@Cyclefree. As you well know, entrance to law firms is fiercely competitive. In that sense the work placements etc are no different to the personal statements which dominate UCAS entries. In my experience though, law firms do take into account backgrounds and as even the London firms become international the approach have changed (although one could equally argue that this means that the Eurotrash element in trainee intakes has increased because UK state schools don't do languages).
Having been involved with recruitment both in private practice and in house, I can honestly say that firms are looking to widen their net. Unfortunately, perhaps, exam results are an objective clue to ability. When one has 3000 applications for perhaps 70 (and declining) training contracts, there has to be an initial sorting.
You are perhaps more charitable than I about people and their ability to examine and understand facts prior to jumping to conclusions. That reflects fact better on you than me.
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
Clinton has to be the bumbling President. As for Trump and his sexual exploits (alleged or otherwise), he talks a lot. There is, I have sometimes observed, an inverse relationship between how much a man talks about these matters and his actual performance. But, frankly, I'd rather not go there. I still have my dinner to eat.
Fair enough Cyclefree, I certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for spoiling your appetite. I've already eaten and I must confess going further might not aid digestion...
I had always know that there had been one rejection of a strike in a ballot but I never realised there were as many as three.
Which is sad. Had they gone on strike before March 1985 they would have been in a stronger position because coal stocks were lower.
Robert Blake, in his history of the Conservative party, strongly implied that the pit closures were delayed (and therefore the strike) until there were huge reserve piles at the power stations.
At that point, even if Scargill had not been possessed of the tactical acumen of a squashed roast potato, the self awareness of a Donald Trump and the democratic credentials of a despot, the government held all the aces.
Whether it's true I don't know, but Blake was pretty well-informed and it seems possible.
Charles Moore says much the same thing in his biography of Thatcher. The Tories knew a strike was coming. They paid off the miners earlier on but then made sure they were well prepared.
No-one now remembers that Thatcher made tactical concessions initially, which proves that in politics winning the war is more important than winning the battle.
I trust Trump with the nuclear button more than I do Clinton. She is part of a military-industrial complex which seems hell bent onot provoking military engagements with Russia, and in driving the deployment of forward troops and dual use conventional/nuclear systems into countries surrounding Russia. He is the one who respects Putin and references the open Russian response to things like American ABM systems which is a new generation of ICBMS.
So yes, I'll have him in control over a warmongering lunatic.
Is it still possible we might end up with neither of them? The planet would be much safer and I've still got lots of things I want to do.
I still like your students suggestion of Donald shooting Hillary, then being executed. Kaine being elected on a wave of sympathy.
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
They will doubtless be hoping we do not attempt to sit on them in negotiations...
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
I had always know that there had been one rejection of a strike in a ballot but I never realised there were as many as three.
Which is sad. Had they gone on strike before March 1985 they would have been in a stronger position because coal stocks were lower.
Robert Blake, in his history of the Conservative party, strongly implied that the pit closures were delayed (and therefore the strike) until there were huge reserve piles at the power stations.
At that point, even if Scargill had not been possessed of the tactical acumen of a squashed roast potato, the self awareness of a Donald Trump and the democratic credentials of a despot, the government held all the aces.
Whether it's true I don't know, but Blake was pretty well-informed and it seems possible.
Indeed.
Which is one of the reasons why Scargill forced the strike in the spring of 1984.
If he had waited until the autumn then the coal stocks would have been even higher.
The irony is that it was Scargill's refusal to support any pit closures which partly led to so much coal being above ground in 1984.
Thanks for that information. I have always wondered why he struck at the start of the summer. Even a radical left writer like John Farnham described it as 'a stupid time to have a fuel strike.' But in that context it suddenly makes more sense.
I trust Trump with the nuclear button more than I do Clinton. She is part of a military-industrial complex which seems hell bent onot provoking military engagements with Russia, and in driving the deployment of forward troops and dual use conventional/nuclear systems into countries surrounding Russia. He is the one who respects Putin and references the open Russian response to things like American ABM systems which is a new generation of ICBMS.
So yes, I'll have him in control over a warmongering lunatic.
Quite. As I said before foreign-policy wise she's a neocon, there's a reason Bush will vote for her! Expect more conflicts in the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation if she gets elected.
Besides the reality is the government machine will chaperone him to death.
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
More expensive imported food will hopefully improve Britain's health and visuals.
I trust Trump with the nuclear button more than I do Clinton. She is part of a military-industrial complex which seems hell bent onot provoking military engagements with Russia, and in driving the deployment of forward troops and dual use conventional/nuclear systems into countries surrounding Russia. He is the one who respects Putin and references the open Russian response to things like American ABM systems which is a new generation of ICBMS.
So yes, I'll have him in control over a warmongering lunatic.
Is it still possible we might end up with neither of them? The planet would be much safer and I've still got lots of things I want to do.
I still like your students suggestion of Donald shooting Hillary, then being executed. Kaine being elected on a wave of sympathy.
Works for me!
Works for the planet too!
And speaking of work, I'm off for tonight. Have a good evening everyone.
On the orgreave investigation, I abstained when this was voted on at our labour branch meeting a few weeks ago. It doesn't make sense to me that the labour party should make this a priority right now. No one died and its not Hillsborough. It is one of many examples of historical injustice and represents a naval gazing left wing obsession that is unlikely to resonate outside labour party circles. The labour party are 17 points behind in the polls, we urgently need to plan our way back to power and this isn't the way to do it.
The motion passed, but what was interesting is that an activist from momentum and another Corbyn supporter joined me in abstaining.
I had always know that there had been one rejection of a strike in a ballot but I never realised there were as many as three.
Which is sad. Had they gone on strike before March 1985 they would have been in a stronger position because coal stocks were lower.
Robert Blake, in his history of the Conservative party, strongly implied that the pit closures were delayed (and therefore the strike) until there were huge reserve piles at the power stations.
At that point, even if Scargill had not been possessed of the tactical acumen of a squashed roast potato, the self awareness of a Donald Trump and the democratic credentials of a despot, the government held all the aces.
Thatcher and co had been planning for a strike since 1977: the "Ridley Plan". The Ridley report is online.
One has to blame not Scargill but the miners for voting (democratically) before 1984 against a national strike. Had they not come out on strike without a national ballot in March 1984 it's not exactly as if the industry wouldn't have been smashed, is it? The NCB, the Tory leadership and the City got the strike at the time they wanted it.
As for Scargill, he's not the Messiah but before insulting his tactical acumen did you consider his role at the Saltley Coke Depot in 1972?
The most puzzling thing about Richmond is that very wealthy people spend such huge amounts to live there. House prices are astronomical, but the noise is absolutely fearsome - you really have to spend a few days and nights there to understand quite how fearsome. It is far worse than the noise in some of the neighbouring constituencies. Because the flight paths are very narrow so close to the airport, the degree of noise does vary over quite short distances, but house prices remain astronomical even in the worst-affected parts.
From my experiences Richmond Town doesn't have planes flying overhead whereas they do in Barnes and Putney.
I can certainly see why the residents of such a nice (and expensive) place as Richmond Town are thus against LH3.
@Cyclefree. As you well know, entrance to law firms is fiercely competitive. In that sense the work placements etc are no different to the personal statements which dominate UCAS entries. In my experience though, law firms do take into account backgrounds and as even the London firms become international the approach have changed (although one could equally argue that this means that the Eurotrash element in trainee intakes has increased because UK state schools don't do languages).
