The full judgment is an interesting read. A borderline case but on reading I would say the judgments look solid. Ivey wasn't passively taking advantage of weaknesses in the casino's systems but manipulated the croupier into stacking the deck to her employer's detriment when a principle of the game is that the deck is random.
An interesting question is where more casual punters' sympathies should lie. Personally I dislike professional gamblers finding cunning ways to rip off casinos, since, as with insurance fraudsters, the indirect effect is to make the casinos worsen the deal for everyone else. But a more common view is to see the pros as somehow representative of us peons, and to cheer when they succeed at finding a way through. By contrast, very few people like poker bots, because they're competing with them directly.
As a punter, my initial view is that Ivey was bang to rights. On reflection, what disturbs me though is that the casino was happy to take a million quid off him while they thought he was a mug, and also while they may have considered that if he did win, they'd find a reason not to pay later (which they did).
And now no punter with serious cash is going to go near the place again. Plenty of other casinos in London.
You realise, of course, that Mark Price was Minister of State for Trade Policy until last month. And that he claims that, on behalf of the government, he visited these 60 countries who have agreed to roll over the current deal and are working through the details.
The point is they have to be new agreements because the UK on its own is a different beast from the UK as part of the EU, let alone the EU itself which is the party these agreements were struck with. So the UK can propose to the other party that the agreements can stick as closely as possible to the EU originals for simplicity and shortcut some of the negotiation. But they can't be the same or even very similar. For example we can't offer the Single Market, which is the key attraction for many of these countries. The US Commerce Department asked exporting companies what they wanted from a potential trade deal with the UK. The only thing they were interested in was the UK remaining in the SIngle Market because that protects their investments.
Yes, of course it has to be a new agreement. But it is very simple to draw up the agreement if the parties agree that they will continue to trade on the EU terms.
I struggle to understand why you think a new trade agreement with, say, Vietnam could not be very similar to the agreement it currently has with the EU. The fact that we can't offer the single market does not mean the trade agreement has to change. It may affect their willingness to trade with us but if they are happy to trade with us on the same terms despite the fact that we can't offer the single market then the new agreement could be very similar to their agreement with the EU. The EU/Vietnam agreement does not mention the single market once as far as I can see. And, having taken a look at it, it is clear that large swathes of that agreement could be copied into a UK/Vietnam agreement with very little alteration beyond substituting "UK" for "EU".
It seems very unlikely that any of our trading partners will be happy to continue trading with us on the same terms after Brexit. The UK will be in a desperate situation, and everyone knows that. Why would they settle for the same old arrangement when they are in good position to negotiate a better deal for themselves?
Look at, for example, the recent preliminary agreement with the EU to split agricultural import quotas. Rejected by the US, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Thailand in a co-signed letter. They are already scenting blood.
The nature of snap elections is that candidates have to be found at short notice. This sort of thing is bound to happen.
But they an excellent candidate from 2015, why not use him?
And if he wasn't willing or available, then some more care should have been taken particularly given the high profile of the constituency due to the incumbent former party leader...
I think in truth Labour were worried about how many seats they were going to lose, not about possible gains.
Even so, you need a credible candidate against a former deputy PM.
I do wonder whether his disability might have meant that affirmative action/positive discrimination might have come into the decision-making process
In this Guardian piece it's presented as a big surprise he won the seat, and had been aiming to keep Labour in second. Interestingly, given that he's been so strongly defined as a Momentum person in the recent furore:
'(Momentum has, incidentally, tried to claim Hallam for one of its victories. But O’Mara isn’t having this. “No, no. I reject that entirely. I was grateful for their help, but it was a victory for every shade of red in the party. There are some really good eggs in there, but there are also a few people that… well, I maybe want to put a bit of distance between them and myself.”)'
I feel for the previous Labour PPC, having closed the gap by so much in 2015 for O'Mara to get in on a 2% increase in the Labour vote and immediately being part of a scandal.
It was part of the bigger picture of Labour absolubtely wrecking other smaller nominally left of centre parties everywhere. Ynys Mons, Cambridge, Glasgow, Leeds NW, Bristol..
Hallam did have a slightly weird Lib Dem -> Tory swing for such a remain facing seat mind - which helped Labour alot. There was actually a Labour -> Tory swing there !
