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.
It varies - there are lots of Black voters in the deep south plus Maryland and lots of Hispanic voters in Florida, Nevada and Colorado.
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....
Yes well you mention this criticising Tories a lot - yet without any evidence. Lots of the Tory posters on here are sound of body any mind, upstanding folk. As I say regularly.
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....
lol
I'm generally more in favour of extending democracy than reducing it.
The fact our system disenfranchises 16/17 year olds is a disgrace - as is having an electoral system which requires millions of young people without a settled address to jump through hoops to vote.
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.
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!
""The police are not and should not be the target of such violence and anger and this protest and the actions of some of the protestors is roundly condemned by GMP and by Bolton Council. Were it not for the professionalism and bravery of police officers many others would have been seriously injured. I would also like to praise the efforts of the EDL stewards who worked with us in the face of some very ugly confrontations." "
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!
Not at all; I can't stand hypocrisy. Whether it it balls like Labour pushing for an Orgreave inquiry despite having 13 years to launch one, or posters criticising others for not talking about betting despite often not talking about betting.
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.
It varies - there are lots of Black voters in the deep south plus Maryland and lots of Hispanic voters in Florida, Nevada and Colorado.
Arizona too has many Hispanics.
The other thing to bear in mind is that the Sunbelt states have not lost manufacturing industry in the way that the Midwest has, and has benefited by the cross border trade.
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!
A good strategy.
Thanks. I almost never bet on political outcomes I personally favour, for that reason. I took the 270-299 Hillary vote today as a value hedge because it seemed too good to miss at 7 given the goings-on at the weekend. I've got any Trump victory at 6.5.
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.
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!
Not at all; I can't stand hypocrisy. Whether it it balls like Labour pushing for an Orgreave inquiry despite having 13 years to launch one, or posters criticising others for not talking about betting despite often not talking about betting.
I talk about betting quite a lot - I posted a full forecast including map earlier. What more do I have to do to win your bloody blessing?!
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....
lol
I'm generally more in favour of extending democracy than reducing it.
The fact our system disenfranchises 16/17 year olds is a disgrace - as is having an electoral system which requires millions of young people without a settled address to jump through hoops to vote.
I'd say it is far more of a disgrace how few registered youngsters actually vote. And I say this as a twenty something.
The rules exist, they are piss easy to follow, and yet much of generation snowflake feels that moaning is more important than voting.
I couldn't whistleblow Jay because I do not have access to the data that she had. But, you are right about my knowledge of Oxfordshire...you see the type of grooming and sexual exploitation that those groups of Asian males exploited was targeted at the most vulnerable girls...kids at the edge of the looked after system, kids in psych units, or kids in the most vulnerable homes. And in a city like Oxford or Rotherham...there are tens instead of hundreds of these kids.
And Baroness Jay, or the Oxfordshire scandal, or any other scandal isn't really going to do anything about these very vulnerable kids; the kids that people really do not care about. I've been very close to the callousness shown to these these children and how they are viewed by the authorities.
I think your comments about Fred Talbot speak volumes about how difficult it is for someone to try and put some context here. I can challenge Jay and her ridiculous data sets, and I can say that Talbot was a good teacher...and I should be able to say these things without people like you implicating I am some kind of child abuser myself. Because what you are doing is trying to curtail opinion and free speech through tawdry insinuation.
I don't know about you, but I have done a great deal in my career to try and protect those kids that Oxfordshire ignored...and at great personal and professional cost. But that is just another reason why I know intuitively Jay's 1400 figure is a crock....
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.
Perhaps Mr Hannan can release categorised lists of nationalities by level of foreigness, just so we can prepare for our bright, new, internationalist future.
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.
States are not 'declared' as such but rather 'called' by the Broadcasting Networks on the basis of exit polls . If one candidate has a clear lead -say 10% or more - they are normally called as soon as polls close in the state without waiting for returns from the precincts.
I couldn't whistleblow Jay because I do not have access to the data that she had. But, you are right about my knowledge of Oxfordshire...you see the type of grooming and sexual exploitation that those groups of Asian males exploited was targeted at the most vulnerable girls...kids at the edge of the looked after system, kids in psych units, or kids in the most vulnerable homes. And in a city like Oxford or Rotherham...there are tens instead of hundreds of these kids.
And Baroness Jay, or the Oxfordshire scandal, or any other scandal isn't really going to do anything about these very vulnerable kids; the kids that people really do not care about. I've been very close to the callousness shown to these these children and how they are viewed by the authorities.
I think your comments about Fred Talbot speak volumes about how difficult it is for someone to try and put some context here. I can challenge Jay and her ridiculous data sets, and I can say that Talbot was a good teacher...and I should be able to say these things without people like you implicating I am some kind of child abuser myself. Because what you are doing is trying to curtail opinion and free speech through tawdry insinuation.
I don't know about you, but I have done a great deal in my career to try and protect those kids that Oxfordshire ignored...and at great personal and professional cost. But that is just another reason why I know intuitively Jay's 1400 figure is a crock....
I think it's a good thing you no longer work in that field.
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....
lol
I'm generally more in favour of extending democracy than reducing it.
The fact our system disenfranchises 16/17 year olds is a disgrace - as is having an electoral system which requires millions of young people without a settled address to jump through hoops to vote.
