I assume Scott and Will won't be as keen to "share" that Tweet!
Of course the Germans, the Americans, South Koreans, everyone is happy to do bespoke deals.with us. Why wouldn't they? The rules of the Single Market protect us from bespokeness.
Edit and as Merkel says, it will be a good deal. She wouldn't agree to it otherwise.
As we no longer have to take into account the demands of French farmers it should be a good deal all round.
The byelections show the Lib Dems can make dramatic gains where they have infrastructure on the ground. The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
Two problems for the Lib Dems. They lack that infrastructure in many places, having been hollowed out by their coalition years. Their national campaign is making no impression whatever.
Curiously, Lib Dems must be picking up ex-UKIP voters.
The LibDems main aim must be to simply stay in the game, until fortunes turn again.
Talk me through limits on numbers of children per child minder then. Or free school meals for middle class children.
I have no problem with good nutrition for kids - I am a strong supporter. But I don’t think it is a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise well off people.
How about state pensions for well off people? Or pension tax credits for wealthy people.
Given they are cutting off free meals if you earn above £7,400 it is hardly rich people they are targeting.
A slight extension of current availability overall
Does that mean only unemployed with benefits less than £7.4K get it now. Cannot be many working that earn under £7.4K. In Scotland all primary 1 - 3 get free meals after that I thought it was anyone earning less than £16K till UC comes in and that is where it gets cut to £7.4K which will be tough on a lot of low earners I presume.
I assume Scott and Will won't be as keen to "share" that Tweet!
Of course the Germans, the Americans, South Koreans, everyone is happy to do bespoke deals.with us. Why wouldn't they? The rules of the Single Market protect us from bespokeness.
Edit and as Merkel says, it will be a good deal. She wouldn't agree to it otherwise.
As we no longer have to take into account the demands of French farmers it should be a good deal all round.
Except for French farmers
Oh we will. Our partners will insist on keeping everything they already have, anything extra is a bonus and of it means we get less, they will live with that. This is what's meant by bespoke deal. And but not j with the EU
Seems a bit Kids Company like - that you do or claim to do good means how dare people criticise you, and of course use the fact that since some of those who do the attacking are doing so for other reasons, to be extremely dismissive of the initial issues, even as you claim not to be entirely dismissive. Oxfam at least does more good than Kids Company actually did though, in fairness.
The allegations include sex with children. The CEO's holier-than-thou outrage that people are upset by this is... not wise.
Oxfam are getting a kicking, especially from their usual critics, and some of it *may* be undeserved.
However, they're the ones who put a 'kick here' sign on their bottoms, bent over, and wiggled it provocatively.
....whilst just wearing an Oxfam T-shirt.
Has the guy never heard of STFU? How many more standing orders are going to get cancelled on the back of his crass comment?
There's been so many claims and counter-claims over this Oxfam mess. I'd love a simple, factual description of what we *know* happened (both in terms of the abuse, and of the flawed response).
The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.
I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.
It varies! I've had exactly the reverse experience too. On the whole I think Labour traditionally has more amateurs doing their best with limited training, but it's starting to change.
Nick, whilst you are on, do you have any more information on Labour's proposed animal rights legislation, in particular the proposal (as I think you said, sorry if I got it wrong) to allow protesters onto land the hunt may be going over?
I'm reasonably well-informed on the the manifesto (which they think of as "welfare" rather than "rights", by the way), but I don't think every detail has been worked out.
The position on hunting is that there's a general feeling that the ban works up to a point (which is why the Countryside Alliance keeps trying to get rid of it), but is fairly easy to evade. The police say (I believe) that one reason is that they can't gather evidence by going onto private land without prior evidence that an offence is being committed, so the League Against Cruel Sports therefore proposes that the police (not protesters!) should have right of access to investigate and monitor. The other main issue of the League is that it's not a reportable offence so doesn't count in police stats, which makes forces shrug it off.
Those are the two changes which (I think) the League wants. You'd need to ask them if you wanted to be sure - it's not my main issue so I might have got details wrong. I don't think the party has got beyond the general pragmatic "we must try and ensure that the Act actually works" view. In practice they'd ask civil servants and NGOs to analyse what stops it working and what needs to be done.
The byelections show the Lib Dems can make dramatic gains where they have infrastructure on the ground. The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
Two problems for the Lib Dems. They lack that infrastructure in many places, having been hollowed out by their coalition years. Their national campaign is making no impression whatever.
Curiously, Lib Dems must be picking up ex-UKIP voters.
The LibDems main aim must be to simply stay in the game, until fortunes turn again.
Talk me through limits on numbers of children per child minder then. Or free school meals for middle class children.
I have no problem with good nutrition for kids - I am a strong supporter. But I don’t think it is a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise well off people.
How about state pensions for well off people? Or pension tax credits for wealthy people.
Given they are cutting off free meals if you earn above £7,400 it is hardly rich people they are targeting.
A slight extension of current availability overall
Does that mean only unemployed with benefits less than £7.4K get it now. Cannot be many working that earn under £7.4K. In Scotland all primary 1 - 3 get free meals after that I thought it was anyone earning less than £16K till UC comes in and that is where it gets cut to £7.4K which will be tough on a lot of low earners I presume.
£7.4K is the pre-benefits income, which translates to £18,000 and £24,000 once benefits are taken into account. (We do of course have a problem with people not claiming benefits to which they are entitled - in theory at least that is a UC strong point.)
At the moment, the cap is 16 hours a week (if there’s one adult in the house), or 24 hours a week (if there are two).
Eligibility is much wider up to Year 3, which I think is Primary 4 in Scotland.
The effect should be that no child currently receiving FSM loses out.
I agree with your last paragraph. It's the reason I defend Corbyn and would vote Labour in a Labour marginal. I was setting out a pragmatic centrist position for the LibDems that might appeal to many conservative people who don't want a revolution but despair of the direction that the Tory party is taking. It gives people a choice. It's a real difference. It's the point of the LibDems.
Yes, fair enough!
Although I support Corbyn and his potential to transform society for the better, the person in the world that I admire the most is a very successful capitalist.
Elon Musk is making an enormous contribution to the future of the human race by his promotion of, and investment in, sustainable energy, planetary exploration and harnessing of artificial intelligence. It's a step up from potholes.
Musk's promotion and leadership is welcome but it is the American taxpayer who makes the investment -- something from which both our parties could usefully learn.
The allegations include sex with children. The CEO's holier-than-thou outrage that people are upset by this is... not wise.
I've not actually seen any evidence of that allegation (i.e. someone saying "I saw X do Y to child Z") at all - it seems to come down to "7 aid workers had sex with prostitutes and some prostitutes are underage, so they might have". I'm not trivialising it - the alleged actions are disgusting and the suggestions of cover-up are serious. But I think the CEO has to fight their corner and he's right to say that people with an agenda to attack development charities are using this to smear an organisation which largely does very good work, with a huge number of employees who have no reason to be ashamed of working there. If I was one of them, i'd want him to say just that.
