I'm not sure this is entirely fair. My distant recollection is there were various campaigns out there often running in parallel - the Conservative Party was "neutral" so wasn't supporting its own leader or Prime Minister.
In 1975, not far from where I currently live, Roy Jenkins, William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond appeared together at a public meeting for the YES campaign at East Ham Town Hall (Jenkins got flour-bombed while he was speaking). It was regrettable politicians of different parties found it harder to stand together and make common cause in 2016.
I think it is fair. Labour put the kibosh on a 'united' Remain, thats why there was various campaigns. Labour refused to attend any joint events if i remember at the time.
Indyref: Labour campaigned alongside Tories. GE2015: Labour wiped out in Scotland.
Do you think that Remain would have won if the Top Tories had kept out of the way?
I think Remain could have won if the top Tories had learned the lesson of Indyref which is that purely negative, scaremongering campaigns do not work.
Directly to your point, yes, but I think there were other problems too.
I was surprised that David Cameron did not follow Harold Wilson and keep aloof. He could then have placed his thumb on the scale without endangering his own job or turning it into a plebiscite on the posh boys: a Conservative MP in Shipman's book complained about having his constituency described as a dump by the Prime Minister.
Paxo was right. Cameron was our worst prime minister since Lord North.
" The particulars of the contempt were not put to the appellant and the appellant was not given the opportunity to admit or deny the contempt. "
What the...?? So now all his supporters are going to go bonkers, does a crown court judge really understand so little about due process and have no-one to tell him when he’s about to make a mistake?
That is a truly extraordinary letter, and tends to support my comment about Corbyn living all his life in an echo chamber. That said, it goes further than I would ever have expected even of him?
Surely, if the allegation he conspired with the police to evict Jewish attendees to appease activists who were openly racist is substantiated, even he's finished?
" The particulars of the contempt were not put to the appellant and the appellant was not given the opportunity to admit or deny the contempt. "
What the...?? So now all his supporters are going to go bonkers, does a crown court judge really understand so little about due process and have no-one to tell him when he’s about to make a mistake?
They have counsel on one side telling them they are about to make a mistake, and counsel on t'other telling them they aren't. They get it wrong all the time, why do you think the Court of Appeal stays in business? And the Supreme Court finds the Court of Appeal got it wrong in about 40% of the cases it hears.
" The particulars of the contempt were not put to the appellant and the appellant was not given the opportunity to admit or deny the contempt. "
What the...?? So now all his supporters are going to go bonkers, does a crown court judge really understand so little about due process and have no-one to tell him when he’s about to make a mistake?
They have counsel on one side telling them they are about to make a mistake, and counsel on t'other telling them they aren't. They get it wrong all the time, why do you think the Court of Appeal stays in business? And the Supreme Court finds the Court of Appeal got it wrong in about 40% of the cases it hears.
This to me says that the appeals system is working as intended, and therefore so is the judicial system.
A system in which appeals are rarely successful or even allowed is a system that has way too much confidence in its own infallibility, which is never good.
" The particulars of the contempt were not put to the appellant and the appellant was not given the opportunity to admit or deny the contempt. "
What the...?? So now all his supporters are going to go bonkers, does a crown court judge really understand so little about due process and have no-one to tell him when he’s about to make a mistake?
Judges are (not unreasonably) expected to know the law His arrest to sentence certainly seemed very fast. I'd like to hope it was more cock up than conspiracy - I do not want to see our justice system reduced to the rampant political activism (Mostly, but not all, from the left side of the spectrum at the moment) that seems to be occuring under the current administration in the USA. Edit: As others have said we have the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court as well working backstops.
" The particulars of the contempt were not put to the appellant and the appellant was not given the opportunity to admit or deny the contempt. "
What the...?? So now all his supporters are going to go bonkers, does a crown court judge really understand so little about due process and have no-one to tell him when he’s about to make a mistake?
They have counsel on one side telling them they are about to make a mistake, and counsel on t'other telling them they aren't. They get it wrong all the time, why do you think the Court of Appeal stays in business? And the Supreme Court finds the Court of Appeal got it wrong in about 40% of the cases it hears.
Surely, if the allegation he conspired with the police to evict Jewish attendees to appease activists who were openly racist is substantiated, even he's finished?
The faithful will explain it away as a Jewish plot, and the train will rumble on. This won't even move the needle.
Half his supporters don't care, and the other half don't regard antisemitism as racism.