Clegg losing his leadership Tory tactical boost was wot won it for Labour tbh.
You realise, of course, that Mark Price was Minister of State for Trade Policy until last month. And that he claims that, on behalf of the government, he visited these 60 countries who have agreed to roll over the current deal and are working through the details.
Does that realisation:
a) Fill you with confidence that Liam Fox's department is on top of things and fully grounded in reality, or b) Fill you with horror that Liam Fox's department is wholly divorced from reality and believes that warm words are sufficient?
To make one obvious point, how on earth should anyone believe that 60-odd countries are currently 'working through the details' when even our own government has no idea what will happen and regards 'no deal' merely as a negotiating position?
To provide the blindingly obvious answer, the details of a trade agreement between us and a non-EU country has nothing to do with the deal we get with the EU. If that country wants to enter into a deal that allows it to continue to trade with us on the same terms as it trades with the EU it can do so, provided we agree. That applies regardless of the outcome of our negotiations with the EU unless we allow the EU to have a veto over our trade deals (which would clearly be unacceptable).
I am not saying Mark Price is right. I don't have any knowledge. But he is in a position to know and there is nothing inherently unbelievable about his claims, whatever you may think. If you currently trade with the UK on EU terms you may think Brexit is an opportunity to get a better deal, but equally you may think that continuing on EU terms is the easiest possible solution to cause minimum disruption to your country's trade with the UK and avoids having to enter into negotiations with the UK that could take years.
And of course no deal has to be an option. One must always be willing to walk away from any negotiation if it is not possible to achieve an outcome that is better than not having a deal at all. I hope we don't end up in that position but it should not be ruled out at this stage. See my post on negotiating 101 a few weeks ago.
OK so let's suppose we have, post-Brexit, the following:
Intra-EU widget mutual tariff: zero EU - UK widget mutual tariff: zero EU - Farland widget mutual tariff: 10% UK - Farland widget mutual tariff: 5%
What would happen?
Rules of Origin happen.
Switzerland, for example, has an FTA* with China. This doesn't mean that a Chinese firm can ship goods to Switzerland then re-export them via the EU-Switzerland treaties to the UK.
* Not a particularly comprehensive one IMHO, and one that is pretty one sided
The nature of snap elections is that candidates have to be found at short notice. This sort of thing is bound to happen.
But they an excellent candidate from 2015, why not use him?
And if he wasn't willing or available, then some more care should have been taken particularly given the high profile of the constituency due to the incumbent former party leader...
I think in truth Labour were worried about how many seats they were going to lose, not about possible gains.
Even so, you need a credible candidate against a former deputy PM.
I do wonder whether his disability might have meant that affirmative action/positive discrimination might have come into the decision-making process
I would have thought so, which is a noble aim , to have representatives in parliament who have disabilities.
It is only a noble aim if you pick a noble candidate - rather than a complete knob.
The nature of snap elections is that candidates have to be found at short notice. This sort of thing is bound to happen.
But they an excellent candidate from 2015, why not use him?
And if he wasn't willing or available, then some more care should have been taken particularly given the high profile of the constituency due to the incumbent former party leader...
I think in truth Labour were worried about how many seats they were going to lose, not about possible gains.
Even so, you need a credible candidate against a former deputy PM.
I do wonder whether his disability might have meant that affirmative action/positive discrimination might have come into the decision-making process
Is being a plonker now a recognised disability?*
The chap has repulsive manners and attitudes, but idiots need representation too.
If we only have ultra-vetted SPADs as candidates then we exclude far too much of the population.
* I am aware that he has CP too!
Should every prospective MP have all their internet usage vetted ? If not what should be done.
I feel sad about this Jared O'Mara case. My son has a disability and when O'Mara was elected, a disability charity, which has been very helpful to us as a family, made a big point about how this was a positive step for disabled people. People might have hoped that someone who might have been susceptible to bullying in the past would show sensitivity to others but sometimes the bullied become bullies. I know a mother who has a son with mild CP who was worried when he started secondary school that he would be bullied but was devastated to be summoned to the school to be told that her son was one of a small group who had been tormenting a Downs Syndrome pupil.
