Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
You obviously missed the conversation of a couple of days ago where we were talking about Tony Bloom who every weekend has upto £1 million per match of football, and wagers £100s millions every year.
Was a guest of Tony Bloom in the directors box at Brighton 18 months ago wen Burnley were heading for promotion. We had a great conversation about betting and he's a lovely guy. He's done wonders with Brighton and I really hope they stay in the EPL
I'm guessing it would be a conflict of interest for Bloom to do bets involving Brighton matches etc?
Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
You obviously missed the conversation of a couple of days ago where we were talking about Tony Bloom who every weekend has upto £1 million per match of football, and wagers £100s millions every year.
Was a guest of Tony Bloom in the directors box at Brighton 18 months ago wen Burnley were heading for promotion. We had a great conversation about betting and he's a lovely guy. He's done wonders with Brighton and I really hope they stay in the EPL
I didn't realise Brighton played in the Egyptian Premier League.
The FA an untrustworthy shambles? Who would have thought it? twitter.com/DTguardian/status/899678143899893762
Well other than the central claim Aluko has made was supposedly made during a meeting that was videoed. The independent lawyer (who is also a black woman) found that the allegedly comments weren't present in the video and found no real evidence to substantiate the general claims.
Perhaps the Labour party should have this lady on retainer in case of another outbreak of anti-Semitic social media posts from members?
Mr. Enjineeya, that's the excuse they may sometimes cite, but why attack Western countries (and many non-Western) with wildly varying political and military approaches? What's Finland ever done to the Middle East?
The common factor is Islam, particularly new recruits who are full of zeal and empty of knowledge, and a desire to atone for past sins (by committing an exciting array of new ones...). Similar social/economic conditions exist for plenty of other groups but they tend not to have such an extremist fringe. A fundamentalist religious outlook coupled with lack of central authority to definitively denounce lunatic acts is, unfortunately, the perfect cocktail for terrorism.
Mr. M, it was bloody flukey. But I'll take a 250/1 fluke. (Nearly got 200/1 this year. If Ocon hadn't ****ed up and hit Perez, the latter would've likely finished top 2 in Azerbaijan. One was not amused).
You're making the mistake of seeing Islamic terrorism as some sort of centrally controlled operation. It isn't. It's largely perpetrated by autonomous, ideologically driven young men fired up by perceived injustice against people they identify with. The single most effective thing we could do to fight terrorism would be to stop Israel from appropriating Palestinian land for its settlements.
Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
You obviously missed the conversation of a couple of days ago where we were talking about Tony Bloom who every weekend has upto £1 million per match of football, and wagers £100s millions every year.
Was a guest of Tony Bloom in the directors box at Brighton 18 months ago wen Burnley were heading for promotion. We had a great conversation about betting and he's a lovely guy. He's done wonders with Brighton and I really hope they stay in the EPL
I'm guessing it would be a conflict of interest for Bloom to do bets involving Brighton matches etc?
He never bets on his own team. Not only a conflict of interest, its illegal.
No it is not nonsense as 9/11 was launched from Afghanistan. The clue to beating radical Islam is both stopping the bases it comes from and toughening up border control. I never made an argument about Iraq
You tried to make a cheap political point about "the left" opposing the initial intervention in Afghanistan but my recollection was there was very little opposition to the move to hunt down Bin Laden and AQ.
I think there's a debate as to whether that was the right move done in the right way and as I recall the response was hardly immediate. Indeed, the fact of Saudi involvement which must have been known at the time, was widely glossed over.
As to your "solutions" to radical Islam, more thought needed. The answer though should be something most Conservatives support and that's capitalism. People who are busy making money have less inclination to make trouble.
No Corbyn and many of his left-wing colleagues opposed the intervention in Afghanistan and the killing of Bin Laden. So your recollection is not entirely correct.
Bin Laden came from one of the richest countries in the world, many ISIS supporters are rich and highly educated, capitalism alone will not solve the problem
Corbyn's thoughts on Afghanistan.
“Historians will study with interest the news manipulation of the past 18 months.
“After September 11, the claims that bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made.
“This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan.”
In terms of his HoC comments, there's a few questions about our view of the Northern Alliance and then asking about bombs, cluster bombs (x3) & napalm.
He's remarkably quiet on the topic of opposing the invasion in the House of Commons.
Corbyn voted against the deployment of British troops to Afghanistan in 2001 in the Commons which is pretty loud to me
How? There wasn't a vote on troop deployment in Afghanistan in 2001.
Mr. Enjineeya, that's the excuse they may sometimes cite, but why attack Western countries (and many non-Western) with wildly varying political and military approaches? What's Finland ever done to the Middle East?
The common factor is Islam, particularly new recruits who are full of zeal and empty of knowledge, and a desire to atone for past sins (by committing an exciting array of new ones...). Similar social/economic conditions exist for plenty of other groups but they tend not to have such an extremist fringe. A fundamentalist religious outlook coupled with lack of central authority to definitively denounce lunatic acts is, unfortunately, the perfect cocktail for terrorism.
Mr. M, it was bloody flukey. But I'll take a 250/1 fluke. (Nearly got 200/1 this year. If Ocon hadn't ****ed up and hit Perez, the latter would've likely finished top 2 in Azerbaijan. One was not amused).
You're making the mistake of seeing Islamic terrorism as some sort of centrally controlled operation. It isn't. It's largely perpetrated by autonomous, ideologically driven young men fired up by perceived injustice against people they identify with. The single most effective thing we could do to fight terrorism would be to stop Israel from appropriating Palestinian land for its settlements.
Mr. Enjineeya, I partially agree. However, materials (from "How to commit terrorism" manuals to more hands-on advice with explosives and so on) do require the involvement of those with expertise. That's not control but it is influence.
(As an aside, I agree entirely that settlement building around Jerusalem, in Palestine, is hugely counter-productive. Unfortunately, I can't see it stopping).
There's also the issue of funding flowing from certain nations and organisations.
Anyway, I must be off now, but shall return later.
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
Mr. Enjineeya, blaming social inequality for religious zealots running over children is a logical stretch which cannot bear the burden of scrutiny or reason.
I did no such thing. Social inequality does, however, create the condition for religious extremism to flourish. When they are actually asked, the primary motivation for would-be suicide attackers is typically revenge for perceived injustices against groups with which they identify, such as the bombing of their cities.
Luton isn't a city. Although it should be bombed.
I don't think Sean fear would agree. He lives there and it is nothing like as dire as people suggest.
I am scarred by a single visit so I admit that I may be unfair to the whole place.
Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
You obviously missed the conversation of a couple of days ago where we were talking about Tony Bloom who every weekend has upto £1 million per match of football, and wagers £100s millions every year.
