I thought that too and certainly the polls around the time of the referendum seemed to show that. But all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration.
But we won't be able to pick and chose the precise structure of the deal to suit the electoral requirements of the government.
If the choice is between:
- Controlled immigration but burdensome trade and a hard border in Ireland. - Free trade and free movement with the ECJ. In the customs union and an open border with Ireland. No independent trade deals, no MEPs no Commissioner, no participation in the Council. - Full membership
And all the time the clock is ticking, the pressure to break up the UK will increase.
What do you chose?
Easy. I choose the first. The second is not the equivalent of EEA membership and is far more burdensome.
Ok, so you chose the first. You get parliament against you, a deep recession, Scotland departing and Ireland reunifying. Still think you'll get 52% to support it?
I thought that too and certainly the polls around the time of the referendum seemed to show that. But all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration.
But we won't be able to pick and chose the precise structure of the deal to suit the electoral requirements of the government.
If the choice is between:
- Controlled immigration but burdensome trade and a hard border in Ireland. - Free trade and free movement with the ECJ. In the customs union and an open border with Ireland. No independent trade deals, no MEPs no Commissioner, no participation in the Council. - Full membership
And all the time the clock is ticking, the pressure to break up the UK will increase.
What do you chose?
Easy. I choose the first. The second is not the equivalent of EEA membership and is far more burdensome.
Ok, so you chose the first. You get parliament against you, a deep recession, Scotland departing and Ireland reunifying. Still think you'll get 52% to support it?
You think that will happen because you want Brexit to result in such a calamity. But your dreams bear no relation to reality.
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.
No they did not. They voted to leave the EU. That was it. Now I think it is reasonable based on polling to say that there may be a majority for controlling immigration buy to claim that any individual including either me or Tim Martin voted for that is utterly bollocks.
Your words: "all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration."
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.
No they did not. They voted to leave the EU. That was it. Now I think it is reasonable based on polling to say that there may be a majority for controlling immigration buy to claim that any individual including either me or Tim Martin voted for that is utterly bollocks.
Your words: "all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration."
Lower immigration was on the ballot paper but leaving the single market wasn't?
I thought that too and certainly the polls around the time of the referendum seemed to show that. But all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration.
But we won't be able to pick and chose the precise structure of the deal to suit the electoral requirements of the government.
If the choice is between:
- Controlled immigration but burdensome trade and a hard border in Ireland. - Free trade and free movement with the ECJ. In the customs union and an open border with Ireland. No independent trade deals, no MEPs no Commissioner, no participation in the Council. - Full membership
And all the time the clock is ticking, the pressure to break up the UK will increase.
What do you chose?
Easy. I choose the first. The second is not the equivalent of EEA membership and is far more burdensome.
Ok, so you chose the first. You get parliament against you, a deep recession, Scotland departing and Ireland reunifying. Still think you'll get 52% to support it?
You think that will happen because you want Brexit to result in such a calamity. But your dreams bear no relation to reality.
Assume no recession. Is it still a calamity and is it still something you think the government could withstand?
That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.
Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?
To all intents and purposes, yes. It's basically a form of cross-subsidy for the expensive bits of the courts and tribunals service (ie crime and family).
I'm a little surprised 58% of all estates are below £50k.
I'm not sure what I expected that figure to be, but 58% seems pretty high.
Probate isn't needed in many cases. Jointly-owned properties and bank accounts, property that's held on trust, payments that are made out to nominated beneficiaries can all be made without a grant, so quite often, the full value of an estate isn't reflected in the value for probate purposes.
Thanks for that. Probate/estate administration etc is something that I (thankfully) know nothing about.
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.
No they did not. They voted to leave the EU. That was it. Now I think it is reasonable based on polling to say that there may be a majority for controlling immigration buy to claim that any individual including either me or Tim Martin voted for that is utterly bollocks.
Your words: "all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration."
Lower immigration was on the ballot paper but leaving the single market wasn't?
The government has taken it upon itself to interpret the vote as us wanting to leave the single market and lower immigration. Hence that is what we will be doing.
I thought that too and certainly the polls around the time of the referendum seemed to show that. But all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration.
But we won't be able to pick and chose the precise structure of the deal to suit the electoral requirements of the government.
If the choice is between:
- Controlled immigration but burdensome trade and a hard border in Ireland. - Free trade and free movement with the ECJ. In the customs union and an open border with Ireland. No independent trade deals, no MEPs no Commissioner, no participation in the Council. - Full membership
And all the time the clock is ticking, the pressure to break up the UK will increase.
What do you chose?
Easy. I choose the first. The second is not the equivalent of EEA membership and is far more burdensome.
Ok, so you chose the first. You get parliament against you, a deep recession, Scotland departing and Ireland reunifying. Still think you'll get 52% to support it?
You think that will happen because you want Brexit to result in such a calamity. But your dreams bear no relation to reality.
Assume no recession. Is it still a calamity and is it still something you think the government could withstand?
I used to have it when I worked for Euromoney many years ago. We had to do libel training and follow a certain set of procedures before publishing anything potentially defamatory - including getting sign-off from lawyers. If we did then we were covered. I was once sued for libel, in Malaysia of all places, so was very glad of it:
If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.
So what will the final score likely be?
On checking, I see that the costs were awarded on the standard, not the indemnity, basis. Monroe must therefore prove (a) that the costs were reasonably incurred, and (b) that the sums claimed are reasonable. Typically, you recover 60-70% on the standard basis.
So, if Monroe's costs are £300,000, she'll probably get back c.£180-200,000 from Hopkins, in addition to £24,000 damages.
From what you have seen/read - is £300,000 reasonable? To me, an average punter, it seems astronomical.