Having been involved with recruitment both in private practice and in house, I can honestly say that firms are looking to widen their net. Unfortunately, perhaps, exam results are an objective clue to ability. When one has 3000 applications for perhaps 70 (and declining) training contracts, there has to be an initial sorting.
You are perhaps more charitable than I about people and their ability to examine and understand facts prior to jumping to conclusions. That reflects fact better on you than me.
All true (and thank you for the nice compliment).
Exams are a good measure of ability to do the academic work, though even that can be overrated. But being a good lawyer is about more than academic ability. There are plenty of lawyers I encounter - everyone from trainees all the way to senior partners - who seem less than they seem, despite having it all on paper.
Certainly when I recruit I look less at the exams and more at (a) why they are interested in law - to weed out those who do it because they think that it's a nice high earning middle class profession to be in. I want to see someone who can explain why the law (not all the associated goodies) attracted them; and (b) how they respond to the unexpected (particularly relevant in my area). It's less about having the right answer and more about seeing what their initial/instinctive reaction is. What will this this person do or say when no-one's looking, when there is no process or manual or manager to tell them, no 'obvious' answer.
I had always know that there had been one rejection of a strike in a ballot but I never realised there were as many as three.
Which is sad. Had they gone on strike before March 1985 they would have been in a stronger position because coal stocks were lower.
Robert Blake, in his history of the Conservative party, strongly implied that the pit closures were delayed (and therefore the strike) until there were huge reserve piles at the power stations.
At that point, even if Scargill had not been possessed of the tactical acumen of a squashed roast potato, the self awareness of a Donald Trump and the democratic credentials of a despot, the government held all the aces.
Whether it's true I don't know, but Blake was pretty well-informed and it seems possible.
Charles Moore says much the same thing in his biography of Thatcher. The Tories knew a strike was coming. They paid off the miners earlier on but then made sure they were well prepared.
The NUM's biggest strategic mistake was to go ahead with the strike despite the votes against it. It meant that the political nature of the strike was highlighted, put Labour in a very difficult position and pissed off many who did not like the "rules are for others" approach of the NUM leadership.
Having seen off one Tory government using bully boy tactics, the NUM thought they were invincible.
Hubris.
They had only themselves to blame for their downfall.
The Orgreave enquiry demands spring from the Hillsbrough enquiry.
It's good to see PB returning to type in its views of the white working class.
I think that is unfair, Mr O. I have been quite vocal earlier on this thread in my belief that an inquiry is needed into police culture - and how one might be done - as well as into their behavior in Rotherham and elsewhere.
Just because one does not agree with a particular inquiry or a particular form of an inquiry does not mean that one hates the white working class.
The miners were not angels in the strike and the behavior of some of them was appalling. But even if they behaved badly at Orgreave (or elsewhere) this does not excuse bad behavior by the police, not least because all of us are affected if the bodies responsible for our criminal and judicial system behave badly.
It is possible to:-
1. Think that some miners behaved appallingly and/or were very badly led by their union leaders. 2. Feel sympathy for mining communities who underwent significant change to long-standing communities, even if this was economically necessary. There is a human element which is too often forgotten and the tone of many in government at the time seemed quite harsh and unforgiving about the human consequences of such change. 3. Be critical of police behavior and want that looked into; and 4. Be disgusted at the utterly hypocritical stance taken by Labour which did nothing to address this issue when it was in a position to do so and seems (perhaps only to a cynic such as me) only interested in the white working class when it can be used for some ulterior purpose e.g. bashing the Tories. Where were Labour MPs decrying the social changes to long-standing working class communities caused by mass immigration, for instance?
all at the same time. Having one of these thoughts in one's head does not preclude having others as well.
I asked earlier but missed a couple of hours on here - if I wanted to go to bed early and get up to watch the election what time in the UK do results start coming in? 10pm Eastern is 3am, is that too early or too late...?
Howard Kurtosis CNN has accepted Donna Brazile's resignation, saying it is "completely uncomfortable" with her leaking Qs in advance to the Clinton camp
It#s all unravelling for the Democrats.You are going to be proved right.
A couple of thoughts...... ( still trying to avoid being dragged into this farce)
1) In any live debate having prior knowledge of the questions must give that person a massive advantage.
2) People watching the debate were being defrauded because they believed they were seeing something from a reputable organisation that simply wasn't true.
3) CNN are only "completely uncomfortable? They should be at least annoyed perhaps angry but uncomfortable??
At least CNN have partially corrected the failure by the resignation but irrespective of that HRC has cheated in the debate, cheated the public and gained an advantage in "winning" the debate. It plays right into the "crooked Hilary" line of attack and Trump is going to go to town on this latest info.
On topic: I can't understand why that article on Labour uncut has the status of a 'must read'. Since when did the EU indicate that 'sectoral free movement' or 'regional free movement' is on the table? They've been extremely clear that free movement is free movement, something universal and access to the single market is dependent on it. The fact that some promises to Nissan were made by HMG does not change that, they may have just promised that they would underwrite any costs resulting from Brexit which means they will now need to do the same to every foreign investor with some kind of stake in the single market.
I think it's rather sweet that Labour MPs have found something they can all unite around and pretend to be outraged about, even if they did have to go back 32 years to find it.
It's pathetic in the extreme
they had 13 years to call an enquiry, why didnt they?
Because they had grown up serious people in charge?
I had always know that there had been one rejection of a strike in a ballot but I never realised there were as many as three.
Which is sad. Had they gone on strike before March 1985 they would have been in a stronger position because coal stocks were lower.
Robert Blake, in his history of the Conservative party, strongly implied that the pit closures were delayed (and therefore the strike) until there were huge reserve piles at the power stations.
At that point, even if Scargill had not been possessed of the tactical acumen of a squashed roast potato, the self awareness of a Donald Trump and the democratic credentials of a despot, the government held all the aces.
Whether it's true I don't know, but Blake was pretty well-informed and it seems possible.
Charles Moore says much the same thing in his biography of Thatcher. The Tories knew a strike was coming. They paid off the miners earlier on but then made sure they were well prepared.
The NUM's biggest strategic mistake was to go ahead with the strike despite the votes against it. It meant that the political nature of the strike was highlighted, put Labour in a very difficult position and pissed off many who did not like the "rules are for others" approach of the NUM leadership.
Having seen off one Tory government using bully boy tactics, the NUM thought they were invincible.
Hubris.
They had only themselves to blame for their downfall.
No group, no individual should ever be allowed to think of themselves as indispensable. It only leads to disaster, eventually.
Nonetheless, one can accept what you say while still decrying the triumphalism that some in the then government showed about those affected and hurt by what happened (glorying in the fact that people will lose their jobs - even if this is economically necessary - is not classy, to put it mildly) and feeling sorry for those who saw radical change to their communities in a way which most of us would find uncomfortable and horrible if it happened to us.
I asked earlier but missed a couple of hours on here - if I wanted to go to bed early and get up to watch the election what time in the UK do results start coming in? 10pm Eastern is 3am, is that too early or too late...?
The 1960s Wilson government really shat on the miners. The endless pit closures is well known (with derisory redundancy terms) but pay also stagnated badly:
' During the 1950s, the wages of miners went up from a prewar position of 84th to near the top in the league table of the wages earned by industrial workers, and by 1960, miners' wages were 7.4% above the average pay of workers in manufacturing industries. During the 1960s, however, pay fell behind other workers, and by 1970 were earning 3.1% less than the average worker in manufacturing. '
I think it's rather sweet that Labour MPs have found something they can all unite around and pretend to be outraged about, even if they did have to go back 32 years to find it.
