Really stupid, especially when other bookies are offering better odds.
They need to get onto Betfair.
I've been doing my best to get the Corbynites onto Betfair.
Question, does PP - or any other bookie but for obvious reasons they are the most likely - actually trade on BF as well?
Pass, that's a question for the bookies.
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that all UK bookmakers will use Betfair when it suits them. PP and Betfair are now one and the same in case you didn't know.
Ladbrokes/Coral have their own exchange (betdaq). Not sure if they use it to manage sportsbook liabilities.
Unfortunately - in my experience - it's frustratingly illiquid most of the time.
One of the obstacles which would make bookies wary of laying off politics liabilities on exchanges is small rulebook differences - eg, is NI included? does a majority inc the speaker? etc etc.
I think this is a hard GE to bet on really. There have been some obvious misprices early on, and I hope that I've made a few good bets because of that. However trying to create a bet I really like is pretty tough. I backed Tories most seats at 1.13 down to 1.05, but (quite wrongly) it becomes tough to really commit to such a bet.
I find myself with a portfolio of bets that generally require a Tory victory, and that's all good. I also have a substantial interest in the LDs not making any gains, but also Twickenham is a big bet for me. Quite why anyone thinks Vince should be 66% chance to win escapes me. I also have a substantial interest in the LDs doing poorly. The things that I should be able to really position myself on - Corbyn being a fruitcake for example I can't.
National Health Action candidate for Southend West withdraws.
Don't all PPCs get death threats? I'm not condoning them - anyone making them should be brought to justice - but I think I remember talking to a Green Party candidate and saying that, although they've always been there, after Jo Cox and Andrew Pennington, people tend to take them a bit more seriously.
Are the police allowed to take photographs of their faces in the normal way?
(Good evening, everybody)
"Ms Boular and Ms Dich wore Islamic dress, including full-face veils, which were partially lifted to show their eyes at the request of chief magistrate Emma Arbuthnot.
Ms Bargouthi wore Islamic dress, but her face was visible"
Really stupid, especially when other bookies are offering better odds.
They need to get onto Betfair.
I've been doing my best to get the Corbynites onto Betfair.
Question, does PP - or any other bookie but for obvious reasons they are the most likely - actually trade on BF as well?
Pass, that's a question for the bookies.
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that all UK bookmakers will use Betfair when it suits them. PP and Betfair are now one and the same in case you didn't know.
Ladbrokes/Coral have their own exchange (betdaq). Not sure if they use it to manage sportsbook liabilities.
Unfortunately - in my experience - it's frustratingly illiquid most of the time.
One of the obstacles which would make bookies wary of laying off politics liabilities on exchanges is small rulebook differences - eg, is NI included? does a majority inc the speaker? etc etc.
Yes I know, and you're quite right as to the minefield of interpretation.
Ladbrokes have certainly transacted on Betfair though. I suspect they'd be a top-20 customer, but I have no evidence to support that.
TSE klaxon They are opening a Popworld bar in Leeds.
Don't talk to me about sophistication I've BEEN to Leeds
No offence
I worked in Leeds for six years.
I much preferred to live over sixty miles away in rural North Yorkshire, when the days I could do a 130 mile round trip to work each day.
i work in leeds now. but only a 40 mile round trip to my bit of rural north yorkshire.
Mr Dancer is correct I think. York is far nicer.
Mr. Dancer may well be correct, but I will say up front, on the whole I like Leeds. It has some shitty bits, but doesn't everywhere, it has a vibrant night-life that wild horses couldn't get me to indulge in (I try and make sure I am tucked up in beddy-byes by 21:30) and it, as far as I can tell, has a crap selection of curry houses. But it has some spiffing architecture, some lovely pubs, and an attitude that I find wholly refreshing. If, God forbid, I was forced to live in a city then Leeds would be a contender for first place - above London.
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
Surely if it becomes clear that UKIP aren't fielding enough candidates to win a majority, then it's actually impossible for that outcome and the bookie should refund? (But not in this specific case, as the bet was made before nominations closed)
It'll still be mathematically possible even if UKIP run around 80 candidates, providing there are enough independents/NHA/Yorkshire First etc etc.
Indeed, I got confused between majority and plurality while on the phone. UKIP Majority is impossible without 326 nominations, whereas the largest party could conceivably be anyone.
Aren't all losing bets as terrible as each other in the only really valid sense?
I've had plenty of bets I thought were very canny, but which didn't win, and the money is exactly as lost as with my dumb bets.