I don't know what Greg Callus' fees are, but suppose for the sake of argument, they're £250 an hour, plus a brief fee of £2,500 on trial, and a daily refresher of £1,500, plus VAT, (which would not be at all unusual for a barrister of five years' call in this area of work), and then suppose the solicitor is charging a similar hourly rate, you can see how it would all mount up.
I thought that too and certainly the polls around the time of the referendum seemed to show that. But all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration.
But we won't be able to pick and chose the precise structure of the deal to suit the electoral requirements of the government.
If the choice is between:
- Controlled immigration but burdensome trade and a hard border in Ireland. - Free trade and free movement with the ECJ. In the customs union and an open border with Ireland. No independent trade deals, no MEPs no Commissioner, no participation in the Council. - Full membership
And all the time the clock is ticking, the pressure to break up the UK will increase.
What do you chose?
Easy. I choose the first. The second is not the equivalent of EEA membership and is far more burdensome.
Ok, so you chose the first. You get parliament against you, a deep recession, Scotland departing and Ireland reunifying. Still think you'll get 52% to support it?
You think that will happen because you want Brexit to result in such a calamity. But your dreams bear no relation to reality.
Assume no recession. Is it still a calamity and is it still something you think the government could withstand?
Easily.
Seeing as the remoaners and the tombstoners are each ready to throw their toys out the pram at the slightest whiff of a nuanced NI hike that is pennies in the grand scheme of things, I'm not certain it can stand such gaelic upheaval. On the other hand the Gov't majority does increase if either Norn or Scotland leaves (Eventually)
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.
No they did not. They voted to leave the EU. That was it. Now I think it is reasonable based on polling to say that there may be a majority for controlling immigration buy to claim that any individual including either me or Tim Martin voted for that is utterly bollocks.
Your words: "all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration."
Lower immigration was on the ballot paper but leaving the single market wasn't?
The government has taken it upon itself to interpret the vote as us wanting to leave the single market and lower immigration. Hence that is what we will be doing.
And they may be right or wrong in that interpretation. The migration interpretation is almost certainly correct, despite not being universal.
You would have to presume that Hopkins has some sort of "insurance", otherwise who in their right mind wouldn't just paid the £5k before risking bankrupt levels of dosh on a court case for something so unimportant for her (and clearly in the wrong).
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.
No they did not. They voted to leave the EU. That was it. Now I think it is reasonable based on polling to say that there may be a majority for controlling immigration buy to claim that any individual including either me or Tim Martin voted for that is utterly bollocks.
Your words: "all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration."
Lower immigration was on the ballot paper but leaving the single market wasn't?
The government has taken it upon itself to interpret the vote as us wanting to leave the single market and lower immigration. Hence that is what we will be doing.
And they may be right or wrong in that interpretation. The migration interpretation is almost certainly correct, despite not being universal.
And yet Wetherspoon's Tim is whining because they are doing just that.
Never ever get involved in a libel lawsuit is one of the golden rules of UK life.
The golden rule is to try and avoid litigation if at all possible, unless you've got lots of money you can afford to lose. I'm involved in a probate case where the legal fees to date (it is not concluded) come to about £1m in total for the six parties involved.
I thought that too and certainly the polls around the time of the referendum seemed to show that. But all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration.
But we won't be able to pick and chose the precise structure of the deal to suit the electoral requirements of the government.
If the choice is between:
- Controlled immigration but burdensome trade and a hard border in Ireland. - Free trade and free movement with the ECJ. In the customs union and an open border with Ireland. No independent trade deals, no MEPs no Commissioner, no participation in the Council. - Full membership
And all the time the clock is ticking, the pressure to break up the UK will increase.
What do you chose?
Easy. I choose the first. The second is not the equivalent of EEA membership and is far more burdensome.
Ok, so you chose the first. You get parliament against you, a deep recession, Scotland departing and Ireland reunifying. Still think you'll get 52% to support it?
You think that will happen because you want Brexit to result in such a calamity. But your dreams bear no relation to reality.
Assume no recession. Is it still a calamity and is it still something you think the government could withstand?
Well I certainly don't think Scottish Independence is a calamity. Indeed I campaigned in Aberdeen for it last time around. And if the people of Northern Ireland want to be part of a united Ireland who am I to object. It's called democracy. Something you seem to have a problem with.
You would have to presume that Hopkins has some sort of "insurance", otherwise who in their right mind wouldn't just paid the £5k before risking bankrupt levels of dosh on a court case for something so unimportant for her (and clearly in the wrong).
You'd be surprised at the way some people will just chuck their money away.
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.
No they did not. They voted to leave the EU. That was it. Now I think it is reasonable based on polling to say that there may be a majority for controlling immigration buy to claim that any individual including either me or Tim Martin voted for that is utterly bollocks.
Your words: "all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration."
Which bears absolutely no comparison to your claim that everyone who voted for Brexit wanted immigration reductions. Logic seems to.be your weak spot this evening.
You would have to presume that Hopkins has some sort of "insurance", otherwise who in their right mind wouldn't just paid the £5k before risking bankrupt levels of dosh on a court case for something so unimportant for her (and clearly in the wrong).
You'd be surprised at the way some people will just chuck their money away.
Hopkins is many things, but I would be shocked if she was this stupid. IMO, her whole media persona is an exaggerated act focused upon getting clicks / views for the likes of her Mail column.
If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.
So what will the final score likely be?
On checking, I see that the costs were awarded on the standard, not the indemnity, basis. Monroe must therefore prove (a) that the costs were reasonably incurred, and (b) that the sums claimed are reasonable. Typically, you recover 60-70% on the standard basis.
So, if Monroe's costs are £300,000, she'll probably get back c.£180-200,000 from Hopkins, in addition to £24,000 damages.