Judges are (not unreasonably) expected to know the law His arrest to sentence certainly seemed very fast. I'd like to hope it was more cock up than conspiracy - I do not want to see our justice system reduced to the rampant political activism (Mostly, but not all, from the left side of the spectrum at the moment) that seems to be occuring under the current administration in the USA.
Hanlon's Razor applies here. Never attribute to malice that which can be more easily explained by incompetence.
My guess is he'll be convicted again, and then released in lieu of time served. Though I guess the legal question here is whether filming *near* a court is covered by the same legal restrictions as filming *in* a court?
" The particulars of the contempt were not put to the appellant and the appellant was not given the opportunity to admit or deny the contempt. "
What the...?? So now all his supporters are going to go bonkers, does a crown court judge really understand so little about due process and have no-one to tell him when he’s about to make a mistake?
They have counsel on one side telling them they are about to make a mistake, and counsel on t'other telling them they aren't. They get it wrong all the time, why do you think the Court of Appeal stays in business? And the Supreme Court finds the Court of Appeal got it wrong in about 40% of the cases it hears.
" The particulars of the contempt were not put to the appellant and the appellant was not given the opportunity to admit or deny the contempt. "
What the...?? So now all his supporters are going to go bonkers, does a crown court judge really understand so little about due process and have no-one to tell him when he’s about to make a mistake?
They have counsel on one side telling them they are about to make a mistake, and counsel on t'other telling them they aren't. They get it wrong all the time, why do you think the Court of Appeal stays in business? And the Supreme Court finds the Court of Appeal got it wrong in about 40% of the cases it hears.
Thank god the Supreme Court is infallible
That's why we have the ECJ.
Ah, I forget they exist on an even higher plane of infallibility.
" The particulars of the contempt were not put to the appellant and the appellant was not given the opportunity to admit or deny the contempt. "
What the...?? So now all his supporters are going to go bonkers, does a crown court judge really understand so little about due process and have no-one to tell him when he’s about to make a mistake?
They have counsel on one side telling them they are about to make a mistake, and counsel on t'other telling them they aren't. They get it wrong all the time, why do you think the Court of Appeal stays in business? And the Supreme Court finds the Court of Appeal got it wrong in about 40% of the cases it hears.
Thank god the Supreme Court is infallible
That's why we have the ECJ.
Little courts have bigger courts upon their backs to bite em Bigger courts have biggerer courts, so on ad infinitum
" The particulars of the contempt were not put to the appellant and the appellant was not given the opportunity to admit or deny the contempt. "
What the...?? So now all his supporters are going to go bonkers, does a crown court judge really understand so little about due process and have no-one to tell him when he’s about to make a mistake?
They have counsel on one side telling them they are about to make a mistake, and counsel on t'other telling them they aren't. They get it wrong all the time, why do you think the Court of Appeal stays in business? And the Supreme Court finds the Court of Appeal got it wrong in about 40% of the cases it hears.
Thank god the Supreme Court is infallible
That's why we have the ECJ.
Ah, I forget they exist on an even higher plane of infallibility.
And right at the very top we have the ultimate court of appeal, the Twitter poll
There are all going to be negative because it is a risk assessment. i.e what can go wrong so lets plan to handle it if it happens. I am sure the councils have another document about what would be beneficial to the council. It should be reported as "Councils getting prepared for Brexit."
Hah! Yes every council will have a "what would be beneficial to the council" Brexit planning document... aka an empty sheet of paper.
" The particulars of the contempt were not put to the appellant and the appellant was not given the opportunity to admit or deny the contempt. "
What the...?? So now all his supporters are going to go bonkers, does a crown court judge really understand so little about due process and have no-one to tell him when he’s about to make a mistake?
They have counsel on one side telling them they are about to make a mistake, and counsel on t'other telling them they aren't. They get it wrong all the time, why do you think the Court of Appeal stays in business? And the Supreme Court finds the Court of Appeal got it wrong in about 40% of the cases it hears.
This to me says that the appeals system is working as intended, and therefore so is the judicial system.
A system in which appeals are rarely successful or even allowed is a system that has way too much confidence in its own infallibility, which is never good.
A system with no appeal process is a feature of totalitarian regimes. I once had to explain some features of our legal system to some Chinese (ie, PRC, not Taiwan) officials on a fact finding mission, and the concept of an appeal was completely novel to them.
" The particulars of the contempt were not put to the appellant and the appellant was not given the opportunity to admit or deny the contempt. "
What the...?? So now all his supporters are going to go bonkers, does a crown court judge really understand so little about due process and have no-one to tell him when he’s about to make a mistake?