Was a guest of Tony Bloom in the directors box at Brighton 18 months ago wen Burnley were heading for promotion. We had a great conversation about betting and he's a lovely guy. He's done wonders with Brighton and I really hope they stay in the EPL
I'm guessing it would be a conflict of interest for Bloom to do bets involving Brighton matches etc?
It is illegal for him to bet on any professional football match, worldwide.
A friend works for Man City in their commercial department, he can't even offer a tip.
Mr. Enjineeya, that's the excuse they may sometimes cite, but why attack Western countries (and many non-Western) with wildly varying political and military approaches? What's Finland ever done to the Middle East?
The common factor is Islam, particularly new recruits who are full of zeal and empty of knowledge, and a desire to atone for past sins (by committing an exciting array of new ones...). Similar social/economic conditions exist for plenty of other groups but they tend not to have such an extremist fringe. A fundamentalist religious outlook coupled with lack of central authority to definitively denounce lunatic acts is, unfortunately, the perfect cocktail for terrorism.
Mr. M, it was bloody flukey. But I'll take a 250/1 fluke. (Nearly got 200/1 this year. If Ocon hadn't ****ed up and hit Perez, the latter would've likely finished top 2 in Azerbaijan. One was not amused).
You're making the mistake of seeing Islamic terrorism as some sort of centrally controlled operation. It isn't. It's largely perpetrated by autonomous, ideologically driven young men fired up by perceived injustice against people they identify with. The single most effective thing we could do to fight terrorism would be to stop Israel from appropriating Palestinian land for its settlements.
But that isn't what they say. ISIS at least. Palestinian is way down on their list.
They hate our way of life and they hate non-believers and they want to kill them all.
Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
You obviously missed the conversation of a couple of days ago where we were talking about Tony Bloom who every weekend has upto £1 million per match of football, and wagers £100s millions every year.
Was a guest of Tony Bloom in the directors box at Brighton 18 months ago wen Burnley were heading for promotion. We had a great conversation about betting and he's a lovely guy. He's done wonders with Brighton and I really hope they stay in the EPL
I know the guys behind Fidens/Football Form Labs, helped them raise some money in the early days, met Andrew Black (Betfair) through them as well.
Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
You obviously missed the conversation of a couple of days ago where we were talking about Tony Bloom who every weekend has upto £1 million per match of football, and wagers £100s millions every year.
Was a guest of Tony Bloom in the directors box at Brighton 18 months ago wen Burnley were heading for promotion. We had a great conversation about betting and he's a lovely guy. He's done wonders with Brighton and I really hope they stay in the EPL
I'm guessing it would be a conflict of interest for Bloom to do bets involving Brighton matches etc?
It's illegal for him to bet on any professional football match, worldwide.
A friend works for Man City in their commercial department, he can't even offer a tip.
So the statement that "every weekend [he] has upto £1 million per match of football, and wagers £100s millions every year." is untrue?
Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
You obviously missed the conversation of a couple of days ago where we were talking about Tony Bloom who every weekend has upto £1 million per match of football, and wagers £100s millions every year.
Was a guest of Tony Bloom in the directors box at Brighton 18 months ago wen Burnley were heading for promotion. We had a great conversation about betting and he's a lovely guy. He's done wonders with Brighton and I really hope they stay in the EPL
I'm guessing it would be a conflict of interest for Bloom to do bets involving Brighton matches etc?
It's illegal for him to bet on any professional football match, worldwide.
A friend works for Man City in their commercial department, he can't even offer a tip.
Well somebody is wagering £100 millions in his name worldwide....the same with Matthew Benham, who owns Brentford. It isn't a secret that that is what they do for a living.
Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
Mayweather @ 1.29 makes me consider mortgaging the house.
So did 1.25 on a Tory majority a couple of months ago! And I know I wasn’t the only one.
Is anyone staying up to watch the fight, will be somewhere around 03:30-04:00 Sunday morning in the UK?
Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
You obviously missed the conversation of a couple of days ago where we were talking about Tony Bloom who every weekend has upto £1 million per match of football, and wagers £100s millions every year.
Was a guest of Tony Bloom in the directors box at Brighton 18 months ago wen Burnley were heading for promotion. We had a great conversation about betting and he's a lovely guy. He's done wonders with Brighton and I really hope they stay in the EPL
I'm guessing it would be a conflict of interest for Bloom to do bets involving Brighton matches etc?
It is illegal for him to bet on any professional football match, worldwide.
A friend works for Man City in their commercial department, he can't even offer a tip.
That's interesting - under what law would it be illegal?
Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
You obviously missed the conversation of a couple of days ago where we were talking about Tony Bloom who every weekend has upto £1 million per match of football, and wagers £100s millions every year.
Was a guest of Tony Bloom in the directors box at Brighton 18 months ago wen Burnley were heading for promotion. We had a great conversation about betting and he's a lovely guy. He's done wonders with Brighton and I really hope they stay in the EPL
I'm guessing it would be a conflict of interest for Bloom to do bets involving Brighton matches etc?
It's illegal for him to bet on any professional football match, worldwide.
A friend works for Man City in their commercial department, he can't even offer a tip.
So the statement that "every weekend [he] has upto £1 million per match of football, and wagers £100s millions every year." is untrue?
It could be true, but it would against the FA rules.
From 2014.
New rules which prevent players and coaches from betting on any worldwide footballing activity will help in the fight against match-fixing, says Football Association general secretary Alex Horne.
Players from the top eight tiers of the English game are banned from betting on the sport under new rules which came into force on Friday.
"We are really proud of the integrity of the game in this country and it is really important people trust... what is happening on the pitch," said Horne.
"We want to keep our message as simple as possible - and it cannot be more simple that as a player you cannot bet at all on football."
The new betting rules in summary
The FA's betting rule change applies to the top eight tiers of English football
Players, managers, club employees and match officials are prohibited from betting on any football matter worldwide
Bets on results, goalscorers, in-game play, player transfers, manager changes or promotions and relegations are banned
The FA is undertaking pre-season club visits to talk players and staff through the new rules
Club employees and match officials are also restricted by the new rules, which prevent gambling on any football-related matters, including results, goalscorers, in-game play, player transfers, manager changes or promotions and relegations.
Club employees and match officials are also restricted by the new rules, which prevent gambling on any football-related matters, including results, goalscorers, in-game play, player transfers, manager changes or promotions and relegations.
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Mr. Enjineeya, blaming social inequality for religious zealots running over children is a logical stretch which cannot bear the burden of scrutiny or reason.
I did no such thing. Social inequality does, however, create the condition for religious extremism to flourish. When they are actually asked, the primary motivation for would-be suicide attackers is typically revenge for perceived injustices against groups with which they identify, such as the bombing of their cities.