Don;t think so: If you can back 2 horses at 5-4 in a two horse race then one of the bets will definitely lose but you'll end up ahead. If you back two horses at 4-5 then one bet will also definitely lose but you'll end up behind.
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.
National Health Action candidate for Southend West withdraws.
Don't all PPCs get death threats? I'm not condoning them - anyone making them should be brought to justice - but I think I remember talking to a Green Party candidate and saying that, although they've always been there, after Jo Cox and Andrew Pennington, people tend to take them a bit more seriously.
'Die you bitch" is not a death threat, but I'm pretty sure it's probably an offence. A friend of mine got herself in a sticky mess on twitter after saying something she shouldn't. She got an email from someone saying he was going to rape her.
Aren't all losing bets as terrible as each other in the only really valid sense?
I've had plenty of bets I thought were very canny, but which didn't win, and the money is exactly as lost as with my dumb bets.
Don;t think so: If you can back 2 horses at 5-4 in a two horse race then one of the bets will definitely lose but you'll end up ahead. If you back two horses at 4-5 then one bet will also definitely lose but you'll end up behind.
Is this bet value is always the question.
BUT if you bet your life savings on a good value loser, you will still have lost it.
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
i'll look up more
armouries is definitely on my list for when my grandson is a little older.
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.
What inference, though? That you are disguising your face in order to make it more difficult to know if you are lying?
I'm puzzled as to why Welsh Labour should be amongst the most vociferous opponents of Corbyn's suicide note. If anywhere in the UK was going to support renationalisation and a redistributive agenda I'd have thought Wales would have been near the top.
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.
Oddly enough when I did jury service, one of the witnesses identified the perpetrator in a GBH case from the dock. Given that they had not previously been able to pick them out of a line up, the defence objected and the judge declared a mistrial.
Aren't all losing bets as terrible as each other in the only really valid sense?
I've had plenty of bets I thought were very canny, but which didn't win, and the money is exactly as lost as with my dumb bets.
Don;t think so: If you can back 2 horses at 5-4 in a two horse race then one of the bets will definitely lose but you'll end up ahead. If you back two horses at 4-5 then one bet will also definitely lose but you'll end up behind.
Is this bet value is always the question.
BUT if you bet your life savings on a good value loser, you will still have lost it.
That'd be unwise.
I think there were some serious Kelly criterion calculations that could be done around Macron though.
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.
What inference, though? That you are disguising your face in order to make it more difficult to know if you are lying?
That, and some people will conclude that you've got something to hide, and there are of course some people who don't like the burka and the niqab in the UK, myself included.
As a dedicated follower of fashion, I also look down on people, who wear dental floss thin ties, or the front part of the tie is shorter than the back part.
And don't even get me started on people who wear trainers with suits.
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.
You say that and you are a lawyer? Stunning. The oral, personal nature of the court system has just passed you by has it?
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.
You say that and you are a lawyer? Stunning. The oral, personal nature of the court system has just passed you by has it?
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.
What if members of the jury are wearing a burqa/niqab? Are they allowed to?
I think this is a hard GE to bet on really. There have been some obvious misprices early on, and I hope that I've made a few good bets because of that. However trying to create a bet I really like is pretty tough. I backed Tories most seats at 1.13 down to 1.05, but (quite wrongly) it becomes tough to really commit to such a bet.
I find myself with a portfolio of bets that generally require a Tory victory, and that's all good. I also have a substantial interest in the LDs not making any gains, but also Twickenham is a big bet for me. Quite why anyone thinks Vince should be 66% chance to win escapes me. I also have a substantial interest in the LDs doing poorly. The things that I should be able to really position myself on - Corbyn being a fruitcake for example I can't.
Yes, it seems harder than 2015 so far and only 4 weeks are left. Some have been very good value, like Lib.Dems <27 seats @ 1.83, i.e. before the mid-band plunged to 15.5.
I still have a short list - actually, quite a long list - of constituency odds to assess & maybe bet on. Mostly the kind where quoted odds are 1.2-1.3 but I think they're really 1.02-1.05, or the odds are 2.0 and should be 1.4 ... that kind of thing. I think anything much longer has gone. I tend to agree on Twickenham.
Against that, so far there've been no Fallon attacks for 'these disgraceful proposals for unilateral disarmament'. There were more attacks on Foot in 1983 than there've been on Corbyn.
However, it would be difficult for a judge wearing a long horsehair wig to keep a straight face while telling someone off for being inappropriately dressed.