I'd say it is far more of a disgrace how few registered youngsters actually vote. And I say this as a twenty something.
The rules exist, they are piss easy to follow, and yet much of generation snowflake feels that moaning is more important than voting.
How many of your immediate peer group share your lean Trump, or Brexit views?
Clinton is obviously heading for a landslide victory, because she has a 7-point lead in Ohio according to a poll that's just been released. Half of it was done after the FBI shemozzle, too.
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.
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....
lol
I'm generally more in favour of extending democracy than reducing it.
The fact our system disenfranchises 16/17 year olds is a disgrace - as is having an electoral system which requires millions of young people without a settled address to jump through hoops to vote.
I'd say it is far more of a disgrace how few registered youngsters actually vote. And I say this as a twenty something.
The rules exist, they are piss easy to follow, and yet much of generation snowflake feels that moaning is more important than voting.
How many of your immediate peer group share your lean Trump, or Brexit views?
Not many pro Brexit - about 10%, and I don't lean Trump, I dread either winning but lean towards thinking Trump will.
How many of your peer group share your penchant for disenfranchising people.
let’s bow our heads for a moment at a centenary just past: that of the first major action by Canadian soldiers in the First World War.
The Second Battle of Ypres, fought in April and May 1915, was monstrous even by the standards of the Western Front. It was the first time that the Germans used chlorine gas. The men of the 2nd Canadian Brigade alone held their position as the yellow-green clouds engulfed the troops around them. It did not take long for the venom to dissolve the Allied line, leaving heaps of dead and dying men, their faces mottled, froth on their tortured lips. Later, the Canadians were hit by a second gas attack; their casualty rate was one in three.
Few Britons can talk of the Canadian war effort without a catch in their voice. The thought of those young men, every one a volunteer, crossing half the world to defend our country makes us emotional even a century later. Despite almost unimaginable fatalities — 67,000 Canadians killed and 250,000 wounded out of a total population of 7 million — the children of those veterans rushed to volunteer in the Second World War: a million men and women in all.
What made them do it? Was it simply affinity of blood and speech, a determination to stand by a kindred people? Obviously that was part of the explanation. But I can’t believe it was the whole story — that the First and Second World Wars were ethnic conflicts, different only in scale from, say, the breakup of Yugoslavia or the Hutu-Tutsi massacres. Read the letters that those volunteers sent home, listen to contemporary accounts of the conflict, and you find a clear sense that people were fighting “for freedom.” The values of the English-speaking peoples were repeatedly contrasted against the enemy’s authoritarianism. We were better than the Prussians and the Nazis, we told ourselves, because we elevated the law above the government, the individual above the collective, fair dealing over raison d’état.
But what made us that way? Was it something in our genes? Something in our soil? Hardly. The Anglosphere was dispersed across many continents and archipelagos. People of every creed and colour had adopted its values.
So what was it? And what is it? What magic formula still distinguishes Bermuda from Haiti, Hong Kong from China, Canada from Cuba? The answer to that question brings us to the second centenary, that of Magna Carta, which first established the principle that the law was not simply the will of the king or the biggest guy in the tribe.
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.
States are not 'declared' as such but rather 'called' by the Broadcasting Networks on the basis of exit polls . If one candidate has a clear lead -say 10% or more - they are normally called as soon as polls close in the state without waiting for returns from the precincts.
Yes, and often called way too early with only a fraction of votes counted!
One of the things likely to make Indiana a poor indicator.
I couldn't whistleblow Jay because I do not have access to the data that she had. But, you are right about my knowledge of Oxfordshire...you see the type of grooming and sexual exploitation that those groups of Asian males exploited was targeted at the most vulnerable girls...kids at the edge of the looked after system, kids in psych units, or kids in the most vulnerable homes. And in a city like Oxford or Rotherham...there are tens instead of hundreds of these kids.
And Baroness Jay, or the Oxfordshire scandal, or any other scandal isn't really going to do anything about these very vulnerable kids; the kids that people really do not care about. I've been very close to the callousness shown to these these children and how they are viewed by the authorities.
I think your comments about Fred Talbot speak volumes about how difficult it is for someone to try and put some context here. I can challenge Jay and her ridiculous data sets, and I can say that Talbot was a good teacher...and I should be able to say these things without people like you implicating I am some kind of child abuser myself. Because what you are doing is trying to curtail opinion and free speech through tawdry insinuation.
I don't know about you, but I have done a great deal in my career to try and protect those kids that Oxfordshire ignored...and at great personal and professional cost. But that is just another reason why I know intuitively Jay's 1400 figure is a crock....
I think it's a good thing you no longer work in that field.
It is good for me personally..you are right about that. But I'm really proud about what I achieved in my job and that I did for vulnerable kids.
Clinton is obviously heading for a landslide victory, because she has a 7-point lead in Ohio according to a poll that's just been released. Half of it was done after the FBI shemozzle, too.
Probably an outlier. Another poll today gives Trump a 5 point lead in Ohio.
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.
States are not 'declared' as such but rather 'called' by the Broadcasting Networks on the basis of exit polls . If one candidate has a clear lead -say 10% or more - they are normally called as soon as polls close in the state without waiting for returns from the precincts.