The point is they have to be new agreements because the UK on its own is a different beast from the UK as part of the EU, let alone the EU itself which is the party these agreements were struck with. So the UK can propose to the other party that the agreements can stick as closely as possible to the EU originals for simplicity and shortcut some of the negotiation. But they can't be the same or even very similar. For example we can't offer the Single Market, which is the key attraction for many of these countries. The US Commerce Department asked exporting companies what they wanted from a potential trade deal with the UK. The only thing they were interested in was the UK remaining in the SIngle Market because that protects their investments.
Yes, of course it has to be a new agreement. But it is very simple to draw up the agreement if the parties agree that they will continue to trade on the EU terms.
I struggle to understand why you think a new trade agreement with, say, Vietnam could not be very similar to the agreement it currently has with the EU. The fact that we can't offer the single market does not mean the trade agreement has to change. It may affect their willingness to trade with us but if they are happy to trade with us on the same terms despite the fact that we can't offer the single market then the new agreement could be very similar to their agreement with the EU. The EU/Vietnam agreement does not mention the single market once as far as I can see. And, having taken a look at it, it is clear that large swathes of that agreement could be copied into a UK/Vietnam agreement with very little alteration beyond substituting "UK" for "EU".
It seems very unlikely that any of our trading partners will be happy to continue trading with us on the same terms after Brexit. The UK will be in a desperate situation, and everyone knows that. Why would they settle for the same old arrangement when they are in good position to negotiate a better deal for themselves?
Look at, for example, the recent preliminary agreement with the EU to split agricultural import quotas. Rejected by the US, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Thailand in a co-signed letter. They are already scenting blood.
Considering that the UK hasn't had a single month of trade surplus since January 1998 it doesn't seem likely that the current trading terms are in any way advantageous to the UK.
I feel sad about this Jared O'Mara case. My son has a disability and when O'Mara was elected, a disability charity, which has been very helpful to us as a family, made a big point about how this was a positive step for disabled people. People might have hoped that someone who might have been susceptible to bullying in the past would show sensitivity to others but sometimes the bullied become bullies. I know a mother who has a son with mild CP who was worried when he started secondary school that he would be bullied but was devastated to be summoned to the school to be told that her son was one of a small group who had been tormenting a Downs Syndrome pupil.
I feel sad about this Jared O'Mara case. My son has a disability and when O'Mara was elected, a disability charity, which has been very helpful to us as a family, made a big point about how this was a positive step for disabled people. People might have hoped that someone who might have been susceptible to bullying in the past would show sensitivity to others but sometimes the bullied become bullies. I know a mother who has a son with mild CP who was worried when he started secondary school that he would be bullied but was devastated to be summoned to the school to be told that her son was one of a small group who had been tormenting a Downs Syndrome pupil.
You realise, of course, that Mark Price was Minister of State for Trade Policy until last month. And that he claims that, on behalf of the government, he visited these 60 countries who have agreed to roll over the current deal and are working through the details.
The point is they have to be new agreements because the UK on its own is a different beast from the UK as part of the EU, let alone the EU itself which is the party these agreements were struck with. So the UK can propose to the other party that the agreements can stick as closely as possible to the EU originals for simplicity and shortcut some of the r investments.
Yes, of course it has to be a new agreement. But it is very simple to draw up the agreement if the parties agree that they will continue to trade on the EU terms.
I struggle to understand why you think a new trade agreement with, say, Vietnam could not be very similar to the agreement it currently has with the EU. The fact that we can't offer the single market does not mean the trade agreement has to change. It may affect their willingness to trade with us but if they are happy to trade with us on the same terms despite the fact that we can't offer the single market then the new agreement could be very similar to their agreement with the EU. The EU/Vietnam agreement does not mention the single market once as far as I can see. And, having taken a look at it, it is clear that large swathes of that agreement could be copied into a UK/Vietnam agreement with very little alteration beyond substituting "UK" for "EU".
It seems very unlikely that any of our trading partners will be happy to continue trading with us on the same terms after Brexit. The UK will be in a desperate situation, and everyone knows that. Why would they settle for the same old arrangement when they are in good position to negotiate a better deal for themselves?
Look at, for example, the recent preliminary agreement with the EU to split agricultural import quotas. Rejected by the US, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Thailand in a co-signed letter. They are already scenting blood.
The test for cheating is a deliberate act or course of conduct to gain an unfair advantage. That is what he did. The judgment raises interesting questions as to whether card counting is also "cheating" in a way that would entitle a casino not to pay if they established it had occurred.