I assume Scott and Will won't be as keen to "share" that Tweet!
Of course the Germans, the Americans, South Koreans, everyone is happy to do bespoke deals.with us. Why wouldn't they? The rules of the Single Market protect us from bespokeness.
Edit and as Merkel says, it will be a good deal. She wouldn't agree to it otherwise.
As we no longer have to take into account the demands of French farmers it should be a good deal all round.
Except for French farmers
Oh we will. Our partners will insist on keeping everything they already have, anything extra is a bonus and of it means we get less, they will live with that. This is what's meant by bespoke deal. And but not j with the EU
The possibility that the UK will do better with alternative trade treaties does seem to be ananthema to you.
Or to describe the current situation in a different way - the UK has had 239 consecutive months of trade deficit.
Is that the record of a country with trade treaties suitable for its needs ?
I assume Scott and Will won't be as keen to "share" that Tweet!
Of course the Germans, the Americans, South Koreans, everyone is happy to do bespoke deals.with us. Why wouldn't they? The rules of the Single Market protect us from bespokeness.
Edit and as Merkel says, it will be a good deal. She wouldn't agree to it otherwise.
As we no longer have to take into account the demands of French farmers it should be a good deal all round.
Except for French farmers
Oh we will. Our partners will insist on keeping everything they already have, anything extra is a bonus and of it means we get less, they will live with that. This is what's meant by bespoke deal. And but not j with the EU
The possibility that the UK will do better with alternative trade treaties does seem to be ananthema to you.
Or to describe the current situation in a different way - the UK has had 239 consecutive months of trade deficit.
Is that the record of a country with trade treaties suitable for its needs ?
Your position is only internally coherent if you are advocating protectionism, which I don't think you are.
The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.
I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.
It varies! I've had exactly the reverse experience too. On the whole I think Labour traditionally has more amateurs doing their best with limited training, but it's starting to change.
Nick, whilst you are on, do you have any more information on Labour's proposed animal rights legislation, in particular the proposal (as I think you said, sorry if I got it wrong) to allow protesters onto land the hunt may be going over?
I'm reasonably well-informed on the the manifesto (which they think of as "welfare" rather than "rights", by the way), but I don't think every detail has been worked out.
The position on hunting is that there's a general feeling that the ban works up to a point (which is why the Countryside Alliance keeps trying to get rid of it), but is fairly easy to evade. The police say (I believe) that one reason is that they can't gather evidence by going onto private land without prior evidence that an offence is being committed, so the League Against Cruel Sports therefore proposes that the police (not protesters!) should have right of access to investigate and monitor. The other main issue of the League is that it's not a reportable offence so doesn't count in police stats, which makes forces shrug it off.
Those are the two changes which (I think) the League wants. You'd need to ask them if you wanted to be sure - it's not my main issue so I might have got details wrong. I don't think the party has got beyond the general pragmatic "we must try and ensure that the Act actually works" view. In practice they'd ask civil servants and NGOs to analyse what stops it working and what needs to be done.
That's brilliant, thanks. I think I'd be fine with the police having rights to go onto land to investigate, but would be rather nervous if protesters were given similar rights.
Although if they don't have such rights already, there are probably crimes where it would be more useful, and affect people more directly.
The weird thing about the polling at the moment is that so many remainers still seem to think that Labour and Corbyn are the answer to their prayers. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary a very significant proportion of Labour's support seems to be under the delusion that Labour is committed to remaining in the Single Market, for example.
Corbyn has managed to maintain some sort of constructive ambiguity about his position (at least for those not really paying attention) and it has starved the Lib Dems of their natural support. If the Lib Dems had any sense they would be doing everything in their power to expose the fact that it is difficult to get a fag paper between Corbyn's and May's position on Brexit and trying to peel away Labour supporters who actually care.
I suspect the numbers who do care are less than generally thought (notwithstanding the evidence on this Board) but it would be a start. With 40 odd percent still thinking that Brexit is a mistake the party of remain really should be in double figures. And it isn't despite these excellent bye-election results.
You can think it is a mistake but still prefer a Labour government to either see it through or have a softer version. The more realistic remainers realise you cannot reverse the result and in many places voting for the Lib Dems is a waste.
That and even those who don't want it and think Labour do want it have other priorities.
Yes but what about the Labour supporters in Tory Lib Dem marginals? Why are they not being picked up? Even if you are not motivated to vote Lib Dem in a Labour/Tory seat why are Labour voters not voting more tactically where theirs is the wasted vote?
Of the 5,773 people who voted Labour in the Richmond Park 2017 General election, I am certain that at least 46 of them regret not voting LibDem and reducing the Tory majority by one - as well as getting rid of Goldsmith. Many of them voted Labour because they were enthused by Corbyn. I heard it on the doorstep. They won't make the same mistake again in this constituency.
It would actually have reduced the Tory majority by two!
Mr. Palmer, the allegation was that some of the prostitutes were under age.
Who made the allegation?
I don't want to defend (or excoriate) Oxfam: it's just that we've all seen stories like this in the past where myth and reality get confused. I'm sure someone's coined a useful phrase for it ....
I assume Scott and Will won't be as keen to "share" that Tweet!
Of course the Germans, the Americans, South Koreans, everyone is happy to do bespoke deals.with us. Why wouldn't they? The rules of the Single Market protect us from bespokeness.
Edit and as Merkel says, it will be a good deal. She wouldn't agree to it otherwise.
As we no longer have to take into account the demands of French farmers it should be a good deal all round.
Except for French farmers
Oh we will. Our partners will insist on keeping everything they already have, anything extra is a bonus and of it means we get less, they will live with that. This is what's meant by bespoke deal. And but not j with the EU
The possibility that the UK will do better with alternative trade treaties does seem to be ananthema to you.
Or to describe the current situation in a different way - the UK has had 239 consecutive months of trade deficit.
Is that the record of a country with trade treaties suitable for its needs ?
You position is only internally coherent if you are advocating protectionism, which I don't think you are.
I see you ignore the point and respond with gibberish.
Most countries support elements of protectionism as well as free trade when they think its in their own interests.
That the UK has had 239 consecutive months of trade deficit (plus a corresponding toursim deficit) is always ignored by those claiming that the current trade treaties are optimal.
I assume Scott and Will won't be as keen to "share" that Tweet!
Of course the Germans, the Americans, South Koreans, everyone is happy to do bespoke deals.with us. Why wouldn't they? The rules of the Single Market protect us from bespokeness.
Edit and as Merkel says, it will be a good deal. She wouldn't agree to it otherwise.
As we no longer have to take into account the demands of French farmers it should be a good deal all round.
Except for French farmers
Oh we will. Our partners will insist on keeping everything they already have, anything extra is a bonus and of it means we get less, they will live with that. This is what's meant by bespoke deal. And but not j with the EU
The possibility that the UK will do better with alternative trade treaties does seem to be ananthema to you.