From what you have seen/read - is £300,000 reasonable? To me, an average punter, it seems astronomical.
I don't know what Greg Callus' fees are, but suppose for the sake of argument, they're £250 an hour, plus a brief fee of £2,500 on trial, and a daily refresher of £1,500, plus VAT, (which would not be at all unusual for a barrister of five years' call in this area of work), and then suppose the solicitor is charging a similar hourly rate, you can see how it would all mount up.
I think £250 ph for a decent libel lawyer would be a good deal, to be honest. Although the fees will be adjusted given the order, so Jack isn't as out of pocket as she seems.
If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.
So what will the final score likely be?
On checking, I see that the costs were awarded on the standard, not the indemnity, basis. Monroe must therefore prove (a) that the costs were reasonably incurred, and (b) that the sums claimed are reasonable. Typically, you recover 60-70% on the standard basis.
So, if Monroe's costs are £300,000, she'll probably get back c.£180-200,000 from Hopkins, in addition to £24,000 damages.
From what you have seen/read - is £300,000 reasonable? To me, an average punter, it seems astronomical.
I don't know what Greg Callus' fees are, but suppose for the sake of argument, they're £250 an hour, plus a brief fee of £2,500 on trial, and a daily refresher of £1,500, plus VAT, (which would not be at all unusual for a barrister of five years' call in this area of work), and then suppose the solicitor is charging a similar hourly rate, you can see how it would all mount up.
I think £250 ph for a decent libel lawyer would be a good deal, to be honest. Although the fees will be adjusted given the order, so Jack isn't as out of pocket as she seems.
I certainly think the hourly rate could be higher. But, he was called to the Bar in 2012, so I wouldn't expect it to be much higher.
Mr. Recidivist, the rumour was that the EU would want EU law to apply to those British citizens who decide to pay to opt into EU citizenship.
I cannot see that being acceptable.
I don't understand what that even means.
In the UK, irrespective of what nationality you are, you are subject to the laws of the UK. And EU law, such that it is, doesn't really cover criminality.
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.
No they did not. They voted to leave the EU. That was it. Now I think it is reasonable based on polling to say that there may be a majority for controlling immigration buy to claim that any individual including either me or Tim Martin voted for that is utterly bollocks.
Your words: "all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration."
Lower immigration was on the ballot paper but leaving the single market wasn't?
The government has taken it upon itself to interpret the vote as us wanting to leave the single market and lower immigration. Hence that is what we will be doing.
And they may be right or wrong in that interpretation. The migration interpretation is almost certainly correct, despite not being universal.
And yet Wetherspoon's Tim is whining because they are doing just that.
He's not whining he is campaigning for what he believes in. So should everyone.
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.
A load of crap. This was a binary choice and you will have people with very different opinions on both sides of the binary choice.
Politics continues either way.
So he voted Leave in the firm belief that freedom of movement would continue when virtually the entire campaign (much of which he funded) was predicated on controlling immigration.
K. Quelle dick.
So did I. And?
Australia.has immigration controlled at a level higher than ours. Controlled doesn't mean zero.
Never ever get involved in a libel lawsuit is one of the golden rules of UK life.
Amen. - Developing a thick hide is by far the cheapest option.
I don't know.
The character assassination of Chris Jeffreys was awful.
If that were me or a close friend/relative, I'd want some sort of justice.
It helps to keep a sense of proportion – we’re talking about an offensive tweet, where the plaintiff was happy to have settled out of court for 5K. – Not a vile media witch hunt carried out by eight tabloids.
As Rahman installs a sock puppet to front his new party, it emerges the police hbd turned a blind eye to the evidence against him and haven't pressed charges
You would have to presume that Hopkins has some sort of "insurance", otherwise who in their right mind wouldn't just paid the £5k before risking bankrupt levels of dosh on a court case for something so unimportant for her (and clearly in the wrong).
You'd be surprised at the way some people will just chuck their money away.
Hopkins is many things, but I would be shocked if she was this stupid. IMO, her whole media persona is an exaggerated act focused upon getting clicks / views for the likes of her Mail column.
I agree. As was Donald Trump, until, mentally, life imitated art and he got elected as POTUS.
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.
And like most of your observations, it's bollocks. Right-wingers call fact-checkers biased mainly because they tend to tell more lies.
If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.
So what will the final score likely be?
On checking, I see that the costs were awarded on the standard, not the indemnity, basis. Monroe must therefore prove (a) that the costs were reasonably incurred, and (b) that the sums claimed are reasonable. Typically, you recover 60-70% on the standard basis.
So, if Monroe's costs are £300,000, she'll probably get back c.£180-200,000 from Hopkins, in addition to £24,000 damages.
From what you have seen/read - is £300,000 reasonable? To me, an average punter, it seems astronomical.
I don't know what Greg Callus' fees are, but suppose for the sake of argument, they're £250 an hour, plus a brief fee of £2,500 on trial, and a daily refresher of £1,500, plus VAT, (which would not be at all unusual for a barrister of five years' call in this area of work), and then suppose the solicitor is charging a similar hourly rate, you can see how it would all mount up.
It was William Bennett and Greg Callus for Ms Monroe. William Bennett will be charging an awful lot more than Greg Callus......
I used to have it when I worked for Euromoney many years ago. We had to do libel training and follow a certain set of procedures before publishing anything potentially defamatory - including getting sign-off from lawyers. If we did then we were covered. I was once sued for libel, in Malaysia of all places, so was very glad of it:
Would anyone dare give libel insurance for Twitter though, given the immediate nature of it, the lack of editorial control or oversight over comments, and the possibility of posting under the influence of alcohol or drugs at all hours of the day or night?