It gets really complicated at those sort of margins. What is cheating and what is skill? I think getting the croupier to change around the packs to help you identify the cards is cheating but counting how many face cards were left and what the odds were on another turning up seems to me to be a skill.
It could have been worse. In Casino, Robert di Niro kept a hammer to break the fingers of people he caught cheating.
I feel sad about this Jared O'Mara case. My son has a disability and when O'Mara was elected, a disability charity, which has been very helpful to us as a family, made a big point about how this was a positive step for disabled people. People might have hoped that someone who might have been susceptible to bullying in the past would show sensitivity to others but sometimes the bullied become bullies. I know a mother who has a son with mild CP who was worried when he started secondary school that he would be bullied but was devastated to be summoned to the school to be told that her son was one of a small group who had been tormenting a Downs Syndrome pupil.
Children, eh. Oh dear oh dear. Every sympathy with all concerned.
Surely the local PLP could have put up one of their own at short notice, and surely the party maintains a central list of vetted Parliamentary candidates for emergencies?
Surely the local PLP could have put up one of their own at short notice, and surely the party maintains a central list of vetted Parliamentary candidates for emergencies?
Bloody hell, even the Liberals used to do better than that!
It gets really complicated at those sort of margins. What is cheating and what is skill? I think getting the croupier to change around the packs to help you identify the cards is cheating but counting how many face cards were left and what the odds were on another turning up seems to me to be a skill.
According to the book, the reason they were not popular with the casinos is that they used teams. They put a "skilled" counter on every table who didn't really bet, and they signalled to a "gorilla" who came to any table with a favourable count and bet huge sums without any skill
And as a result the casinos now use continuous shuffling to make counting impossible
A Cambridge Lecturer Has Accused Two Newspapers Of "What Looks Like Incitement To Race War"
A senior lecturer at Cambridge told BuzzFeed News she felt media reports on potential syllabus changes took "a fairly innocent, responsible, letter from students to stir up a racial panic".
Surely the local PLP could have put up one of their own at short notice, and surely the party maintains a central list of vetted Parliamentary candidates for emergencies?
Bloody hell, even the Liberals used to do better than that!
I guess the next question is how many other newly elected MPs weren’t properly vetted by their party beforehand? There’s got to be at least a couple of dozen who weren’t expecting to win.
The question after that, for party chairmen everywhere, is who’s your candidate if an election gets called next week? What do you know about them, and what do you know you don’t know about them?
Surely the local PLP could have put up one of their own at short notice, and surely the party maintains a central list of vetted Parliamentary candidates for emergencies?
I think we're all guilty of forgetting one of the key reasons Labour were struggling before the election - their disorganisation and incompetence. Not one of Corbyn's top team had ever actually run anything before - Corbyn himself has never had a job and isn't particularly bright, while at the same time the likes of Milne, Lavery, Burgon were demonstrating if anything they were more useless. Diane Abbott was ill, and Macdonnell is distrusted and disliked.
So there was a total lack of grip and organisation, to the extent that Corbyn didn't appear to know at times who was in his shadow cabinet, never mind think about candidate vetting procedures. The only senior figure who might have made a difference is McCluskey, who was too busy being reelected and expelling all his rivals to take an interest in affairs beyond his union.
That left the field clear for anybody willing to seize it - which Momentum did. And remember, Momentum are not only themselves amateurish and incompetent but thuggish and aggressive. They wouldn't particularly care that a candidate was accused of misogyny or assault as long as he had the right views. So why bother checking?
Remember, Corbyn and his shadow cabinet were so disorganised they didn't even know their own policies on taxation, tuition fees and law and order, leading to a number of car crash interviews and promises they have had to u-turn on. If they can't get something as simple as that right, is it any wonder we have disastrous candidates? Even the SNP had difficulties and they had five years to prepare for an election and do some vetting, even allowing for the distraction of the referendum. If a slick operation like that could mess up, any wonder a bunch of muppets like Corbyn and Co did?
It should be noted that Corbyn has developed more of a grip on some aspects of his job - particularly presentation, if not yet policy. He may sort this out. But if I'm honest, I think the real surprise is that O'Mara is the only disaster so far.
