Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now betting opens on whether the self employed NI increase wil

SystemSystem Posts: 12,263
edited March 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now betting opens on whether the self employed NI increase will happen

William Hill have opened a market on the Chancellor’s controversial National Insurance increase for the self-employed – and are offering odds of 6/4 (40% chance of happening) that the new NIC rise WILL be implemented this year – and 1/ 2 that it will NOT be.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,959
    edited March 2017
    Thurst.

    The NIC mess is unimportant in itself. However it is an indication that the government would be in trouble if they faced a credible and capable opposition.

    Which means they're fine ...
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    FPT

    Bojabob said:

    Meanwhile, I note that Guy Verhofstadt is pushing harder for letting Brits keep their EU citizenship after Brexit. If it cost, say £100 a year, I would certainly keep mine.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39228245

    I do find this idea amusing. The proponents seem to think it is a masterstroke to undermine Brexit when if anything it makes things easier. There is no demand for the UK to reciprocate which means UK citizens will be getting preferential treatment from the EU whilst there is no cost or compulsion placed on the UK at all .
    It's bemusing as much as amusing.

    It's everything that the Commission purports (with good reason) to not want. Access for Brits in Europe with no reciprocity. A fundamental re-work of Article 20. Detachment of the four freedoms from each other.

    Ergo, perhaps Mr Verhofstadt is trolling the UK with a proposal he doesn't think will actually happen.
  • CyanCyan Posts: 1,262
    Nominations have been updated:

    FILLON François 2111
    HAMON Benoît 1317
    MACRON Emmanuel 1266
    DUPONT-AIGNAN Nicolas 623
    ARTHAUD Nathalie 593
    LE PEN Marine 577
    ASSELINEAU François 524
    MELENCHON Jean-Luc 432
    CHEMINADE Jacques 397
    LASSALLE Jean 289
    JUPPE Alain 288
    POUTOU Philippe 245
    YADE Rama 151
    each of the others less than 100
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    Cyan said:

    Nominations have been updated:

    FILLON François 2111
    HAMON Benoît 1317
    MACRON Emmanuel 1266
    DUPONT-AIGNAN Nicolas 623
    ARTHAUD Nathalie 593
    LE PEN Marine 577
    ASSELINEAU François 524
    MELENCHON Jean-Luc 432
    CHEMINADE Jacques 397
    LASSALLE Jean 289
    JUPPE Alain 288
    POUTOU Philippe 245
    YADE Rama 151
    each of the others less than 100

    Cheminade has struggled before.

    Otherwise not of much import.

    Melénchon will get the remainder, I'm sure, short of a complete cock up.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,689
    It will happen voters back it, including Tories and there is no alternative to pay for the extra funding given to social care, it will just be delayed until the autumn
  • CyanCyan Posts: 1,262

    Cyan said:

    Nominations have been updated:

    FILLON François 2111
    HAMON Benoît 1317
    MACRON Emmanuel 1266
    DUPONT-AIGNAN Nicolas 623
    ARTHAUD Nathalie 593
    LE PEN Marine 577
    ASSELINEAU François 524
    MELENCHON Jean-Luc 432
    CHEMINADE Jacques 397
    LASSALLE Jean 289
    JUPPE Alain 288
    POUTOU Philippe 245
    YADE Rama 151
    each of the others less than 100

    Cheminade has struggled before.

    Otherwise not of much import.

    Melénchon will get the remainder, I'm sure, short of a complete cock up.
    Juppé may get through. Only about a quarter of nominations are in.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    fpt
    kjh said:

    PlatoSaid said:
    What on earth has that got to do with the two articles?

    You do not seem to have any concept of how sucked into this cult mentality you are, but I guess that is how cults work.
    No, you need to actually read material before commenting on it. The evidence that Snopes is untrustworthy is a great deal stronger than the average evidence which Snopes adduces when it wants to discredit a story. You have simply bought uncritically in to the Snopes brand. You are like someone who is happy to buy a used car from Honest John, because he must be honest or he wouldn't call himself that.
  • BojabobBojabob Posts: 642
    Richard T FPT

    Undoubtedly it does make Brexit easier. I simply think it is a great idea and I will take advantage of it, should it come to pass. Still think that it is unlikely to, however.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    Cyan said:

    Cyan said:

    Nominations have been updated:

    FILLON François 2111
    HAMON Benoît 1317
    MACRON Emmanuel 1266
    DUPONT-AIGNAN Nicolas 623
    ARTHAUD Nathalie 593
    LE PEN Marine 577
    ASSELINEAU François 524
    MELENCHON Jean-Luc 432
    CHEMINADE Jacques 397
    LASSALLE Jean 289
    JUPPE Alain 288
    POUTOU Philippe 245
    YADE Rama 151
    each of the others less than 100

    Cheminade has struggled before.

    Otherwise not of much import.

    Melénchon will get the remainder, I'm sure, short of a complete cock up.
    Juppé may get through. Only about a quarter of nominations are in.
    I don't know the process, it may be that the nominee must accept the nomination, which Juppe won't.
  • BojabobBojabob Posts: 642
    Ishmael_Z said:

    fpt

    kjh said:

    PlatoSaid said:
    What on earth has that got to do with the two articles?

    You do not seem to have any concept of how sucked into this cult mentality you are, but I guess that is how cults work.
    No, you need to actually read material before commenting on it. The evidence that Snopes is untrustworthy is a great deal stronger than the average evidence which Snopes adduces when it wants to discredit a story. You have simply bought uncritically in to the Snopes brand. You are like someone who is happy to buy a used car from Honest John, because he must be honest or he wouldn't call himself that.
    I think the point is not so much about Snopes' reputation but that the newspaper story being discussed was clearly shown in a photograph. Either that photograph was fabricated or it wasn't. Personally, I suspect the photograph of the NYT front page is genuine, regardless of the bias or otherwise of the website that was carrying said picture.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited March 2017
    The pro immigration line from JD Wetherspoon's Tim Martin is what he has always said. Strange that the journalist who tweeted thought he was on to something, doesn't anybody do research anymore?