Or to describe the current situation in a different way - the UK has had 239 consecutive months of trade deficit.
Is that the record of a country with trade treaties suitable for its needs ?
You position is only internally coherent if you are advocating protectionism, which I don't think you are.
I see you ignore the point and respond with gibberish.
Most countries support elements of protectionism as well as free trade when they think its in their own interests.
That the UK has had 239 consecutive months of trade deficit (plus a corresponding toursim deficit) is always ignored by those claiming that the current trade treaties are optimal.
The US has had a trade deficit every year since 1976. Do you think they've been getting a raw deal from the rest of the world all these years?
"Oxfam is also committing to publish its 2011 internal investigation into staff involved in sexual and other misconduct in Haiti as soon as possible, after taking steps necessary to prevent witnesses being identified. The names of the men involved have already been shared with the authorities in Haiti."
I assume Scott and Will won't be as keen to "share" that Tweet!
Of course the Germans, the Americans, South Koreans, everyone is happy to do bespoke deals.with us. Why wouldn't they? The rules of the Single Market protect us from bespokeness.
Edit and as Merkel says, it will be a good deal. She wouldn't agree to it otherwise.
As we no longer have to take into account the demands of French farmers it should be a good deal all round.
Except for French farmers
Oh we will. Our partners will insist on keeping everything they already have, anything extra is a bonus and of it means we get less, they will live with that. This is what's meant by bespoke deal. And but not j with the EU
The possibility that the UK will do better with alternative trade treaties does seem to be ananthema to you.
Or to describe the current situation in a different way - the UK has had 239 consecutive months of trade deficit.
Is that the record of a country with trade treaties suitable for its needs ?
You position is only internally coherent if you are advocating protectionism, which I don't think you are.
I see you ignore the point and respond with gibberish.
Most countries support elements of protectionism as well as free trade when they think its in their own interests.
That the UK has had 239 consecutive months of trade deficit (plus a corresponding toursim deficit) is always ignored by those claiming that the current trade treaties are optimal.
The US has had a trade deficit every year since 1976. Do you think they've been getting a raw deal from the rest of the world all these years?
Donald Trump does. So good luck with a UK/US FTA!!
Mr. Jessop, I think it was in the original batch. But you're right about exaggerations and the like.
And that's the problem.
If I were Oxfam, I would produce an immediate report into what they *know* happened: perhaps with names omitted initially, and the way they reacted, and give it to the media. The 'what', not the 'who' or the 'why', which can be left to the investigation.
E.g.: 2001-10-03 first received allegations against person X in Nigeria. 2001-10-07 persons x,y,z moved from their posts pending investigation. 2001-10-14 person x sacked; y and z allowed back into their posts. 2001-11-05 allegations mentioned in official board minutes. 2003-04-09 more allegations about person z. ...
The official investigation will take too long, the story will have moved on, and their reputation further damaged. As it is, I've read up a little on this and even Oxfam seem confused in their response. The sad thing is I think Oxfam may have a defensible position: they certainly seem not to have behaved as poorly as (say) the Catholic Church.
I'm reasonably well-informed on the the manifesto (which they think of as "welfare" rather than "rights", by the way), but I don't think every detail has been worked out.
The position on hunting is that there's a general feeling that the ban works up to a point (which is why the Countryside Alliance keeps trying to get rid of it), but is fairly easy to evade. The police say (I believe) that one reason is that they can't gather evidence by going onto private land without prior evidence that an offence is being committed, so the League Against Cruel Sports therefore proposes that the police (not protesters!) should have right of access to investigate and monitor. The other main issue of the League is that it's not a reportable offence so doesn't count in police stats, which makes forces shrug it off.
Those are the two changes which (I think) the League wants. You'd need to ask them if you wanted to be sure - it's not my main issue so I might have got details wrong. I don't think the party has got beyond the general pragmatic "we must try and ensure that the Act actually works" view. In practice they'd ask civil servants and NGOs to analyse what stops it working and what needs to be done.
I am strongly opposed to fox hunting but at the same time would be equally opposed to police officers going onto private land without due cause. Unless of course a warrant could be organised which I think might be a reasonable way to proceed.
I agree entirely about the issue of non reportable offences. The law should certainly be changed for that.
There is also one other basic principle here. Even if you support fox hunting and want the ban repealed, as long as it is the law it should be obeyed. I object strongly to the tax policy in this country and think we are taxed far too highly. That does not for a minute mean I think people should be allowed to avoid paying the taxes they are legally due to pay.
As long as this is the law of the land it should be enforced. I don't believe anyone who believes in a democratic and law based system can reasonably disagree with that.
"Oxfam is also committing to publish its 2011 internal investigation into staff involved in sexual and other misconduct in Haiti as soon as possible, after taking steps necessary to prevent witnesses being identified. The names of the men involved have already been shared with the authorities in Haiti."
Mr. Jessop, indeed. We can certainly agree that their CEO's line has not gone down very well...
CEOs earn vast amounts of money. One of the areas where they earn that money is crisis management (as in a crisis within their organisation).
Sadly, so many CEOs fail whenever a crisis occurs. I get the impression too many of them are good at shaking hands and going to expensive dinners, rather than effectively actually running an organisation.
The only question left over the "Corbyn is a spy" story is,was he a secret double or,an even secreter triple agent?
If the IRA supporter attack did nothing to change people's views of him I really don't see why the Tories think 30 year old Communist spy stories are going to make any difference.
Not a huge fan of watching sports and certainly not Olympics but I do think that the Tea Tray jockeys along with the people who throw themselves off giant slides are in another order of bravery. Really pleased to see the British women winning.
The only question left over the "Corbyn is a spy" story is,was he a secret double or,an even secreter triple agent?
If the IRA supporter attack did nothing to change people's views of him I really don't see why the Tories think 30 year old Communist spy stories are going to make any difference.
We are in a weird place where putting your hand on a ladies knee 20 years ago, her telling you to piss off and nothing more leds to a week headline news and disqualification to be a minister of state, being a paid collaborator with an foreign enemy power and a terrorist sympathiser, nothing.
The weird thing about the polling at the moment is that so many remainers still seem to think that Labour and Corbyn are the answer to their prayers. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary a very significant proportion of Labour's support seems to be under the delusion that Labour is committed to remaining in the Single Market, for example.
Corbyn has managed to maintain some sort of constructive ambiguity about his position (at least for those not really paying attention) and it has starved the Lib Dems of their natural support. If the Lib Dems had any sense they would be doing everything in their power to expose the fact that it is difficult to get a fag paper between Corbyn's and May's position on Brexit and trying to peel away Labour supporters who actually care.
I suspect the numbers who do care are less than generally thought (notwithstanding the evidence on this Board) but it would be a start. With 40 odd percent still thinking that Brexit is a mistake the party of remain really should be in double figures. And it isn't despite these excellent bye-election results.
