The fact he's joined means nothing, its how Labour respond that should be judged.
Well they are trying to kick him out. I highly doubt Labour would willingly associate themselves with a known paedophile, even with the current leadership.
It's sad that the Spiegel has just turned into Mrs Merkel's mouthpiece over the last few years. They have almost zero independent thinking.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the EU members despite a lot of "positive" talk ultimately do not care if the UK REMAINs or not. They would prefer that outcome but not at any price.
So today we have Merkel's mouthpiece and Thusk both saying that the agreement is subject to review and modification by the European Parliament AFTER the referendum, and in fact cannot be guaranteed at all. We also have a senior Commission lawyer and an retired ECJ Judge saying that the idea of a "legally binding" agreement on the Treaties is "bullshit". I assume something went right with the negotiations somewhere...
Anyone watching Hammond at the Select committee hearing would have come out totally confused about this issue. He said that as long as there were "binding" agreements then treaty changes could wait and at the next treaty change opening any such "agreements" could be ratified.
It begs the question what if 1 out of 28 did not ratify.
If Cameron needs Euro Parliament to sign off, why don't he just postpone referendum until they've done that??
Cameron could come back saying his negotiations have revealed that a semi-detached EU membership is, contrary to his former belief, an impossibility. An associate membership deal cannot be agreed. And so the choice before the British people is in with closer integration, or out.
So today we have Merkel's mouthpiece and Thusk both saying that the agreement is subject to review and modification by the European Parliament AFTER the referendum, and in fact cannot be guaranteed at all. We also have a senior Commission lawyer and an retired ECJ Judge saying that the idea of a "legally binding" agreement on the Treaties is "bullshit". I assume something went right with the negotiations somewhere...
Anyone watching Hammond at the Select committee hearing would have come out totally confused about this issue. He said that as long as there were "binding" agreements then treaty changes could wait and at the next treaty change opening any such "agreements" could be ratified.
It begs the question what if 1 out of 28 did not ratify.
Indeed. It also means he was lying
The government contends that a promise to change the Treaties after the poll can be legally binding. That is not the case. The former director general of the Legal Service of the Council of the European Union, Jean-Claude Piris, has said that the notion of a binding promise to change the Treaties in the future is “bullshit”. Sir Konrad Schiemann, the UK’s former judge in the ECJ, agrees with him.
The fact he's joined means nothing, its how Labour respond that should be judged.
Well they are trying to kick him out. I highly doubt Labour would willingly associate themselves with a known paedophile, even with the current leadership.
That's my point, kick him out and job done. Stage managed or am I being cynical?
I see that Tom O'Carroll, former head of Paedophile Information Exchange, has joined the Labour Party, according to the Times.
And been suspended, when some of the few sensible Labour MPs left (yes, there are some) raised merry hell.
There's some rule preventing them from expelling him pdq - though frankly I'd take whatever legal risk they might run.
They'd be stupid not to follow procedure. A legal challenge forcing them to take him back would look even worse. The worst of damage is already done though.
Do political parties do due diligence on membership applications? I wouldn't have known who this guy was and I'd like to know how it comes to light (unless he's shouting it from the rooftops that Labour let him in).
There was a big story about him and PIE and Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt and the NCCL about 2 years back. All over the press. The Labour party made a big fuss about the Mail smear campaign on Harman and co. Is everyone in the Labour party deaf, dumb and blind?
But the administrator processing the application wouldn't see the name Tom O'Carroll and immediately recall who he was. I'm not defending the Labour Party - I'm just wondering what lengths parties can and do go to to prevent bad press.
Weren't they doing a lot of checking over the 3-quidders who joined prior to the leadership election in order to ensure that, gasp!, Tories were not allowed to infiltrate the party? So they clearly are able and on occasion willing to do some due diligence.
There will be a questionnaire, I imagine. I don't know. Perhaps someone can tell us. Maybe they might even have a list of people who are not allowed to join. Of course no procedure is faultless. But this person created a lot of grief for the Labour party a couple of years ago (as a result of the story I cited below) so you'd have thought that someone at some level within the party might have had some corporate memory, if nothing else.
Tom Watson, the Deputy Leader, has made it his mission in life to hunt out paedophiles. Might he perhaps have indicated to staff how important it was that some checks be made to ensure that the Labour party did not end up with such people as members, so that the Labour party did not end up like the hated Tories with their Lord Brittans and others etc etc.....
Or are paedophiles only important when they can be used to make a point about a political opponent? Perish the thought.