They have counsel on one side telling them they are about to make a mistake, and counsel on t'other telling them they aren't. They get it wrong all the time, why do you think the Court of Appeal stays in business? And the Supreme Court finds the Court of Appeal got it wrong in about 40% of the cases it hears.
Thank god the Supreme Court is infallible
That's why we have the ECJ.
Ah, I forget they exist on an even higher plane of infallibility.
And right at the very top we have the ultimate court of appeal, the Twitter poll
Ms Harman would disagree.
[What's Mad Hattie up to these days, anyway? Compared to the current mob, I almost look back on her with nostalgic fondness.]
A system with no appeal process is a feature of totalitarian regimes. I once had to explain some features of our legal system to some Chinese (ie, PRC, not Taiwan) officials on a fact finding mission, and the concept of an appeal was completely novel to them.
China does have an appellate court system, has done since the early eighties, all the way up to the supreme people's court. Problem is, since the party controls the courts at every level, if the party wants you guilty you're staying guilty.
There are all going to be negative because it is a risk assessment. i.e what can go wrong so lets plan to handle it if it happens. I am sure the councils have another document about what would be beneficial to the council. It should be reported as "Councils getting prepared for Brexit."
Hah! Yes every council will have a "what would be beneficial to the council" Brexit planning document... aka an empty sheet of paper.
I bet no 1 would be - less pressure on social housing if immigration fell. I could go on, but well.
Well I have to say this is what I expected. The next Tory leader will be a Leaver. A Leaver who stands up for a real Brexit. And right now Boris is that man.
Javid will continue to fall and Hunt will never register. After May, Tory members are never going to take a chance on a Remainer who now says that they will implement Brexit after all.
Would be worth seeing the utter meltdown on this site of Boris did make it - I think it would be enough to get me back from Australia just for the show...
Tory members won't get a free choice, and Boris won't make the final two. His back catalogue would make Jeremy Corbyn blush, and leadership rivals will make sure every Conservative MP (who are the ones who vote) knows it. And the N-word has gone out of fashion in the two years since Boris compared the EU to the third reich in its aim of taking over Europe.
Conservative MPs care about one thing and one thing only. Holding their seats. If Boris is the guy that is popular with the public, they will vote for him without a second thought. And since the Tory vote will never recover if a Remainer is in charge (because the Tory base won't stand for it) they will have to pick a Leaver.
If Boris does fall, JRM will be there to pick up the torch. Careful what you wish for!
You start off correctly by saying that Tory MPs will vote for whoever will preserve their seats, then rush in to draw the entirely wrong conculsion from it.
When it comes to retaining marginals neither Boris or JRM is the guy. Both of them play well in very safe Tory seats in the south of England but dreadfully in the marginals in the north and Scotland.
As an example there are 13 tory mps in Scotland, a party led by either Boris or JRM would lose every single seat.
Not sure about that but it wouldn't help. But then May didn't help much either and was basically kept out of Scotland last time around. The recovery of the Tories in Scotland is all down to Ruth and she would remain front and centre. What she would say about either Boris or JRM is, of course, another matter. She's not exactly been complimentary in the past.
She is also invisible in Scotland , double of May re answering questions and only does patsy interviews where she is not challenged or asked to explain.
Ask yourself which is more likely to be next Conservative party leader: Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg (whose supporters BoJo is now stealing). But Jacob Rees-Mogg can be laid at shorter odds.
No Hope and Bob Hope?
Both are probably lays. But start with the one at ridiculously short odds as opposed to the one at ungenerous odds.
I can see why JRM is popular with conservative right wing libertarians, but the odds on him as next leader are silly, doubly so in government, and he shows no interest in being anything but a backbencher (with substantial outside earnings). He should be 100/1.
Boris should be a little shorter, maybe 25/1, as the odds of the MPs messing up their selection and sending him to the members against a hardcore remainer like Morgan or Rudd.
Can't see how those two even get nominated, to be honest. Hunt would surely be the front running Remain candidate now.
LOL, you have to be joking the clown thinks his Japanese wife is Chinese, how bad can the Tories get and where do they find these cretins. Is it any wonder the English NHS is in a dire state when donkeys like that are responsible for it.
I don't think a party where Angela Constance was a candidate for Depute Leader is in any position to criticise, TBF.
LOL, Letwin and most of the other cabinet cretins make her look like a genius.
Cook keeping up his good form. Out for 13 in 38 minutes today. Why is he still in the team, anyone?
Because we can't even find one decent opener, let alone two.
To be fair, we can - just not very often. Hobbs/Sutcliffe weren't dreadful.