It's pathetic in the extreme
they had 13 years to call an enquiry, why didnt they?
Because they had grown up serious people in charge?
(well, compared to the current Labour party)
Too busy turning themselves into New Labour and being intensely relaxed about being filthy rich probably had something to do with it. Miners were rough people from the past who had no place in cool Britannia and who would anyway vote Labour so could be taken for granted. And with the Tories in bits there was no need to revive the spirit of Orgreave (or any other industrial dispute) to beat them up.
While we know the vote percentages of Presidential elections is there any equivalents of the NEVs that are given for UK local elections for the US mid term elections.
It would be interesting to see what the base vote for each party was.
For example the Conservative NEW was only 25% in 1995:
I had always know that there had been one rejection of a strike in a ballot but I never realised there were as many as three.
Which is sad. Had they gone on strike before March 1985 they would have been in a stronger position because coal stocks were lower.
Robert Blake, in his history of the Conservative party, strongly implied that the pit closures were delayed (and therefore the strike) until there were huge reserve piles at the power stations.
At that point, even if Scargill had not been possessed of the tactical acumen of a squashed roast potato, the self awareness of a Donald Trump and the democratic credentials of a despot, the government held all the aces.
Thatcher and co had been planning for a strike since 1977: the "Ridley Plan". The Ridley report is online.
One has to blame not Scargill but the miners for voting (democratically) before 1984 against a national strike. Had they not come out on strike without a national ballot in March 1984 it's not exactly as if the industry wouldn't have been smashed, is it? The NCB, the Tory leadership and the City got the strike at the time they wanted it.
As for Scargill, he's not the Messiah but before insulting his tactical acumen did you consider his role at the Saltley Coke Depot in 1972?
I've heard about the plans. At least one Lefty I know uses it as evidence that the Tories are evil. "Yeah, how dare they plan for a likely eventuality, how very dare they".
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
I believe @AlastairMeeks shared some research that showed that tendency to vote Leave correlated with waistline - the fatter you were, the more likely to vote Leave. Bizarre but true, apparently.
@Cyclefree. As you well know, entrance to law firms is fiercely competitive. In that sense the work placements etc are no different to the personal statements which dominate UCAS entries. In my experience though, law firms do take into account backgrounds and as even the London firms become international the approach have changed (although one could equally argue that this means that the Eurotrash element in trainee intakes has increased because UK state schools don't do languages).
Having been involved with recruitment both in private practice and in house, I can honestly say that firms are looking to widen their net. Unfortunately, perhaps, exam results are an objective clue to ability. When one has 3000 applications for perhaps 70 (and declining) training contracts, there has to be an initial sorting.
You are perhaps more charitable than I about people and their ability to examine and understand facts prior to jumping to conclusions. That reflects fact better on you than me.
All true (and thank you for the nice compliment).
Exams are a good measure of ability to do the academic work, though even that can be overrated. But being a good lawyer is about more than academic ability. There are plenty of lawyers I encounter - everyone from trainees all the way to senior partners - who seem less than they seem, despite having it all on paper.
Certainly when I recruit I look less at the exams and more at (a) why they are interested in law - to weed out those who do it because they think that it's a nice high earning middle class profession to be in. I want to see someone who can explain why the law (not all the associated goodies) attracted them; and (b) how they respond to the unexpected (particularly relevant in my area). It's less about having the right answer and more about seeing what their initial/instinctive reaction is. What will this this person do or say when no-one's looking, when there is no process or manual or manager to tell them, no 'obvious' answer.
It's a great deal easier to recruit post-qualified than trainees. Your question (a) is traditional but different answers are rare. And anyone who says that it's because they have a deep and abiding love for the law should be treated with suspicion. They certainly won't enjoy bring in a corporate culture.....
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
I believe @AlastairMeeks shared some research that showed that tendency to vote Leave correlated with waistline - the fatter you were, the more likely to vote Leave. Bizarre but true, apparently.
I look forward to the correlation between respecting democracy and Remoaning...
Mr. Matt, thanks for that well-considered reply to a post about police failures relating to 1,400 children being sexually assaulted.
Morris...that 1400 was an extrapolated (made up/fantasy) figure by Jay. I think the number of convictions is in the tens. and similarly the number of victims in in the tens who have since come forward to legal firms. So where are all these other hundreds upon hundreds hiding themselves? In the figment of Jay's ludicrous, self serving imagination which no-one has challenged.
I thought that 1400 figure was an absolute nonsense when she first presented it. I think the child abuse enquiry is a joke, and they have appointed a joker (Jay) to oversee it now, on top of the other jokers previously. Jay's an academic with an agenda that has given her loads of publicity.
And...... it is something I know more than a little about. I processed data on child protection in much bigger places than Rotherham. If I had oversight in Rotherham, I would have laughed it out of court and not allowed Jay's report to go unchecked. Now, sadly people like you are quoting these ridiculous figures as fact.
I'm sure there's someone who can whistleblow Jay out there and put an end to that 1400 nonsense
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
I believe @AlastairMeeks shared some research that showed that tendency to vote Leave correlated with waistline - the fatter you were, the more likely to vote Leave. Bizarre but true, apparently.
Jobabob, you will be believing in Bogy Men next. Halloween is made just for the childish likes of you, and others like you.
Howard Kurtosis CNN has accepted Donna Brazile's resignation, saying it is "completely uncomfortable" with her leaking Qs in advance to the Clinton camp
It#s all unravelling for the Democrats.You are going to be proved right.
A couple of thoughts...... ( still trying to avoid being dragged into this farce)
1) In any live debate having prior knowledge of the questions must give that person a massive advantage.
2) People watching the debate were being defrauded because they believed they were seeing something from a reputable organisation that simply wasn't true.
3) CNN are only "completely uncomfortable? They should be at least annoyed perhaps angry but uncomfortable??
At least CNN have partially corrected the failure by the resignation but irrespective of that HRC has cheated in the debate, cheated the public and gained an advantage in "winning" the debate. It plays right into the "crooked Hilary" line of attack and Trump is going to go to town on this latest info.
It was a democrat primary town hall in Flint and the question was "How will you help Flint".
If Clinton got an advantage from knowing that question was coming she is the shitest politician ever.
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
I believe @AlastairMeeks shared some research that showed that tendency to vote Leave correlated with waistline - the fatter you were, the more likely to vote Leave. Bizarre but true, apparently.
Older people voted Leave. And older people tend to be fatter?
I asked earlier but missed a couple of hours on here - if I wanted to go to bed early and get up to watch the election what time in the UK do results start coming in? 10pm Eastern is 3am, is that too early or too late...?
Poll close in some states close at 7:00pm EST.
Indiana and Kentucky are the earliest states to close.
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
I believe @AlastairMeeks shared some research that showed that tendency to vote Leave correlated with waistline - the fatter you were, the more likely to vote Leave. Bizarre but true, apparently.
Older voters have larger waists and older voters broke quite heavily for leave.
I suspect that's how the correlation (if true) works.
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
I believe @AlastairMeeks shared some research that showed that tendency to vote Leave correlated with waistline - the fatter you were, the more likely to vote Leave. Bizarre but true, apparently.