So today we have Merkel's mouthpiece and Thusk both saying that the agreement is subject to review and modification by the European Parliament AFTER the referendum, and in fact cannot be guaranteed at all. We also have a senior Commission lawyer and an retired ECJ Judge saying that the idea of a "legally binding" agreement on the Treaties is "bullshit". I assume something went right with the negotiations somewhere...
Anyone watching Hammond at the Select committee hearing would have come out totally confused about this issue. He said that as long as there were "binding" agreements then treaty changes could wait and at the next treaty change opening any such "agreements" could be ratified.
It begs the question what if 1 out of 28 did not ratify.
Which is why we need 27 signatures on a new "Treaty of London" before the referendum goes ahead.
So today we have Merkel's mouthpiece and Thusk both saying that the agreement is subject to review and modification by the European Parliament AFTER the referendum, and in fact cannot be guaranteed at all. We also have a senior Commission lawyer and an retired ECJ Judge saying that the idea of a "legally binding" agreement on the Treaties is "bullshit". I assume something went right with the negotiations somewhere...
Anyone watching Hammond at the Select committee hearing would have come out totally confused about this issue. He said that as long as there were "binding" agreements then treaty changes could wait and at the next treaty change opening any such "agreements" could be ratified.
It begs the question what if 1 out of 28 did not ratify.
Indeed. It also means he was lying
The government contends that a promise to change the Treaties after the poll can be legally binding. That is not the case. The former director general of the Legal Service of the Council of the European Union, Jean-Claude Piris, has said that the notion of a binding promise to change the Treaties in the future is “bullshit”. Sir Konrad Schiemann, the UK’s former judge in the ECJ, agrees with him.
I pointed this out to Nabavi, when I was still able to talk to him without losing my temper. He blithely insisted that legally binding meant legally binding just because.
It's ludicrous. They take us for fools.
You did. I did. Mr Nabavi, lovely man though he is, is not a lawyer. He is eternally optimistic, however. Generally a wonderful quality to have. Though not in negotiations, I find.
Incidentally I also "feel European" but that doesn't lead me to having negative feelings about the UK. On the contrary it's my favourite European country.
I sometimes think the basic divide in politics is between the woe-is-us-everything-is-shit brigade (on left and right) and sensibly optimisitic people.
Yes, I think that's right. A lot of people on the fringes of politics adopt outrageous positions in reaction to other people's outrageous positions (our own SeanT is not immune to it), so people who are anti-nationalist sometimes portray themselves as (and for all I know actually are) actively hostile to Britain.
I'm pretty much in your camp. I'm not sure I have a favourite European country, but although I like the lifestyle in Norway I do feel more at home here, and think there are plenty of ways that we shine, without being quite as different from everyone else as we like to think.
If I were to emigrate, it would probably be to somewhere on the Adriatic.
Mr Palmer's post stuck a cord with me. The other evening Herself and I were again talking about moving and where we might move to as Sussex is becoming too awful. The choice quickly boiled down to the Southern part of the Netherlands or somewhere around Coimbra in Portugal, both places where we feel comfortable and at home.
It is all a bit odd because both countries are firmly bound up with the EU project and I am, and have been for decades, firmly of the belief that the EU is a bad thing and the UK would be much better of out of it.
You constantly eulogise Sussex - and fair enough, it's a beautiful county, in parts
What's happened to make it "awful"?!
Sussex is still a beautiful County, in parts, however its population is increasing very rapidly and by a very large measure but without a commensurate increase in essential infrastructure (transport and health especially). As a result the quality of life is declining below a level we feel acceptable. Hence it is time for us to move.
Hurst, move to God's country , you will be able to have a mansion , go abroad when weather is poor and still have lots of cash left over.
So today we have Merkel's mouthpiece and Thusk both saying that the agreement is subject to review and modification by the European Parliament AFTER the referendum, and in fact cannot be guaranteed at all. We also have a senior Commission lawyer and an retired ECJ Judge saying that the idea of a "legally binding" agreement on the Treaties is "bullshit". I assume something went right with the negotiations somewhere...
Anyone watching Hammond at the Select committee hearing would have come out totally confused about this issue. He said that as long as there were "binding" agreements then treaty changes could wait and at the next treaty change opening any such "agreements" could be ratified.
It begs the question what if 1 out of 28 did not ratify.
Which is why we need 27 signatures on a new "Treaty of London" before the referendum goes ahead.
Mr Hammond surprised MPs on the Commons European scrutiny committee by revealing that the Government does not believe any of the changes negotiated by Mr Cameron require treaty change to take effect.