Yes, and often called way too early with only a fraction of votes counted!
One of the things likely to make Indiana a poor indicator.
Well they don't often get it wrong - Florida 2000 being the obvious exception to that!
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.
I read the Jay report in Rotherham, and share some of the sceptism over numbers. It was a headline catching extrapolation of very thin data.
But even if it were 140 rather than 1400 the implications for the SYP and Social Services are similar. Best not get obsessed by the numbers.
When working in South London I saw similar problems, of pimps sniffing for recrruits at childrens homes, without the muslim dimension. It is how it happens all the world over:
How many of your peer group share your penchant for disenfranchising people.
@Mortimer Disenfranchising oldies...and maybe in Brexit we should have at least tried to weed out those who didn't even know what the EU was if we could...anyone who remotely knows me personally would know I think that.
@Mortimer Disenfranchising oldies...and maybe in Brexit we should have at least tried to weed out those who didn't even know what the EU was if we could...anyone who remotely knows me personally would know I think that.
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.
States are not 'declared' as such but rather 'called' by the Broadcasting Networks on the basis of exit polls . If one candidate has a clear lead -say 10% or more - they are normally called as soon as polls close in the state without waiting for returns from the precincts.
Yes, and often called way too early with only a fraction of votes counted!
One of the things likely to make Indiana a poor indicator.
Well they don't often get it wrong - Florida 2000 being the obvious exception to that!
They may rarely call them correctly, but what we need as "on the night betfair punters" is an accurate margin.
I am less convinced that they get this right calling early.
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.
States are not 'declared' as such but rather 'called' by the Broadcasting Networks on the basis of exit polls . If one candidate has a clear lead -say 10% or more - they are normally called as soon as polls close in the state without waiting for returns from the precincts.
Yes, and often called way too early with only a fraction of votes counted!
One of the things likely to make Indiana a poor indicator.
Well they don't often get it wrong - Florida 2000 being the obvious exception to that!
If a candidate has a massive -and expected - lead in the exit poll , the Networks do not need to wait for any votes to be counted. In 2000 there was competition between the Networks to call states early which resulted in Florida being called too soon on the basis of the precinct returns available. Following that debacle Networks have become a bit more cautious.
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.
States are not 'declared' as such but rather 'called' by the Broadcasting Networks on the basis of exit polls . If one candidate has a clear lead -say 10% or more - they are normally called as soon as polls close in the state without waiting for returns from the precincts.
True in safe states. In marginal seats, the decision desks (banks of extremely adept mathematicians) study the numbers from the precincts and race the desks from other networks to call states. Fox News is drivel most of the time - possibly because they spend all their budgets on better mathematicians - on election night they are the best network - they tend to call states the quickest.
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.
States are not 'declared' as such but rather 'called' by the Broadcasting Networks on the basis of exit polls . If one candidate has a clear lead -say 10% or more - they are normally called as soon as polls close in the state without waiting for returns from the precincts.
Yes, and often called way too early with only a fraction of votes counted!
One of the things likely to make Indiana a poor indicator.
They have a superb record of getting the winner of the state correct! You have to go back to 2000 (FL) to get a wrong 'un I think. They haven't miscalled a state for a generation, and even then in bizarre circumstances (chadgate).
I couldn't whistleblow Jay because I do not have access to the data that she had. But, you are right about my knowledge of Oxfordshire...you see the type of grooming and sexual exploitation that those groups of Asian males exploited was targeted at the most vulnerable girls...kids at the edge of the looked after system, kids in psych units, or kids in the most vulnerable homes. And in a city like Oxford or Rotherham...there are tens instead of hundreds of these kids.
And Baroness Jay, or the Oxfordshire scandal, or any other scandal isn't really going to do anything about these very vulnerable kids; the kids that people really do not care about. I've been very close to the callousness shown to these these children and how they are viewed by the authorities.
I think your comments about Fred Talbot speak volumes about how difficult it is for someone to try and put some context here. I can challenge Jay and her ridiculous data sets, and I can say that Talbot was a good teacher...and I should be able to say these things without people like you implicating I am some kind of child abuser myself. Because what you are doing is trying to curtail opinion and free speech through tawdry insinuation.
I don't know about you, but I have done a great deal in my career to try and protect those kids that Oxfordshire ignored...and at great personal and professional cost. But that is just another reason why I know intuitively Jay's 1400 figure is a crock....
That you accuse me of implying that you're some sort of child abuser says much about you.
Fred Talbot's teaching ability is no more relevant than Jimmy Savile's ability as a TV presenter.
Still I'm all in favour of free speech and opinion - its a pity that people who pointed out that things weren't right in Rotherham or Oxford were shouted down by accusations of racism from the authorities.
Whatever the actual numbers in Rotherham and Oxford were is itself not the main issue but the actions of the social services and police is.
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....
lol
I'm generally more in favour of extending democracy than reducing it.
The fact our system disenfranchises 16/17 year olds is a disgrace - as is having an electoral system which requires millions of young people without a settled address to jump through hoops to vote.
I'd say it is far more of a disgrace how few registered youngsters actually vote. And I say this as a twenty something.
The rules exist, they are piss easy to follow, and yet much of generation snowflake feels that moaning is more important than voting.
How many of your immediate peer group share your lean Trump, or Brexit views?