You can think it is a mistake but still prefer a Labour government to either see it through or have a softer version. The more realistic remainers realise you cannot reverse the result and in many places voting for the Lib Dems is a waste.
That and even those who don't want it and think Labour do want it have other priorities.
Yes but what about the Labour supporters in Tory Lib Dem marginals? Why are they not being picked up? Even if you are not motivated to vote Lib Dem in a Labour/Tory seat why are Labour voters not voting more tactically where theirs is the wasted vote?
Of the 5,773 people who voted Labour in the Richmond Park 2017 General election, I am certain that at least 46 of them regret not voting LibDem and reducing the Tory majority by one - as well as getting rid of Goldsmith. Many of them voted Labour because they were enthused by Corbyn. I heard it on the doorstep. They won't make the same mistake again in this constituency.
It would actually have reduced the Tory majority by two!
The only question left over the "Corbyn is a spy" story is,was he a secret double or,an even secreter triple agent?
If the IRA supporter attack did nothing to change people's views of him I really don't see why the Tories think 30 year old Communist spy stories are going to make any difference.
We are in a weird place where putting your hand on a ladies knee 20 years ago, her telling you to piss off and nothing more leds to a week headline news and disqualification to be a minister of state, being a paid collaborator with an foreign enemy power and a terrorist sympathiser, nothing.
Not a huge fan of watching sports and certainly not Olympics but I do think that the Tea Tray jockeys along with the people who throw themselves off giant slides are in another order of bravery. Really pleased to see the British women winning.
Bravery or madness or both :-) what is incredible is how do you even get started with this sport in the uk? Unlike skiing where we do have dry ski slopes and snowdomes, is there even a track in the uk? Also again unlike skiing it isn’t something you can just go on holidays as a kid and find it is something you and enjoy.
Not a huge fan of watching sports and certainly not Olympics but I do think that the Tea Tray jockeys along with the people who throw themselves off giant slides are in another order of bravery. Really pleased to see the British women winning.
It's the sort of ridiculous sport that Britain should be good at. In fact, we should be campaigning to get more ridiculous sports into the Olympics: how about competitive bog-snorkelling, or under-ice skiing?
Agree about the bravery. If I tried most of these sports the presenters would find it easy to describe the lines I took, as I'd leave a handy brown line behind me ...
Bravery or madness or both :-) what is incredible is how do you even get started with this sport in the uk? Unlike skiing where we do have dry ski slopes and snowdomes, is there even a track in the uk?
There is dry "push track" in Bath
They practise the start on a sled with wheels, then it runs out after 100 yards
Agree about the bravery. If I tried most of these sports the presenters would find it easy to describe the lines I took, as I'd leave a handy brown line behind me ...
@HansFiene: The Winter Olympics are fun because 85% of the events would kill you if you tried them: Giant slalom - dead Half pipe - dead Ski jumping - dead Curling - fine Luge - dead Skeleton - backwards dead
Not a huge fan of watching sports and certainly not Olympics but I do think that the Tea Tray jockeys along with the people who throw themselves off giant slides are in another order of bravery. Really pleased to see the British women winning.
It's the sort of ridiculous sport that Britain should be good at. In fact, we should be campaigning to get more ridiculous sports into the Olympics: how about competitive bog-snorkelling, or under-ice skiing?
Agree about the bravery. If I tried most of these sports the presenters would find it easy to describe the lines I took, as I'd leave a handy brown line behind me ...
The UK does well at sports where it is expensive to compete...
Bravery or madness or both :-) what is incredible is how do you even get started with this sport in the uk? Unlike skiing where we do have dry ski slopes and snowdomes, is there even a track in the uk?
There is dry "push track" in Bath
They practise the start on a sled with wheels, then it runs out after 100 yards
I knew there was a start track, but there isn’t a full track afaik. Also most of the nations who are good at this have an indoor start track so they practice all year round.
Not a huge fan of watching sports and certainly not Olympics but I do think that the Tea Tray jockeys along with the people who throw themselves off giant slides are in another order of bravery. Really pleased to see the British women winning.
Bravery or madness or both :-) what is incredible is how do you even get started with this sport in the uk? Unlike skiing where we do have dry ski slopes and snowdomes, is there even a track in the uk? Also again unlike skiing it isn’t something you can just go on holidays as a kid and find it is something you and enjoy.
I believe that much of the scientific side of the sport - of massive importance - is done in the UK, but they live near the tracks and courses (and some f the funding pays for that). For instance, Izzy Atkin who just won bronze in ?skiing? is based in Utah.
The weird thing about the polling at the moment is that so many remainers still seem to think that Labour and Corbyn are the answer to their prayers. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary a very significant proportion of Labour's support seems to be under the delusion that Labour is committed to remaining in the Single Market, for example.
Corbyn has managed to maintain some sort of constructive ambiguity about his position (at least for those not really paying attention) and it has starved the Lib Dems of their natural support. If the Lib Dems had any sense they would be doing everything in their power to expose the fact that it is difficult to get a fag paper between Corbyn's and May's position on Brexit and trying to peel away Labour supporters who actually care.
I suspect the numbers who do care are less than generally thought (notwithstanding the evidence on this Board) but it would be a start. With 40 odd percent still thinking that Brexit is a mistake the party of remain really should be in double figures. And it isn't despite these excellent bye-election results.
You can think it is a mistake but still prefer a Labour government to either see it through or have a softer version. The more realistic remainers realise you cannot reverse the result and in many places voting for the Lib Dems is a waste.
That and even those who don't want it and think Labour do want it have other priorities.
Yes but what about the Labour supporters in Tory Lib Dem marginals? Why are they not being picked up? Even if you are not motivated to vote Lib Dem in a Labour/Tory seat why are Labour voters not voting more tactically where theirs is the wasted vote?
Of the 5,773 people who voted Labour in the Richmond Park 2017 General election, I am certain that at least 46 of them regret not voting LibDem and reducing the Tory majority by one - as well as getting rid of Goldsmith. Many of them voted Labour because they were enthused by Corbyn. I heard it on the doorstep. They won't make the same mistake again in this constituency.
It would actually have reduced the Tory majority by two!
What majority?
I suspect he was referring to the effective Tory + DUP majority!
CEOs earn vast amounts of money. One of the areas where they earn that money is crisis management (as in a crisis within their organisation).
Sadly, so many CEOs fail whenever a crisis occurs. I get the impression too many of them are good at shaking hands and going to expensive dinners, rather than effectively actually running an organisation.
The byelections show the Lib Dems can make dramatic gains where they have infrastructure on the ground. The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
Two problems for the Lib Dems. They lack that infrastructure in many places, having been hollowed out by their coalition years. Their national campaign is making no impression whatever.
Curiously, Lib Dems must be picking up ex-UKIP voters.