Speaking in January last year, before the General Election, Mr Cameron said his demands were so far-reaching they would require 'proper, full-on treaty change'.
But Mr Hammond told MPs yesterday: 'Nothing in this package requires treaty change.'
I see that Tom O'Carroll, former head of Paedophile Information Exchange, has joined the Labour Party, according to the Times.
And been suspended, when some of the few sensible Labour MPs left (yes, there are some) raised merry hell.
There's some rule preventing them from expelling him pdq - though frankly I'd take whatever legal risk they might run.
They'd be stupid not to follow procedure. A legal challenge forcing them to take him back would look even worse. The worst of damage is already done though.
Do political parties do due diligence on membership applications? I wouldn't have known who this guy was and I'd like to know how it comes to light (unless he's shouting it from the rooftops that Labour let him in).
There was a big story about him and PIE and Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt and the NCCL about 2 years back. All over the press. The Labour party made a big fuss about the Mail smear campaign on Harman and co. Is everyone in the Labour party deaf, dumb and blind?
But the administrator processing the application wouldn't see the name Tom O'Carroll and immediately recall who he was. I'm not defending the Labour Party - I'm just wondering what lengths parties can and do go to to prevent bad press.
Weren't they doing a lot of checking over the 3-quidders who joined prior to the leadership election in order to ensure that, gasp!, Tories were not allowed to infiltrate the party? So they clearly are able and on occasion willing to do some due diligence.
There will be a questionnaire, I imagine. I don't know. Perhaps someone can tell us. Maybe they might even have a list of people who are not allowed to join. Of course no procedure is faultless. But this person created a lot of grief for the Labour party a couple of years ago (as a result of the story I cited below) so you'd have thought that someone at some level within the party might have had some corporate memory, if nothing else.
Tom Watson, the Deputy Leader, has made it his mission in life to hunt out paedophiles. Might he perhaps have indicated to staff how important it was that some checks be made to ensure that the Labour party did not end up with such people as members, so that the Labour party did not end up like the hated Tories with their Lord Brittans and others etc etc.....
Or are paedophiles only important when they can be used to make a point about a political opponent? Perish the thought.
Does the Conservative Party do such vetting? Iirc I just clicked on a button and they took my money.
@GuyVerhofstadt: If Britain doesn't want to be part of further political integration of EU, let's respect & recognise this fact in the treaties #UKinEU
Guy Verhofstadt as dependable as Peter Mandelson crossing his fingers at a tell a whopper competition
If Cameron needs Euro Parliament to sign off, why don't he just postpone referendum until they've done that??
Cameron could come back saying his negotiations have revealed that a semi-detached EU membership is, contrary to his former belief, an impossibility. An associate membership deal cannot be agreed. And so the choice before the British people is in with closer integration, or out.
He hasn't asked for associate membership. Some EU people have suggested that this may be the best solution to square the circle between what the UK wants and the rest of the EU. I'm puzzled why this is not being explored.
It's sad that the Spiegel has just turned into Mrs Merkel's mouthpiece over the last few years. They have almost zero independent thinking.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the EU members despite a lot of "positive" talk ultimately do not care if the UK REMAINs or not. They would prefer that outcome but not at any price.
Not sure it's that. I think many EU governments are genuinely eager, even desperate, for the UK to stay, but there are elements within the elites of France, Germany, Spain, etc, which would be keen to see the UK gone.
Being Federalists, these rogue elements tend to occupy senior places in the EU bureaucracy - like Schulz in the EP. So they cannot be controlled, and they are deliberately fucking up "the deal", so the UK will Leave.
I occasionally like to try and squint a bit to see how an arch-federalist might see things. Were I one, I would be delighted with Brexit, particularly if I could make things miserable for the Brits (deterring any like-minded countries), and could then proceed with the full integration that the EZ needs.
The UK is (as far as they are concerned) both a fully paid-up member of the awkward squad, and potent as a large net contributor and an icon for the Anglo-American way. With the UK out of the way, it's Paris, Berlin, a couple of middleweights (Rome, Madrid) and a bunch of tiddlers who will, ultimately, do as their told.
Incidentally I also "feel European" but that doesn't lead me to having negative feelings about the UK. On the contrary it's my favourite European country.
I sometimes think the basic divide in politics is between the woe-is-us-everything-is-shit brigade (on left and right) and sensibly optimisitic people.
Yes, I think that's right. A lot of people on the fringes of politics adopt outrageous positions in reaction to other people's outrageous positions (our own SeanT is not immune to it), so people who are anti-nationalist sometimes portray themselves as (and for all I know actually are) actively hostile to Britain.