Not many pro Brexit - about 10%, and I don't lean Trump, I dread either winning but lean towards thinking Trump will.
How many of your peer group share your penchant for disenfranchising people.
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.
States are not 'declared' as such but rather 'called' by the Broadcasting Networks on the basis of exit polls . If one candidate has a clear lead -say 10% or more - they are normally called as soon as polls close in the state without waiting for returns from the precincts.
True in safe states. In marginal seats, the decision desks (banks of extremely adept mathematicians) study the numbers from the precincts and race the desks from other networks to call states. Fox News is drivel most of the time - possibly because they spend all their budgets on better mathematicians - on election night they are the best network - they tend to call states the quickest.
I seem to recall a bit of a row on Fox in 2012 when the Republican -Rowe - was not inclined to accept their calling Ohio for Obama! In the end ,of course, they were correct.
Clinton is obviously heading for a landslide victory, because she has a 7-point lead in Ohio according to a poll that's just been released. Half of it was done after the FBI shemozzle, too.
I expect the PB Morning Shift will be all over that one...
Clinton is obviously heading for a landslide victory, because she has a 7-point lead in Ohio according to a poll that's just been released. Half of it was done after the FBI shemozzle, too.
Probably an outlier. Another poll today gives Trump a 5 point lead in Ohio.
No - I'm taking a leaf out of the Trumpolinies' book from now on, and being selective. Three quarters of that Remington was conducted before the FBI intervention. It's out of date. Clearly the mid-West is outraged at this political interference, and is rallying around Hillary.
I read the Jay report in Rotherham, and share some of the sceptism over numbers. It was a headline catching extrapolation of very thin data.
But even if it were 140 rather than 1400 the implications for the SYP and Social Services are similar. Best not get obsessed by the numbers.
When working in South London I saw similar problems, of pimps sniffing for recrruits at childrens homes, without the muslim dimension. It is how it happens all the world over:
As ever Fox...you've made the point better than I could.
The reason why I get so annoyed with Jay is that she conflated...and because of that the story became something else...it became the 1400 chanted by the likes of seanT and UKIP that no adolescent girl is safe from Muslims.
But the real story as you have said....and AnotherRichard was right (without attacking me personally) were the kids in the care homes who are completely disregarded, dismissed by social worker senior managers and the authorities and are left to be exploited. The care system for vulnerable adolescents in the UK is terrible. A few months ago in light of Yvette Cooper's appeal to bring in more accompanied refugee minors, I replied to Nick P that pushing them to get into the UK care system didn't strike me as a particularly good option.
The amount of parents that I came across, who had difficult teenagers and thought that passing them onto the care system or into psychiatric units was going to help them when you knew the dismal outcomes...
Sean Fear was right to say that I am better off out it...but he was being particularly personally nasty, and I am being self protective....
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.
States are not 'declared' as such but rather 'called' by the Broadcasting Networks on the basis of exit polls . If one candidate has a clear lead -say 10% or more - they are normally called as soon as polls close in the state without waiting for returns from the precincts.
Yes, and often called way too early with only a fraction of votes counted!
One of the things likely to make Indiana a poor indicator.
Well they don't often get it wrong - Florida 2000 being the obvious exception to that!
They may rarely call them correctly, but what we need as "on the night betfair punters" is an accurate margin.
I am less convinced that they get this right calling early.
No, they rarely call them INcorrectly - they have an incredibly good record for picking state winners. Your point about margins might be sound - I cannot recall either way.
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.
States are not 'declared' as such but rather 'called' by the Broadcasting Networks on the basis of exit polls . If one candidate has a clear lead -say 10% or more - they are normally called as soon as polls close in the state without waiting for returns from the precincts.
True in safe states. In marginal seats, the decision desks (banks of extremely adept mathematicians) study the numbers from the precincts and race the desks from other networks to call states. Fox News is drivel most of the time - possibly because they spend all their budgets on better mathematicians - on election night they are the best network - they tend to call states the quickest.
I seem to recall a bit of a row on Fox in 2012 when the Republican -Rowe - was not inclined to accept their calling Ohio for Obama! In the end ,of course, they were correct.
Clinton is obviously heading for a landslide victory, because she has a 7-point lead in Ohio according to a poll that's just been released. Half of it was done after the FBI shemozzle, too.
I expect the PB Morning Shift will be all over that one...
Yes indeed ,good evening.That pollster Auto Alliance had Clinton only plus 2 in PA and Trump plus 5 in Florida over the same polling period. is that credible?
Dickieleaks appears to have had a very marginal effect, if any and the early voting numbers appear to be firming up for Clinton.
She remains on course for a EC win of 300+
Which would be the only outcome that would leave me out of pocket - but very happy!
My word, and after all my advice over the months ....
You silly billy ....
Jack you have a long enough memory to know the same thing happened in 2008. It derives from the fact that I don't usually bet on outcomes I personally favour.
Been digging around the FBI email thing today.... rumours mostly but fit the facts...
The interesting stuff is that the FBI (apparently) used a meta data sampler (subject, keywords) system to build a profile of Weiners emails. This is a tool designed so that they can search without reading all the emails. It presents the user with aggregated information - so big peaks of clinton email addresses etc would have popped up. This is why they need and warrant to go read the actual emails - they haven't read them. The reason for using such a tool is 4th Amendment issues - they have to trawl through email, without reading all the non-relevant stuff.