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.
Absolutely, but people in a court still shouldn't be permitted to be conceal their identity and/or hide their emotions from the jury.
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
We just need to learn a way of dealing with people in disguise. Personally I think it's 'sorry, go away, and come back when I can see your face', but it's up to all of us to decide as we see fit. I think that allowing people to discriminate as they see fit is a clear corollary of this. If you want to say 'no stupid people with tall hair admitted' then that's your choice.
I can tell you now that if you tip up for an interview for a job in my company and that you wear a big black sack then it won't be a positive. I will (because I am human) judge you for this a little, but the questions that follow are the most important. I would bet very heavily that there is no woman alive that is happy being wrapped up in the way that Islam does things and can at the same time answer a pretty basic question well.
I make no judgement as to who might be wrong in these things - but someone is.
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.
What if members of the jury are wearing a burqa/niqab? Are they allowed to?
I'm puzzled as to why Welsh Labour should be amongst the most vociferous opponents of Corbyn's suicide note. If anywhere in the UK was going to support renationalisation and a redistributive agenda I'd have thought Wales would have been near the top.
They might be afraid that the nationalised entities would be controlled from London. But also remember that renationalisation might bring the future of Port Talbot steelworks into question again.
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.
What if members of the jury are wearing a burqa/niqab? Are they allowed to?
It is at the discretion of Hizzoner.
Some are fine with it, some say no.
If a jury member does wear the full face covering, is there a check on entering the court that it's the same person it was before?
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.
What if members of the jury are wearing a burqa/niqab? Are they allowed to?
It is at the discretion of Hizzoner.
Some are fine with it, some say no.
If a jury member does wear the full face covering, is there a check on entering the court that it's the same person it was before?
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.
What if members of the jury are wearing a burqa/niqab? Are they allowed to?
It is at the discretion of Hizzoner.
Some are fine with it, some say no.
Would you agree that only one of the three women depicted in the drawing above is correctly dressed to appear on a courtroom in a criminal case?
Because as I understand it that is the rule here in the sandpit, for criminal (as opposed to family/sharia) cases.
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.
What if members of the jury are wearing a burqa/niqab? Are they allowed to?
It is at the discretion of Hizzoner.
Some are fine with it, some say no.
If a jury member does wear the full face covering, is there a check on entering the court that it's the same person it was before?
Re Burkhas and the like, it's very simple: would a man be allowed to wear a balaclava in this circumstance? If he would, then it's fine. If not, then it isn't.
Re Burkhas and the like, it's very simple: would a man be allowed to wear a balaclava in this circumstance? If he would, then it's fine. If not, then it isn't.
I think this is a hard GE to bet on really. There have been some obvious misprices early on, and I hope that I've made a few good bets because of that. However trying to create a bet I really like is pretty tough. I backed Tories most seats at 1.13 down to 1.05, but (quite wrongly) it becomes tough to really commit to such a bet.
I find myself with a portfolio of bets that generally require a Tory victory, and that's all good. I also have a substantial interest in the LDs not making any gains, but also Twickenham is a big bet for me. Quite why anyone thinks Vince should be 66% chance to win escapes me. I also have a substantial interest in the LDs doing poorly. The things that I should be able to really position myself on - Corbyn being a fruitcake for example I can't.
Yes, it seems harder than 2015 so far and only 4 weeks are left. Some have been very good value, like Lib.Dems <27 seats @ 1.83, i.e. before the mid-band plunged to 15.5.
I still have a short list - actually, quite a long list - of constituency odds to assess & maybe bet on. Mostly the kind where quoted odds are 1.2-1.3 but I think they're really 1.02-1.05, or the odds are 2.0 and should be 1.4 ... that kind of thing. I think anything much longer has gone. I tend to agree on Twickenham.
Against that, so far there've been no Fallon attacks for 'these disgraceful proposals for unilateral disarmament'. There were more attacks on Foot in 1983 than there've been on Corbyn. </p>
Foot vs Corbyn - I'd vote Foot without a second thought (apologies for the rhyme). Even as a Tory voter I regard Mr Foot in high esteem. He'd have demeaned himself and voted Corbyn now. Corbyn though is not of our world, he has no comprehension of what it means to work for a living, he has no idea about how our economy works.
I see the BBC is going big on Labour abolishing tuition fees but the really scary thing about this manifesto is it should be called the UNITE Manifesto.