The LibDems main aim must be to simply stay in the game, until fortunes turn again.
I don't think holding on is working for them. There's a possibility to reinvent themselves as the party of opportunity, international connection and liberal values. Brexit is the catalyst rather than the be all and end all. The two main parties have become very inward looking so that's the LD's chance. Worth them risking it in my view
I agree. I see and promote the Lib dems as a sensible pragmatic open-minded party that is not wedded to a left or right wing ideology. It doesn't support private good, public bad, or the reverse, but what works. It is down to earth practical (potholes) and opposes Brexit on pragmatic not ideological grounds. Its only ideology is freedom from coercion, ignorance and conformity.
Talk me through limits on numbers of children per child minder then. Or free school meals for middle class children.
LibDems, being pragmatic, are in favour of coercion with regard to all driving on the left of the road.
Free school meals for all children means better nutrition and better ability to concentrate.
There are more difficult points you could have made. Should adult individuals be free to make choices that may harm them and no-one else such as not wearing a seatbelt or smoking pot? On the other hand, smoking cigarettes harms others and so does unlimited numbers of children per child minder.
There is no ideological silver bullet solution to the problem of balancing personal freedom with the common good. But there are common sense pragmatic solutions. Try Amartya Sen - the Idea of Justice.
I have no problem with good nutrition for kids - I am a strong supporter. But I don’t think it is a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise well off people.
It would cost more to means test and adminster paying / not paying etc rather than just making meals free for all.
Nah - just set it at the same criteria as for universal credit or child benefit
The byelections show the Lib Dems can make dramatic gains where they have infrastructure on the ground. The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
Two problems for the Lib Dems. They lack that infrastructure in many places, having been hollowed out by their coalition years. Their national campaign is making no impression whatever.
Curiously, Lib Dems must be picking up ex-UKIP voters.
The LibDems main aim must be to simply stay in the game, until fortunes turn again.
I agree. I see and promote the Lib dems as a sensible pragmatic open-minded party that is not wedded to a left or right wing ideology. It doesn't support private good, public bad, or the reverse, but what works. It is down to earth practical (potholes) and opposes Brexit on pragmatic not ideological grounds. Its only ideology is freedom from coercion, ignorance and conformity.
Talk me through limits on numbers of children per child minder then. Or free school meals for middle class children.
LibDems, being pragmatic, are in favour of coercion with regard to all driving on the left of the road.
Free school meals for all children means better nutrition and better ability to concentrate.
There are more difficult points you could have made. Should adult individuals be free to make choices that may harm them and no-one else such as not wearing a seatbelt or smoking pot? On the other hand, smoking cigarettes harms others and so does unlimited numbers of children per child minder.
There is no ideological silver bullet solution to the problem of balancing personal freedom with the common good. But there are common sense pragmatic solutions. Try Amartya Sen - the Idea of Justice.
I have no problem with good nutrition for kids - I am a strong supporter. But I don’t think it is a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise well off people.
How about state pensions for well off people? Or pension tax credits for wealthy people.
Pension contributions are capped. State pensions are s return on NICs
I would point out that the LibDems increased their vote count by almost a third last May, and ended up only just behind the Labour Party in terms of absolute votes: it's just that, in absolute terms, the Conservatives were up more.
The LDs got 18% in the county council elections last May, Labour 27% and the Tories 38%, the LD vote then collapsed at the general election, mainly in Labour's favour
The only question left over the "Corbyn is a spy" story is,was he a secret double or,an even secreter triple agent?
If the IRA supporter attack did nothing to change people's views of him I really don't see why the Tories think 30 year old Communist spy stories are going to make any difference.
We are in a weird place where putting your hand on a ladies knee 20 years ago, her telling you to piss off and nothing more leds to a week headline news and disqualification to be a minister of state, being a paid collaborator with an foreign enemy power and a terrorist sympathiser, nothing.
People believed the first one.
It's more than that, though. It's a reaction (or, depending on your view, over-reaction) to the fact that women have had to put up with all sorts of sh*t over the years. It's been unacceptable to (say) grope women for years, but it's still been going on.
But it seems we have reached a point where it is now seen as utterly unacceptable. No more sniggering over it, no more "well, she asked for it."
Things will settle down, as we men realise we shouldn't be doing these things, and women, not having to deal with men doing it, also gain some acceptance that there can be mistakes and misunderstandings.
Agree about the bravery. If I tried most of these sports the presenters would find it easy to describe the lines I took, as I'd leave a handy brown line behind me ...
@HansFiene: The Winter Olympics are fun because 85% of the events would kill you if you tried them: Giant slalom - dead Half pipe - dead Ski jumping - dead Curling - fine Luge - dead Skeleton - backwards dead
The only question left over the "Corbyn is a spy" story is,was he a secret double or,an even secreter triple agent?
If the IRA supporter attack did nothing to change people's views of him I really don't see why the Tories think 30 year old Communist spy stories are going to make any difference.
We are in a weird place where putting your hand on a ladies knee 20 years ago, her telling you to piss off and nothing more leds to a week headline news and disqualification to be a minister of state, being a paid collaborator with an foreign enemy power and a terrorist sympathiser, nothing.
People believed the first one.
It's more than that, though. It's a reaction (or, depending on your view, over-reaction) to the fact that women have had to put up with all sorts of sh*t over the years. It's been unacceptable to (say) grope women for years, but it's still been going on.
But it seems we have reached a point where it is now seen as utterly unacceptable. No more sniggering over it, no more "well, she asked for it."
Things will settle down, as we men realise we shouldn't be doing these things, and women, not having to deal with men doing it, also gain some acceptance that there can be mistakes and misunderstandings.
I assume Scott and Will won't be as keen to "share" that Tweet!
Of course the Germans, the Americans, South Koreans, everyone is happy to do bespoke deals.with us. Why wouldn't they? The rules of the Single Market protect us from bespokeness.
Edit and as Merkel says, it will be a good deal. She wouldn't agree to it otherwise.
As we no longer have to take into account the demands of French farmers it should be a good deal all round.
Except for French farmers
Oh we will. Our partners will insist on keeping everything they already have, anything extra is a bonus and of it means we get less, they will live with that. This is what's meant by bespoke deal. And but not j with the EU
The possibility that the UK will do better with alternative trade treaties does seem to be ananthema to you.
Or to describe the current situation in a different way - the UK has had 239 consecutive months of trade deficit.
Is that the record of a country with trade treaties suitable for its needs ?
It's fair to say everyone doing trade deals with us is incentivised to widen the trade gap in their favour.
The allegations include sex with children. The CEO's holier-than-thou outrage that people are upset by this is... not wise.