The low level officials didn't tell HQ what they'd found - after the way the earlier investigation was managed, they didn't trust their own leadership. Comey made his statement to head off a major leak - agents were talking about whistleblowing straight to Congressional committees, rather than reporting up the chain.
Apparently it involved Yahoo email account(s) - someone was copying/cc'ing to account(s) that Weiner had access to.
Clinton is obviously heading for a landslide victory, because she has a 7-point lead in Ohio according to a poll that's just been released. Half of it was done after the FBI shemozzle, too.
I expect the PB Morning Shift will be all over that one...
Yes indeed ,good evening.That pollster Auto Alliance had Clinton only plus 2 in PA and Trump plus 5 in Florida over the same polling period. is that credible?
All data is useful, hence why we aggregate polls. I have money on Trump. I suspect that bet is a loser. And you?
I read the Jay report in Rotherham, and share some of the sceptism over numbers. It was a headline catching extrapolation of very thin data.
But even if it were 140 rather than 1400 the implications for the SYP and Social Services are similar. Best not get obsessed by the numbers.
When working in South London I saw similar problems, of pimps sniffing for recrruits at childrens homes, without the muslim dimension. It is how it happens all the world over:
As ever Fox...you've made the point better than I could.
The reason why I get so annoyed with Jay is that she conflated...and because of that the story became something else...it became the 1400 chanted by the likes of seanT and UKIP that no adolescent girl is safe from Muslims.
But the real story as you have said....and AnotherRichard was right (without attacking me personally) were the kids in the care homes who are completely disregarded, dismissed by social worker senior managers and the authorities and are left to be exploited. The care system for vulnerable adolescents in the UK is terrible. A few months ago in light of Yvette Cooper's appeal to bring in more accompanied refugee minors, I replied to Nick P that pushing them to get into the UK care system didn't strike me as a particularly good option.
The amount of parents that I came across, who had difficult teenagers and thought that passing them onto the care system or into psychiatric units was going to help them when you knew the dismal outcomes...
Sean Fear was right to say that I am better off out it...but he was being particularly personally nasty, and I am being self protective....
Tyson
I don't wish to upset you on something which has affected you personally so please accept apologies as you wish.
One thing I'm sure of with this issue particularly and more generally is that there are certain number of people who will break a law in all circumstances but a much larger number of people who will break the law if they know they can do so with impunity.
It was for this reason that the tolerance of the authorities to Rotherham (and likewise with TV celebrities, priests, public school teachers etc) is so dangerous.
Clinton is obviously heading for a landslide victory, because she has a 7-point lead in Ohio according to a poll that's just been released. Half of it was done after the FBI shemozzle, too.
I expect the PB Morning Shift will be all over that one...
Yes indeed ,good evening.That pollster Auto Alliance had Clinton only plus 2 in PA and Trump plus 5 in Florida over the same polling period. is that credible?
All data is useful, hence why we aggregate polls. I have money on Trump. I suspect that bet is a loser. And you?
"That you accuse me of implying that you're some sort of child abuser says much about you."
@anotherrichard Just a note....I am repeating your quote because quite frankly I think you have been particularly careless in your choice of words.
And in the future, I would sincerely request that you do not bring up anything personal about me from the occasional throwaway comments I have said about my background over the years. I find the way you did this earlier particularly intimidating....so well done you if you intended to do so.
Clinton is obviously heading for a landslide victory, because she has a 7-point lead in Ohio according to a poll that's just been released. Half of it was done after the FBI shemozzle, too.
I expect the PB Morning Shift will be all over that one...
Yes indeed ,good evening.That pollster Auto Alliance had Clinton only plus 2 in PA and Trump plus 5 in Florida over the same polling period. is that credible?
No - you're quite right - some of those are clearly incredible.
The credible ones are Ohio (Clinton +7), New Hampshire (Clinton +6) and Nevada (Clinton +2).
"That you accuse me of implying that you're some sort of child abuser says much about you."
@anotherrichard Just a note....I am repeating your quote because quite frankly I think you have been particularly careless in your choice of words.
And in the future, I would sincerely request that you do not bring up anything personal about me from the occasional throwaway comments I have said about my background over the years. I find the way you did this earlier particularly intimidating....so well done you if you intended to do so.
Dear me Tyson you have got the shakes.
No I wasn't trying to intimidate, I thought you were trying to intimidate me.
BTW half the PB regulars must know where you come from but I doubt anyone holds it against you.
I would say its probably best to steer well clear of any contentious issue which affects you personally - PB's a rough old place sometimes but people get hurt here through accident rather than malice.
Clinton is obviously heading for a landslide victory, because she has a 7-point lead in Ohio according to a poll that's just been released. Half of it was done after the FBI shemozzle, too.
I expect the PB Morning Shift will be all over that one...
Yes indeed ,good evening.That pollster Auto Alliance had Clinton only plus 2 in PA and Trump plus 5 in Florida over the same polling period. is that credible?
All data is useful, hence why we aggregate polls. I have money on Trump. I suspect that bet is a loser. And you?
On Trump also.Have been for a while .