Luton isn't a city. Although it should be bombed.
I don't think Sean fear would agree. He lives there and it is nothing like as dire as people suggest.
I am scarred by a single visit so I admit that I may be unfair to the whole place.
Players from the top eight tiers of the English game are banned from betting on the sport under new rules which came into force on Friday.
"We are really proud of the integrity of the game in this country and it is really important people trust... what is happening on the pitch," said Horne.
"We want to keep our message as simple as possible - and it cannot be more simple that as a player you cannot bet at all on football."
The new betting rules in summary
The FA's betting rule change applies to the top eight tiers of English football
Players, managers, club employees and match officials are prohibited from betting on any football matter worldwide
Bets on results, goalscorers, in-game play, player transfers, manager changes or promotions and relegations are banned
The FA is undertaking pre-season club visits to talk players and staff through the new rules
Club employees and match officials are also restricted by the new rules, which prevent gambling on any football-related matters, including results, goalscorers, in-game play, player transfers, manager changes or promotions and relegations.
To begin with I doubt he is a club employee, and it's his company Star Lizard that places the bets. i'm sure he is smart enough to know the rules and abide by them.
Club employees and match officials are also restricted by the new rules, which prevent gambling on any football-related matters, including results, goalscorers, in-game play, player transfers, manager changes or promotions and relegations.
Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
You obviously missed the conversation of a couple of days ago where we were talking about Tony Bloom who every weekend has upto £1 million per match of football, and wagers £100s millions every year.
Was a guest of Tony Bloom in the directors box at Brighton 18 months ago wen Burnley were heading for promotion. We had a great conversation about betting and he's a lovely guy. He's done wonders with Brighton and I really hope they stay in the EPL
I'm guessing it would be a conflict of interest for Bloom to do bets involving Brighton matches etc?
It is illegal for him to bet on any professional football match, worldwide.
A friend works for Man City in their commercial department, he can't even offer a tip.
That's interesting - under what law would it be illegal?
To begin with I doubt he is a club employee, and it's his company Star Lizard that places the bets. i'm sure he is smart enough to know the rules and abide by them.
Interestingly Star Lizard doesn't have him listed as a director. He is technically just a client, albeit basically their only client.
Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
You obviously missed the conversation of a couple of days ago where we were talking about Tony Bloom who every weekend has upto £1 million per match of football, and wagers £100s millions every year.
Was a guest of Tony Bloom in the directors box at Brighton 18 months ago wen Burnley were heading for promotion. We had a great conversation about betting and he's a lovely guy. He's done wonders with Brighton and I really hope they stay in the EPL
I'm guessing it would be a conflict of interest for Bloom to do bets involving Brighton matches etc?
It is illegal for him to bet on any professional football match, worldwide.
A friend works for Man City in their commercial department, he can't even offer a tip.
That's interesting - under what law would it be illegal?
I'll ask my friend, they were given a proper briefing by the FA and solicitors at the time.
Mr. Enjineeya, that's the excuse they may sometimes cite, but why attack Western countries (and many non-Western) with wildly varying political and military approaches? What's Finland ever done to the Middle East?
The common factor is Islam, particularly new recruits who are full of zeal and empty of knowledge, and a desire to atone for past sins (by committing an exciting array of new ones...). Similar social/economic conditions exist for plenty of other groups but they tend not to have such an extremist fringe. A fundamentalist religious outlook coupled with lack of central authority to definitively denounce lunatic acts is, unfortunately, the perfect cocktail for terrorism.
Mr. M, it was bloody flukey. But I'll take a 250/1 fluke. (Nearly got 200/1 this year. If Ocon hadn't ****ed up and hit Perez, the latter would've likely finished top 2 in Azerbaijan. One was not amused).
You're making the mistake of seeing Islamic terrorism as some sort of centrally controlled operation. It isn't. It's largely perpetrated by autonomous, ideologically driven young men fired up by perceived injustice against people they identify with. The single most effective thing we could do to fight terrorism would be to stop Israel from appropriating Palestinian land for its settlements.
But that isn't what they say. ISIS at least. Palestinian is way down on their list.
They hate our way of life and they hate non-believers and they want to kill them all.
You're missing the point, which is what drives people to join/follow ISIS in the first place. It is typically perceived injustice.
Club employees and match officials are also restricted by the new rules, which prevent gambling on any football-related matters, including results, goalscorers, in-game play, player transfers, manager changes or promotions and relegations.
Tony Bloom bets specifically on Asian Handicaps, which is odds-adjusted full time scores.
Well if any journalist is reading PB they might have a story.
It ain't a secret. Everybody knows in the game knows about these two own, and the connection to StarLizard and SmartOdds. They have been written about in Mail and the Guardian (and those are just the two I can remember) in the past couple of years.
Matthew Benham is also involved in a similar way to Bloom, in fact he worked for Bloom at Premierbet.
He is chairman at Brentford who are ambitious enough to be building a new stadium, his betting company is Smartodds and I believe he is also involved with Matchbook.
My grandson trained with Brentford for a while, they had poached a lot of the academy coaches from Arsenal, however I understand all is not well there and they have left for Fulham and QPR.
He had a fallout with Bloom so I guess Brighton v Brentford matches were interesting!
Club employees and match officials are also restricted by the new rules, which prevent gambling on any football-related matters, including results, goalscorers, in-game play, player transfers, manager changes or promotions and relegations.
Tony Bloom bets specifically on Asian Handicaps, which is odds-adjusted full time scores.
Well if any journalist is reading PB they might have a story.
It ain't a secret. Everybody knows these two own StarLizard and SmartOdds. They have been written about in Mail and the Guardian (and those are just the two I can remember).
It's hard to reconcile that story with the rules the FA put in place in 2014.
I'll ask my friend, they were given a proper briefing by the FA and solicitors at the time.
My guess is that it's an FA rule and incorporated into his employment contract, rather than being illegal as such.
My guess is that he owns Brighton through some vehicle and he isn't a director of StarLizard, who offer the full service of research to using agents to place bets in the Far East for their clients (who happens to be one syndicate led by Bloom). Therefore, he is probably neither technically an employee of BAH or StarLizard.
Budget surplus for the first time since 2002 due to unexpectedly high income tax receipts. Could be a sign of capital flight if people are paying themselves to get money out of the country.
Or, more likely, that people are earning more because business is booming. Because of Brexit.
Probably due to the increased flow of money from self employed BTLs getting properly captured and a calendar glitch e.g. "But Ruth Gregory, economist at Capital Economics, said the figures were probably just a blip, as the deadline fell on a different day of the week from last year. "Self-assessment receipts were boosted by the 31 July deadline falling on a Monday this year, but Sunday in 2016, meaning that some receipts were recorded in August last year," she said."