    From last June...

    "J.D. Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin, who made headlines earlier this week by distributing pro-Brexit 200,000 beermats to his pubs , has admitted about 1 in 10 of his workers is from overseas.

    But he told BuzzFeed his decision to back Brexit had nothing to do with immigration.

    He said: “Those people who are entitled to work here from the EU now should be entitled to work here after the referendum. If we leave, the rules should be the same as they were in Ireland before the EU – where people from Ireland could come and work here.”

    He added he’s personally pro-immigration, and his big problem with the EU is that it’s not democratic."

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pro-brexit-wetherspoons-boss-admits-8109824
  • BojabobBojabob Posts: 642
    Roger said:
    Another completely hyperbolic article from Heath. The government is in such a crisis it is 19pts clear in the polls.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,830
    Given the public seem broadly supportive and it is perfectly possible, if involving a little embarrassment, to cop to a u-turn i fjustified, and considering the opposition is not primary placed to take advantage, if this doesn't happen it will demonstrate that as with Cameron, May's biggest headaches are her own backbenchers.
  • BojabobBojabob Posts: 642
    So Tim Martin supports single market membership? In which case, what does he think of May's deranged idea to leave said market? Another Brexiteer that is reaping what he has sown.
  • CyanCyan Posts: 1,262

    Cyan said:

    Cyan said:

    Nominations have been updated:

    FILLON François 2111
    HAMON Benoît 1317
    MACRON Emmanuel 1266
    DUPONT-AIGNAN Nicolas 623
    ARTHAUD Nathalie 593
    LE PEN Marine 577
    ASSELINEAU François 524
    MELENCHON Jean-Luc 432
    CHEMINADE Jacques 397
    LASSALLE Jean 289
    JUPPE Alain 288
    POUTOU Philippe 245
    YADE Rama 151
    each of the others less than 100

    Cheminade has struggled before.

    Otherwise not of much import.

    Melénchon will get the remainder, I'm sure, short of a complete cock up.
    Juppé may get through. Only about a quarter of nominations are in.
    I don't know the process, it may be that the nominee must accept the nomination, which Juppe won't.
    The nominations (parrainages) are officially "présentations", so I think nominees have to accept, but it will be interesting if the place on the ballot is there for Juppé to take if he wants it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,883

    FPT

    Bojabob said:

    Meanwhile, I note that Guy Verhofstadt is pushing harder for letting Brits keep their EU citizenship after Brexit. If it cost, say £100 a year, I would certainly keep mine.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39228245

    I do find this idea amusing. The proponents seem to think it is a masterstroke to undermine Brexit when if anything it makes things easier. There is no demand for the UK to reciprocate which means UK citizens will be getting preferential treatment from the EU whilst there is no cost or compulsion placed on the UK at all .
    It's bemusing as much as amusing.

    It's everything that the Commission purports (with good reason) to not want. Access for Brits in Europe with no reciprocity. A fundamental re-work of Article 20. Detachment of the four freedoms from each other.

    Ergo, perhaps Mr Verhofstadt is trolling the UK with a proposal he doesn't think will actually happen.
    It's adding to the list of things the UK wants that in truth it can only get by remaining full members. Things like this will undermine the will for Brexiting as the negotiations drag on.
  • kle4 said:

    Given the public seem broadly supportive and it is perfectly possible, if involving a little embarrassment, to cop to a u-turn i fjustified, and considering the opposition is not primary placed to take advantage, if this doesn't happen it will demonstrate that as with Cameron, May's biggest headaches are her own backbenchers.

    I do not understand betting on it being implemented this year. It is not due to happen until April 2018 and it will surely be in the budget statement this Autumn once Matthew Taylor's summer report is published and absolutely endorses these mild tax changes
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    It will happen voters back it, including Tories and there is no alternative to pay for the extra funding given to social care, it will just be delayed until the autumn

    It is not a matter of delaying until the autumn because the change does take effect until April 2019 anyway.
  • FPT

    Bojabob said:

    Meanwhile, I note that Guy Verhofstadt is pushing harder for letting Brits keep their EU citizenship after Brexit. If it cost, say £100 a year, I would certainly keep mine.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39228245

    I do find this idea amusing. The proponents seem to think it is a masterstroke to undermine Brexit when if anything it makes things easier. There is no demand for the UK to reciprocate which means UK citizens will be getting preferential treatment from the EU whilst there is no cost or compulsion placed on the UK at all .
    It's bemusing as much as amusing.

    It's everything that the Commission purports (with good reason) to not want. Access for Brits in Europe with no reciprocity. A fundamental re-work of Article 20. Detachment of the four freedoms from each other.

    Ergo, perhaps Mr Verhofstadt is trolling the UK with a proposal he doesn't think will actually happen.
    It's adding to the list of things the UK wants that in truth it can only get by remaining full members. Things like this will undermine the will for Brexiting as the negotiations drag on.
    We are not going to remain and we are going to get a mutually beneficial divorce from the EU. Today's MEP discussion from Brussels was totally focussed on remaining good close friends with a mutual acceptable trade deal

    I do not know how you will cope when your 100% negativity is blown out of the water
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

    Such a poor level of debate
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    kle4 said:

    Given the public seem broadly supportive and it is perfectly possible, if involving a little embarrassment, to cop to a u-turn i fjustified, and considering the opposition is not primary placed to take advantage, if this doesn't happen it will demonstrate that as with Cameron, May's biggest headaches are her own backbenchers.

    If they don't push it through it would be a sign of vacillation and weakness. Or perhaps worse, a false perception of weakness when the position is in fact strong...

    Most people are employed and have relatively little sympathy for the position of self-employed people bearing in mind the differential in the way they are taxed. (Plenty see self-employment as nothing more than a tax wheeze - and for some people it probably is.) Higher earning self-employed people seem unlikely to turn en masse to the party of Jeremy Corbyn. Lower earning self-employed people will benefit from the abolition of Class 2 anyway. Shame the two moves couldn't have been cobbled together in a more coordinated manner really.