Clever, lefty friend of mine told me he thought Trump was a 50/50 chance today.
I don't believe it. US voters will quaver in the booth and reluctantly vote Hillary.
But what an awful choice. This election symptomises American decline.
Americans know it too- so many apologise when you speak to them because they are so embarrassed by it all.
Really sorry...I tried to moderate my last comment after seeing your last post...but not in time so please ignore it. I agree with your last response 100% by the way.
Clinton is obviously heading for a landslide victory, because she has a 7-point lead in Ohio according to a poll that's just been released. Half of it was done after the FBI shemozzle, too.
I expect the PB Morning Shift will be all over that one...
Yes indeed ,good evening.That pollster Auto Alliance had Clinton only plus 2 in PA and Trump plus 5 in Florida over the same polling period. is that credible?
All data is useful, hence why we aggregate polls. I have money on Trump. I suspect that bet is a loser. And you?
On Trump also.Have been for a while .
Clever, lefty friend of mine told me he thought Trump was a 50/50 chance today.
I don't believe it. US voters will quaver in the booth and reluctantly vote Hillary.
But what an awful choice. This election symptomises American decline.
You are fond of this US decline meme and yet it's still the richest, most powerful nation on Earth and the only nation that has a whisker of a chance of catching it is China, which has major challenges of its own.
Clinton is obviously heading for a landslide victory, because she has a 7-point lead in Ohio according to a poll that's just been released. Half of it was done after the FBI shemozzle, too.
I expect the PB Morning Shift will be all over that one...
Yes indeed ,good evening.That pollster Auto Alliance had Clinton only plus 2 in PA and Trump plus 5 in Florida over the same polling period. is that credible?
No - you're quite right - some of those are clearly incredible.
The credible ones are Ohio (Clinton +7), New Hampshire (Clinton +6) and Nevada (Clinton +2).
I would be very surprised if Clinton is plus 7 in Ohio - do you really believe that?
Really sorry...I tried to moderate my last comment after seeing your last post...but not in time so please ignore it. I agree with your last response 100% by the way.
No problem and again no offence meant.
PB's great because we can have vigourous discussion with people of a much wider variety than we would meet in ordinary life.
But for that reason we can sometimes get the wrong end of the stick regarding what someone is trying to say or equally say something which inadvertently offends. **
** I often find this happens when I change how I'm saying something midpost and the resulting comment comes out too fervently.
Clinton is obviously heading for a landslide victory, because she has a 7-point lead in Ohio according to a poll that's just been released. Half of it was done after the FBI shemozzle, too.
I expect the PB Morning Shift will be all over that one...
Yes indeed ,good evening.That pollster Auto Alliance had Clinton only plus 2 in PA and Trump plus 5 in Florida over the same polling period. is that credible?
All data is useful, hence why we aggregate polls. I have money on Trump. I suspect that bet is a loser. And you?
On Trump also.Have been for a while .
Clever, lefty friend of mine told me he thought Trump was a 50/50 chance today.
I don't believe it. US voters will quaver in the booth and reluctantly vote Hillary.
But what an awful choice. This election symptomises American decline.
You are fond of this US decline meme and yet it's still the richest, most powerful nation on Earth and the only nation that has a whisker of a chance of catching it is China, which has major challenges of its own.
I'm fond of it because it is the most striking geopolitical change in our lifetimes, apart from - arguably - the collapse of communism. Indeed I'd say the rise of China, and other emerging economies (aka globalisation) is MORE important than the end of communism: inter alia, it was partly responsible for Brexit.
It is also indubitably true. America was 50% of global GDP in 1945. Now it is under 20%. It will soon be 10-15%. This is momentous change.
Clinton is obviously heading for a landslide victory, because she has a 7-point lead in Ohio according to a poll that's just been released. Half of it was done after the FBI shemozzle, too.
I expect the PB Morning Shift will be all over that one...
Yes indeed ,good evening.That pollster Auto Alliance had Clinton only plus 2 in PA and Trump plus 5 in Florida over the same polling period. is that credible?
No - you're quite right - some of those are clearly incredible.
The credible ones are Ohio (Clinton +7), New Hampshire (Clinton +6) and Nevada (Clinton +2).
I would be very surprised if Clinton is plus 7 in Ohio - do you really believe that?
Let's put it like this - it's just as believable as a Trump victory was when the polling averages showed Clinton 6-7% ahead nationally.
Remember, I'm taking a leaf out of the Trumpites' book here. So I'll suggest that the polls may be wrong.- Trump's sheer awfulness is going to bring out people who don't usually vote, and a lot of Republicans are going to vote for Hillary, and are too shy to tell the pollsters that. Why not? If the polls can be wrong in one direction, they can be wrong in the other.
And now I realise how much more fun it is to act like this, rather than trying to be accurate and balanced ...
Comments
I'm generally more in favour of extending democracy than reducing it.
The fact our system disenfranchises 16/17 year olds is a disgrace - as is having an electoral system which requires millions of young people without a settled address to jump through hoops to vote.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-06-01/58-anti-fascist-protesters-arrested-from-uaf-group/
""The police are not and should not be the target of such violence and anger and this protest and the actions of some of the protestors is roundly condemned by GMP and by Bolton Council. Were it not for the professionalism and bravery of police officers many others would have been seriously injured. I would also like to praise the efforts of the EDL stewards who worked with us in the face of some very ugly confrontations." "
The other thing to bear in mind is that the Sunbelt states have not lost manufacturing industry in the way that the Midwest has, and has benefited by the cross border trade.