I meant, at this moment in time we can't find one decent opener let alone two. Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Hutton, Boycott, Gooch, Atherton, Stewart, Vaughan, Trescothick were all quite handy. But look who we've tried in the last five years or so - Compton, Root, Robson, Jennings, Hameed, Duckett, Stoneman, Lyth, Bell, Trott...
If we get rid of Cook (which on his current form we probably should) we'll have no opening partnership at all.
" The particulars of the contempt were not put to the appellant and the appellant was not given the opportunity to admit or deny the contempt. "
What the...?? So now all his supporters are going to go bonkers, does a crown court judge really understand so little about due process and have no-one to tell him when he’s about to make a mistake?
They have counsel on one side telling them they are about to make a mistake, and counsel on t'other telling them they aren't. They get it wrong all the time, why do you think the Court of Appeal stays in business? And the Supreme Court finds the Court of Appeal got it wrong in about 40% of the cases it hears.
This to me says that the appeals system is working as intended, and therefore so is the judicial system.
A system in which appeals are rarely successful or even allowed is a system that has way too much confidence in its own infallibility, which is never good.
Agreed, it’s that this particular case should have been one that the judge knew would be high profile. The quashing of his conviction on the grounds of process feeds into his narrative about being hard done by.
There are all going to be negative because it is a risk assessment. i.e what can go wrong so lets plan to handle it if it happens. I am sure the councils have another document about what would be beneficial to the council. It should be reported as "Councils getting prepared for Brexit."
Hah! Yes every council will have a "what would be beneficial to the council" Brexit planning document... aka an empty sheet of paper.
I bet no 1 would be - less pressure on social housing if immigration fell. I could go on, but well.
Having worked for the public sector, nobody creates a 'things that will be lovely' register. Prince II (which was, in my day, the standard for project management) requires a comprehensive risk register to be created and updated within the project or program life cycle. The Pembrokeshire document looks as if it's using the Prince II template.
TLDR; Risk registers aren't supposed to be feel-good documents.
Agreed, it’s that this particular case should have been one that the judge knew would be high profile. The quashing of his conviction on the grounds of process feeds into his narrative about being hard done by.
As horrible as defending that great fuckbag is, he was arrested, charged, tried and convicted in five hours, without anyone ever having bothered to explain to him what he was pleading to. That's not cricket.
The rule of law, if it means anything, has to apply to everyone equally including spherical headed nazi morons.
Well I have to say this is what I expected. The next Tory leader will be a Leaver. A Leaver who stands up for a real Brexit. And right now Boris is that man.
Javid will continue to fall and Hunt will never register. After May, Tory members are never going to take a chance on a Remainer who now says that they will implement Brexit after all.
Would be worth seeing the utter meltdown on this site of Boris did make it - I think it would be enough to get me back from Australia just for the show...
Tory members won't get a free choice, and Boris won't make the final two. His back catalogue would make Jeremy Corbyn blush, and leadership rivals will make sure every Conservative MP (who are the ones who vote) knows it. And the N-word has gone out of fashion in the two years since Boris compared the EU to the third reich in its aim of taking over Europe.
Conservative MPs care about one thing and one thing only. Holding their seats. If Boris is the guy that is popular with the public, they will vote for him without a second thought. And since the Tory vote will never recover if a Remainer is in charge (because the Tory base won't stand for it) they will have to pick a Leaver.
If Boris does fall, JRM will be there to pick up the torch. Careful what you wish for!
You start off correctly by saying that Tory MPs will vote for whoever will preserve their seats, then rush in to draw the entirely wrong conculsion from it.
When it comes to retaining marginals neither Boris or JRM is the guy. Both of them play well in very safe Tory seats in the south of England but dreadfully in the marginals in the north and Scotland.
As an example there are 13 tory mps in Scotland, a party led by either Boris or JRM would lose every single seat.
Not sure about that but it wouldn't help. But then May didn't help much either and was basically kept out of Scotland last time around. The recovery of the Tories in Scotland is all down to Ruth and she would remain front and centre. What she would say about either Boris or JRM is, of course, another matter. She's not exactly been complimentary in the past.
She is also invisible in Scotland , double of May re answering questions and only does patsy interviews where she is not challenged or asked to explain.
Remember that she is pregnant at the moment. I hope she is keeping well but it may be having an impact. The whole childbirth bit proves IMO that - if God exists - he's a bloke
Jeremy Dein QC played a canny game by emphasising the Criminal Procedure Rules, compliance with which, as he reminded the Court, is considered of utmost importance by Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division.
How dastardly for defence counsel to be a stickler for the rules.