I've not actually seen any evidence of that allegation (i.e. someone saying "I saw X do Y to child Z") at all - it seems to come down to "7 aid workers had sex with prostitutes and some prostitutes are underage, so they might have". I'm not trivialising it - the alleged actions are disgusting and the suggestions of cover-up are serious. But I think the CEO has to fight their corner and he's right to say that people with an agenda to attack development charities are using this to smear an organisation which largely does very good work, with a huge number of employees who have no reason to be ashamed of working there. If I was one of them, i'd want him to say just that.
I have to say I find this attitude somewhat surprising from someone so reasonable, as it very much does seem to be about trivializing allegations. CEOs are more than capable of fighting their corner without trivializing what is being alleged, as his words clearly do no matter what he might claim. As a politician you were surely subjected to unfair and unfounded attacks from opponents which you were entitled to respond to but which would not justify poor behaviour of your own in response, and organisations which operate in such political environments will no doubt experience the same as well, I have no doubt the CEO is right about that, but there is a difference between pointing that out as you suggest, and what he has said.
No matter the good people do there will be mistakes, and there will be people gunning for you for their own reasons, and it understandable and reasonable that that leads to frustration, particularly with the fear good that you do will be undermined. But that does not excuse ignoring concerns, and while they might say they are not, when someone so senior is so dismissive and sees it as part of a conspiracy from regular opponents, that reasonably leads to suggestion they are not going to be able to objectively identify and deal with problems.
As ever I fall back on an old measure - what if the leader of an organisation we don't like were to say such a thing to distract from allegations? Would we be ok with that, because there are legitimately people going after them and the organisation needs defending?
I like the very American fine distinction made by the Institute between libertarian (=all mandatory standards are bad) and conservative (=standards applied to the wealthy are bad). )
I am strongly opposed to fox hunting but at the same time would be equally opposed to police officers going onto private land without due cause. Unless of course a warrant could be organised which I think might be a reasonable way to proceed.
I agree entirely about the issue of non reportable offences. The law should certainly be changed for that.
There is also one other basic principle here. Even if you support fox hunting and want the ban repealed, as long as it is the law it should be obeyed. I object strongly to the tax policy in this country and think we are taxed far too highly. That does not for a minute mean I think people should be allowed to avoid paying the taxes they are legally due to pay.
As long as this is the law of the land it should be enforced. I don't believe anyone who believes in a democratic and law based system can reasonably disagree with that.
Some of the hunts have frankly been taking the piss ("oh, the hounds seem to have taken off after a fox, how unfortunate") and they're really asking for counter-measures whenever a non-Tory government comes along - indeed there are lots of Tory backbenchers now broadly ani-hunt (about 50). I think there's scope for a sensible dialogue on the lines you suggest - as the Minister I'd simply ask the civil service to tell me what could be done to make the law enforced without unreasonable intrusion. If there's agreeement on the basic principle that the law shouldn't be evaded, there's no reason to go OTT in intrusion.
No matter the good people do there will be mistakes, and there will be people gunning for you for their own reasons, and it understandable and reasonable that that leads to frustration, particularly with the fear good that you do will be undermined. But that does not excuse ignoring concerns, and while they might say they are not, when someone so senior is so dismissive and sees it as part of a conspiracy from regular opponents, that reasonably leads to suggestion they are not going to be able to objectively identify and deal with problems.
As ever I fall back on an old measure - what if the leader of an organisation we don't like were to say such a thing to distract from allegations? Would we be ok with that, because there are legitimately people going after them and the organisation needs defending?
Yes - to take an inexact parallel, I see no reason why Bolton should resign as UKIP leader because of his dodgy private life and his girlfriend's horrible views, and I think he's enitled to say that people who dislike UKIP are taking advantage unfairly.
If I thought that Oxfam's CEO was trying to distract from the allegations I'd agree with you, but have you seen his full statement? He absolutely agrees that the actions were disgraceful and the organisation didn't respond as it should have, but also thinks it's being used to attack the whole organisation unfairly, including all the parts that have had nothing whatever to do with the issue. Seems right to me and something that it's part of his job to put.
Homeless former model who died yards from Parliament 'returned to the UK illegally after being jailed for sexually abusing a child and kicked out of the country TWICE'
No matter the good people do there will be mistakes, and there will be people gunning for you for their own reasons, and it understandable and reasonable that that leads to frustration, particularly with the fear good that you do will be undermined. But that does not excuse ignoring concerns, and while they might say they are not, when someone so senior is so dismissive and sees it as part of a conspiracy from regular opponents, that reasonably leads to suggestion they are not going to be able to objectively identify and deal with problems.
As ever I fall back on an old measure - what if the leader of an organisation we don't like were to say such a thing to distract from allegations? Would we be ok with that, because there are legitimately people going after them and the organisation needs defending?
If I thought that Oxfam's CEO was trying to distract from the allegations I'd agree with you, but have you seen his full statement? He absolutely agrees that the actions were disgraceful and the organisation didn't respond as it should have, but also thinks it's being used to attack the whole organisation unfairly, including all the parts that have had nothing whatever to do with the issue. Seems right to me and something that it's part of his job to put.
The thing is can he be believed that he really accepts the problem? By making his ill advised quip about murdering babies there is justifiable reason to think that he does not, in my view. If he had merely said that despite the problems that had occurred the organisation as a whole was being attacked unfairly I might accept your point, but he didn't, and he trivialized what occurred by making that comparison. I do see that as a distraction, because he had no need to trivialize the allegations in that way.
If I say I totally get that I did something wrong, but then said 'but come on, it's not like I murdered babies', I do not think I could complain if people doubted either my sincerity, or my ability to actually fix what had gone wrong even if I was sincere.
We have to listen to what people say, and if he had just said the attacks were out of proportion, that's not trivializing things, depending on the actions he takes. But he went beyond that. Are we supposed to ignore that he trivilised the allegations because he has a point elsewhere?
I'm certainly not gunning for Oxfam, I have no ideological desire to see their good work undermined or disrupted any more than is necessary to ensure they are being properly run and are properly accountable. But his defensiveness that led to that at best flippant remark was not the approach to take.
I had little reason to assume Oxfam was not in a position able to deal with these issues before his statement. Now I do have a reason, at the least to be more wary of him as CEO.
It's becoming an issue of not what happened on the ground, but the reaction by Oxfam's reaction at various levels. And the top management are coming across as more than a little hapless.
And this matters, as if they're this hapless at this situation, how will they react to more complex ones?
I fear many charities, large and small, will be similarly poorly run. Too many have become a means of managing money rather than helping their cause.
No matter the good people do there will be mistakes, and there will be people gunning for you for their own reasons, and it understandable and reasonable that that leads to frustration, particularly with the fear good that you do will be undermined. But that does not excuse ignoring concerns, and while they might say they are not, when someone so senior is so dismissive and sees it as part of a conspiracy from regular opponents, that reasonably leads to suggestion they are not going to be able to objectively identify and deal with problems.
As ever I fall back on an old measure - what if the leader of an organisation we don't like were to say such a thing to distract from allegations? Would we be ok with that, because there are legitimately people going after them and the organisation needs defending?