She remains on course for a EC win of 300+
The rules exist, they are piss easy to follow, and yet much of generation snowflake feels that moaning is more important than voting.
Incidentally have your views about Fred Talbot changed ?
@anotherrichard
You appear to remember a lot about me........
I couldn't whistleblow Jay because I do not have access to the data that she had. But, you are right about my knowledge of Oxfordshire...you see the type of grooming and sexual exploitation that those groups of Asian males exploited was targeted at the most vulnerable girls...kids at the edge of the looked after system, kids in psych units, or kids in the most vulnerable homes. And in a city like Oxford or Rotherham...there are tens instead of hundreds of these kids.
And Baroness Jay, or the Oxfordshire scandal, or any other scandal isn't really going to do anything about these very vulnerable kids; the kids that people really do not care about. I've been very close to the callousness shown to these these children and how they are viewed by the authorities.
I think your comments about Fred Talbot speak volumes about how difficult it is for someone to try and put some context here. I can challenge Jay and her ridiculous data sets, and I can say that Talbot was a good teacher...and I should be able to say these things without people like you implicating I am some kind of child abuser myself. Because what you are doing is trying to curtail opinion and free speech through tawdry insinuation.
I don't know about you, but I have done a great deal in my career to try and protect those kids that Oxfordshire ignored...and at great personal and professional cost. But that is just another reason why I know intuitively Jay's 1400 figure is a crock....
https://twitter.com/AhirShah/status/792850419353608196
Perhaps Mr Hannan can release categorised lists of nationalities by level of foreigness, just so we can prepare for our bright, new, internationalist future.
You appear to remember a lot about me........
I couldn't whistleblow Jay because I do not have access to the data that she had. But, you are right about my knowledge of Oxfordshire...you see the type of grooming and sexual exploitation that those groups of Asian males exploited was targeted at the most vulnerable girls...kids at the edge of the looked after system, kids in psych units, or kids in the most vulnerable homes. And in a city like Oxford or Rotherham...there are tens instead of hundreds of these kids.
And Baroness Jay, or the Oxfordshire scandal, or any other scandal isn't really going to do anything about these very vulnerable kids; the kids that people really do not care about. I've been very close to the callousness shown to these these children and how they are viewed by the authorities.
I think your comments about Fred Talbot speak volumes about how difficult it is for someone to try and put some context here. I can challenge Jay and her ridiculous data sets, and I can say that Talbot was a good teacher...and I should be able to say these things without people like you implicating I am some kind of child abuser myself. Because what you are doing is trying to curtail opinion and free speech through tawdry insinuation.
I don't know about you, but I have done a great deal in my career to try and protect those kids that Oxfordshire ignored...and at great personal and professional cost. But that is just another reason why I know intuitively Jay's 1400 figure is a crock....
I think it's a good thing you no longer work in that field.
Clinton is obviously heading for a landslide victory, because she has a 7-point lead in Ohio according to a poll that's just been released. Half of it was done after the FBI shemozzle, too.
How many of your peer group share your penchant for disenfranchising people.
let’s bow our heads for a moment at a centenary just past: that of the first major action by Canadian soldiers in the First World War.
The Second Battle of Ypres, fought in April and May 1915, was monstrous even by the standards of the Western Front. It was the first time that the Germans used chlorine gas. The men of the 2nd Canadian Brigade alone held their position as the yellow-green clouds engulfed the troops around them. It did not take long for the venom to dissolve the Allied line, leaving heaps of dead and dying men, their faces mottled, froth on their tortured lips. Later, the Canadians were hit by a second gas attack; their casualty rate was one in three.
Few Britons can talk of the Canadian war effort without a catch in their voice. The thought of those young men, every one a volunteer, crossing half the world to defend our country makes us emotional even a century later. Despite almost unimaginable fatalities — 67,000 Canadians killed and 250,000 wounded out of a total population of 7 million — the children of those veterans rushed to volunteer in the Second World War: a million men and women in all.
What made them do it? Was it simply affinity of blood and speech, a determination to stand by a kindred people? Obviously that was part of the explanation. But I can’t believe it was the whole story — that the First and Second World Wars were ethnic conflicts, different only in scale from, say, the breakup of Yugoslavia or the Hutu-Tutsi massacres. Read the letters that those volunteers sent home, listen to contemporary accounts of the conflict, and you find a clear sense that people were fighting “for freedom.” The values of the English-speaking peoples were repeatedly contrasted against the enemy’s authoritarianism. We were better than the Prussians and the Nazis, we told ourselves, because we elevated the law above the government, the individual above the collective, fair dealing over raison d’état.
But what made us that way? Was it something in our genes? Something in our soil? Hardly. The Anglosphere was dispersed across many continents and archipelagos. People of every creed and colour had adopted its values.
So what was it? And what is it? What magic formula still distinguishes Bermuda from Haiti, Hong Kong from China, Canada from Cuba? The answer to that question brings us to the second centenary, that of Magna Carta, which first established the principle that the law was not simply the will of the king or the biggest guy in the tribe.