"But that isn't what they say. ISIS at least. Palestinian is way down on their list."
They hate anyone who doesn't conform to their version of true Islam. Many Palestinians don't. By killing others and/or being killed, they earn paradise for themselves. Not so good for the 72 virgins, though.
A Corbynite friend of mine suggested that all they want is colour TVs and the other signs of Western affluence. That's so daft on so many levels, it's not even wrong! Bin Laden was doing it for the money?
Mr D, Finland and the rest of Scandinavia are allowing women to walk around virtually undressed. They deserve to die.
Club employees and match officials are also restricted by the new rules, which prevent gambling on any football-related matters, including results, goalscorers, in-game play, player transfers, manager changes or promotions and relegations.
Tony Bloom bets specifically on Asian Handicaps, which is odds-adjusted full time scores.
Well if any journalist is reading PB they might have a story.
It ain't a secret. Everybody knows these two own StarLizard and SmartOdds. They have been written about in Mail and the Guardian (and those are just the two I can remember).
It's hard to reconcile that story with the rules the FA put in place in 2014.
However him and Benham have it setup has to be within the rules, as they aren't some shadowy figures that nobody knows about. Despite both being private people, they are extremely well known in the gambling and football world, and lead what are probably the two largest football betting syndicates in the West. Their money moves the markets in big ways.
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
There’s no way the Democrats would allow a complete outsider into their primaries in the same way the Republicans did with Trump.
There was a rumour a few months back that the RNC were going to restrict presidential nominations to those who had served as Senators or Governors, to stop Trump happening again in the future.
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
There’s no way the Democrats would allow a complete outsider into their primaries in the same way the Republicans did with Trump.
There was a rumour a few months back that the RNC were going to restrict presidential nominations to those who had served as Senators or Governors, to stop Trump happening again in the future.
Even then the GOP would still have picked Ted Cruz
Budget surplus for the first time since 2002 due to unexpectedly high income tax receipts. Could be a sign of capital flight if people are paying themselves to get money out of the country.
Or, more likely, that people are earning more because business is booming. Because of Brexit.
Probably due to the increased flow of money from self employed BTLs getting properly captured and a calendar glitch e.g. "But Ruth Gregory, economist at Capital Economics, said the figures were probably just a blip, as the deadline fell on a different day of the week from last year. "Self-assessment receipts were boosted by the 31 July deadline falling on a Monday this year, but Sunday in 2016, meaning that some receipts were recorded in August last year," she said."
That seems to imply that on the normal basis July last year would have shown a surplus too?
I'll ask my friend, they were given a proper briefing by the FA and solicitors at the time.
My guess is that it's an FA rule and incorporated into his employment contract, rather than being illegal as such.
My guess is that he owns Brighton through some vehicle and he isn't a director of StarLizard, who offer the full service of research to using agents to place bets in the Far East for their clients (who happens to be one syndicate led by Bloom). Therefore, he is probably neither technically an employee of BAH or StarLizard.
That sounds plausible. The article also says he never bets on matches involving Brighton. I’m sure whatever the actual position it’s been cleared by the relevant FA committee before he took over at BHA.
Injustice? Why would ISIS worry about injustices aimed at Kuffar? You're either ideologically pure or you're a target. Their poor old arms get tired beheading Muslims as traitors, let alone Westerners.
Budget surplus for the first time since 2002 due to unexpectedly high income tax receipts. Could be a sign of capital flight if people are paying themselves to get money out of the country.
Or, more likely, that people are earning more because business is booming. Because of Brexit.
Probably due to the increased flow of money from self employed BTLs getting properly captured and a calendar glitch e.g. "But Ruth Gregory, economist at Capital Economics, said the figures were probably just a blip, as the deadline fell on a different day of the week from last year. "Self-assessment receipts were boosted by the 31 July deadline falling on a Monday this year, but Sunday in 2016, meaning that some receipts were recorded in August last year," she said."
That seems to imply that on the normal basis July last year would have shown a surplus too?
Indeed. August of last year might have been considered a "calendar glitch" but this year where the deadline falls on a working day is the norm to be expected and would have occurred in most of the last 15 years.
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
Budget surplus for the first time since 2002 due to unexpectedly high income tax receipts. Could be a sign of capital flight if people are paying themselves to get money out of the country.
Or, more likely, that people are earning more because business is booming.
Because of Brexit.
Nah, it's all down to Osborne's magnificent stewardship of the economy.
Mrs May lost the election the moment she fired him.
I am, perhaps, not quite as much of a fan - but I have to say he came across as entirely sensible this morning, talking about the northern 'powerhouse' strategy on the Today program.
Grayling's handling of northern transport infrastructure has been little short of insulting.
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
And preferably a woman. Or black. Or Kamala Harris.
Also, if there was controversy over Trump’s business dealings, then Mark Zuckerberg would be controversy on steroids.
I'll ask my friend, they were given a proper briefing by the FA and solicitors at the time.
My guess is that it's an FA rule and incorporated into his employment contract, rather than being illegal as such.
My guess is that he owns Brighton through some vehicle and he isn't a director of StarLizard, who offer the full service of research to using agents to place bets in the Far East for their clients (who happens to be one syndicate led by Bloom). Therefore, he is probably neither technically an employee of BAH or StarLizard.
That sounds plausible. The article also says he never bets on matches involving Brighton. I’m sure whatever the actual position it’s been cleared by the relevant FA committee before he took over at BHA.
I believe the FA rules have changed since he bought BHA, but there is no way he would leave himself open to this problem. He ain't some mug punter like Joey Barton wasting his money on stupid bets.
Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
Mayweather @ 1.29 makes me consider mortgaging the house.
So did 1.25 on a Tory majority a couple of months ago! And I know I wasn’t the only one.
Is anyone staying up to watch the fight, will be somewhere around 03:30-04:00 Sunday morning in the UK?
bought it this morning. Pretty good undercard also including Jack/Cleverly, Tabiti, Geronta Davis, and Porter.
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
No, they picked a centrist last time having been told she was 'electable' and lost. They will not make the same decision again. Sanders very nearly beat her last time, early Democratic primary polls give Sanders and Warren combined a majority of Democratic primary voters and given early 2020 general election polls have both beating Trump one of those two will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
And preferably a woman. Or black. Or Kamala Harris.
Also, if there was controversy over Trump’s business dealings, then Mark Zuckerberg would be controversy on steroids.
Kamala Harris is also too centrist for the Berniebots, Kimberley Ellis is a radical African American candidate for chair of the California Party and more likely than Harris
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
And preferably a woman. Or black. Or Kamala Harris.