The two ladies in this case should have settled their score on Twitter, or else should have sat down with a mediator for half a day. Dragging it through the courts for a year and a half, at what looks like a legal expense of half a million quid, is completely bonkers.
Interesting to note that Labour are now consistently doing worse in the polls than Michael Foot was in the run-up to the 1983 election. But things are more serious for Labour compared to then, because the party is now much stronger in their safe seats in the metropolitan areas than they were in 1983, which therefore must mean they're doing worse in the middle-England marginals where elections are decided.
I couldn't get past "assigned female gender at birth".
The Judge was probably having a bit of fun.
After a High Court trial lasting what, a couple of days? And all for the sake of a lousy £24,000? I imagine the Judge probably thought if he wasn't laughing, he'd be crying.
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.
No they did not. They voted to leave the EU. That was it. Now I think it is reasonable based on polling to say that there may be a majority for controlling immigration buy to claim that any individual including either me or Tim Martin voted for that is utterly bollocks.
Your words: "all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration."
Which bears absolutely no comparison to your claim that everyone who voted for Brexit wanted immigration reductions. Logic seems to.be your weak spot this evening.
I am saying that if you voted for Brexit you knew that there would be immigration controls. And if you didn't think there would be immigration controls then you were an idiot.
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.
No they did not. They voted to leave the EU. That was it. Now I think it is reasonable based on polling to say that there may be a majority for controlling immigration buy to claim that any individual including either me or Tim Martin voted for that is utterly bollocks.
Your words: "all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration."
Which bears absolutely no comparison to your claim that everyone who voted for Brexit wanted immigration reductions. Logic seems to.be your weak spot this evening.
I am saying that if you voted for Brexit you knew that there would be immigration controls. And if you didn't think there would be immigration controls then you were an idiot.
Wasn't it about whether we should remain members of the EU, or leave the EU?
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.
No they did not. They voted to leave the EU. That was it. Now I think it is reasonable based on polling to say that there may be a majority for controlling immigration buy to claim that any individual including either me or Tim Martin voted for that is utterly bollocks.
Your words: "all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration."
Which bears absolutely no comparison to your claim that everyone who voted for Brexit wanted immigration reductions. Logic seems to.be your weak spot this evening.
I am saying that if you voted for Brexit you knew that there would be immigration controls. And if you didn't think there would be immigration controls then you were an idiot.
Tim is now whining about... immigration controls.
This government was elected on a manifesto ambition of cutting immigration, so it is perfectly reasonable of them to take the Brexit vote as an opportunity to keep their word.
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.
No they did not. They voted to leave the EU. That was it. Now I think it is reasonable based on polling to say that there may be a majority for controlling immigration buy to claim that any individual including either me or Tim Martin voted for that is utterly bollocks.
Your words: "all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration."
Which bears absolutely no comparison to your claim that everyone who voted for Brexit wanted immigration reductions. Logic seems to.be your weak spot this evening.
I am saying that if you voted for Brexit you knew that there would be immigration controls. And if you didn't think there would be immigration controls then you were an idiot.
Wasn't it about whether we should remain members of the EU, or leave the EU?
Strictly speaking it was about whether the United Kingdom should leave the EU. It will.
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.
No they did not. They voted to leave the EU. That was it. Now I think it is reasonable based on polling to say that there may be a majority for controlling immigration buy to claim that any individual including either me or Tim Martin voted for that is utterly bollocks.
Your words: "all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration."
Which bears absolutely no comparison to your claim that everyone who voted for Brexit wanted immigration reductions. Logic seems to.be your weak spot this evening.
I am saying that if you voted for Brexit you knew that there would be immigration controls. And if you didn't think there would be immigration controls then you were an idiot.
Tim is now whining about... immigration controls.
Nope. All we knew was that we would have control of our on immigration. By definition that includes the ability to have more or less immigration than we have now. Leaving the EU places that in the hands of our own elected politicians. It is then up to people like me and Tim to argue for a light touch on those controls if that is what we believe is best for the country. Others will argue differently.
I used to have it when I worked for Euromoney many years ago. We had to do libel training and follow a certain set of procedures before publishing anything potentially defamatory - including getting sign-off from lawyers. If we did then we were covered. I was once sued for libel, in Malaysia of all places, so was very glad of it:
Would anyone dare give libel insurance for Twitter though, given the immediate nature of it, the lack of editorial control or oversight over comments, and the possibility of posting under the influence of alcohol or drugs at all hours of the day or night?
The two ladies in this case should have settled their score on Twitter, or else should have sat down with a mediator for half a day. Dragging it through the courts for a year and a half, at what looks like a legal expense of half a million quid, is completely bonkers.
What was really crazy was that Ms Jack first asked for £5,000, and then asked simply for a meaningful contribution to a charity of her choice. If Katie Hopkins had then paid (say) £250 to a charity, I think it would have been very difficult for Ms Jack to pursue the case. Instead of which, she's out the best part of half a million quid.
It's becoming more clear by the day that May was a 'Leaver'. Everything about her spells old fashioned Tory. Grammar Schools bulldozing Brexit when all the signs screeching disaster..... Appointing Johnson as Foreign Secretary when a flying camel can see he's an unscrupulous opportunist and now picking a fight with with Hammond the only reliable Remainer.
Polish PM Beata Szydlo has accused the French president of trying to blackmail her country, in a row over Thursday's re-election of EU leader Donald Tusk. At the end of an EU summit, she said it was unacceptable for Francois Hollande to threaten to stop funds because Poland was "not behaving properly".
Poland had tried but failed to stop Mr Tusk's re-election, and refused to endorse the summit's joint statement. Ms Szydlo also warned partners Poland would not accept a multi-speed Europe.