Yes - to take an inexact parallel, I see no reason why Bolton should resign as UKIP leader because of his dodgy private life and his girlfriend's horrible views, and I think he's enitled to say that people who dislike UKIP are taking advantage unfairly.
If I thought that Oxfam's CEO was trying to distract from the allegations I'd agree with you, but have you seen his full statement? He absolutely agrees that the actions were disgraceful and the organisation didn't respond as it should have, but also thinks it's being used to attack the whole organisation unfairly, including all the parts that have had nothing whatever to do with the issue. Seems right to me and something that it's part of his job to put.
I suspect that Oxfam is far from the worst of the NGOs in terms of behaviour, and that particularly in the realm of disaster relief chaos is the norm. However, it is not just expat staff that behave badly, indeed in the 2002 report by Save the Children it was locally recruited staff, UN Peacekeepers, local officials and miners who were the culprits:
Clearly procedures need to be tightened across the board, and abuses rooted out, but restoring hope in disaster zones is no easy task. I see the latest round of the Congolese war is off again. We cannot just ignore this sufferring, not least because it reaches our ownoshores in time.
Agree about the bravery. If I tried most of these sports the presenters would find it easy to describe the lines I took, as I'd leave a handy brown line behind me ...
@HansFiene: The Winter Olympics are fun because 85% of the events would kill you if you tried them: Giant slalom - dead Half pipe - dead Ski jumping - dead Curling - fine Luge - dead Skeleton - backwards dead
Homeless former model who died yards from Parliament 'returned to the UK illegally after being jailed for sexually abusing a child and kicked out of the country TWICE'
Homeless former model who died yards from Parliament 'returned to the UK illegally after being jailed for sexually abusing a child and kicked out of the country TWICE'
So is the Daily Mail saying we need to check whether homeless people are here illegally before they are left to freeze to death?
I'm no fan of the Daily Fail but I think it's saying he should never have been in the country in the first place and couldn't have frozen if he wasn't.
The Egyptians reputedly have the same policy with road safety. If you as a westerner hire a car there them get in an accident it will be your fault as if you weren't in the country driving the accident wouldn't have happened.
Homeless former model who died yards from Parliament 'returned to the UK illegally after being jailed for sexually abusing a child and kicked out of the country TWICE'
Homeless former model who died yards from Parliament 'returned to the UK illegally after being jailed for sexually abusing a child and kicked out of the country TWICE'
@PaulBrandITV: UPDATE: Monitoring the count here it currently looks like there are around twice as many votes to SACK than to BACK @_HenryBolton
Another epic fail for Bolton-backing Farage.....
Haven't then been rumours for awhile of Farage wanting to set up a new party in any case? If that was accurate, then publicly backing a leader who then got sacked by party members would be a good reason to say it was time to set up something new.
F1: interesting in the BBC gossip that Toto Wolff reckons McLaren *and* Renault are potential rivals.
Renault has a very nice driver pairing and I think in a couple of years it could have a title tilt. But the turn around is too great from 2017. McLaren, which had a very good car (excluding the engine) last year, could be in with a shot.
The byelections show the Lib Dems can make dramatic gains where they have infrastructure on the ground. The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
Two problems for the Lib Dems. They lack that infrastructure in many places, having been hollowed out by their coalition years. Their national campaign is making no impression whatever.
Curiously, Lib Dems must be picking up ex-UKIP voters.
The LibDems main aim must be to simply stay in the game, until fortunes turn again.
I agree. I see and promote the Lib dems as a sensible pragmatic open-minded party that is not wedded to a left or right wing ideology. It doesn't support private good, public bad, or the reverse, but what works. It is down to earth practical (potholes) and opposes Brexit on pragmatic not ideological grounds. Its only ideology is freedom from coercion, ignorance and conformity.
Talk me through limits on numbers of children per child minder then. Or free school meals for middle class children.
LibDems, being pragmatic, are in favour of coercion with regard to all driving on the left of the road.
Free school meals for all children means better nutrition and better ability to concentrate.
There are more difficult points you could have made. Should adult individuals be free to make choices that may harm them and no-one else such as not wearing a seatbelt or smoking pot? On the other hand, smoking cigarettes harms others and so does unlimited numbers of children per child minder.
There is no ideological silver bullet solution to the problem of balancing personal freedom with the common good. But there are common sense pragmatic solutions. Try Amartya Sen - the Idea of Justice.
I have no problem with good nutrition for kids - I am a strong supporter. But I don’t think it is a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise well off people.
How about state pensions for well off people? Or pension tax credits for wealthy people.
Pension contributions are capped. State pensions are s return on NICs
Aren't entitlement to free school meals capped? Don't the parents of "well -off" children who get free school meals pay tax?
F1: interesting in the BBC gossip that Toto Wolff reckons McLaren *and* Renault are potential rivals.
Renault has a very nice driver pairing and I think in a couple of years it could have a title tilt. But the turn around is too great from 2017. McLaren, which had a very good car (excluding the engine) last year, could be in with a shot.
I don't know why, but I'm always surprised whenever I hear someone's voice when I've only seen their thoughts in written form - the voice never matches what I expect.
Comments
Except for French farmers
In Scotland all primary 1 - 3 get free meals after that I thought it was anyone earning less than £16K till UC comes in and that is where it gets cut to £7.4K
which will be tough on a lot of low earners I presume.
https://twitter.com/vonny_bravo/status/964801154868826112
Re Vonny’s tweet, I’m thinking of Mary Beard’s response. Lost so much respect for her.
However, they're the ones who put a 'kick here' sign on their bottoms, bent over, and wiggled it provocatively.
Has the guy never heard of STFU? How many more standing orders are going to get cancelled on the back of his crass comment?
Anyone know of such a thing?
The position on hunting is that there's a general feeling that the ban works up to a point (which is why the Countryside Alliance keeps trying to get rid of it), but is fairly easy to evade. The police say (I believe) that one reason is that they can't gather evidence by going onto private land without prior evidence that an offence is being committed, so the League Against Cruel Sports therefore proposes that the police (not protesters!) should have right of access to investigate and monitor. The other main issue of the League is that it's not a reportable offence so doesn't count in police stats, which makes forces shrug it off.
Those are the two changes which (I think) the League wants. You'd need to ask them if you wanted to be sure - it's not my main issue so I might have got details wrong. I don't think the party has got beyond the general pragmatic "we must try and ensure that the Act actually works" view. In practice they'd ask civil servants and NGOs to analyse what stops it working and what needs to be done.
At the moment, the cap is 16 hours a week (if there’s one adult in the house), or 24 hours a week (if there are two).
Eligibility is much wider up to Year 3, which I think is Primary 4 in Scotland.
The effect should be that no child currently receiving FSM loses out.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-labour-arent-telling-the-full-story-about-free-school-meals
Or to describe the current situation in a different way - the UK has had 239 consecutive months of trade deficit.