Today's manifesto 'launch' hasn't changed the odds over at Hill's one jot. The Tories are still a mind boggling 1/33 to achieve a majoirty, and 1/100 to get the most seats. Is there any precedent for these kinds of numbers?
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.
Asking for a friend:
Isn't it the Will of Allah (SWT) that we are all born stark, raving naked?
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.
Asking for a friend:
Isn't it the Will of Allah (SWT) that we are all born stark, raving naked?
Always difficult searching twitter for SouthWestTrains!!
Comments
EDIT neither half of this statement is true, sadly.
https://twitter.com/bbcdomc/status/862661516839051265
One is a cautious gambler.
Mr Dancer is correct I think. York is far nicer.
Unfortunately - in my experience - it's frustratingly illiquid most of the time.
One of the obstacles which would make bookies wary of laying off politics liabilities on exchanges is small rulebook differences - eg, is NI included? does a majority inc the speaker? etc etc.
National Health Action candidate for Southend West withdraws.
I find myself with a portfolio of bets that generally require a Tory victory, and that's all good. I also have a substantial interest in the LDs not making any gains, but also Twickenham is a big bet for me. Quite why anyone thinks Vince should be 66% chance to win escapes me. I also have a substantial interest in the LDs doing poorly. The things that I should be able to really position myself on - Corbyn being a fruitcake for example I can't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Island
(Good evening, everybody)
Ms Bargouthi wore Islamic dress, but her face was visible"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39885845
Ladbrokes have certainly transacted on Betfair though. I suspect they'd be a top-20 customer, but I have no evidence to support that.
Like that?
(and to @isam)
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/23/judge-refuses-muslim-to-wear-burqa-court
I've had plenty of bets I thought were very canny, but which didn't win, and the money is exactly as lost as with my dumb bets.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
If his majority is small, it may be the fish finger that saves him.
UKIP Majority is impossible without 326 nominations, whereas the largest party could conceivably be anyone.
If you can back 2 horses at 5-4 in a two horse race then one of the bets will definitely lose but you'll end up ahead.
If you back two horses at 4-5 then one bet will also definitely lose but you'll end up behind.
Is this bet value is always the question.
armouries is definitely on my list for when my grandson is a little older.
In a free society, all defendants should be treated equally.
I think there were some serious Kelly criterion calculations that could be done around Macron though.
As a dedicated follower of fashion, I also look down on people, who wear dental floss thin ties, or the front part of the tie is shorter than the back part.
And don't even get me started on people who wear trainers with suits.
Some have been very good value, like Lib.Dems <27 seats @ 1.83, i.e. before the mid-band plunged to 15.5.
I still have a short list - actually, quite a long list - of constituency odds to assess & maybe bet on. Mostly the kind where quoted odds are 1.2-1.3 but I think they're really 1.02-1.05, or the odds are 2.0 and should be 1.4 ... that kind of thing. I think anything much longer has gone. I tend to agree on Twickenham.
Against that, so far there've been no Fallon attacks for 'these disgraceful proposals for unilateral disarmament'. There were more attacks on Foot in 1983 than there've been on Corbyn.
I can tell you now that if you tip up for an interview for a job in my company and that you wear a big black sack then it won't be a positive. I will (because I am human) judge you for this a little, but the questions that follow are the most important. I would bet very heavily that there is no woman alive that is happy being wrapped up in the way that Islam does things and can at the same time answer a pretty basic question well.
I make no judgement as to who might be wrong in these things - but someone is.
Some are fine with it, some say no.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/barnier-says-brexit-will-come-at-a-cost-but-we-are-where-we-are-1.3079612
Because as I understand it that is the rule here in the sandpit, for criminal (as opposed to family/sharia) cases.
UKIP to win A seat I reckon is amongst those.
https://twitter.com/brtnelexben/status/862711673462943745
www.devonlive.com/devon-general-election-candidates-2017/story...detail/story.html
LREM 29%, +3 / 7 May
FN 20%, -2
LR-UDI 20%, -2
FI 14%, +1
PS-PRG 7%, -1
(Now, where did I leave my coat?)
Don Valley, Stoke North, Stoke Central, Doncaster Central, Brum Northfield, Birmingham Erdington. Batley and Spen, Wentworth and Deane
@election_data on twitter
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/862720118161387523
I give up.
Isn't it the Will of Allah (SWT) that we are all born stark, raving naked?
Hard to believe the Tories would not have given him at the least a severe fright if they hadn't been distracted by Copeland.