    And there are plenty of reasons to say that things have changed since the election in a manner that was not foreseen at the time of the manifesto. The NHS/social care crisis this winter makes rises in NICs far less politically toxic than they would otherwise have been. Brexit. The top leadership have changed. I'm dubious of the extent to which voters are going to hold the May government to account for things that were promised by Cameron. May's "manifesto" is really Brexit means Brexit, in the eyes of the general population. How she navigates those waters will define her electoral success, not a list of promises George Osborne churned out 5 years ago.

    The government is anyhow likely to shake up the entire treatment and classification of the self-employed in the next few years given the rise in the "gig economy". If they can put in some sweeteners, presumably in terms of additional rights, then I'm sure they can get away with this one.
  • justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    It will happen voters back it, including Tories and there is no alternative to pay for the extra funding given to social care, it will just be delayed until the autumn

    It is not a matter of delaying until the autumn because the change does take effect until April 2019 anyway.
    Not quite - the first 1% is in April 2018 followed by another 1% in April 2019
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,689
    isam said:

    What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

    Such a poor level of debate

    Martin made hefty donations to Vote Leave which exploited the immigration issue heavily
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,653

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    It will happen voters back it, including Tories and there is no alternative to pay for the extra funding given to social care, it will just be delayed until the autumn

    It is not a matter of delaying until the autumn because the change does take effect until April 2019 anyway.
    Not quite - the first 1% is in April 2018 followed by another 1% in April 2019
    I'm staying out of the bet then, though difficult to see how strictly speaking the 1-2 loses.
  • CyanCyan Posts: 1,262
    edited March 2017
    Cyan said:

    Cyan said:

    Cyan said:

    Nominations have been updated:

    FILLON François 2111
    HAMON Benoît 1317
    MACRON Emmanuel 1266
    DUPONT-AIGNAN Nicolas 623
    ARTHAUD Nathalie 593
    LE PEN Marine 577
    ASSELINEAU François 524
    MELENCHON Jean-Luc 432
    CHEMINADE Jacques 397
    LASSALLE Jean 289
    JUPPE Alain 288
    POUTOU Philippe 245
    YADE Rama 151
    each of the others less than 100

    Cheminade has struggled before.

    Otherwise not of much import.

    Melénchon will get the remainder, I'm sure, short of a complete cock up.
    Juppé may get through. Only about a quarter of nominations are in.
    I don't know the process, it may be that the nominee must accept the nomination, which Juppe won't.
    The nominations (parrainages) are officially "présentations", so I think nominees have to accept, but it will be interesting if the place on the ballot is there for Juppé to take if he wants it.
    Confirmed: yes a nominee can refuse.

    "(Le Conseil constitutionnel) s’assure que les personnes ayant valablement recueilli 500 parrainages consentent à être candidates".

    (The Constitutional Council ensures that each person who has received 500 valid nominations consents to being a candidate.)
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Another attack in Dusseldorf - man aged 80 assaulted with machete - no further details
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,531

    Thurst.

    The NIC mess is unimportant in itself. However it is an indication that the government would be in trouble if they faced a credible and capable opposition.

    Which means they're fine ...

    They do though. It is called the tabloids and the Tory right unfortunately.
  • BojabobBojabob Posts: 642
    HYUFD said:

    isam said:

    What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

    Such a poor level of debate

    Martin made hefty donations to Vote Leave which exploited the immigration issue heavily
    Indeed. The chickens have come home to roost.
  • Pulpstar said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    It will happen voters back it, including Tories and there is no alternative to pay for the extra funding given to social care, it will just be delayed until the autumn

    It is not a matter of delaying until the autumn because the change does take effect until April 2019 anyway.
    Not quite - the first 1% is in April 2018 followed by another 1% in April 2019
    I'm staying out of the bet then, though difficult to see how strictly speaking the 1-2 loses.
    I do not known much about betting but if there is a 1-2 bet on it not being implemented this year that must be a certain winner as it never was to be in force this year. Seems the bookies may have a problem depending on the small print !!
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    It will happen voters back it, including Tories and there is no alternative to pay for the extra funding given to social care, it will just be delayed until the autumn

    It is not a matter of delaying until the autumn because the change does take effect until April 2019 anyway.
    Not quite - the first 1% is in April 2018 followed by another 1% in April 2019
    Yes indeed - a typing error on this occasion!
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    isam said:

    What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

    Such a poor level of debate

    FPT:

    BREXIT Diaries - fascinating insights into the views of Leavers & Remainers (and its more complicated than that...)

    http://britainthinks.com/pdfs/BritainThinks_Brexit-Diaries-Breakfast-Briefing_FINAL.pdf

    Definitely fascinating.

    The "Diehard Leavers" come across as verging on xenophobic or possibly monomanics. They will endure anything to keep foreigners out. Sovereignty is just a method of keeping the foreigners out.

    The "Diehard Remainers" come across as needing counselling for depression.

    As usual, the bulk of people are in the middle. It is interesting that even the Diehard Leavers think we have no better than a 50/50 chance of a good deal. All other groups think our chances of a deal are worse.

    Where would I place myself on their continuum? For years I was a reluctant "Better Off Out" but when the referendum started to become a reality I looked at the economics and shifted from Reluctant Leaver to Reluctant Remainer, but it was the emergence of intolerance towards people who have done nothing other than to come here and help and contribute that pushed me firmly into the Remain camp.

    If you had told me 5 years ago that I would be a Remainer I would never have believed it :)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,689
    Bojabob said:

    HYUFD said:

    isam said:

    What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

    Such a poor level of debate

    Martin made hefty donations to Vote Leave which exploited the immigration issue heavily
    Indeed. The chickens have come home to roost.
    For him certainly
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    HYUFD said:

    Bojabob said:

    HYUFD said:

    isam said:

    What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

    Such a poor level of debate

    Martin made hefty donations to Vote Leave which exploited the immigration issue heavily
    Indeed. The chickens have come home to roost.
    For him certainly
    He wanted to leave for his own reasons. Remainers are jumping all over todays comments as if they are a surprise, why should they be? He said it before the referendum too
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,111
    edited March 2017
    isam said:

    What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

    Such a poor level of debate

    All it does is show how mixed up people were when they voted for Brexit. Immigration was the main issue cited for voting Leave. Not for him; he didn't like the sovereignty. Fair enough. But he should have realised that Brexit is not pick and mix. He obviously disliked the sovereignty aspect enough such that it overrode the immigration issue.