Also, if there was controversy over Trump’s business dealings, then Mark Zuckerberg would be controversy on steroids.
The one most convinced Zuckerberg is likely to run seems to be Trump himself - I have my doubts he has any intention of running.
Having said that there's a pretty massive difference between the two. Zuckerberg is actually successful in building a business (as opposed to inheriting wealth); his charitable donations are real; he doesn't appear to be a pathological liar; he almost certainly would divest his business interests if he were to run. None of that particularly qualifies him to run for president - and the idea of random billionaires self-funding presidential runs is pretty unwholesome - but Trump he ain't.
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
Aren't they likely to think "whoever we pick will beat Trump, we can pick someone we really want"?
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
No, they picked a centrist last time having been told she was 'electable' and lost. They will not make the same decision again. Sanders very nearly beat her last time, early Democratic primary polls give Sanders and Warren combined a majority of Democratic primary voters and given early 2020 general election polls have both beating Trump one of those two will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee
They picked a very unpopular centrist that was known to be unpopular outside Democratic circles - at a time when the Democrats were the incumbents in the Oval Office.
In 2020 the Democratic Primary will not be be a re-run of 2016. In 2016 little had changed since 2008 as the Democrats had held the Presidency the entire time and were confident of retaining it.
Trump has changed all that. The last primary is ancient history now. Regaining the Oval Office is all that matters.
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
Aren't they likely to think "whoever we pick will beat Trump, we can pick someone we really want"?
No because there's no guarantee the GOP will retain Trump.
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
Aren't they likely to think "whoever we pick will beat Trump, we can pick someone we really want"?
No because there's no guarantee the GOP will retain Trump.
A good point.
It could well be Pence running for 2020, the Don might not want to do a second term. I think Pence would crush Warren in particular.
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
No, they picked a centrist last time having been told she was 'electable' and lost. They will not make the same decision again. Sanders very nearly beat her last time, early Democratic primary polls give Sanders and Warren combined a majority of Democratic primary voters and given early 2020 general election polls have both beating Trump one of those two will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee
If they want to win, they will have to pick someone along those lines - though not necessarily either of those two.
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
No, they picked a centrist last time having been told she was 'electable' and lost. They will not make the same decision again. Sanders very nearly beat her last time, early Democratic primary polls give Sanders and Warren combined a majority of Democratic primary voters and given early 2020 general election polls have both beating Trump one of those two will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee
They picked a very unpopular centrist that was known to be unpopular outside Democratic circles - at a time when the Democrats were the incumbents in the Oval Office.
In 2020 the Democratic Primary will not be be a re-run of 2016. In 2016 little had changed since 2008 as the Democrats had held the Presidency the entire time and were confident of retaining it.
Trump has changed all that. The last primary is ancient history now. Regaining the Oval Office is all that matters.
Yes and with current polls showing Sanders and Warren both beating Trump they can both win and get a populist left liberal in the Oval Office. Unless that changes dramatically and only a centrist has a chance against Trump on the polls (unlikely given early polling has Zuckerberg doing worse than Warren and Sanders) one of those two will be nominee
Mr. Enjineeya, that's the excuse they may sometimes cite, but why attack Western countries (and many non-Western) with wildly varying political and military approaches? What's Finland ever done to the Middle East?
The common factor is Islam, particularly new recruits who are full of zeal and empty of knowledge, and a desire to atone for past sins (by committing an exciting array of new ones...). Similar social/economic conditions exist for plenty of other groups but they tend not to have such an extremist fringe. A fundamentalist religious outlook coupled with lack of central authority to definitively denounce lunatic acts is, unfortunately, the perfect cocktail for terrorism.
Mr. M, it was bloody flukey. But I'll take a 250/1 fluke. (Nearly got 200/1 this year. If Ocon hadn't ****ed up and hit Perez, the latter would've likely finished top 2 in Azerbaijan. One was not amused).
You're making the mistake of seeing Islamic terrorism as some sort of centrally controlled operation. It isn't. It's largely perpetrated by autonomous, ideologically driven young men fired up by perceived injustice against people they identify with. The single most effective thing we could do to fight terrorism would be to stop Israel from appropriating Palestinian land for its settlements.
But that isn't what they say. ISIS at least. Palestinian is way down on their list.
They hate our way of life and they hate non-believers and they want to kill them all.
You're missing the point, which is what drives people to join/follow ISIS in the first place. It is typically perceived injustice.
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
Aren't they likely to think "whoever we pick will beat Trump, we can pick someone we really want"?
No because there's no guarantee the GOP will retain Trump.
The GOP base who elect the nominee will pick Trump again or similar
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
No, they picked a centrist last time having been told she was 'electable' and lost. They will not make the same decision again. Sanders very nearly beat her last time, early Democratic primary polls give Sanders and Warren combined a majority of Democratic primary voters and given early 2020 general election polls have both beating Trump one of those two will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee
If they want to win, they will have to pick someone along those lines - though not necessarily either of those two.
Given the huge head start both those two have in name recognition and polling and appeal to the base it will be tough to stop them
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
Aren't they likely to think "whoever we pick will beat Trump, we can pick someone we really want"?
No because there's no guarantee the GOP will retain Trump.
As @HYUFD suggests above, it’s quite possible that Trump could get primaried and still come through as the nominee. Those voting in the primaries are very different to the GOP hierarchy, and they still love their man.
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
Aren't they likely to think "whoever we pick will beat Trump, we can pick someone we really want"?
No because there's no guarantee the GOP will retain Trump.
A good point.
It could well be Pence running for 2020, the Don might not want to do a second term. I think Pence would crush Warren in particular.
Pence polled worse against Hillary in 2016 than Trump in the only polling comparing them
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
Aren't they likely to think "whoever we pick will beat Trump, we can pick someone we really want"?
As in: "whatever happens we are guaranteed an 80+ seat majority, so we can put some unpopular stuff we really want in our manifesto"; or "Remain is going to win anyway, so we can vote Leave to give Dave a bit of a slap on the wrist about gay marriage"?
He'd already have a knighthood if he hadn't been convicted for domestic violence.
(There probably is some truth to his suggestion that West Indian cricketers have historically been given knighthoods more easily. But then they occupy (or occupied, sadly) a much more seminal place in their culture than ours do.)
EDIT: oh, and the rebel tour to South Africa probably hasn't helped his cause either
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
Aren't they likely to think "whoever we pick will beat Trump, we can pick someone we really want"?
As in: "whatever happens we are guaranteed an 80+ seat majority, so we can put some unpopular stuff we really want in our manifesto"; or "Remain is going to win anyway, so we can vote Leave to give Dave a bit of a slap on the wrist about gay marriage"?