It's becoming more clear by the day that May was a 'Leaver'. Everything about her spells old fashioned Tory. Grammar Schools bulldozing Brexit when all the signs screeching disaster..... Appointing Johnson as Foreign Secretary when a flying camel can see he's an unscrupulous opportunist and now picking a fight with with Hammond the only reliable Remainer.
If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.
So what will the final score likely be?
On checking, I see that the costs were awarded on the standard, not the indemnity, basis. Monroe must therefore prove (a) that the costs were reasonably incurred, and (b) that the sums claimed are reasonable. Typically, you recover 60-70% on the standard basis.
So, if Monroe's costs are £300,000, she'll probably get back c.£180-200,000 from Hopkins, in addition to £24,000 damages.
From what you have seen/read - is £300,000 reasonable? To me, an average punter, it seems astronomical.
I don't know what Greg Callus' fees are, but suppose for the sake of argument, they're £250 an hour, plus a brief fee of £2,500 on trial, and a daily refresher of £1,500, plus VAT, (which would not be at all unusual for a barrister of five years' call in this area of work), and then suppose the solicitor is charging a similar hourly rate, you can see how it would all mount up.
I think £250 ph for a decent libel lawyer would be a good deal, to be honest. Although the fees will be adjusted given the order, so Jack isn't as out of pocket as she seems.
Bottom line is that Hopkins has, since the Apprentice, made her career from shooting her mouth off about various people who she chooses to pick on for her own advantage. If they are people who have prominence in public life then, good luck to her, in the best tradition of British free speech. But this judgement confirms she can't play the same game by picking on someone who is obscure and, to all intents and purposes, a member of the public. That has to be good news, and if it makes the Daily Mail and its fellow travellers think twice about traducing some regular Joe or Jane, that's a result, surely?
I used to have it when I worked for Euromoney many years ago. We had to do libel training and follow a certain set of procedures before publishing anything potentially defamatory - including getting sign-off from lawyers. If we did then we were covered. I was once sued for libel, in Malaysia of all places, so was very glad of it:
Would anyone dare give libel insurance for Twitter though, given the immediate nature of it, the lack of editorial control or oversight over comments, and the possibility of posting under the influence of alcohol or drugs at all hours of the day or night?
The two ladies in this case should have settled their score on Twitter, or else should have sat down with a mediator for half a day. Dragging it through the courts for a year and a half, at what looks like a legal expense of half a million quid, is completely bonkers.
What was really crazy was that Ms Jack first asked for £5,000, and then asked simply for a meaningful contribution to a charity of her choice. If Katie Hopkins had then paid (say) £250 to a charity, I think it would have been very difficult for Ms Jack to pursue the case. Instead of which, she's out the best part of half a million quid.
Hopkins is clearly not very bright. A lawyers' dream.
Polish PM Beata Szydlo has accused the French president of trying to blackmail her country, in a row over Thursday's re-election of EU leader Donald Tusk. At the end of an EU summit, she said it was unacceptable for Francois Hollande to threaten to stop funds because Poland was "not behaving properly".
Poland had tried but failed to stop Mr Tusk's re-election, and refused to endorse the summit's joint statement. Ms Szydlo also warned partners Poland would not accept a multi-speed Europe.
Ed Sheeran has just recorded 9 of the top 10 singles (14 of the top 15 actually), missing out only on number 7. This is by far and away the most complete domination of the charts ever recorded.
Never ever get involved in a libel lawsuit is one of the golden rules of UK life.
Amen. - Developing a thick hide is by far the cheapest option.
I don't know.
The character assassination of Chris Jeffreys was awful.
If that were me or a close friend/relative, I'd want some sort of justice.
It helps to keep a sense of proportion – we’re talking about an offensive tweet, where the plaintiff was happy to have settled out of court for 5K. – Not a vile media witch hunt carried out by eight tabloids.
The £24,000 reflects the damage to Monroe's reputation and is not a huge sum. It was not just one Tweet, it was a few. But in the great scheme of things it was not horrific. The judge clearly recognises that. If only Katie had understood the expense and liability she was getting into by not apologising when she was clearly in the wrong factually. It would take a heart of stone and all that.
I used to have it when I worked for Euromoney many years ago. We had to do libel training and follow a certain set of procedures before publishing anything potentially defamatory - including getting sign-off from lawyers. If we did then we were covered. I was once sued for libel, in Malaysia of all places, so was very glad of it:
Would anyone dare give libel insurance for Twitter though, given the immediate nature of it, the lack of editorial control or oversight over comments, and the possibility of posting under the influence of alcohol or drugs at all hours of the day or night?
The two ladies in this case should have settled their score on Twitter, or else should have sat down with a mediator for half a day. Dragging it through the courts for a year and a half, at what looks like a legal expense of half a million quid, is completely bonkers.
What was really crazy was that Ms Jack first asked for £5,000, and then asked simply for a meaningful contribution to a charity of her choice. If Katie Hopkins had then paid (say) £250 to a charity, I think it would have been very difficult for Ms Jack to pursue the case. Instead of which, she's out the best part of half a million quid.
Really crazy. I'd imagine both sides' lawyers are having a glass or two this evening, waiting to see how big a cheque Ms Hopkins is good for as a first instalment!
As was suggested upthread, they're most likely both in serious financial trouble as a result of not wanting to back down from a Twitter spat. Hopefully other social media loudmouths are paying attention!
I used to have it when I worked for Euromoney many years ago. We had to do libel training and follow a certain set of procedures before publishing anything potentially defamatory - including getting sign-off from lawyers. If we did then we were covered. I was once sued for libel, in Malaysia of all places, so was very glad of it:
Would anyone dare give libel insurance for Twitter though, given the immediate nature of it, the lack of editorial control or oversight over comments, and the possibility of posting under the influence of alcohol or drugs at all hours of the day or night?