    So he should not now complain that the immigration issue is also being addressed.

    Either that or he is a fucking idiot.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,883

    I do not know how you will cope when your 100% negativity is blown out of the water

    I'm 100% positive. I still think Brexit will go off the rails before we exit. If I ever start saying Brexit will definitely go ahead then you can start calling me negative.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited March 2017
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

    Such a poor level of debate

    All it does is show how mixed up people were when they voted for Brexit. Immigration was the main issue cited for voting Leave. Not for him; he didn't like the sovereignty. Fair enough. But he should have realised that Brexit is not pick and mix. He obviously disliked the sovereignty aspect enough such that it overrode the immigration issue.

    So he should not now complain that the immigration issue is also being addressed.

    Either that or he is a fucking idiot.
    He seems to be a complete nutcase. His principal reason for supporting Leave seems to have been some bizarre vendetta against Christine Lagarde and George Osborne:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/jd-wetherspoon-pub-chief-tim-martin-sends-new-brexit-message-to-george-osborne-on-beer-mats-a7091106.html

    PS: I did once make the mistake of going to a Wetherspoon pub and actually ordering some food. I know, I know, my own stupid mistake. It's not one I'll repeat.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    dixiedean said:

    Thurst.

    The NIC mess is unimportant in itself. However it is an indication that the government would be in trouble if they faced a credible and capable opposition.

    Which means they're fine ...

    They do though. It is called the tabloids and the Tory right unfortunately.
    image
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,075
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Mr. Nabavi, what was wrong with it? Never been to one myself.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,689
    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bojabob said:

    HYUFD said:

    isam said:

    What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

    Such a poor level of debate

    Martin made hefty donations to Vote Leave which exploited the immigration issue heavily
    Indeed. The chickens have come home to roost.
    For him certainly
    He wanted to leave for his own reasons. Remainers are jumping all over todays comments as if they are a surprise, why should they be? He said it before the referendum too
    Yes but he was quite prepared to exploit grievances over immigration to get a Leave win as long as he could wash his hands of those with the grievances once he achieved a Leave victory
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited March 2017
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

    Such a poor level of debate

    All it does is show how mixed up people were when they voted for Brexit. Immigration was the main issue cited for voting Leave. Not for him; he didn't like the sovereignty. Fair enough. But he should have realised that Brexit is not pick and mix. He obviously disliked the sovereignty aspect enough such that it overrode the immigration issue.

    So he should not now complain that the immigration issue is also being addressed.

    Either that or he is a fucking idiot.
    Seems he wanted us to Leave the EU first and foremost. At the next GE he can vote for the party that offers him the immigration policy that he likes best.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Mr. Nabavi, what was wrong with it? Never been to one myself.

    I realised that I wasn't exactly in a temple of gastronomy, so I went for what I thought was a pretty safe option, sausages and baked beans IIRC. The sausages seemed to made of flaked cardboard stuffed into a plastic tube.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,075
    Mr. Nabavi, fair enough.

    At least they didn't put pineapple on your pizza.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    edited March 2017
    Floater said:

    Another attack in Dusseldorf - man aged 80 assaulted with machete - no further details

    For a country that has very good healthcare reputation, Germany's mental health provision appears to be woefully broken.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,122
    edited March 2017

    I do not know how you will cope when your 100% negativity is blown out of the water

    I'm 100% positive. I still think Brexit will go off the rails before we exit. If I ever start saying Brexit will definitely go ahead then you can start calling me negative.
    To be fair you are consistent in your belief it will fail but many of us, and I as a voting remainer, are one of those who sees this as a great opportunity and am confident an agreement will happen. The noises coming out of Brussels over the last 24 hours has changed much for the better and the picture will become clearer in the next few months.

    Of course I could be wrong but I see no way back to full membership of the EU
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    I love this twitter account - great summary

    Ian Hess
    Follow @RealPeerReview for The Onion Academia without the satire, but just as much comedy
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,554
    Bill Hill needs to explain that bet properly. The announcement in the budget is that the Class IV NI contributions for the self employed will rise from 9% to 10% in April 2018, and to 11% in April 2019. What exactly do WH mean by "Implemented This Year"?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    HYUFD said:

    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bojabob said:

    HYUFD said:

    isam said:

    What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

    Such a poor level of debate

    Martin made hefty donations to Vote Leave which exploited the immigration issue heavily
    Indeed. The chickens have come home to roost.
    For him certainly
    He wanted to leave for his own reasons. Remainers are jumping all over todays comments as if they are a surprise, why should they be? He said it before the referendum too
    Yes but he was quite prepared to exploit grievances over immigration to get a Leave win as long as he could wash his hands of those with the grievances once he achieved a Leave victory
    Not really, he backed Vote Leave. Your argument would make more sense if he backed Leave.EU , complained about immigration before the ref, or was moaning about the NHS not being funded now
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,111
    edited March 2017
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

    Such a poor level of debate

    All it does is show how mixed up people were when they voted for Brexit. Immigration was the main issue cited for voting Leave. Not for him; he didn't like the sovereignty. Fair enough. But he should have realised that Brexit is not pick and mix. He obviously disliked the sovereignty aspect enough such that it overrode the immigration issue.

    So he should not now complain that the immigration issue is also being addressed.

    Either that or he is a fucking idiot.
    Seems he wanted us to Leave the EU first and foremost. At the next GE he can vote for the party that offers him the immigration policy that he likes best.
    Yep. Glad to see you would be cool with a party winning the next GE on a platform of free movement for EU citizens.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    Be careful what you post on tw@tter...

    Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over a tweet.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079
  • Be careful what you post on tw@tter...

    Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over a tweet.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079

    No problem - do not use it - but to those who do David Cameron had the right response to it
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,689
    edited March 2017
    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bojabob said:

    HYUFD said:

    isam said:

    What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

    Such a poor level of debate

    Martin made hefty donations to Vote Leave which exploited the immigration issue heavily
    Indeed. The chickens have come home to roost.
    For him certainly
    He wanted to leave for his own reasons. Remainers are jumping all over todays comments as if they are a surprise, why should they be? He said it before the referendum too
    Yes but he was quite prepared to exploit grievances over immigration to get a Leave win as long as he could wash his hands of those with the grievances once he achieved a Leave victory
    Not really, he backed Vote Leave. Your argument would make more sense if he backed Leave.EU , complained about immigration before the ref, or was moaning about the NHS not being funded now
    Given the posters Vote Leave put out about immigration fears, including the one about Turkey, the comment stands
    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_immigration.html
    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vote+leave+immigration&client=ms-android-tmobile-gb&source=android-browser&prmd=niv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwju0PCPlczSAhUIChoKHWc5AToQ_AUICCgC&biw=360&bih=508#imgrc=t8fj9ALdbDM73M:
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,653

    Be careful what you post on tw@tter...

    Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over a tweet.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079

    Seems a bit low for a libel settlement.

    The trial took 21 months, unless the legal profession has taken an unprecedented pay cut then costs are going to be substantially more than £24,000. Will Hopkins be liable for those ?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

    Such a poor level of debate

    All it does is show how mixed up people were when they voted for Brexit. Immigration was the main issue cited for voting Leave. Not for him; he didn't like the sovereignty. Fair enough. But he should have realised that Brexit is not pick and mix. He obviously disliked the sovereignty aspect enough such that it overrode the immigration issue.

    So he should not now complain that the immigration issue is also being addressed.

    Either that or he is a fucking idiot.
    Seems he wanted us to Leave the EU first and foremost. At the next GE he can vote for the party that offers him the immigration policy that he likes best.
    Yep. Glad to see you would be cool with a party winning the next GE on a platform of free movement for EU citizens.
    Of course! That really would be democracy in action.

    I have said on here many many times, I would rather PM Corbyn and us out of the EU than PM Farage with us in
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,554
    Bojabob said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    fpt

    kjh said:

    PlatoSaid said:
    What on earth has that got to do with the two articles?

    You do not seem to have any concept of how sucked into this cult mentality you are, but I guess that is how cults work.
    No, you need to actually read material before commenting on it. The evidence that Snopes is untrustworthy is a great deal stronger than the average evidence which Snopes adduces when it wants to discredit a story. You have simply bought uncritically in to the Snopes brand. You are like someone who is happy to buy a used car from Honest John, because he must be honest or he wouldn't call himself that.
    I think the point is not so much about Snopes' reputation but that the newspaper story being discussed was clearly shown in a photograph. Either that photograph was fabricated or it wasn't. Personally, I suspect the photograph of the NYT front page is genuine, regardless of the bias or otherwise of the website that was carrying said picture.
    Yes, the point being made in the article linked by Ms Plato (on a right wing blog) had nothing to do with what was behind the story itself, merely that the NYT changed their headline to avoid the word "Wiretap" after Trump himself picked up on the story using that word.

    That allegation, that the NYT changed their headline, appears on the face of it to be true.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,056
    Ishmael_Z said:

    fpt

    kjh said:

    PlatoSaid said:
    What on earth has that got to do with the two articles?

    You do not seem to have any concept of how sucked into this cult mentality you are, but I guess that is how cults work.
    No, you need to actually read material before commenting on it. The evidence that Snopes is untrustworthy is a great deal stronger than the average evidence which Snopes adduces when it wants to discredit a story. You have simply bought uncritically in to the Snopes brand. You are like someone who is happy to buy a used car from Honest John, because he must be honest or he wouldn't call himself that.
    No I am not. You seem to be missing the whole point I am making. I know nothing about Snopes, let alone having bought into the brand. In fact I have heard of them before now so could not possibly have bought into the brand. You need to read the thread before. You seem to be making the point I was making rather than disagreeing with me.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    Floater said:

    Another attack in Dusseldorf - man aged 80 assaulted with machete - no further details

    For a country that has very good healthcare reputation, Germany's mental health provision appears to be woefully broken.
    I’m surprised there’s no law in Germany requiring machete salesmen to ask perspective buyers whether they are certifiably insane or not before purchase…
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549

    Be careful what you post on tw@tter...

    Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over a tweet.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079

    No problem - do not use it - but to those who do David Cameron had the right response to it
    Don't break manifesto pledges?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,912
    Pulpstar said:

    Be careful what you post on tw@tter...

    Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over a tweet.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079

    Seems a bit low for a libel settlement.

    The trial took 21 months, unless the legal profession has taken an unprecedented pay cut then costs are going to be substantially more than £24,000. Will Hopkins be liable for those ?
    Katie looks about 65 in that image.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    edited March 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Be careful what you post on tw@tter...

    Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over a tweet.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079

    Seems a bit low for a libel settlement.

    The trial took 21 months, unless the legal profession has taken an unprecedented pay cut then costs are going to be substantially more than £24,000. Will Hopkins be liable for those ?
    Katie looks about 65 in that image.
    She recently had some major brain surgery related to epilepsy I think.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,653
    https://twitter.com/HanoiToon/status/840210920479498240

    Court still considering the issue of costs for the libel case. Wouldn't go spending all £24,000 at once, Mx Monroe.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Be careful what you post on tw@tter...

    Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over a tweet.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079

    Seems a bit low for a libel settlement.

    The trial took 21 months, unless the legal profession has taken an unprecedented pay cut then costs are going to be substantially more than £24,000. Will Hopkins be liable for those ?
    Katie looks about 65 in that image.
    I wonder if she will be punished in costs by decline Jack's (very public) offer to settle for £5,000, i.e. less that the £24,000.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,554
    edited March 2017

    Be careful what you post on tw@tter...

    Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over a tweet.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079

    No problem - do not use it - but to those who do David Cameron had the right response to it
    David Cameron's maxim about Twitter will be taught in politics classes 20 years from now - when those delivering the class will have to explain to the students what Twitter was!
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    kjh said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    fpt

    kjh said:

    PlatoSaid said:
    What on earth has that got to do with the two articles?

    You do not seem to have any concept of how sucked into this cult mentality you are, but I guess that is how cults work.
    No, you need to actually read material before commenting on it. The evidence that Snopes is untrustworthy is a great deal stronger than the average evidence which Snopes adduces when it wants to discredit a story. You have simply bought uncritically in to the Snopes brand. You are like someone who is happy to buy a used car from Honest John, because he must be honest or he wouldn't call himself that.
    No I am not. You seem to be missing the whole point I am making. I know nothing about Snopes, let alone having bought into the brand. In fact I have heard of them before now so could not possibly have bought into the brand. You need to read the thread before. You seem to be making the point I was making rather than disagreeing with me.
    The observation in general is that supposed *fact checkers* all come from the liberal left and have an agenda. Hence why they've bugger all credibility with the Right and loved by the Left.

    The same goes for the MSM - the Democrats think they're trustworthy, the Republicans think they're liars. That's not a healthy balance when it comes to convincing the other side.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,653
    edited March 2017

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Be careful what you post on tw@tter...

    Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over a tweet.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079

    Seems a bit low for a libel settlement.

    The trial took 21 months, unless the legal profession has taken an unprecedented pay cut then costs are going to be substantially more than £24,000. Will Hopkins be liable for those ?
    Katie looks about 65 in that image.
    I wonder if she will be punished in costs by decline Jack's (very public) offer to settle for £5,000, i.e. less that the £24,000.
    Its a racing certainty that the costs Hopkins will have to bear will substantially outweigh the £24,000 settlement.
    But will Jack end up out of pocket too....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,111
    edited March 2017
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

    Such a poor level of debate

    All it does is show how mixed up people were when they voted for Brexit. Immigration was the main issue cited for voting Leave. Not for him; he didn't like the sovereignty. Fair enough. But he should have realised that Brexit is not pick and mix. He obviously disliked the sovereignty aspect enough such that it overrode the immigration issue.

    So he should not now complain that the immigration issue is also being addressed.

    Either that or he is a fucking idiot.
    Seems he wanted us to Leave the EU first and foremost. At the next GE he can vote for the party that offers him the immigration policy that he likes best.
    Yep. Glad to see you would be cool with a party winning the next GE on a platform of free movement for EU citizens.
    Of course! That really would be democracy in action.

    I have said on here many many times, I would rather PM Corbyn and us out of the EU than PM Farage with us in
    I salute your equanimity. Presumably along the same lines you think it perfectly legitimate and the epitome of a democratic society for people to want to stop Brexit or water it down?
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Make of this what you will

    Voice of Europe
    Dusseldorf axe attacker: “Fatmir H,” Muslim from Kosovo — cops rule out “Islamic fundamentalist motive” https://t.co/fB2nD4QN4M https://t.co/jPUUPCTys4
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Anyone who tweets should read the Monroe v Hopkins judgment. Quite apart from being highly entertaining, it is also a valuable corrective (if still needed) that Twitter isn't some wild west which somehow doesn't really matter for libel purposes:

    https://t.co/lwdeQgPiDb
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,241
    Pulpstar said:

    Be careful what you post on tw@tter...

    Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over a tweet.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079

    Seems a bit low for a libel settlement.

    The trial took 21 months, unless the legal profession has taken an unprecedented pay cut then costs are going to be substantially more than £24,000. Will Hopkins be liable for those ?
    Judgement: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/monroe-v-hopkins-2017-ewhc-433-qb-20170310.pdf
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,912
    PlatoSaid said:

    kjh said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    fpt

    kjh said:

    PlatoSaid said:
    What on earth has that got to do with the two articles?

    You do not seem to have any concept of how sucked into this cult mentality you are, but I guess that is how cults work.
    No, you need to actually read material before commenting on it. The evidence that Snopes is untrustworthy is a great deal stronger than the average evidence which Snopes adduces when it wants to discredit a story. You have simply bought uncritically in to the Snopes brand. You are like someone who is happy to buy a used car from Honest John, because he must be honest or he wouldn't call himself that.
    No I am not. You seem to be missing the whole point I am making. I know nothing about Snopes, let alone having bought into the brand. In fact I have heard of them before now so could not possibly have bought into the brand. You need to read the thread before. You seem to be making the point I was making rather than disagreeing with me.
    The observation in general is that supposed *fact checkers* all come from the liberal left and have an agenda. Hence why they've bugger all credibility with the Right and loved by the Left.

    The same goes for the MSM - the Democrats think they're trustworthy, the Republicans think they're liars. That's not a healthy balance when it comes to convincing the other side.
    In a world where there is so much disinformation, how do you find out what's true? Isn't the danger that we all believe what we want to be true.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,653
    Jack Monroe costs estimated at £150,000

    Hopkins settlement £24,000. Ordered to pay £107,000 towards Mx Monroe's legal costs.

    So that is Hopkins £131,000 out of pocket and Monroe £19,000 out of pocket by my calculations.

    Looks like the lawyers are the winners from this case.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,241

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Be careful what you post on tw@tter...

    Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over a tweet.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079

    Seems a bit low for a libel settlement.

    The trial took 21 months, unless the legal profession has taken an unprecedented pay cut then costs are going to be substantially more than £24,000. Will Hopkins be liable for those ?
    Katie looks about 65 in that image.
    I wonder if she will be punished in costs by decline Jack's (very public) offer to settle for £5,000, i.e. less that the £24,000.
    This case has been about the particular tweets complained of by this claimant against this defendant. It may have little wider significance. But I cannot leave it without making two observations. The first is that the case could easily have been resolved at an early stage. There was an open offer to settle for £5,000. It was a reasonable offer. There could have been an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996. Such an offer attracts a substantial discount: up to half if the offer is prompt and unqualified. Such an offer would have meant the compensation would have been modest. The costs would have been a fraction of those which I am sure these parties have incurred in the event. Those costs have largely been incurred in contesting the issue of whether a statement which on its face had a defamatory tendency had actually caused serious harm.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Pulpstar said:

    Jack Monroe costs estimated at £150,000

    Hopkins settlement £24,000. Ordered to pay £107,000 towards Mx Monroe's legal costs.