Older people voted Leave. And older people tend to be fatter?
I hope @AlastairMeeks will be on soon to share again. Bizarre research - yet all true, apparently
Exams are a good measure of ability to do the academic work, though even that can be overrated. But being a good lawyer is about more than academic ability. There are plenty of lawyers I encounter - everyone from trainees all the way to senior partners - who seem less than they seem, despite having it all on paper.
Certainly when I recruit I look less at the exams and more at (a) why they are interested in law - to weed out those who do it because they think that it's a nice high earning middle class profession to be in. I want to see someone who can explain why the law (not all the associated goodies) attracted them; and (b) how they respond to the unexpected (particularly relevant in my area). It's less about having the right answer and more about seeing what their initial/instinctive reaction is. What will this this person do or say when no-one's looking, when there is no process or manual or manager to tell them, no 'obvious' answer.
It's a great deal easier to recruit post-qualified than trainees. Your question (a) is traditional but different answers are rare. And anyone who says that it's because they have a deep and abiding love for the law should be treated with suspicion. They certainly won't enjoy bring in a corporate culture.....
It's less love for the law than why the law interests them. I can still answer that question now. If someone gave me that answer I would immediately ask them what about the law do they love. What do they think the law is for and why are they choosing it for them. That's when those who have just given a stock answer rather than their real answer tend to stumble.
Aptitude for the particular area of law you choose is as much about aptitude and personality as academic ability. I was outstanding (academically) at contract law but would rather pull my own teeth out than spend my days writing and rewriting contracts. I much prefer it when they have gone wrong and I have to sort out the resulting mess.
I do agree with you about corporate culture. So many high-flying firms select the best trainees and then systematically beat all traces of originality and personality out of those poor souls.
So you are therefore forecasting that Trump will win the election? If so, say so.
Because you're in charge here, are you?
Nope. I am however, someone who has money on Trump - and thinks he will lose. Unlike the Nudge Nudge Wink Wink Trump rampers, I share my forecasts on here so I can be judged by them. It is a betting site after all - rather than a ramping station for frustrated fanboys.
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
I believe @AlastairMeeks shared some research that showed that tendency to vote Leave correlated with waistline - the fatter you were, the more likely to vote Leave. Bizarre but true, apparently.
Older people voted Leave. And older people tend to be fatter?
I hope @AlastairMeeks will be on soon to share again. Bizarre research - yet all true, apparently
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
I believe @AlastairMeeks shared some research that showed that tendency to vote Leave correlated with waistline - the fatter you were, the more likely to vote Leave. Bizarre but true, apparently.
Older voters have larger waists and older voters broke quite heavily for leave.
I suspect that's how the correlation (if true) works.
If we say that the first 18 years you are not allowed to vote whilst you are developing; it appears more than reasonable to say that for the last 18 years of predicted life you should be excluded to vote whilst your brain is turning to mush (over 65's should not be allowed to vote).
I think pbCOM perfectly demonstrates why our oldies should be excluded from voting. You can almost see how old the poster is by the amount of drivel being spewed out. Obviously JackW would get an exemption just for posterity and all that....
Mr. Matt, thanks for that well-considered reply to a post about police failures relating to 1,400 children being sexually assaulted.
Morris...that 1400 was an extrapolated (made up/fantasy) figure by Jay. I think the number of convictions is in the tens. and similarly the number of victims in in the tens who have since come forward to legal firms. So where are all these other hundreds upon hundreds hiding themselves? In the figment of Jay's ludicrous, self serving imagination which no-one has challenged.
I thought that 1400 figure was an absolute nonsense when she first presented it. I think the child abuse enquiry is a joke, and they have appointed a joker (Jay) to oversee it now, on top of the other jokers previously. Jay's an academic with an agenda that has given her loads of publicity.
And...... it is something I know more than a little about. I processed data on child protection in much bigger places than Rotherham. If I had oversight in Rotherham, I would have laughed it out of court and not allowed Jay's report to go unchecked. Now, sadly people like you are quoting these ridiculous figures as fact.
I'm sure there's someone who can whistleblow Jay out there and put an end to that 1400 nonsense
Well why don't you do so Tyson - instead of giving it big on a niche blog.
Incidentally wasn't your old stamping ground of Oxfordshire another place where the authorities were exposed ?
' Child sexual abuse carried on unabated in Oxfordshire for so long because of catastrophic organisational failure. The highest levels of council management weren’t even briefed until 2011, the report admits, including the Directors of Children’s Services. And yet there have been no resignations so far. The Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children Board (OSCB), astonishingly, ruled out any disciplinary action. '
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
I believe @AlastairMeeks shared some research that showed that tendency to vote Leave correlated with waistline - the fatter you were, the more likely to vote Leave. Bizarre but true, apparently.
Older people voted Leave. And older people tend to be fatter?
I hope @AlastairMeeks will be on soon to share again. Bizarre research - yet all true, apparently
Not really. BMI correlates with social class.
I'm sure it does, but in general terms I bet your average 50-60 year old has a few more excess pounds than your average 20-25 year old.
How was your EDL get together today weejonnie? Were you discussing how you you would replace the litter if it was dropped on one of your little marches. How quaint....
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
I believe @AlastairMeeks shared some research that showed that tendency to vote Leave correlated with waistline - the fatter you were, the more likely to vote Leave. Bizarre but true, apparently.
Older people voted Leave. And older people tend to be fatter?
I hope @AlastairMeeks will be on soon to share again. Bizarre research - yet all true, apparently
Obsesity (clinical rather than abusive) correlates negatively with social (census) class, which in turn correlates positively with education, which correlates negatively with voting leave. Plus middle aged spread, as you say.
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
I believe @AlastairMeeks shared some research that showed that tendency to vote Leave correlated with waistline - the fatter you were, the more likely to vote Leave. Bizarre but true, apparently.
Older voters have larger waists and older voters broke quite heavily for leave.
I suspect that's how the correlation (if true) works.
Mr. Matt, thanks for that well-considered reply to a post about police failures relating to 1,400 children being sexually assaulted.
Morris...that 1400 was an extrapolated (made up/fantasy) figure by Jay. I think the number of convictions is in the tens. and similarly the number of victims in in the tens who have since come forward to legal firms. So where are all these other hundreds upon hundreds hiding themselves? In the figment of Jay's ludicrous, self serving imagination which no-one has challenged.
I thought that 1400 figure was an absolute nonsense when she first presented it. I think the child abuse enquiry is a joke, and they have appointed a joker (Jay) to oversee it now, on top of the other jokers previously. Jay's an academic with an agenda that has given her loads of publicity.
And...... it is something I know more than a little about. I processed data on child protection in much bigger places than Rotherham. If I had oversight in Rotherham, I would have laughed it out of court and not allowed Jay's report to go unchecked. Now, sadly people like you are quoting these ridiculous figures as fact.
I'm sure there's someone who can whistleblow Jay out there and put an end to that 1400 nonsense
257,000 people live in Rotherham. That means about 60,000 children. 1,400 of them being abused is hardly an incredible number.
So you are therefore forecasting that Trump will win the election? If so, say so.
Because you're in charge here, are you?
Nope. I am however, someone who has money on Trump - and thinks he will lose. Unlike the Nudge Nudge Wink Wink Trump rampers, I share my forecasts on here so I can be judged by them. It is a betting site after all - rather than a ramping station for frustrated fanboys.