One of the things likely to make Indiana a poor indicator.
It is good for me personally..you are right about that. But I'm really proud about what I achieved in my job and that I did for vulnerable kids.
I read the Jay report in Rotherham, and share some of the sceptism over numbers. It was a headline catching extrapolation of very thin data.
But even if it were 140 rather than 1400 the implications for the SYP and Social Services are similar. Best not get obsessed by the numbers.
When working in South London I saw similar problems, of pimps sniffing for recrruits at childrens homes, without the muslim dimension. It is how it happens all the world over:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/why-bad-looks-good/201401/human-trafficking-psychology-recruitment
Clinton 44 .. Trump 39
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKBN12V2DI
How many of your peer group share your penchant for disenfranchising people.
@Mortimer
Disenfranchising oldies...and maybe in Brexit we should have at least tried to weed out those who didn't even know what the EU was if we could...anyone who remotely knows me personally would know I think that.
I am less convinced that they get this right calling early.
You silly billy ....
Fred Talbot's teaching ability is no more relevant than Jimmy Savile's ability as a TV presenter.
Still I'm all in favour of free speech and opinion - its a pity that people who pointed out that things weren't right in Rotherham or Oxford were shouted down by accusations of racism from the authorities.
Whatever the actual numbers in Rotherham and Oxford were is itself not the main issue but the actions of the social services and police is.
"Lock him up! Lock him up!"
The reason why I get so annoyed with Jay is that she conflated...and because of that the story became something else...it became the 1400 chanted by the likes of seanT and UKIP that no adolescent girl is safe from Muslims.
But the real story as you have said....and AnotherRichard was right (without attacking me personally) were the kids in the care homes who are completely disregarded, dismissed by social worker senior managers and the authorities and are left to be exploited. The care system for vulnerable adolescents in the UK is terrible. A few months ago in light of Yvette Cooper's appeal to bring in more accompanied refugee minors, I replied to Nick P that pushing them to get into the UK care system didn't strike me as a particularly good option.
The amount of parents that I came across, who had difficult teenagers and thought that passing them onto the care system or into psychiatric units was going to help them when you knew the dismal outcomes...
Sean Fear was right to say that I am better off out it...but he was being particularly personally nasty, and I am being self protective....
The interesting stuff is that the FBI (apparently) used a meta data sampler (subject, keywords) system to build a profile of Weiners emails. This is a tool designed so that they can search without reading all the emails. It presents the user with aggregated information - so big peaks of clinton email addresses etc would have popped up. This is why they need and warrant to go read the actual emails - they haven't read them. The reason for using such a tool is 4th Amendment issues - they have to trawl through email, without reading all the non-relevant stuff.
The low level officials didn't tell HQ what they'd found - after the way the earlier investigation was managed, they didn't trust their own leadership. Comey made his statement to head off a major leak - agents were talking about whistleblowing straight to Congressional committees, rather than reporting up the chain.
Apparently it involved Yahoo email account(s) - someone was copying/cc'ing to account(s) that Weiner had access to.
Hat tip Guido.
"Labour MPs have turned up in numbers to vote for Keith Vaz tonight. A proven crook is now on the Justice Select Committee. Shame on parliament…"
I don't wish to upset you on something which has affected you personally so please accept apologies as you wish.
One thing I'm sure of with this issue particularly and more generally is that there are certain number of people who will break a law in all circumstances but a much larger number of people who will break the law if they know they can do so with impunity.
It was for this reason that the tolerance of the authorities to Rotherham (and likewise with TV celebrities, priests, public school teachers etc) is so dangerous.
@anotherrichard
Just a note....I am repeating your quote because quite frankly I think you have been particularly careless in your choice of words.
And in the future, I would sincerely request that you do not bring up anything personal about me from the occasional throwaway comments I have said about my background over the years. I find the way you did this earlier particularly intimidating....so well done you if you intended to do so.
The credible ones are Ohio (Clinton +7), New Hampshire (Clinton +6) and Nevada (Clinton +2).
No I wasn't trying to intimidate, I thought you were trying to intimidate me.
BTW half the PB regulars must know where you come from but I doubt anyone holds it against you.
I would say its probably best to steer well clear of any contentious issue which affects you personally - PB's a rough old place sometimes but people get hurt here through accident rather than malice.
Really sorry...I tried to moderate my last comment after seeing your last post...but not in time so please ignore it. I agree with your last response 100% by the way.
PB's great because we can have vigourous discussion with people of a much wider variety than we would meet in ordinary life.
But for that reason we can sometimes get the wrong end of the stick regarding what someone is trying to say or equally say something which inadvertently offends. **
** I often find this happens when I change how I'm saying something midpost and the resulting comment comes out too fervently.
We should be grateful that we lived during that period.
Remember, I'm taking a leaf out of the Trumpites' book here. So I'll suggest that the polls may be wrong.- Trump's sheer awfulness is going to bring out people who don't usually vote, and a lot of Republicans are going to vote for Hillary, and are too shy to tell the pollsters that. Why not? If the polls can be wrong in one direction, they can be wrong in the other.
And now I realise how much more fun it is to act like this, rather than trying to be accurate and balanced ...