    So that is Hopkins £131,000 out of pocket and Monroe £19,000 out of pocket by my calculations.

    Looks like the lawyers are the winners from this case.

    Hoorah!
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    PlatoSaid said:

    Make of this what you will

    Voice of Europe
    Dusseldorf axe attacker: “Fatmir H,” Muslim from Kosovo — cops rule out “Islamic fundamentalist motive” https://t.co/fB2nD4QN4M https://t.co/jPUUPCTys4

    Maybe the guy was simply barking mad.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    Pulpstar said:

    Jack Monroe costs estimated at £150,000

    Hopkins settlement £24,000. Ordered to pay £107,000 towards Mx Monroe's legal costs.

    So that is Hopkins £131,000 out of pocket and Monroe £19,000 out of pocket by my calculations.

    Looks like the lawyers are the winners from this case.

    Well there's a first...
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited March 2017
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

    Such a poor level of debate

    All it does is show how mixed up people were when they voted for Brexit. Immigration was the main issue cited for voting Leave. Not for him; he didn't like the sovereignty. Fair enough. But he should have realised that Brexit is not pick and mix. He obviously disliked the sovereignty aspect enough such that it overrode the immigration issue.

    So he should not now complain that the immigration issue is also being addressed.

    Either that or he is a fucking idiot.
    Seems he wanted us to Leave the EU first and foremost. At the next GE he can vote for the party that offers him the immigration policy that he likes best.
    Yep. Glad to see you would be cool with a party winning the next GE on a platform of free movement for EU citizens.
    Of course! That really would be democracy in action.

    I have said on here many many times, I would rather PM Corbyn and us out of the EU than PM Farage with us in
    I salute your equanimity. Presumably along the same lines you think it perfectly legitimate and the epitome of a democratic society for people to want to stop Brexit or water it down?
    No I think it is best to let the government get on with it, it is causing too much hate. I also said many times I would be happy if TM the PMs deal was the same as Cameron negotiated. Just get us out. From then on, different govts will lean one way or the other, depending on how we vote, there never will be a final deal, it will always change
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,653
    Actually Hopkins will be more than £131,000 out of pocket as she'll have her own legal fees to pay as well. Assuming she's paying about the same as Mx Monroe that'll be ~ £281,000 in total then.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,653
    Looks like Katie is making a habit of it, £150,000 in damages paid out in another case in December.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,075
    Mrs C, that is a genuine possibility. However, as I posted at the time (during the spate of French/German attacks last year), the erosion of trust in police, politicians and media means that a lot of people simply won't believe the official line on what occurred.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    Pulpstar said:

    Jack Monroe costs estimated at £150,000

    Hopkins settlement £24,000. Ordered to pay £107,000 towards Mx Monroe's legal costs.

    So that is Hopkins £131,000 out of pocket and Monroe £19,000 out of pocket by my calculations.

    Looks like the lawyers are the winners from this case.

    Hoorah!
    :lol: -
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Jean-Claude Juncker is missing Britain already:

    https://www.ft.com/content/0ad56edb-13ea-3363-9ecc-c2db797c405a
  • BojabobBojabob Posts: 642
    Re: Tim Martin.

    The guy – and his (very few) defenders on here – really doesn't have a leg to stand on. He shovelled thousands into Vote Leave, one of the most mendacious, reactionary campaigns in living memory which wilfully sought to exploit fears over immigration to win a poll on EU membership. He now has the brass neck to complain about (deranged) government plans to leave the Single Market to prevent free movement of EU citizens. The guy has reaped what he has sown, I'm afraid.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,056
    kjh said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    fpt

    kjh said:

    PlatoSaid said:
    What on earth has that got to do with the two articles?

    You do not seem to have any concept of how sucked into this cult mentality you are, but I guess that is how cults work.
    No, you need to actually read material before commenting on it. The evidence that Snopes is untrustworthy is a great deal stronger than the average evidence which Snopes adduces when it wants to discredit a story. You have simply bought uncritically in to the Snopes brand. You are like someone who is happy to buy a used car from Honest John, because he must be honest or he wouldn't call himself that.
    No I am not. You seem to be missing the whole point I am making. I know nothing about Snopes, let alone having bought into the brand. In fact I have heard of them before now so could not possibly have bought into the brand. You need to read the thread before. You seem to be making the point I was making rather than disagreeing with me.
    That has got me frustrated. I think we are on exactly the same wavelength Ishmael Z.

    Definite misunderstanding.

    I made another post on the last thread not realising we had moved on (thought it seemed a bit quiet!) which might help.

    The point I was making is everything printed is biased in some way even if only subconsciously. Some rather more than others. Plato goes to the mind boggling extreme in her acceptance and rejection of stuff to the point of conspiracy theory to fit in with her beliefs.

    It is something that particularly frustrates me. My degree was in Mathematics and when selecting for later study I focused on logic topics. I don't remember much of it now but have faint memories of dissecting this sort of stuff mathematically.
  • As a non-Tory candidate in the County elections and an accountant this has been great for me...had clients and non-clients (Tory supporters) hopping mad - in that respect the damage has already been done irespectve of whether they back-down
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,730
    Pulpstar said:

    Jack Monroe costs estimated at £150,000

    Hopkins settlement £24,000. Ordered to pay £107,000 towards Mx Monroe's legal costs.

    So that is Hopkins £131,000 out of pocket and Monroe £19,000 out of pocket by my calculations.

    Looks like the lawyers are the winners from this case.

    Presumably she'll be paying costs on the indemnity basis, if she turned down an offer to settle for £5,000.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited March 2017
    As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.

    Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.

    Wow

    They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging

    Same old!

    A pitiful level of debate.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jack Monroe costs estimated at £150,000

    Hopkins settlement £24,000. Ordered to pay £107,000 towards Mx Monroe's legal costs.