If you've got money on Trump but still expect him to lose you might be best laying that off in the next couple of days.
I suspect that will be when Trump's odds are the shortest.
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
I believe @AlastairMeeks shared some research that showed that tendency to vote Leave correlated with waistline - the fatter you were, the more likely to vote Leave. Bizarre but true, apparently.
Older people voted Leave. And older people tend to be fatter?
I hope @AlastairMeeks will be on soon to share again. Bizarre research - yet all true, apparently
Not really. BMI correlates with social class.
It is, perhaps unsurprisingly, a bit more complicated than that.
The very poorest deciles are the least overweight, the very richest some of the most but the most overweight banding is roughly the lower-middle, according to income (and the data I saw which dated to arond 2011, 2012).
In America, there are some really strong racial trends in there, as you'd probably expect.
I asked earlier but missed a couple of hours on here - if I wanted to go to bed early and get up to watch the election what time in the UK do results start coming in? 10pm Eastern is 3am, is that too early or too late...?
Poll close in some states close at 7:00pm EST.
Indiana and Kentucky are the earliest states to close.
I think indiana was the first declaraion last time. It should be republican but is slightly hard to interpret because of the Pence effect. I reckon Trump on less than seven percent advantage means Hillary is crap is POTUS. Purely my own guessing stick rather than an AndyJS spreadsheet.
Howard Kurtosis CNN has accepted Donna Brazile's resignation, saying it is "completely uncomfortable" with her leaking Qs in advance to the Clinton camp
It#s all unravelling for the Democrats.You are going to be proved right.
A couple of thoughts...... ( still trying to avoid being dragged into this farce)
1) In any live debate having prior knowledge of the questions must give that person a massive advantage.
2) People watching the debate were being defrauded because they believed they were seeing something from a reputable organisation that simply wasn't true.
3) CNN are only "completely uncomfortable? They should be at least annoyed perhaps angry but uncomfortable??
At least CNN have partially corrected the failure by the resignation but irrespective of that HRC has cheated in the debate, cheated the public and gained an advantage in "winning" the debate. It plays right into the "crooked Hilary" line of attack and Trump is going to go to town on this latest info.
It was a democrat primary town hall in Flint and the question was "How will you help Flint".
If Clinton got an advantage from knowing that question was coming she is the shitest politician ever.
If you follow the CNN statement above it says questionS , plural .....more than one I take that to mean. Clinton should not have been given any of them irrespective of how simple unless other participants were afforded the same courtesy.
As an aside and a casual observer I have noticed there is absolutely nothing that happens in the Clinton camp or election machine you will ever find fault with. I just wonder why you are so rampant all the time about an election few of us can even vote in? It's quite strange really.
For the record I don't care who wins they are both crap in their own endearing ways.
OT. According to Channel 4 the UK has the fattest men in Europe and the second fattest women. No wonder our EU partners weren't sorry to see the back of us.
I believe @AlastairMeeks shared some research that showed that tendency to vote Leave correlated with waistline - the fatter you were, the more likely to vote Leave. Bizarre but true, apparently.
Older people voted Leave. And older people tend to be fatter?
I hope @AlastairMeeks will be on soon to share again. Bizarre research - yet all true, apparently
Not really. BMI correlates with social class.
IIRC it was controlled for social class and age. Wish I could find it.
'I thought that 1400 figure was an absolute nonsense when she first presented it. I think the child abuse enquiry is a joke, and they have appointed a joker (Jay) to oversee it now, on top of the other jokers previously. Jay's an academic with an agenda that has given her loads of publicity. '
Thankfully you were never near the levers of power other than in your dreams.
Mr. Matt, thanks for that well-considered reply to a post about police failures relating to 1,400 children being sexually assaulted.
Morris...that 1400 was an extrapolated (made up/fantasy) figure by Jay. I think the number of convictions is in the tens. and similarly the number of victims in in the tens who have since come forward to legal firms. So where are all these other hundreds upon hundreds hiding themselves? In the figment of Jay's ludicrous, self serving imagination which no-one has challenged.
I thought that 1400 figure was an absolute nonsense when she first presented it. I think the child abuse enquiry is a joke, and they have appointed a joker (Jay) to oversee it now, on top of the other jokers previously. Jay's an academic with an agenda that has given her loads of publicity.
And...... it is something I know more than a little about. I processed data on child protection in much bigger places than Rotherham. If I had oversight in Rotherham, I would have laughed it out of court and not allowed Jay's report to go unchecked. Now, sadly people like you are quoting these ridiculous figures as fact.
I'm sure there's someone who can whistleblow Jay out there and put an end to that 1400 nonsense
257,000 people live in Rotherham. That means about 60,000 children. 1,400 of them being abused is hardly an incredible number.
How was your EDL get together today weejonnie? Were you discussing how you you would replace the litter if it was dropped on one of your little marches. How quaint....
One of the EDLers was discussing his Saturday charity cake sale - it was all going spiffingly until a nasty leftie threw a slice of Battenburg at his gran. Bother!
Mr. Matt, thanks for that well-considered reply to a post about police failures relating to 1,400 children being sexually assaulted.
Morris...that 1400 was an extrapolated (made up/fantasy) figure by Jay. I think the number of convictions is in the tens. and similarly the number of victims in in the tens who have since come forward to legal firms. So where are all these other hundreds upon hundreds hiding themselves? In the figment of Jay's ludicrous, self serving imagination which no-one has challenged.
I thought that 1400 figure was an absolute nonsense when she first presented it. I think the child abuse enquiry is a joke, and they have appointed a joker (Jay) to oversee it now, on top of the other jokers previously. Jay's an academic with an agenda that has given her loads of publicity.
And...... it is something I know more than a little about. I processed data on child protection in much bigger places than Rotherham. If I had oversight in Rotherham, I would have laughed it out of court and not allowed Jay's report to go unchecked. Now, sadly people like you are quoting these ridiculous figures as fact.
I'm sure there's someone who can whistleblow Jay out there and put an end to that 1400 nonsense
You appear to be ignoring the various previous reports and investigations and attempted whistleblowings about what had been going on in the years prior to this report. All of these suggested that CSE was more widespread than had been thought and had affected many more children than just those mentioned in trials (indeed the problem was that there were very few trials precisely because the issue was ignored, the victims derided and potential evidence lost) and many more alleged perpetrators.
1400 may well be an extrapolation. Even if the figure of actual rapes/abuse - of children - remember - is lower, why would this be in any way acceptable? Or something not to be bothered about? Do you have any idea of how awful rape/sexual abuse is for an adult? Let alone for a child? Or of its consequences for that child?
One thing a civilized society does is care for its most vulnerable. And children demand our special care. A society which overlooks our obligations to them, which turns a deaf ear, a blind eye, a cold heart to the abuse of the innocent, the vulnerable is a disgrace.
Come, come Mr Tyson. I really thought better of you. You are so quick to chastise us in Britain for being horrible to foreigners by voting Leave. And yet you dismiss this report so easily. Abuse of children is far more grave and despite all the publicity and acres of newsprint dedicated to this we simply do not take it seriously enough.
Mr. Matt, thanks for that well-considered reply to a post about police failures relating to 1,400 children being sexually assaulted.
Morris...that 1400 was an extrapolated (made up/fantasy) figure by Jay. I think the number of convictions is in the tens. and similarly the number of victims in in the tens who have since come forward to legal firms. So where are all these other hundreds upon hundreds hiding themselves? In the figment of Jay's ludicrous, self serving imagination which no-one has challenged.