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
Aren't they likely to think "whoever we pick will beat Trump, we can pick someone we really want"?
No because there's no guarantee the GOP will retain Trump.
As @HYUFD suggests above, it’s quite possible that Trump could get primaried and still come through as the nominee. Those voting in the primaries are very different to the GOP hierarchy, and they still love their man.
Indeed, the average GOP primary voter looks more like Donald Trump than it does George HW Bush now and outside of New England and parts of the West they are all fans of populism and Trumpism
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
And preferably a woman. Or black. Or Kamala Harris.
Also, if there was controversy over Trump’s business dealings, then Mark Zuckerberg would be controversy on steroids.
The one most convinced Zuckerberg is likely to run seems to be Trump himself - I have my doubts he has any intention of running.
Having said that there's a pretty massive difference between the two. Zuckerberg is actually successful in building a business (as opposed to inheriting wealth); his charitable donations are real; he doesn't appear to be a pathological liar; he almost certainly would divest his business interests if he were to run. None of that particularly qualifies him to run for president - and the idea of random billionaires self-funding presidential runs is pretty unwholesome - but Trump he ain't.
I was thinking more of the nature of his company, especially with regard to influencing elections. He’d probably have to stand aside from his business at the point he announced his candidacy, rather than after the election as happened with Trump.
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
Aren't they likely to think "whoever we pick will beat Trump, we can pick someone we really want"?
No because there's no guarantee the GOP will retain Trump.
The GOP base who elect the nominee will pick Trump again or similar
We are barely half a year into a four year term and Trump is unpopular.
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
Aren't they likely to think "whoever we pick will beat Trump, we can pick someone we really want"?
No because there's no guarantee the GOP will retain Trump.
The GOP base who elect the nominee will pick Trump again or similar
We are barely half a year into a four year term and Trump is unpopular.
A lot more can change in three and a half years.
The GOP base are not going to pick an establishment centrist having got one of their own in the White House that is for sure.
He'd already have a knighthood if he hadn't been convicted for domestic violence.
(There probably is some truth to his suggestion that West Indian cricketers have historically been given knighthoods more easily. But then they occupy (or occupied, sadly) a much more seminal place in their culture than ours do.)
EDIT: oh, and the rebel tour to South Africa probably hasn't helped his cause either
Agree with all that.
Have to admit, I went to the test on Saturday, was a very depressing occasion, who knew England winning by an innings and 209 runs could do that to me.
"But that isn't what they say. ISIS at least. Palestinian is way down on their list."
They hate anyone who doesn't conform to their version of true Islam. Many Palestinians don't. By killing others and/or being killed, they earn paradise for themselves. Not so good for the 72 virgins, though.
A Corbynite friend of mine suggested that all they want is colour TVs and the other signs of Western affluence. That's so daft on so many levels, it's not even wrong! Bin Laden was doing it for the money?
Mr D, Finland and the rest of Scandinavia are allowing women to walk around virtually undressed. They deserve to die.
Here is a list of countries in which there have been Islamist terror attacks since 2012.
I'd like to understand what these countries, a lot of them Muslim, have done in support of Israel, insufficiently in support of Palestine, or otherwise, so as to have become the target of attacks.
Afghanistan Algeria Australia Bangladesh Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Burkina Faso Cameroon Canada Chad China Denmark Egypt France Germany India Indonesia Iran Iraq Israel Ivory Coast Jordan Kenya Kuwait Lebanon Libya Mali Niger Nigeria Pakistan Philippines Russia Saudi Arabia Somalia Spain Syria Tunisia Turkey United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Yemen
The GOP base are not going to pick an establishment centrist having got one of their own in the White House that is for sure.
I expect plenty of people will opt to vote against Trump in the GOP primaries this time, depending on the individual states' rules and also the shape of the Dem race.
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
And preferably a woman. Or black. Or Kamala Harris.
Also, if there was controversy over Trump’s business dealings, then Mark Zuckerberg would be controversy on steroids.
The one most convinced Zuckerberg is likely to run seems to be Trump himself - I have my doubts he has any intention of running.
Having said that there's a pretty massive difference between the two. Zuckerberg is actually successful in building a business (as opposed to inheriting wealth); his charitable donations are real; he doesn't appear to be a pathological liar; he almost certainly would divest his business interests if he were to run. None of that particularly qualifies him to run for president - and the idea of random billionaires self-funding presidential runs is pretty unwholesome - but Trump he ain't.
I was thinking more of the nature of his company, especially with regard to influencing elections. He’d probably have to stand aside from his business at the point he announced his candidacy, rather than after the election as happened with Trump.
Zuckerberg's best chance would be to set up his own centrist party and run as an independent a la Macron in France, though the odds would still be against him
The GOP base are not going to pick an establishment centrist having got one of their own in the White House that is for sure.
I expect plenty of people will opt to vote against Trump in the GOP primaries this time, depending on the individual states' rules and also the shape of the Dem race.
In New England maybe but the South and Midwest will be firmly behind Trump
"But that isn't what they say. ISIS at least. Palestinian is way down on their list."
They hate anyone who doesn't conform to their version of true Islam. Many Palestinians don't. By killing others and/or being killed, they earn paradise for themselves. Not so good for the 72 virgins, though.
A Corbynite friend of mine suggested that all they want is colour TVs and the other signs of Western affluence. That's so daft on so many levels, it's not even wrong! Bin Laden was doing it for the money?
Mr D, Finland and the rest of Scandinavia are allowing women to walk around virtually undressed. They deserve to die.
Here is a list of countries in which there have been Islamist terror attacks since 2012.
I'd like to understand what these countries, a lot of them Muslim, have done in support of Israel, insufficiently in support of Palestine, or otherwise, so as to have become the target of attacks.
[snip for space]
Do you happen to have a source for that list? It would be useful to be able to post elsewhere.
"But that isn't what they say. ISIS at least. Palestinian is way down on their list."
They hate anyone who doesn't conform to their version of true Islam. Many Palestinians don't. By killing others and/or being killed, they earn paradise for themselves. Not so good for the 72 virgins, though.
A Corbynite friend of mine suggested that all they want is colour TVs and the other signs of Western affluence. That's so daft on so many levels, it's not even wrong! Bin Laden was doing it for the money?
Mr D, Finland and the rest of Scandinavia are allowing women to walk around virtually undressed. They deserve to die.
Here is a list of countries in which there have been Islamist terror attacks since 2012.
I'd like to understand what these countries, a lot of them Muslim, have done in support of Israel, insufficiently in support of Palestine, or otherwise, so as to have become the target of attacks.
[snip for space]
Do you happen to have a source for that list? It would be useful to be able to post elsewhere.
He'd already have a knighthood if he hadn't been convicted for domestic violence.