    So that is Hopkins £131,000 out of pocket and Monroe £19,000 out of pocket by my calculations.

    Looks like the lawyers are the winners from this case.

    Presumably she'll be paying costs on the indemnity basis, if she turned down an offer to settle for £5,000.
    £131,000 out of pocket (final bill TBC) of c.£150,000 is pretty much a indemnity basis.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Pulpstar said:
    You can tell that the judge enjoyed writing that one.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,730

    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jack Monroe costs estimated at £150,000

    Hopkins settlement £24,000. Ordered to pay £107,000 towards Mx Monroe's legal costs.

    So that is Hopkins £131,000 out of pocket and Monroe £19,000 out of pocket by my calculations.

    Looks like the lawyers are the winners from this case.

    Presumably she'll be paying costs on the indemnity basis, if she turned down an offer to settle for £5,000.
    £131,000 out of pocket (final bill TBC) of c.£150,000 is pretty much a indemnity basis.
    Indemnity costs are usually 80-85% of the total, so she'll be looking at £120-£125,000 plus the £24,000 damages.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jack Monroe costs estimated at £150,000

    Hopkins settlement £24,000. Ordered to pay £107,000 towards Mx Monroe's legal costs.

    So that is Hopkins £131,000 out of pocket and Monroe £19,000 out of pocket by my calculations.

    Looks like the lawyers are the winners from this case.

    Presumably she'll be paying costs on the indemnity basis, if she turned down an offer to settle for £5,000.
    £131,000 out of pocket (final bill TBC) of c.£150,000 is pretty much a indemnity basis.
    Indemnity costs are usually 80-85% of the total, so she'll be looking at £120-£125,000 plus the £24,000 damages.
    Sorry I got my numbers confused but you said it better anyway
  • BojabobBojabob Posts: 642
    For reference, the £200,000 Tim "Pub Landlord" Martin gave to the Vote Leave campaign helped fund advertising such as this:

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/assets-d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/voteleave/pages/513/attachments/original/1455059757/briefing-security-borders.png
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,774
    Pulpstar said:

    Jack Monroe costs estimated at £150,000

    Hopkins settlement £24,000. Ordered to pay £107,000 towards Mx Monroe's legal costs.

    So that is Hopkins £131,000 out of pocket and Monroe £19,000 out of pocket by my calculations.

    Looks like the lawyers are the winners from this case.

    Isn't it £107,000 now and the rest later? Can't imagine Monroe will end up out of pocket on this.

  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,056
    rcs1000 said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    kjh said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    fpt

    kjh said:

    PlatoSaid said:
    What on earth has that got to do with the two articles?

    You do not seem to have any concept of how sucked into this cult mentality you are, but I guess that is how cults work.
    No, you need to actually read material before commenting on it. The evidence that Snopes is untrustworthy is a great deal stronger than the average evidence which Snopes adduces when it wants to discredit a story. You have simply bought uncritically in to the Snopes brand. You are like someone who is happy to buy a used car from Honest John, because he must be honest or he wouldn't call himself that.
    No I am not. You seem to be missing the whole point I am making. I know nothing about Snopes, let alone having bought into the brand. In fact I have heard of them before now so could not possibly have bought into the brand. You need to read the thread before. You seem to be making the point I was making rather than disagreeing with me.
    The observation in general is that supposed *fact checkers* all come from the liberal left and have an agenda. Hence why they've bugger all credibility with the Right and loved by the Left.

    The same goes for the MSM - the Democrats think they're trustworthy, the Republicans think they're liars. That's not a healthy balance when it comes to convincing the other side.
    In a world where there is so much disinformation, how do you find out what's true? Isn't the danger that we all believe what we want to be true.
    Absolutely.

    Plato, The observation you make may well be true, so instead of just reading the stuff from the right and dismissing the stuff from the left read both, check the facts if you can but most importantly apply logic. Don't repost the instant you see something in a right wing blog that fits your view, they just might be biased or falling for the same irrationality (the same goes for the left blogs and anyone else obviously). Also consider Ocams Razer. Some of the convoluted logic to reach the required conclusion in some of the links you have provided are mind boggling. They may be true of course but without a scintilla of evidence Ocams Razer rules.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    isam said:

    As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.

    Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.

    Wow

    They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging

    Same old!

    A pitiful level of debate.

    I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414
    edited March 2017

    Pulpstar said:

    Jack Monroe costs estimated at £150,000

    Hopkins settlement £24,000. Ordered to pay £107,000 towards Mx Monroe's legal costs.

    So that is Hopkins £131,000 out of pocket and Monroe £19,000 out of pocket by my calculations.

    Looks like the lawyers are the winners from this case.

    Isn't it £107,000 now and the rest later? Can't imagine Monroe will end up out of pocket on this.

    Even if her costs are assessed on the Indemnity Basis what she gets back won't cover everything she's had to pay out to her lawyers. If she isn't out of pocket she won't have much more than pin money to show for it. But in this case I really don't think it was about the money (for once!)

    Mind you if she just wanted to show the world that Katie Hopkins is an idiot, she really needn't to have gone to all that trouble.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited March 2017
    Also giving evidence was the founder of pub chain JD Wetherspoon and vocal Brexit campaigner Tim Martin, who said the UK needed "controlled" immigration or the British economy could go backwards.

    "For the UK to be a successful country and economy in the next 20, 30, 50 years, we need a gradually rising population and that will need some type of reasonably controlled immigration," he said.

    "If we don't get it, I think the economy will tend to go backwards."



    A perfectly sensible observation.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,075
    Current events: just written a review of a diary from 1917:
    http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/review-some-desperate-glory-by-edwin.html
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Bojabob said:

    Richard T FPT

    Undoubtedly it does make Brexit easier. I simply think it is a great idea and I will take advantage of it, should it come to pass. Still think that it is unlikely to, however.

    I hope so too. I'll definitely sign up if it happens. Apart from anything else, accidentally getting it out during meetings with European clients will be a way of showing that I'm not one of those Brexit types.
This discussion has been closed.