I thought that 1400 figure was an absolute nonsense when she first presented it. I think the child abuse enquiry is a joke, and they have appointed a joker (Jay) to oversee it now, on top of the other jokers previously. Jay's an academic with an agenda that has given her loads of publicity.
And...... it is something I know more than a little about. I processed data on child protection in much bigger places than Rotherham. If I had oversight in Rotherham, I would have laughed it out of court and not allowed Jay's report to go unchecked. Now, sadly people like you are quoting these ridiculous figures as fact.
I'm sure there's someone who can whistleblow Jay out there and put an end to that 1400 nonsense
257,000 people live in Rotherham. That means about 60,000 children. 1,400 of them being abused is hardly an incredible number.
Over a 15 year timeline as well.
If anything, the estimate seems rather conservative.
So you are therefore forecasting that Trump will win the election? If so, say so.
Because you're in charge here, are you?
Nope. I am however, someone who has money on Trump - and thinks he will lose. Unlike the Nudge Nudge Wink Wink Trump rampers, I share my forecasts on here so I can be judged by them. It is a betting site after all - rather than a ramping station for frustrated fanboys.
Most of your posts that I see tend to be criticising Tories and 'the PB morning shift', which seems to be code for one particular poster.
Not much betting in those.
I suggested that Trump had an 85% chance of the nomination and a 55% chance of winning. I was a bit worried about that prediction recently, but it seems to be coming back around.
Howard Kurtosis CNN has accepted Donna Brazile's resignation, saying it is "completely uncomfortable" with her leaking Qs in advance to the Clinton camp
It#s all unravelling for the Democrats.You are going to be proved right.
A couple of thoughts...... ( still trying to avoid being dragged into this farce)
1) In any live debate having prior knowledge of the questions must give that person a massive advantage.
2) People watching the debate were being defrauded because they believed they were seeing something from a reputable organisation that simply wasn't true.
3) CNN are only "completely uncomfortable? They should be at least annoyed perhaps angry but uncomfortable??
At least CNN have partially corrected the failure by the resignation but irrespective of that HRC has cheated in the debate, cheated the public and gained an advantage in "winning" the debate. It plays right into the "crooked Hilary" line of attack and Trump is going to go to town on this latest info.
It was a democrat primary town hall in Flint and the question was "How will you help Flint".
If Clinton got an advantage from knowing that question was coming she is the shitest politician ever.
If you follow the CNN statement above it says questionS , plural .....more than one I take that to mean. Clinton should not have been given any of them irrespective of how simple unless other participants were afforded the same courtesy.
As an aside and a casual observer I have noticed there is absolutely nothing that happens in the Clinton camp or election machine you will ever find fault with. I just wonder why you are so rampant all the time about an election few of us can even vote in? It's quite strange really.
For the record I don't care who wins they are both crap in their own endearing ways.
Unlike Trump rampers I actually have money on Hilary.
Well I hedged today against the narrrow Hillary victory. So I make money up to and including 299 Democratic ECVs. To be honest, if it's Hillary 300+ I will be so happy I won't care about losing money!
Howard Kurtosis CNN has accepted Donna Brazile's resignation, saying it is "completely uncomfortable" with her leaking Qs in advance to the Clinton camp
It#s all unravelling for the Democrats.You are going to be proved right.
A couple of thoughts...... ( still trying to avoid being dragged into this farce)
1) In any live debate having prior knowledge of the questions must give that person a massive advantage.
2) People watching the debate were being defrauded because they believed they were seeing something from a reputable organisation that simply wasn't true.
3) CNN are only "completely uncomfortable? They should be at least annoyed perhaps angry but uncomfortable??
At least CNN have partially corrected the failure by the resignation but irrespective of that HRC has cheated in the debate, cheated the public and gained an advantage in "winning" the debate. It plays right into the "crooked Hilary" line of attack and Trump is going to go to town on this latest info.
It was a democrat primary town hall in Flint and the question was "How will you help Flint".
If Clinton got an advantage from knowing that question was coming she is the shitest politician ever.
If you follow the CNN statement above it says questionS , plural .....more than one I take that to mean. Clinton should not have been given any of them irrespective of how simple unless other participants were afforded the same courtesy.
As an aside and a casual observer I have noticed there is absolutely nothing that happens in the Clinton camp or election machine you will ever find fault with. I just wonder why you are so rampant all the time about an election few of us can even vote in? It's quite strange really.
For the record I don't care who wins they are both crap in their own endearing ways.
According to the LA times via wikileaks it was a death penalty question not about Flint. How many more were passed over is not clear of course butt CNN say questions not singular question. Should have been zero whatever the question. Never sure about wiki but the resignation confirms on this occasion or else why resign?
LA times
"According to another email on WikiLeaks, Brazile purportedly tipped off Palmieri that Clinton would get a query regarding her position on the death penalty. The question was posed to the candidate on the March 13 program"
I asked earlier but missed a couple of hours on here - if I wanted to go to bed early and get up to watch the election what time in the UK do results start coming in? 10pm Eastern is 3am, is that too early or too late...?
Poll close in some states close at 7:00pm EST.
Indiana and Kentucky are the earliest states to close.
I think indiana was the first declaraion last time. It should be republican but is slightly hard to interpret because of the Pence effect. I reckon Trump on less than seven percent advantage means Hillary is crap is POTUS. Purely my own guessing stick rather than an AndyJS spreadsheet.
Howard Kurtosis CNN has accepted Donna Brazile's resignation, saying it is "completely uncomfortable" with her leaking Qs in advance to the Clinton camp
It#s all unravelling for the Democrats.You are going to be proved right.
A couple of thoughts...... ( still trying to avoid being dragged into this farce)
1) In any live debate having prior knowledge of the questions must give that person a massive advantage.
2) People watching the debate were being defrauded because they believed they were seeing something from a reputable organisation that simply wasn't true.
3) CNN are only "completely uncomfortable? They should be at least annoyed perhaps angry but uncomfortable??
At least CNN have partially corrected the failure by the resignation but irrespective of that HRC has cheated in the debate, cheated the public and gained an advantage in "winning" the debate. It plays right into the "crooked Hilary" line of attack and Trump is going to go to town on this latest info.
It was a democrat primary town hall in Flint and the question was "How will you help Flint".
If Clinton got an advantage from knowing that question was coming she is the shitest politician ever.
If you follow the CNN statement above it says questionS , plural .....more than one I take that to mean. Clinton should not have been given any of them irrespective of how simple unless other participants were afforded the same courtesy.
As an aside and a casual observer I have noticed there is absolutely nothing that happens in the Clinton camp or election machine you will ever find fault with. I just wonder why you are so rampant all the time about an election few of us can even vote in? It's quite strange really.
For the record I don't care who wins they are both crap in their own endearing ways.
Unlike Trump rampers I actually have money on Hilary.
Well good luck but things like this are not making your hard earned any safer
"According to another email on WikiLeaks, Brazile purportedly tipped off Palmieri that Clinton would get a query regarding her position on the death penalty. The question was posed to the candidate on the March 13 program"
On the other hand Hispanics might prefer her to Obama for the same reason.