Is that the record of a country with trade treaties suitable for its needs ?
Although if they don't have such rights already, there are probably crimes where it would be more useful, and affect people more directly.
I don't want to defend (or excoriate) Oxfam: it's just that we've all seen stories like this in the past where myth and reality get confused. I'm sure someone's coined a useful phrase for it ....
Most countries support elements of protectionism as well as free trade when they think its in their own interests.
That the UK has had 239 consecutive months of trade deficit (plus a corresponding toursim deficit) is always ignored by those claiming that the current trade treaties are optimal.
https://www.oxfam.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2018/02/oxfam-announces-comprehensive-action-plan-to-stamp-out-abuse
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/a-surprise-video-why-you-shouldnt-take.html
If I were Oxfam, I would produce an immediate report into what they *know* happened: perhaps with names omitted initially, and the way they reacted, and give it to the media. The 'what', not the 'who' or the 'why', which can be left to the investigation.
E.g.:
2001-10-03 first received allegations against person X in Nigeria.
2001-10-07 persons x,y,z moved from their posts pending investigation.
2001-10-14 person x sacked; y and z allowed back into their posts.
2001-11-05 allegations mentioned in official board minutes.
2003-04-09 more allegations about person z.
...
The official investigation will take too long, the story will have moved on, and their reputation further damaged. As it is, I've read up a little on this and even Oxfam seem confused in their response. The sad thing is I think Oxfam may have a defensible position: they certainly seem not to have behaved as poorly as (say) the Catholic Church.
I agree entirely about the issue of non reportable offences. The law should certainly be changed for that.
There is also one other basic principle here. Even if you support fox hunting and want the ban repealed, as long as it is the law it should be obeyed. I object strongly to the tax policy in this country and think we are taxed far too highly. That does not for a minute mean I think people should be allowed to avoid paying the taxes they are legally due to pay.
As long as this is the law of the land it should be enforced. I don't believe anyone who believes in a democratic and law based system can reasonably disagree with that.
Sadly, so many CEOs fail whenever a crisis occurs. I get the impression too many of them are good at shaking hands and going to expensive dinners, rather than effectively actually running an organisation.
Agree about the bravery. If I tried most of these sports the presenters would find it easy to describe the lines I took, as I'd leave a handy brown line behind me ...
They practise the start on a sled with wheels, then it runs out after 100 yards
Giant slalom - dead
Half pipe - dead
Ski jumping - dead
Curling - fine
Luge - dead
Skeleton - backwards dead
But I see there's a partial bobsleigh training track in Bath, of all places.
https://www.teambath.com/sport/skeleton/
"...Let me tell you something...Do you care to know why I'm in this chair with you all? I mean, why I earn the big bucks? I'm here for one reason and one reason alone. I'm here to guess what the music might do a week, a month, a year from now. That's it. Nothing more. And standing here tonight, I'm afraid that I don't hear - a - thing. Just... silence..."
(Jeremy Irons in Margin Call, 2011)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOYi4NzxlhE
But it seems we have reached a point where it is now seen as utterly unacceptable. No more sniggering over it, no more "well, she asked for it."
Things will settle down, as we men realise we shouldn't be doing these things, and women, not having to deal with men doing it, also gain some acceptance that there can be mistakes and misunderstandings.
No matter the good people do there will be mistakes, and there will be people gunning for you for their own reasons, and it understandable and reasonable that that leads to frustration, particularly with the fear good that you do will be undermined. But that does not excuse ignoring concerns, and while they might say they are not, when someone so senior is so dismissive and sees it as part of a conspiracy from regular opponents, that reasonably leads to suggestion they are not going to be able to objectively identify and deal with problems.
As ever I fall back on an old measure - what if the leader of an organisation we don't like were to say such a thing to distract from allegations? Would we be ok with that, because there are legitimately people going after them and the organisation needs defending?
https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/964873603589332992
Earthquake about 20 mins ago, twitter recons it was centered around s.wales.
https://twitter.com/BritGeoSurvey
https://twitter.com/owenjbennett/status/964871893420576768
If I thought that Oxfam's CEO was trying to distract from the allegations I'd agree with you, but have you seen his full statement? He absolutely agrees that the actions were disgraceful and the organisation didn't respond as it should have, but also thinks it's being used to attack the whole organisation unfairly, including all the parts that have had nothing whatever to do with the issue. Seems right to me and something that it's part of his job to put.
Labour: Hold my beer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5402829/Homeless-man-dead-Westminster-child-abuser.html
If I say I totally get that I did something wrong, but then said 'but come on, it's not like I murdered babies', I do not think I could complain if people doubted either my sincerity, or my ability to actually fix what had gone wrong even if I was sincere.
We have to listen to what people say, and if he had just said the attacks were out of proportion, that's not trivializing things, depending on the actions he takes. But he went beyond that. Are we supposed to ignore that he trivilised the allegations because he has a point elsewhere?
I'm certainly not gunning for Oxfam, I have no ideological desire to see their good work undermined or disrupted any more than is necessary to ensure they are being properly run and are properly accountable. But his defensiveness that led to that at best flippant remark was not the approach to take.
I had little reason to assume Oxfam was not in a position able to deal with these issues before his statement. Now I do have a reason, at the least to be more wary of him as CEO.
An excellent post.
It's becoming an issue of not what happened on the ground, but the reaction by Oxfam's reaction at various levels. And the top management are coming across as more than a little hapless.
And this matters, as if they're this hapless at this situation, how will they react to more complex ones?
I fear many charities, large and small, will be similarly poorly run. Too many have become a means of managing money rather than helping their cause.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/resources/online-library/sexual-violence-exploitation-the-experience-of-refugee-children-in-guinea-liberia-and-sierra-leone&ved=2ahUKEwiF5rmJoa3ZAhVaF8AKHerICMcQFjADegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw1Kgaqerz92903SYznSMit-
Clearly procedures need to be tightened across the board, and abuses rooted out, but restoring hope in disaster zones is no easy task. I see the latest round of the Congolese war is off again. We cannot just ignore this sufferring, not least because it reaches our ownoshores in time.
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/964817166372671489
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/964890929655156736
The Egyptians reputedly have the same policy with road safety. If you as a westerner hire a car there them get in an accident it will be your fault as if you weren't in the country driving the accident wouldn't have happened.
Not terribly surprised Bolton appears doomed.
F1: interesting in the BBC gossip that Toto Wolff reckons McLaren *and* Renault are potential rivals.
Renault has a very nice driver pairing and I think in a couple of years it could have a title tilt. But the turn around is too great from 2017. McLaren, which had a very good car (excluding the engine) last year, could be in with a shot.
I rambled similarly (on McLaren/Alonso) here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/a-surprise-video-why-you-shouldnt-take.html
Don't the parents of "well -off" children who get free school meals pay tax?