The two ladies in this case should have settled their score on Twitter, or else should have sat down with a mediator for half a day. Dragging it through the courts for a year and a half, at what looks like a legal expense of half a million quid, is completely bonkers.
What was really crazy was that Ms Jack first asked for £5,000, and then asked simply for a meaningful contribution to a charity of her choice. If Katie Hopkins had then paid (say) £250 to a charity, I think it would have been very difficult for Ms Jack to pursue the case. Instead of which, she's out the best part of half a million quid.
Hopkins is clearly not very bright. A lawyers' dream.
Ahem. I would appreciate the prefix "Katie" on statements like that.
Ed Sheeran has just recorded 9 of the top 10 singles (14 of the top 15 actually), missing out only on number 7. This is by far and away the most complete domination of the charts ever recorded.
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.
No they did not. They voted to leave the EU. That was it. Now I think it is reasonable based on polling to say that there may be a majority for controlling immigration buy to claim that any individual including either me or Tim Martin voted for that is utterly bollocks.
Your words: "all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration."
Which bears absolutely no comparison to your claim that everyone who voted for Brexit wanted immigration reductions. Logic seems to.be your weak spot this evening.
I am saying that if you voted for Brexit you knew that there would be immigration controls. And if you didn't think there would be immigration controls then you were an idiot.
Tim is now whining about... immigration controls.
Nope. All we knew was that we would have control of our on immigration. By definition that includes the ability to have more or less immigration than we have now. Leaving the EU places that in the hands of our own elected politicians. It is then up to people like me and Tim to argue for a light touch on those controls if that is what we believe is best for the country. Others will argue differently.
You said it would be wrong for the government not to reduce immigration given the popular will to reduce it.
So you will now agitate for something you believe the government would be wrong to do.
Ed Sheeran has just recorded 9 of the top 10 singles (14 of the top 15 actually), missing out only on number 7. This is by far and away the most complete domination of the charts ever recorded.
It must be cheaper these days to buy a whole album a single at a time as downloads, than to buy the actual album! 16 of the top 20!!
It's becoming more clear by the day that May was a 'Leaver'. Everything about her spells old fashioned Tory. Grammar Schools bulldozing Brexit when all the signs screeching disaster..... Appointing Johnson as Foreign Secretary when a flying camel can see he's an unscrupulous opportunist and now picking a fight with with Hammond the only reliable Remainer.
If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.
So what will the final score likely be?
On checking, I see that the costs were awarded on the standard, not the indemnity, basis. Monroe must therefore prove (a) that the costs were reasonably incurred, and (b) that the sums claimed are reasonable. Typically, you recover 60-70% on the standard basis.
So, if Monroe's costs are £300,000, she'll probably get back c.£180-200,000 from Hopkins, in addition to £24,000 damages.
From what you have seen/read - is £300,000 reasonable? To me, an average punter, it seems astronomical.
I don't know what Greg Callus' fees are, but suppose for the sake of argument, they're £250 an hour, plus a brief fee of £2,500 on trial, and a daily refresher of £1,500, plus VAT, (which would not be at all unusual for a barrister of five years' call in this area of work), and then suppose the solicitor is charging a similar hourly rate, you can see how it would all mount up.
I think £250 ph for a decent libel lawyer would be a good deal, to be honest. Although the fees will be adjusted given the order, so Jack isn't as out of pocket as she seems.
Bottom line is that Hopkins has, since the Apprentice, made her career from shooting her mouth off about various people who she chooses to pick on for her own advantage. If they are people who have prominence in public life then, good luck to her, in the best tradition of British free speech. But this judgement confirms she can't play the same game by picking on someone who is obscure and, to all intents and purposes, a member of the public. That has to be good news, and if it makes the Daily Mail and its fellow travellers think twice about traducing some regular Joe or Jane, that's a result, surely?
Jack Monroe won't like that! 'They' might sue you for doing down 'their' public standing
Ed Sheeran has just recorded 9 of the top 10 singles (14 of the top 15 actually), missing out only on number 7. This is by far and away the most complete domination of the charts ever recorded.
I don't know what to make of the fact that I've never heard of Ed Sheeran before.
Ed Sheeran has just recorded 9 of the top 10 singles (14 of the top 15 actually), missing out only on number 7. This is by far and away the most complete domination of the charts ever recorded.
Could be worse, it could be James Blunt. Or Adele.
I used to have it when I worked for Euromoney many years ago. We had to do libel training and follow a certain set of procedures before publishing anything potentially defamatory - including getting sign-off from lawyers. If we did then we were covered. I was once sued for libel, in Malaysia of all places, so was very glad of it:
Would anyone dare give libel insurance for Twitter though, given the immediate nature of it, the lack of editorial control or oversight over comments, and the possibility of posting under the influence of alcohol or drugs at all hours of the day or night?
The two ladies in this case should have settled their score on Twitter, or else should have sat down with a mediator for half a day. Dragging it through the courts for a year and a half, at what looks like a legal expense of half a million quid, is completely bonkers.
What was really crazy was that Ms Jack first asked for £5,000, and then asked simply for a meaningful contribution to a charity of her choice. If Katie Hopkins had then paid (say) £250 to a charity, I think it would have been very difficult for Ms Jack to pursue the case. Instead of which, she's out the best part of half a million quid.
Hopkins is clearly not very bright. A lawyers' dream.
She was sued recently for a completely untrue story she wrote for the Mail. For someone who's got nothing to say she's keeping the legal profession in new wigs
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.