Re on vetting of candidates...if you remember when may called the snap GE labour were short 100s of candidates and put out rushed please apply ASAP we don’t have people ads. Also at the time it looked like they were going to get stuffed so probably thought these are all no hopers so it doesn’t matter anyway.
Surely the local PLP could have put up one of their own at short notice, and surely the party maintains a central list of vetted Parliamentary candidates for emergencies?
I think we're all guilty of forgetting one of the key reasons Labour were struggling before the election - their disorganisation and incompetence. Not one of Corbyn's top team had ever actually run anything before - Corbyn himself has never had a job and isn't particularly bright, while at the same time the likes of Milne, Lavery, Burgon were demonstrating if anything they were more useless. Diane Abbott was ill, and Macdonnell is distrusted and disliked.
So there was a total lack of grip and organisation, to the extent that Corbyn didn't appear to know at times who was in his shadow cabinet, never mind think about candidate vetting procedures. The only senior figure who might have made a difference is McCluskey, who was too busy being reelected and expelling all his rivals to take an interest in affairs beyond his union.
That left the field clear for anybody willing to seize it - which Momentum did. And remember, Momentum are not only themselves amateurish and incompetent but thuggish and aggressive. They wouldn't particularly care that a candidate was accused of misogyny or assault as long as he had the right views. So why bother checking?
Remember, Corbyn and his shadow cabinet were so disorganised they didn't even know their own policies on taxation, tuition fees and law and order, leading to a number of car crash interviews and promises they have had to u-turn on. If they can't get something as simple as that right, is it any wonder we have disastrous candidates? Even the SNP had difficulties and they had five years to prepare for an election and do some vetting, even allowing for the distraction of the referendum. If a slick operation like that could mess up, any wonder a bunch of muppets like Corbyn and Co did?
It should be noted that Corbyn has developed more of a grip on some aspects of his job - particularly presentation, if not yet policy. He may sort this out. But if I'm honest, I think the real surprise is that O'Mara is the only disaster so far.
Good point, but remember Blair's lot had no one who had ever been in cabinet in 1997. Also, David "big Sugar" Davis is pretty thoroughly undermining the claim that having had a real world job outside politics is some kind of guarantee of basic competence.
I could see Vietnam signing up on a least effort basis. But let's take Korea, a much more important trading partner. Korea made significant concessions with its EU deal and in fact went from a net exporter to a net importer. Access to the EU market was a prize they were willing to pay for in a somewhat unfavourable agreement. Trade relations are largely driven by relative power. We are offering them less so they will reduce what they give us. The EU doesn't have preferential trade deals with the US and China largely because they are of equivalent power. Trade deals happen most easily between unequals. Trade deals with countries less powerful than us will probably look like the ones the EU has already signed. Those with more powerful trading blocks - in particular the EU itself,but also possibly China and the US, will favour the other party. Those with economies that are broadly equivalent - Korea, Canada etc - will no longer favour us but will be more balanced.
The UK was by far the biggest export partner of the EU countries for Korea. Indeed we are the only EU country in the top 15 export destinations for them. Without us the EU becomes a far less attractive place for them to do trade with, particularly as they have a huge trade deficit with Germany (their second highest trade deficit with any country).
I'm not sure why anyone is surprised about the Ivey decision. In effect he had engineered affairs so that he was playing with a deck of marked cards that he could use to his advantage. It seems pretty routine to call that cheating.
Good point, but remember Blair's lot had no one who had ever been in cabinet in 1997. Also, David "big Sugar" Davis is pretty thoroughly undermining the claim that having had a real world job outside politics is some kind of guarantee of basic competence.
True but it had plenty of people who were intelligent and well-organised in it. Whatever Mandelson's faults he is a superb organiser. Blair himself is decisive and clear-thinking (sometimes too much so). Brown had a remarkable ability to master details and Campbell and Whelan had the ability to put them across in snappy ways. Corbyn has nobody of that quality (even allowing for Campbell's help).
While I agree to an extent with your point on experience, my point was that Corbyn's team had neither experience nor the talent to make up for the lack of it. They seem to be learning on the job. But it may be too late if a number of inappropriate candidates have got through already.
As an aside, Cunningham and Beckett were I think both junior ministers under Callaghan?Also remember at one point Cameron had only one former Cabinet Minister on his team until he recalled Clarke.