(There probably is some truth to his suggestion that West Indian cricketers have historically been given knighthoods more easily. But then they occupy (or occupied, sadly) a much more seminal place in their culture than ours do.)
EDIT: oh, and the rebel tour to South Africa probably hasn't helped his cause either
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
I have two POTUS bets so far.
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.
Neither would win the GOP or Democratic primaries
They were a 'bit of fun' bets, only a few quid. But as the normal rules of politics have been suspended, possibly indefinitely, then who knows?
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
Zuckerberg has zero chance of winning the 2020 nomination as a billionaire centrist, only a populist left liberal will do for the Democratic base next time
Regaining the White House and removing the GOP will do for the Democratic base next time. If that means a centrist then they will take that.
Aren't they likely to think "whoever we pick will beat Trump, we can pick someone we really want"?
No because there's no guarantee the GOP will retain Trump.
The GOP base who elect the nominee will pick Trump again or similar
We are barely half a year into a four year term and Trump is unpopular.
A lot more can change in three and a half years.
The GOP base are not going to pick an establishment centrist having got one of their own in the White House that is for sure.
Is Trump that popular with the rank and file Republicans? From where I'm standing, he seems to have done a better job with Blue Collar (formerly) Democrats than the traditional guns and God Republican base.
He'd already have a knighthood if he hadn't been convicted for domestic violence.
(There probably is some truth to his suggestion that West Indian cricketers have historically been given knighthoods more easily. But then they occupy (or occupied, sadly) a much more seminal place in their culture than ours do.)
EDIT: oh, and the rebel tour to South Africa probably hasn't helped his cause either
The latest kerfuffle will likely have put paid to any prospect in any event (the South Africa business doesn't seem to have held back others....).
I think Gooch [OBE] might have been knighted by now if it weren't for the rebel tour (and of course he'd have 10k+ runs to boot).
Derek Underwood MBE could have had a strong case too. And Alan Knott doesn't seem to have any kind of honour at all, which is remarkable. He was in Wisden's all-time Test World XI! Perhaps he turned one down?
"But that isn't what they say. ISIS at least. Palestinian is way down on their list."
They hate anyone who doesn't conform to their version of true Islam. Many Palestinians don't. By killing others and/or being killed, they earn paradise for themselves. Not so good for the 72 virgins, though.
A Corbynite friend of mine suggested that all they want is colour TVs and the other signs of Western affluence. That's so daft on so many levels, it's not even wrong! Bin Laden was doing it for the money?
Mr D, Finland and the rest of Scandinavia are allowing women to walk around virtually undressed. They deserve to die.
The choice of watch of the Billionaire Osama Bin-Laden was the Casio F91-W. You can pick it up for £10.
"But that isn't what they say. ISIS at least. Palestinian is way down on their list."
They hate anyone who doesn't conform to their version of true Islam. Many Palestinians don't. By killing others and/or being killed, they earn paradise for themselves. Not so good for the 72 virgins, though.
A Corbynite friend of mine suggested that all they want is colour TVs and the other signs of Western affluence. That's so daft on so many levels, it's not even wrong! Bin Laden was doing it for the money?
Mr D, Finland and the rest of Scandinavia are allowing women to walk around virtually undressed. They deserve to die.
The choice of watch of the Billionaire Osama Bin-Laden was the Casio F91-W. You can pick it up for £10.
For some, money buys freedom, not objects.
And anyway there probably wasn't a Rolex service centre in Tora Bora.
"But that isn't what they say. ISIS at least. Palestinian is way down on their list."
They hate anyone who doesn't conform to their version of true Islam. Many Palestinians don't. By killing others and/or being killed, they earn paradise for themselves. Not so good for the 72 virgins, though.
A Corbynite friend of mine suggested that all they want is colour TVs and the other signs of Western affluence. That's so daft on so many levels, it's not even wrong! Bin Laden was doing it for the money?
Mr D, Finland and the rest of Scandinavia are allowing women to walk around virtually undressed. They deserve to die.
The choice of watch of the Billionaire Osama Bin-Laden was the Casio F91-W. You can pick it up for £10.
For some, money buys freedom, not objects.
And anyway there probably wasn't a Rolex service centre in Tora Bora.
He'd already have a knighthood if he hadn't been convicted for domestic violence.
(There probably is some truth to his suggestion that West Indian cricketers have historically been given knighthoods more easily. But then they occupy (or occupied, sadly) a much more seminal place in their culture than ours do.)
EDIT: oh, and the rebel tour to South Africa probably hasn't helped his cause either
The latest kerfuffle will likely have put paid to any prospect in any event (the South Africa business doesn't seem to have held back others....).
I think Gooch [OBE] might have been knighted by now if it weren't for the rebel tour (and of course he'd have 10k+ runs to boot).
Derek Underwood MBE could have had a strong case too. And Alan Knott doesn't seem to have any kind of honour at all, which is remarkable. He was in Wisden's all-time Test World XI! Perhaps he turned one down?
An outrage Douglas Jardine never got an honour, a war hero, and the man who annoyed the Aussies in a way that has never been remotely matched or superseded.
To think Colin Cowdrey got a Knighthood and a peerage.
Comments
https://twitter.com/DTguardian/status/899678143899893762
Perhaps the Labour party should have this lady on retainer in case of another outbreak of anti-Semitic social media posts from members?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-tim-farron-voted-war/amp/
Corbyn also voted against the continued deployment of UK forces in Afghanistan in 2010
Now after that, I'm not so sure.
(As an aside, I agree entirely that settlement building around Jerusalem, in Palestine, is hugely counter-productive. Unfortunately, I can't see it stopping).
There's also the issue of funding flowing from certain nations and organisations.
Anyway, I must be off now, but shall return later.
https://order-order.com/2017/08/22/remain-media-coverage-criticised-experts/
Even Raqqa must have nice suburbs.
A friend works for Man City in their commercial department, he can't even offer a tip.
They hate our way of life and they hate non-believers and they want to kill them all.
Is anyone staying up to watch the fight, will be somewhere around 03:30-04:00 Sunday morning in the UK?
From 2014.
New rules which prevent players and coaches from betting on any worldwide footballing activity will help in the fight against match-fixing, says Football Association general secretary Alex Horne.
Players from the top eight tiers of the English game are banned from betting on the sport under new rules which came into force on Friday.
"We are really proud of the integrity of the game in this country and it is really important people trust... what is happening on the pitch," said Horne.
"We want to keep our message as simple as possible - and it cannot be more simple that as a player you cannot bet at all on football."