No they did not. They voted to leave the EU. That was it. Now I think it is reasonable based on polling to say that there may be a majority for controlling immigration buy to claim that any individual including either me or Tim Martin voted for that is utterly bollocks.
Your words: "all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration."
Which bears absolutely no comparison to your claim that everyone who voted for Brexit wanted immigration reductions. Logic seems to.be your weak spot this evening.
I am saying that if you voted for Brexit you knew that there would be immigration controls. And if you didn't think there would be immigration controls then you were an idiot.
Tim is now whining about... immigration controls.
Nope. All we knew was that we would have control of our on immigration. By definition that includes the ability to have more or less immigration than we have now. Leaving the EU places that in the hands of our own elected politicians. It is then up to people like me and Tim to argue for a light touch on those controls if that is what we believe is best for the country. Others will argue differently.
You said it would be wrong for the government not to reduce immigration given the popular will to reduce it.
So you will now agitate for something you believe the government would be wrong to do.
That is quite correct. At the moment there appears to be a clear desire by the country for a reduction in immigration and the Government needs to heed that. But just like any other policy whether it is taxes or road building it will be up to future governments to decide what is the acceptable level of migration and act accordingly. It really is very simple. I will press for more freedom of movement not just from.inside the EU but from anywhere and others will oppose it.
Ed Sheeran has just recorded 9 of the top 10 singles (14 of the top 15 actually), missing out only on number 7. This is by far and away the most complete domination of the charts ever recorded.
It must be cheaper these days to buy a whole album a single at a time as downloads, than to buy the actual album! 16 of the top 20!!
Given Spotify and other subscription streaming services, I'm half surprised a singles chart still exists.
Ed Sheeran has just recorded 9 of the top 10 singles (14 of the top 15 actually), missing out only on number 7. This is by far and away the most complete domination of the charts ever recorded.
Could be worse, it could be James Blunt. Or Adele.
Katie Hopkins should have a go on twitter at James Blunt.
Never ever get involved in a libel lawsuit is one of the golden rules of UK life.
Amen. - Developing a thick hide is by far the cheapest option.
I don't know.
The character assassination of Chris Jeffreys was awful.
If that were me or a close friend/relative, I'd want some sort of justice.
It helps to keep a sense of proportion – we’re talking about an offensive tweet, where the plaintiff was happy to have settled out of court for 5K. – Not a vile media witch hunt carried out by eight tabloids.
The £24,000 reflects the damage to Monroe's reputation and is not a huge sum. It was not just one Tweet, it was a few. But in the great scheme of things it was not horrific. The judge clearly recognises that. If only Katie had understood the expense and liability she was getting into by not apologising when she was clearly in the wrong factually. It would take a heart of stone and all that.
She admitted she was wrong but didn't apologise. You surely must think that is ok?
Polish PM Beata Szydlo has accused the French president of trying to blackmail her country, in a row over Thursday's re-election of EU leader Donald Tusk. At the end of an EU summit, she said it was unacceptable for Francois Hollande to threaten to stop funds because Poland was "not behaving properly".
Poland had tried but failed to stop Mr Tusk's re-election, and refused to endorse the summit's joint statement. Ms Szydlo also warned partners Poland would not accept a multi-speed Europe.
"Chancellor Angela Merkel, who dismissed accusations from a Polish minister that the EU was run by "German diktat", was more measured but concluded: "We are united in diversity."
That's an impressive haul for the LDs if that happens. I'd have to think if it does then if Corbyn survives to the next round then there must be a reasonable chance of LDs getting second place.
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.
No they did not. They voted to leave the EU. That was it. Now I think it is reasonable based on polling to say that there may be a majority for controlling immigration buy to claim that any individual including either me or Tim Martin voted for that is utterly bollocks.
Your words: "all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration."
Which bears absolutely no comparison to your claim that everyone who voted for Brexit wanted immigration reductions. Logic seems to.be your weak spot this evening.
I am saying that if you voted for Brexit you knew that there would be immigration controls. And if you didn't think there would be immigration controls then you were an idiot.
Tim is now whining about... immigration controls.
Others will argue differently.
You said it would be wrong for the government not to reduce immigration given the popular will to reduce it.
So you will now agitate for something you believe the government would be wrong to do.
That is quite correct. At the moment there appears to be a clear desire by the country for a reduction in immigration and the Government needs to heed that. But just like any other policy whether it is taxes or road building it will be up to future governments to decide what is the acceptable level of migration and act accordingly. It really is very simple. I will press for more freedom of movement not just from.inside the EU but from anywhere and others will oppose it.
The current govt was elected on an 'ambition' to reduce immigration, so it is fair enough they try to do that. If the next one is elected on a pledge to have open door immigration, so be it!
It's becoming more clear by the day that May was a 'Leaver'. Everything about her spells old fashioned Tory. Grammar Schools bulldozing Brexit when all the signs screeching disaster..... Appointing Johnson as Foreign Secretary when a flying camel can see he's an unscrupulous opportunist and now picking a fight with with Hammond the only reliable Remainer.
Ed Sheeran has just recorded 9 of the top 10 singles (14 of the top 15 actually), missing out only on number 7. This is by far and away the most complete domination of the charts ever recorded.
I don't know what to make of the fact that I've never heard of Ed Sheeran before.
You are best remaining unaware frankly. The irony is he is on Asylum Records, which once held such classic acts as Jackson Browne, Joni Mitchell, Tom Waits and the Eagles.
It's becoming more clear by the day that May was a 'Leaver'. Everything about her spells old fashioned Tory. Grammar Schools bulldozing Brexit when all the signs screeching disaster..... Appointing Johnson as Foreign Secretary when a flying camel can see he's an unscrupulous opportunist and now picking a fight with with Hammond the only reliable Remainer.