I'm not sure why anyone is surprised about the Ivey decision. In effect he had engineered affairs so that he was playing with a deck of marked cards that he could use to his advantage. It seems pretty routine to call that cheating.
The casino were playing a game of skill against a punter.
That they didn't realise this - and assumed they were playing a game of chance - is a commercial/business failure on the part of the casino.
They shouldn't have a legal right to a house edge // the courts should not be enforcing it.
And remember, Momentum are not only themselves amateurish and incompetent but thuggish and aggressive. They wouldn't particularly care that a candidate was accused of misogyny or assault as long as he had the right views. So why bother checking? (snip)
ydoethur and I usually avoid commenting on each other's posts, because we don't rate them worthwhile. But sometimes his seeming obsessively anti-Labour stance just leads him into silliness. O'Mara wasn't chosen by Momentum, but by the NEC panel, dominated by non-Momentum people.
The scramble to select 650 candidates from a standing start had a lot of corners cut. All sitting MPs had the option to stand again. Former candidates were encouraged: I was told I had good reason to think i'd be selected (as a "known quantity") if I applied (I seriously considered it but decided it was time to let someone else have a go). And failing that, evidence of having stood for anything before was taken as showing something useful.
I'm not sure why anyone is surprised about the Ivey decision. In effect he had engineered affairs so that he was playing with a deck of marked cards that he could use to his advantage. It seems pretty routine to call that cheating.
Even though the only people to touch the cards were employees of the casino?
If Ivey’s friend had asked the croupier to hold the cards face up, would they have done that? Of course not, so why did they turn them round when asked to? Sounds like a staff training issue for the casino from where this non-lawyer punter is sitting, the croupier should be well aware of all the ways a good player might try something to identify specific cards in the deck.
ydoethur and I usually avoid commenting on each other's posts, because we don't rate them worthwhile. But sometimes his seeming obsessively anti-Labour stance just leads him into silliness. O'Mara wasn't chosen by Momentum, but by the NEC panel, dominated by non-Momentum people.
The scramble to select 650 candidates from a standing start had a lot of corners cut. All sitting MPs had the option to stand again. Former candidates were encouraged: I was told I had good reason to think i'd be selected (as a "known quantity") if I applied (I seriously considered it but decided it was time to let someone else have a go). And failing that, evidence of having stood for anything before was taken as showing something useful.
Dr Palmer - in one of my very rare direct comments to you, is it worth reminding you I voted Labour in 2015?
You are the one who is obsessive - with trying to prove you haven't made a dreadful mistake in voting for Corbyn (now that really was silly, although less silly than we all expected). Not me. If you can't see how shambolic Labour are, that's your problem. Your personal abusiveness towards me won't change that although I do hope at some point you get the chance to pause and reflect on it.
I'm not sure why anyone is surprised about the Ivey decision. In effect he had engineered affairs so that he was playing with a deck of marked cards that he could use to his advantage. It seems pretty routine to call that cheating.
Even though the only people to touch the cards were employees of the casino?
If Ivey’s friend had asked the croupier to hold the cards face up, would they have done that? Of course not, so why did they turn them round when asked to? Sounds like a staff training issue for the casino from where this non-lawyer punter is sitting, the croupier should be well aware of all the ways a good player might try something to identify specific cards in the deck.
I have to say, I am no casino aficionado but what he did sounds as dodgy as hell. If somebody had done that before 1830, they would have been shot (literally - in a duel).
If he said he was gambling according to chance, and then took steps to make sure he wasn't - it doesn't feel right. I think I'm with the judges.
But I'm no expert and I'm prepared to be corrected if you can show me the error in my logic.
Dr Palmer - in one of my very rare direct comments to you, is it worth reminding you I voted Labour in 2015?
You are the one who is obsessive - with trying to prove you haven't made a dreadful mistake in voting for Corbyn (now that really was silly, although less silly than we all expected). Not me. If you can't see how shambolic Labour are, that's your problem. Your personal abusiveness towards me won't change that although I do hope at some point you get the chance to pause and reflect on it.
I see no reason to revise my opinion of your posts, and find them far more abusive than anything I write. Let's return to ignoring each other!
I'm not sure why anyone is surprised about the Ivey decision. In effect he had engineered affairs so that he was playing with a deck of marked cards that he could use to his advantage. It seems pretty routine to call that cheating.
Even though the only people to touch the cards were employees of the casino?