Percentage support levels are probably not that different from Obama, but turnout could be. ie black turnout is down and Hispanic turnout up. Unfortunately for Clinton, black voters are more important than Hispanic and Asian voters. That's because Hispanic and Asian voters tend to live in areas that are solidly Democrat, while black voters are more evenly distributed in swing states.
Howard Kurtosis CNN has accepted Donna Brazile's resignation, saying it is "completely uncomfortable" with her leaking Qs in advance to the Clinton camp
It#s all unravelling for the Democrats.You are going to be proved right.
A couple of thoughts...... ( still trying to avoid being dragged into this farce)
1) In any live debate having prior knowledge of the questions must give that person a massive advantage.
2) People watching the debate were being defrauded because they believed they were seeing something from a reputable organisation that simply wasn't true.
3) CNN are only "completely uncomfortable? They should be at least annoyed perhaps angry but uncomfortable??
At least CNN have partially corrected the failure by the resignation but irrespective of that HRC has cheated in the debate, cheated the public and gained an advantage in "winning" the debate. It plays right into the "crooked Hilary" line of attack and Trump is going to go to town on this latest info.
It was a democrat primary town hall in Flint and the question was "How will you help Flint".
If Clinton got an advantage from knowing that question was coming she is the shitest politician ever.
If you follow the CNN statement above it says questionS , plural .....more than one I take that to mean. Clinton should not have been given any of them irrespective of how simple unless other participants were afforded the same courtesy.
As an aside and a casual observer I have noticed there is absolutely nothing that happens in the Clinton camp or election machine you will ever find fault with. I just wonder why you are so rampant all the time about an election few of us can even vote in? It's quite strange really.
For the record I don't care who wins they are both crap in their own endearing ways.
According to the LA times via wikileaks it was a death penalty question not about Flint. How many more were passed over is not clear of course butt CNN say questions not singular question. Should have been zero whatever the question. Never sure about wiki but the resignation confirms on this occasion or else why resign?
LA times
"According to another email on WikiLeaks, Brazile purportedly tipped off Palmieri that Clinton would get a query regarding her position on the death penalty. The question was posed to the candidate on the March 13 program"
And of course - why didn't Clinton reveal she had been passed the question. That surely makes her complicit.
Howard Kurtosis CNN has accepted Donna Brazile's resignation, saying it is "completely uncomfortable" with her leaking Qs in advance to the Clinton camp
It#s all unravelling for the Democrats.You are going to be proved right.
A couple of thoughts...... ( still trying to avoid being dragged into this farce)
1) In any live debate having prior knowledge of the questions must give that person a massive advantage.
2) People watching the debate were being defrauded because they believed they were seeing something from a reputable organisation that simply wasn't true.
3) CNN are only "completely uncomfortable? They should be at least annoyed perhaps angry but uncomfortable??
At least CNN have partially corrected the failure by the resignation but irrespective of that HRC has cheated in the debate, cheated the public and gained an advantage in "winning" the debate. It plays right into the "crooked Hilary" line of attack and Trump is going to go to town on this latest info.
It was a democrat primary town hall in Flint and the question was "How will you help Flint".
If Clinton got an advantage from knowing that question was coming she is the shitest politician ever.
If you follow the CNN statement above it says questionS , plural .....more than one I take that to mean. Clinton should not have been given any of them irrespective of how simple unless other participants were afforded the same courtesy.
As an aside and a casual observer I have noticed there is absolutely nothing that happens in the Clinton camp or election machine you will ever find fault with. I just wonder why you are so rampant all the time about an election few of us can even vote in? It's quite strange really.
For the record I don't care who wins they are both crap in their own endearing ways.
Unlike Trump rampers I actually have money on Hilary.
I have money on both, in the state markets, and these are looking good for me.
I think Hillary has it overall, but will be dogged by impeachment type proceedings from the next day onwards.
If it wasn't for the danger to the world from Trumps beligerence and risk of either trade or hot war, watching POTUS Trump destroy the Republicans could be quite amusing.
Well I hedged today against the narrrow Hillary victory. So I make money up to and including 299 Democratic ECVs. To be honest, if it's Hillary 300+ I will be so happy I won't care about losing money!
So you are therefore forecasting that Trump will win the election? If so, say so.
Because you're in charge here, are you?
Nope. I am however, someone who has money on Trump - and thinks he will lose. Unlike the Nudge Nudge Wink Wink Trump rampers, I share my forecasts on here so I can be judged by them. It is a betting site after all - rather than a ramping station for frustrated fanboys.
Most of your posts that I see tend to be criticising Tories and 'the PB morning shift', which seems to be code for one particular poster.
Not much betting in those.
I suggested that Trump had an 85% chance of the nomination and a 55% chance of winning. I was a bit worried about that prediction recently, but it seems to be coming back around.
That said, I dread either of them winning....
Criticising Tories like TSE, Scott, Felix, Richard N etc whom I have supported and defended recently you mean? I merely asked a ramper to make a forecast - a perfectly reasonable request on a betting forum. You asked who was in charge. Clearly you think that you are!
Comments
Having been involved with recruitment both in private practice and in house, I can honestly say that firms are looking to widen their net. Unfortunately, perhaps, exam results are an objective clue to ability. When one has 3000 applications for perhaps 70 (and declining) training contracts, there has to be an initial sorting.
You are perhaps more charitable than I about people and their ability to examine and understand facts prior to jumping to conclusions. That reflects fact better on you than me.
Works for me!
Besides the reality is the government machine will chaperone him to death.
And speaking of work, I'm off for tonight. Have a good evening everyone.
North Carolina Trump 47 Clinton 45 Johnson 2
Pennsylvania Clinton 45 Trump 43
Colorado Clinton 45 Trump 44
Nevada Trump 48 Clinton 44 Johnson 7
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/Remington_Research_North_Carolina_October_31_2016.pdf
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/Remington_Research_Pennsylvania_October_31_2016.pdf
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/Remington_Research_Colorado_October_31_2016.pdf
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/Remington_Research_Nevada_October_31_2016.pdf
The motion passed, but what was interesting is that an activist from momentum and another Corbyn supporter joined me in abstaining.
One has to blame not Scargill but the miners for voting (democratically) before 1984 against a national strike. Had they not come out on strike without a national ballot in March 1984 it's not exactly as if the industry wouldn't have been smashed, is it? The NCB, the Tory leadership and the City got the strike at the time they wanted it.
As for Scargill, he's not the Messiah but before insulting his tactical acumen did you consider his role at the Saltley Coke Depot in 1972?
I can certainly see why the residents of such a nice (and expensive) place as Richmond Town are thus against LH3.
Exams are a good measure of ability to do the academic work, though even that can be overrated. But being a good lawyer is about more than academic ability. There are plenty of lawyers I encounter - everyone from trainees all the way to senior partners - who seem less than they seem, despite having it all on paper.
Certainly when I recruit I look less at the exams and more at (a) why they are interested in law - to weed out those who do it because they think that it's a nice high earning middle class profession to be in. I want to see someone who can explain why the law (not all the associated goodies) attracted them; and (b) how they respond to the unexpected (particularly relevant in my area). It's less about having the right answer and more about seeing what their initial/instinctive reaction is. What will this this person do or say when no-one's looking, when there is no process or manual or manager to tell them, no 'obvious' answer.
OH - Clinton 48 .. Trump 41
FL - Clinton 43 .. Trump 48
NC - Clinton 44 .. Trump 46
PA - Clinton 44 .. Trump 42
NH - Clinton 46 .. Trump 40
NV - Clinton 43 .. Trump 41
http://www.allianceesapoll.com/new-poll-results.html
1) In any live debate having prior knowledge of the questions must give that person a massive advantage.