@Morris_Dancer, good review on your site about the testing times and tribulations. My only disagreement is that it's unlikely we'll see a safety car as a result of a breakdown, these are now only ever seen when there's significant debris on the circuit, or the need for the medical car or heavy circuit vehicle to be deployed. The VSC usually does the job if it's simply a case of wheeling or towing a dead car off the track. Betting on no safety car was a good money maker for me last season - when it didn't rain!
Ed Sheeran has just recorded 9 of the top 10 singles (14 of the top 15 actually), missing out only on number 7. This is by far and away the most complete domination of the charts ever recorded.
I don't know what to make of the fact that I've never heard of Ed Sheeran before.
You are best remaining unaware frankly. The irony is he is on Asylum Records, which once held such classic acts as Jackson Browne, Joni Mitchell, Tom Waits and the Eagles.
I am showing my age.
The lament of the old - it was better in my day. I bet when you were young you laughed at your parents saying that and said that you'd never do it.
In the 6th (I think) century, Emperor Anastasius was unsure who to make his heir, having no children. He set up three couches, one for each of his nephews, and left a note under one pillow. Whoever lay down there would become emperor.
Unfortunately, two of the nephews enjoyed more than familial affection and rested on the same couch, which meant none of them were named heir.
In the end, Justin and then Justinian got the job.
Mr. Jonathan (2), vielleicht, May *is* PM.
Mr. Sandpit, Australia's pretty tight, though. If a car breaks down at speed there'll be debris across the track most likely, if it's slow but a tricky spot, likewise. I agree entirely the VSC has drastically altered the chances of a real safety car.
Comments
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/selected_judgements/dato_v._kanagalingam_v._david_samuels_joff_wild_robert_menzies_walker_euromoney_publications_plc_2006_hckl.html
RIP.
On the other hand the Gov't majority does increase if either Norn or Scotland leaves (Eventually)
Fantastic effort.
The character assassination of Chris Jeffreys was awful.
If that were me or a close friend/relative, I'd want some sort of justice.
In the UK, irrespective of what nationality you are, you are subject to the laws of the UK. And EU law, such that it is, doesn't really cover criminality.
Furthermore, if you go to the complete set of EU law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/browse/summaries.html?locale=en), there is essentially nothing that is applicable to individuals.
Australia.has immigration controlled at a level higher than ours. Controlled doesn't mean zero.
https://capx.co/hammond-prepares-for-the-coming-taxpocalypse/
Interesting article. Freakonomics had an episode along similar lines a few weeks ago.
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/840248388150992897
The two ladies in this case should have settled their score on Twitter, or else should have sat down with a mediator for half a day. Dragging it through the courts for a year and a half, at what looks like a legal expense of half a million quid, is completely bonkers.
Tim is now whining about... immigration controls.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/testing-times-part-two.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11451936/General-Election-2015-Immigration-policy.html
If people don't like it, they can vote in a different government next time. Alls fair
But there we are.
No wonder there are so many lawyers on PB, with earnings like that!
Richard Dawkins's two minutes worth on why the Referendum was preposterous and he's got it spot on. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39218108
Polish PM Beata Szydlo has accused the French president of trying to blackmail her country, in a row over Thursday's re-election of EU leader Donald Tusk. At the end of an EU summit, she said it was unacceptable for Francois Hollande to threaten to stop funds because Poland was "not behaving properly".
Poland had tried but failed to stop Mr Tusk's re-election, and refused to endorse the summit's joint statement. Ms Szydlo also warned partners Poland would not accept a multi-speed Europe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39232136
Thanks to the remain tories,she was crowned ;-)
Con 29%
Lab 26%
UKIP 22%
LD 13%
Others 10%
https://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/English Local Elections Update - PSA Media Briefing Pack.pdf
As was suggested upthread, they're most likely both in serious financial trouble as a result of not wanting to back down from a Twitter spat. Hopefully other social media loudmouths are paying attention!
Ahem. I would appreciate the prefix "Katie" on statements like that.
Con 37%
Lab 23%
LD 19%
UKIP 10%
Others 11%
So you will now agitate for something you believe the government would be wrong to do.
Local Labour party at war. The Councillors are Balrites and the Association is Corbynista.
http://www.wimbledonguardian.co.uk/news/15149184._Debate_is_being_stifled___Wimbledon_Labour_Party_ordered_to_destroy_leaflets_against_new_secondary_school_or_face__suspension_/
Bit more speculation/info on Ferrari's innovation (not two words that have belonged together for quite a while...):
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/technical/2017/3/tech-insight---the-secrets-to-ferrari-s-sf70h.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22382098
"Chancellor Angela Merkel, who dismissed accusations from a Polish minister that the EU was run by "German diktat", was more measured but concluded: "We are united in diversity."
And I met Boris even more and I was absolutely convinced he was a remainer. But he wanted to be PM.
Both claimed the opposite to get on!
I am showing my age.
I wonder if that was down to Allison or his successor.
Boris' victory in the referendum was Pyrrhic.
Some TV scheduler can't sleep at night.
In the 6th (I think) century, Emperor Anastasius was unsure who to make his heir, having no children. He set up three couches, one for each of his nephews, and left a note under one pillow. Whoever lay down there would become emperor.
Unfortunately, two of the nephews enjoyed more than familial affection and rested on the same couch, which meant none of them were named heir.
In the end, Justin and then Justinian got the job.
Mr. Jonathan (2), vielleicht, May *is* PM.
Mr. Sandpit, Australia's pretty tight, though. If a car breaks down at speed there'll be debris across the track most likely, if it's slow but a tricky spot, likewise. I agree entirely the VSC has drastically altered the chances of a real safety car.