If Ivey’s friend had asked the croupier to hold the cards face up, would they have done that? Of course not, so why did they turn them round when asked to? Sounds like a staff training issue for the casino from where this non-lawyer punter is sitting, the croupier should be well aware of all the ways a good player might try something to identify specific cards in the deck.
It is actually casino “training” issue. Edge sorting has been known out for quite a while and iveys friend been known for doing it in the past. This game is very popular in the far east (and the advantage play been pulled there before) and genting is owned by Far East company...yet somehow they still used the defective cards for this game.
How the hell wasnt there a company wide memo saying all of this and to a) make a sure your cards aren’t defective and b) watch out for these specific requests.
It should also be pointed out for this to work it isn’t just the cards, they ask for small rule changes or certain cash back deals as well.
A Cambridge Lecturer Has Accused Two Newspapers Of "What Looks Like Incitement To Race War"
A senior lecturer at Cambridge told BuzzFeed News she felt media reports on potential syllabus changes took "a fairly innocent, responsible, letter from students to stir up a racial panic".
I'm not sure why anyone is surprised about the Ivey decision. In effect he had engineered affairs so that he was playing with a deck of marked cards that he could use to his advantage. It seems pretty routine to call that cheating.
Even though the only people to touch the cards were employees of the casino?
If Ivey’s friend had asked the croupier to hold the cards face up, would they have done that? Of course not, so why did they turn them round when asked to? Sounds like a staff training issue for the casino from where this non-lawyer punter is sitting, the croupier should be well aware of all the ways a good player might try something to identify specific cards in the deck.
It is actually casino “training” issue. Edge sorting has been known out for quite a while and iveys friend been known for doing it in the past. This game is very popular in the far east (and the advantage play been pulled there before) and genting is owned by Far East company...yet somehow they still used the defective cards for this game.
How the hell wasnt there a company wide memo saying all of this and to a) make a sure your cards aren’t defective and b) watch out for these specific requests.
It should also be pointed out for this to work it isn’t just the cards, they ask for small rule changes or certain cash back deals as well.
How are these cards defective? Genuine question. Yes, I know in the judgement it says they have slight differences in markings on the back but how does this come about? Why, in a casino of this wealth, were they using cards without a consistent pattern on the back?
Surely the local PLP could have put up one of their own at short notice, and surely the party maintains a central list of vetted Parliamentary candidates for emergencies?
Bloody hell, even the Liberals used to do better than that!
I guess the next question is how many other newly elected MPs weren’t properly vetted by their party beforehand? There’s got to be at least a couple of dozen who weren’t expecting to win.
The question after that, for party chairmen everywhere, is who’s your candidate if an election gets called next week? What do you know about them, and what do you know you don’t know about them?
Are you suggesting that we should do what foreign oligarchs tell us ?
Its not the party of Clem and Hugh anymore.
What has Labour got to do with this ? It is a statement made by an astute businessman.
You're a Labour activist aren't you and someone who is suggesting that the thoughts of a foreign oligarch are not to be questioned.
Now as to Bloomberg being an astute businessman he's been very successful at increasing his wealth and influence.
And its that concentration of wealth and influence within the 1%, indeed the 1% of the 1%, at the expense of everyone else which has resulted in Trump and Brexit. Or Sanders and Corbyn for that matter.
Developments which Bloomberg dislikes as they threaten the wealth and influence he has.
Comments
Look at, for example, the recent preliminary agreement with the EU to split agricultural import quotas. Rejected by the US, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Thailand in a co-signed letter. They are already scenting blood.
Trump administration rejects Theresa May’s post-Brexit agriculture deal with EU
Hallam did have a slightly weird Lib Dem -> Tory swing for such a remain facing seat mind - which helped Labour alot.
There was actually a Labour -> Tory swing there !
Clegg losing his leadership Tory tactical boost was wot won it for Labour tbh.
Switzerland, for example, has an FTA* with China. This doesn't mean that a Chinese firm can ship goods to Switzerland then re-export them via the EU-Switzerland treaties to the UK.
* Not a particularly comprehensive one IMHO, and one that is pretty one sided
Gets coat.
I know a mother who has a son with mild CP who was worried when he started secondary school that he would be bullied but was devastated to be summoned to the school to be told that her son was one of a small group who had been tormenting a Downs Syndrome pupil.