2) People watching the debate were being defrauded because they believed they were seeing something from a reputable organisation that simply wasn't true.
3) CNN are only "completely uncomfortable? They should be at least annoyed perhaps angry but uncomfortable??
At least CNN have partially corrected the failure by the resignation but irrespective of that HRC has cheated in the debate, cheated the public and gained an advantage in "winning" the debate. It plays right into the "crooked Hilary" line of attack and Trump is going to go to town on this latest info.
(well, compared to the current Labour party)
Nonetheless, one can accept what you say while still decrying the triumphalism that some in the then government showed about those affected and hurt by what happened (glorying in the fact that people will lose their jobs - even if this is economically necessary - is not classy, to put it mildly) and feeling sorry for those who saw radical change to their communities in a way which most of us would find uncomfortable and horrible if it happened to us.
I had a mate tell me about getting a kicking by pickets at the old GLC for trying to go to work instead of striking.
' During the 1950s, the wages of miners went up from a prewar position of 84th to near the top in the league table of the wages earned by industrial workers, and by 1960, miners' wages were 7.4% above the average pay of workers in manufacturing industries. During the 1960s, however, pay fell behind other workers, and by 1970 were earning 3.1% less than the average worker in manufacturing. '
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1972)
Clinton 51 .. Trump 44
https://www.scribd.com/document/329549003/NBC-News-SurveyMonkey-Toplines-and-Methodology-1024-1030?secret_password=LnCL1BQpi23OCLNwYALQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_1995
and Labour's 23% in 2009:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2009
I wonder how low the Democrats fell in 1994 or the Republicans in 1974.
http://hurryupharry.org/2016/10/30/shakeel-begg-denigrating-the-police/
christ.
'Have the Lib Dems no shame?
"Alastair Carmichael is going round calling himself the Shadow First Secretary of State"
For Orkney ?
I thought that 1400 figure was an absolute nonsense when she first presented it. I think the child abuse enquiry is a joke, and they have appointed a joker (Jay) to oversee it now, on top of the other jokers previously. Jay's an academic with an agenda that has given her loads of publicity.
And...... it is something I know more than a little about. I processed data on child protection in much bigger places than Rotherham. If I had oversight in Rotherham, I would have laughed it out of court and not allowed Jay's report to go unchecked. Now, sadly people like you are quoting these ridiculous figures as fact.
I'm sure there's someone who can whistleblow Jay out there and put an end to that 1400 nonsense
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/9662352/ and http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/stand-imam-bizarre-defence-shakeel-begg/
If Clinton got an advantage from knowing that question was coming she is the shitest politician ever.
Older people voted Leave. And older people tend to be fatter?
Clinton 47 .. Trump 44
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/31/exclusive-breitbartgravis-pennsylvania-poll-clinton-holds-slight/
I suspect that's how the correlation (if true) works.
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/pheobesityadultslideset-140219151004-phpapp01/95/uk-adult-obesity-data-9-638.jpg?cb=1392822770
Aptitude for the particular area of law you choose is as much about aptitude and personality as academic ability. I was outstanding (academically) at contract law but would rather pull my own teeth out than spend my days writing and rewriting contracts. I much prefer it when they have gone wrong and I have to sort out the resulting mess.
I do agree with you about corporate culture. So many high-flying firms select the best trainees and then systematically beat all traces of originality and personality out of those poor souls.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-coalition-hispanic-support-is-up-black-turnout-is-down/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
I think pbCOM perfectly demonstrates why our oldies should be excluded from voting. You can almost see how old the poster is by the amount of drivel being spewed out. Obviously JackW would get an exemption just for posterity and all that....
Incidentally wasn't your old stamping ground of Oxfordshire another place where the authorities were exposed ?
' Child sexual abuse carried on unabated in Oxfordshire for so long because of catastrophic organisational failure. The highest levels of council management weren’t even briefed until 2011, the report admits, including the Directors of Children’s Services. And yet there have been no resignations so far. The Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children Board (OSCB), astonishingly, ruled out any disciplinary action. '
http://labourlist.org/2015/03/the-harsh-uncomfortable-truths-about-child-abuse-in-oxfordshire-and-rotherham/
Incidentally have your views about Fred Talbot changed ?
How was your EDL get together today weejonnie? Were you discussing how you you would replace the litter if it was dropped on one of your little marches. How quaint....
I suspect that will be when Trump's odds are the shortest.
The very poorest deciles are the least overweight, the very richest some of the most but the most overweight banding is roughly the lower-middle, according to income (and the data I saw which dated to arond 2011, 2012).
In America, there are some really strong racial trends in there, as you'd probably expect.
As an aside and a casual observer I have noticed there is absolutely nothing that happens in the Clinton camp or election machine you will ever find fault with. I just wonder why you are so rampant all the time about an election few of us can even vote in? It's quite strange really.
For the record I don't care who wins they are both crap in their own endearing ways.
'I thought that 1400 figure was an absolute nonsense when she first presented it. I think the child abuse enquiry is a joke, and they have appointed a joker (Jay) to oversee it now, on top of the other jokers previously. Jay's an academic with an agenda that has given her loads of publicity. '
Thankfully you were never near the levers of power other than in your dreams.
On the other hand Hispanics might prefer her to Obama for the same reason.
1400 may well be an extrapolation. Even if the figure of actual rapes/abuse - of children - remember - is lower, why would this be in any way acceptable? Or something not to be bothered about? Do you have any idea of how awful rape/sexual abuse is for an adult? Let alone for a child? Or of its consequences for that child?
One thing a civilized society does is care for its most vulnerable. And children demand our special care. A society which overlooks our obligations to them, which turns a deaf ear, a blind eye, a cold heart to the abuse of the innocent, the vulnerable is a disgrace.
Come, come Mr Tyson. I really thought better of you. You are so quick to chastise us in Britain for being horrible to foreigners by voting Leave. And yet you dismiss this report so easily. Abuse of children is far more grave and despite all the publicity and acres of newsprint dedicated to this we simply do not take it seriously enough.
Not much betting in those.
I suggested that Trump had an 85% chance of the nomination and a 55% chance of winning. I was a bit worried about that prediction recently, but it seems to be coming back around.
That said, I dread either of them winning....
Well I hedged today against the narrrow Hillary victory. So I make money up to and including 299 Democratic ECVs. To be honest, if it's Hillary 300+ I will be so happy I won't care about losing money!
LA times
"According to another email on WikiLeaks, Brazile purportedly tipped off Palmieri that Clinton would get a query regarding her position on the death penalty. The question was posed to the candidate on the March 13 program"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004
and it was comfortably Republican in 1992 and 1996.
That's a really strong swing to the Democrats since then.
If Trump is going to win I think he'll be ahead by much more than 7% in Indiana.
"According to another email on WikiLeaks, Brazile purportedly tipped off Palmieri that Clinton would get a query regarding her position on the death penalty. The question was posed to the candidate on the March 13 program"
I think Hillary has it overall, but will be dogged by impeachment type proceedings from the next day onwards.
If it wasn't for the danger to the world from Trumps beligerence and risk of either trade or hot war, watching POTUS Trump destroy the Republicans could be quite amusing.
Clinton 50.5 .. Trump 42.0
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/214738676-story