I'm pretty much in your camp. I'm not sure I have a favourite European country, but although I like the lifestyle in Norway I do feel more at home here, and think there are plenty of ways that we shine, without being quite as different from everyone else as we like to think.
If I were to emigrate, it would probably be to somewhere on the Adriatic.
Mr Palmer's post stuck a cord with me. The other evening Herself and I were again talking about moving and where we might move to as Sussex is becoming too awful. The choice quickly boiled down to the Southern part of the Netherlands or somewhere around Coimbra in Portugal, both places where we feel comfortable and at home.
It is all a bit odd because both countries are firmly bound up with the EU project and I am, and have been for decades, firmly of the belief that the EU is a bad thing and the UK would be much better of out of it.
You constantly eulogise Sussex - and fair enough, it's a beautiful county, in parts
What's happened to make it "awful"?!
Sussex is still a beautiful County, in parts, however its population is increasing very rapidly and by a very large measure but without a commensurate increase in essential infrastructure (transport and health especially). As a result the quality of life is declining below a level we feel acceptable. Hence it is time for us to move.
Hurst, move to God's country , you will be able to have a mansion , go abroad when weather is poor and still have lots of cash left over.
Genius idea. Not.
Move to Scotland, lose a fortune on a depreciating asset, and then get ripped off selling it to a local politician in a hooky property deal.
Comments
Union flag flown upside down at European Parliament for Cameron visit... Traditionally a distress signal https://t.co/0lfYEHWM0H
REMAIN = Remains = Death
If they don't, they risk any legal challenge going against them which would make it look as if they had to accept him as a member permanently (when in fact it would mean they'd just have to reinstate it until they could expel him legally).
b) because he agreed not to!
(a. means he is an optimist, it is going to happen way before the referendum, and b. means he is an idiot)
Cameron doesn't have a good hand using any yardstick. It may give him added credibility cojones too if he positions it right.
But that allows time for further Cologne style migrant issues to fuel Brexit.
It begs the question what if 1 out of 28 did not ratify.
South Carolina, post debate poll:
Trump: 35
Cruz: 18
Rubio: 18
Kasich: 10
Jeb: 7
Carson: 7
PPP
There will be a questionnaire, I imagine. I don't know. Perhaps someone can tell us. Maybe they might even have a list of people who are not allowed to join. Of course no procedure is faultless. But this person created a lot of grief for the Labour party a couple of years ago (as a result of the story I cited below) so you'd have thought that someone at some level within the party might have had some corporate memory, if nothing else.
Tom Watson, the Deputy Leader, has made it his mission in life to hunt out paedophiles. Might he perhaps have indicated to staff how important it was that some checks be made to ensure that the Labour party did not end up with such people as members, so that the Labour party did not end up like the hated Tories with their Lord Brittans and others etc etc.....
Or are paedophiles only important when they can be used to make a point about a political opponent? Perish the thought.
He knows how toxic it was to Brown to bottle the election that never was because he thought he would lose.
It's ludicrous. They take us for fools.
You did. I did. Mr Nabavi, lovely man though he is, is not a lawyer. He is eternally optimistic, however. Generally a wonderful quality to have. Though not in negotiations, I find.
Both have Leave ahead.
Need to factor in last minute swingback.
Speaking in January last year, before the General Election, Mr Cameron said his demands were so far-reaching they would require 'proper, full-on treaty change'.
But Mr Hammond told MPs yesterday: 'Nothing in this package requires treaty change.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3441505/Up-100-Tories-ready-campaign-leave-EU-Chairman-1922-committee-makes-prediction-Downing-Street-said-panic-referendum.html#ixzz40Kq9WHmY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
https://twitter.com/jakewsimons/status/699572539547320320
South Carolina poll :
Clinton 55%
Sanders 34%
Black vote:
Clinton 63%
Sanders 23%
PPP
I love Scotland with a passion, but you have to press on regardless through the weather, not be cowed by it!
The UK is (as far as they are concerned) both a fully paid-up member of the awkward squad, and potent as a large net contributor and an icon for the Anglo-American way. With the UK out of the way, it's Paris, Berlin, a couple of middleweights (Rome, Madrid) and a bunch of tiddlers who will, ultimately, do as their told.
Move to Scotland, lose a fortune on a depreciating asset, and then get ripped off selling it to a local politician in a hooky property deal.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3449293/Moroccan-Cologne-sex-attack-suspect-arrested-bragging-TV-leading-gang-migrant-pickpockets-target-women-victim-recognises-him.html
Merkel's Germany..Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.