Say no more.
Its not the party of Clem and Hugh anymore.
Surely the local PLP could have put up one of their own at short notice, and surely the party maintains a central list of vetted Parliamentary candidates for emergencies?
I prefer meaty jokes with pedigree, chum.
Gets own coat...
And as a result the casinos now use continuous shuffling to make counting impossible
A senior lecturer at Cambridge told BuzzFeed News she felt media reports on potential syllabus changes took "a fairly innocent, responsible, letter from students to stir up a racial panic".
https://www.buzzfeed.com/fionarutherford/a-cambridge-lecturer-has-accused-two-newspapers-of-what?utm_term=.wvGobl98A3#.hppRXM5ZEP
The question after that, for party chairmen everywhere, is who’s your candidate if an election gets called next week? What do you know about them, and what do you know you don’t know about them?
So there was a total lack of grip and organisation, to the extent that Corbyn didn't appear to know at times who was in his shadow cabinet, never mind think about candidate vetting procedures. The only senior figure who might have made a difference is McCluskey, who was too busy being reelected and expelling all his rivals to take an interest in affairs beyond his union.
That left the field clear for anybody willing to seize it - which Momentum did. And remember, Momentum are not only themselves amateurish and incompetent but thuggish and aggressive. They wouldn't particularly care that a candidate was accused of misogyny or assault as long as he had the right views. So why bother checking?
Remember, Corbyn and his shadow cabinet were so disorganised they didn't even know their own policies on taxation, tuition fees and law and order, leading to a number of car crash interviews and promises they have had to u-turn on. If they can't get something as simple as that right, is it any wonder we have disastrous candidates? Even the SNP had difficulties and they had five years to prepare for an election and do some vetting, even allowing for the distraction of the referendum. If a slick operation like that could mess up, any wonder a bunch of muppets like Corbyn and Co did?
It should be noted that Corbyn has developed more of a grip on some aspects of his job - particularly presentation, if not yet policy. He may sort this out. But if I'm honest, I think the real surprise is that O'Mara is the only disaster so far.
While I agree to an extent with your point on experience, my point was that Corbyn's team had neither experience nor the talent to make up for the lack of it. They seem to be learning on the job. But it may be too late if a number of inappropriate candidates have got through already.
As an aside, Cunningham and Beckett were I think both junior ministers under Callaghan?Also remember at one point Cameron had only one former Cabinet Minister on his team until he recalled Clarke.
That they didn't realise this - and assumed they were playing a game of chance - is a commercial/business failure on the part of the casino.
They shouldn't have a legal right to a house edge // the courts should not be enforcing it.
The SC decision is ridiculous.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/25/apple-has-netflix-and-amazon-in-sight-as-it-hires-uks-top-tv-executive?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
If Ivey’s friend had asked the croupier to hold the cards face up, would they have done that? Of course not, so why did they turn them round when asked to? Sounds like a staff training issue for the casino from where this non-lawyer punter is sitting, the croupier should be well aware of all the ways a good player might try something to identify specific cards in the deck.
You are the one who is obsessive - with trying to prove you haven't made a dreadful mistake in voting for Corbyn (now that really was silly, although less silly than we all expected). Not me. If you can't see how shambolic Labour are, that's your problem. Your personal abusiveness towards me won't change that although I do hope at some point you get the chance to pause and reflect on it.
If he said he was gambling according to chance, and then took steps to make sure he wasn't - it doesn't feel right. I think I'm with the judges.
But I'm no expert and I'm prepared to be corrected if you can show me the error in my logic.
How the hell wasnt there a company wide memo saying all of this and to a) make a sure your cards aren’t defective and b) watch out for these specific requests.
It should also be pointed out for this to work it isn’t just the cards, they ask for small rule changes or certain cash back deals as well.
1) old people moaning about students
2) white men wanting to feel they are the real victims in today's Britain
This kind of story hits the jackpot.
NEW THREAD
Now as to Bloomberg being an astute businessman he's been very successful at increasing his wealth and influence.
And its that concentration of wealth and influence within the 1%, indeed the 1% of the 1%, at the expense of everyone else which has resulted in Trump and Brexit. Or Sanders and Corbyn for that matter.
Developments which Bloomberg dislikes as they threaten the wealth and influence he has.