The new betting rules in summary
The FA's betting rule change applies to the top eight tiers of English football
Players, managers, club employees and match officials are prohibited from betting on any football matter worldwide
Bets on results, goalscorers, in-game play, player transfers, manager changes or promotions and relegations are banned
The FA is undertaking pre-season club visits to talk players and staff through the new rules
Club employees and match officials are also restricted by the new rules, which prevent gambling on any football-related matters, including results, goalscorers, in-game play, player transfers, manager changes or promotions and relegations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/28599142
https://atthematch.com/article/a-profile-of-brentfords-owner-matthew-benham
Tony Bloom bets specifically on Asian Handicaps, which is odds-adjusted full time scores.
Zuckerberg is certainly showing signs of interest.
More
BREAKING: North Korea claims secret operation to remove Kim Jong-un is UNDERWAY http://bit.ly/2vasITo
Doesn't seem that secret...
Players from the top eight tiers of the English game are banned from betting on the sport under new rules which came into force on Friday.
"We are really proud of the integrity of the game in this country and it is really important people trust... what is happening on the pitch," said Horne.
"We want to keep our message as simple as possible - and it cannot be more simple that as a player you cannot bet at all on football."
The new betting rules in summary
The FA's betting rule change applies to the top eight tiers of English football
Players, managers, club employees and match officials are prohibited from betting on any football matter worldwide
Bets on results, goalscorers, in-game play, player transfers, manager changes or promotions and relegations are banned
The FA is undertaking pre-season club visits to talk players and staff through the new rules
Club employees and match officials are also restricted by the new rules, which prevent gambling on any football-related matters, including results, goalscorers, in-game play, player transfers, manager changes or promotions and relegations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/28599142
To begin with I doubt he is a club employee, and it's his company Star Lizard that places the bets. i'm sure he is smart enough to know the rules and abide by them.
Edit: Insider trading laws don't apply to sports or political betting, do they? (he asks nervously...)
He is chairman at Brentford who are ambitious enough to be building a new stadium, his betting company is Smartodds and I believe he is also involved with Matchbook.
My grandson trained with Brentford for a while, they had poached a lot of the academy coaches from Arsenal, however I understand all is not well there and they have left for Fulham and QPR.
He had a fallout with Bloom so I guess Brighton v Brentford matches were interesting!
Having seen the interview I wasn't entirely convinced by her.
As for insider trading laws and political betting, my rule is I don't bet on embargoed polls I receive.
I might bet on polls reliable sources tell me about but I haven't received on an embargoed basis.
Really is frustrating when you see other people taking advantage of embargoed poll.
"But Ruth Gregory, economist at Capital Economics, said the figures were probably just a blip, as the deadline fell on a different day of the week from last year.
"Self-assessment receipts were boosted by the 31 July deadline falling on a Monday this year, but Sunday in 2016, meaning that some receipts were recorded in August last year," she said."
https://twitter.com/nycjim/status/899944616136495104
"But that isn't what they say. ISIS at least. Palestinian is way down on their list."
They hate anyone who doesn't conform to their version of true Islam. Many Palestinians don't.
By killing others and/or being killed, they earn paradise for themselves. Not so good for the 72 virgins, though.
A Corbynite friend of mine suggested that all they want is colour TVs and the other signs of Western affluence. That's so daft on so many levels, it's not even wrong! Bin Laden was doing it for the money?
Mr D, Finland and the rest of Scandinavia are allowing women to walk around virtually undressed. They deserve to die.
There was a rumour a few months back that the RNC were going to restrict presidential nominations to those who had served as Senators or Governors, to stop Trump happening again in the future.
I’m sure whatever the actual position it’s been cleared by the relevant FA committee before he took over at BHA.
Injustice? Why would ISIS worry about injustices aimed at Kuffar? You're either ideologically pure or you're a target. Their poor old arms get tired beheading Muslims as traitors, let alone Westerners.
Grayling's handling of northern transport infrastructure has been little short of insulting.
Also, if there was controversy over Trump’s business dealings, then Mark Zuckerberg would be controversy on steroids.
Having said that there's a pretty massive difference between the two. Zuckerberg is actually successful in building a business (as opposed to inheriting wealth); his charitable donations are real; he doesn't appear to be a pathological liar; he almost certainly would divest his business interests if he were to run.
None of that particularly qualifies him to run for president - and the idea of random billionaires self-funding presidential runs is pretty unwholesome - but Trump he ain't.
In 2020 the Democratic Primary will not be be a re-run of 2016. In 2016 little had changed since 2008 as the Democrats had held the Presidency the entire time and were confident of retaining it.
Trump has changed all that. The last primary is ancient history now. Regaining the Oval Office is all that matters.
It could well be Pence running for 2020, the Don might not want to do a second term. I think Pence would crush Warren in particular.
(There probably is some truth to his suggestion that West Indian cricketers have historically been given knighthoods more easily. But then they occupy (or occupied, sadly) a much more seminal place in their culture than ours do.)
EDIT: oh, and the rebel tour to South Africa probably hasn't helped his cause either
A lot more can change in three and a half years.
Have to admit, I went to the test on Saturday, was a very depressing occasion, who knew England winning by an innings and 209 runs could do that to me.
Hopefully the Headingley test will cheer me up.
I'd like to understand what these countries, a lot of them Muslim, have done in support of Israel, insufficiently in support of Palestine, or otherwise, so as to have become the target of attacks.
Afghanistan
Algeria
Australia
Bangladesh
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
China
Denmark
Egypt
France
Germany
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Ivory Coast
Jordan
Kenya
Kuwait
Lebanon
Libya
Mali
Niger
Nigeria
Pakistan
Philippines
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Spain
Syria
Tunisia
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Yemen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
I copied the table from 2012 onward into a spreadsheet, did a Remove Duplicates on the Location column, then sorted alphabetically.
https://order-order.com/2017/08/22/nasty-nat-picks-on-tory-mps-young-children/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/honours-list/11922112/Geoffrey-Boycott-must-be-knighted-after-new-evidence-points-to-his-innocence-over-domestic-abuse-case.html
The latest kerfuffle will likely have put paid to any prospect in any event (the South Africa business doesn't seem to have held back others....).
This could only be more mingin' if you were eating pineapple on pizza.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/899961843778715648
Mr. Eagles, yet more evidence of modern decadence.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531394-300-ships-fooled-in-gps-spoofing-attack-suggest-russian-cyberweapon/
Derek Underwood MBE could have had a strong case too. And Alan Knott doesn't seem to have any kind of honour at all, which is remarkable. He was in Wisden's all-time Test World XI! Perhaps he turned one down?
For some, money buys freedom, not objects.
To think Colin Cowdrey got a Knighthood and a peerage.
I wonder what Satoshi Nakamoto wears?
This may be the age of narcissists, but shaped by the Ascetic Monk