There are all going to be negative because it is a risk assessment. i.e what can go wrong so lets plan to handle it if it happens. I am sure the councils have another document about what would be beneficial to the council. It should be reported as "Councils getting prepared for Brexit."
Hah! Yes every council will have a "what would be beneficial to the council" Brexit planning document... aka an empty sheet of paper.
I bet no 1 would be - less pressure on social housing if immigration fell. I could go on, but well.
Having worked for the public sector, nobody creates a 'things that will be lovely' register. Prince II (which was, in my day, the standard for project management) requires a comprehensive risk register to be created and updated within the project or program life cycle. The Pembrokeshire document looks as if it's using the Prince II template.
TLDR; Risk registers aren't supposed to be feel-good documents.
PRINCE II defines a risk in such a way that they can have a positive or negative impact.
This really isn't much of a reveal though, everyone knows there are downside risks around Brexit, it would be really daft if councils didn't have plans in place.
" The particulars of the contempt were not put to the appellant and the appellant was not given the opportunity to admit or deny the contempt. "
What the...?? So now all his supporters are going to go bonkers, does a crown court judge really understand so little about due process and have no-one to tell him when he’s about to make a mistake?
Judges are (not unreasonably) expected to know the law His arrest to sentence certainly seemed very fast. I'd like to hope it was more cock up than conspiracy - I do not want to see our justice system reduced to the rampant political activism (Mostly, but not all, from the left side of the spectrum at the moment) that seems to be occuring under the current administration in the USA. Edit: As others have said we have the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court as well working backstops.
Sometimes judges do cock things up, and you wonder what they were thinking. More often, there is genuine room for disagreement about how a law should be interpreted.
There are all going to be negative because it is a risk assessment. i.e what can go wrong so lets plan to handle it if it happens. I am sure the councils have another document about what would be beneficial to the council. It should be reported as "Councils getting prepared for Brexit."
Hah! Yes every council will have a "what would be beneficial to the council" Brexit planning document... aka an empty sheet of paper.
I bet no 1 would be - less pressure on social housing if immigration fell. I could go on, but well.
Having worked for the public sector, nobody creates a 'things that will be lovely' register. Prince II (which was, in my day, the standard for project management) requires a comprehensive risk register to be created and updated within the project or program life cycle. The Pembrokeshire document looks as if it's using the Prince II template.
TLDR; Risk registers aren't supposed to be feel-good documents.
PRINCE II defines a risk in such a way that they can have a positive or negative impact.
This really isn't much of a reveal though, everyone knows there are downside risks around Brexit, it would be really daft if councils didn't have plans in place.
I've always thought it odd that 'opportunities' are held on the register, but then methodologies don't always make sense.
Then when the contest comes and JRM announces he has no intention of standing and urges his supporters to support Boris its hard to see how he can be stopped...
Quite. I just don't understand how people think that Tory MPs, about 40% of whom voted Leave, are going to manufacture the outcome of a leadership election to put two Remainers to the party vote.
Tory MPs have never deserved their soubriquet, the most sophisticated electorate in the world. Invariably they elect the wrong leader -- by which I do not mean with hindsight but they elect the leader they did not intend, going right back to Mrs Thatcher whose election depended on Airey Neave keeping secret that she was in with a real chance.
The 40 per cent of Leave-voting backbenchers, who by the way do not feel strongly enough about it to write 48 letters to the 1922, will not vote as a block and are probably not capable of doing so.
Hunt, Javid or Hammond. Assuming Theresa May does stand down: she might easily go for another walk and decide to stay on.
If Conservative MPs are at all concerned about preserving their seats, and I think they are, then Johnson starts with a huge advantage over all other contenders. And any Brexiteer on the final ballot of members would clearly win over a Remainer. Moreover, you can be sure that his team will make sure that more of such polls are commissioned and published in the run up to any contest:
YouGov 23rd July
"Which of these would make the best PM" (Con voters) Johnson 24% Rees Mogg 20% Davidson 9% Javid 4% Hunt 2%
Voting intentions at a general election with different Con leaders (All voters) May - Con 38% Lab 39%: 1% behind Johnson - Con 38% Lab 38%: Level Rees Mogg - Con 35% Lab 40%: 5% behind Gove - Con 30% Lab 40%: 10% behind Javid - Con 29% Lab 40%: 11% behind Hunt - Con 29% Lab 41%: 12% behind
Jeremy Dein QC played a canny game by emphasising the Criminal Procedure Rules, compliance with which, as he reminded the Court, is considered of utmost importance by Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division.
How dastardly for defence counsel to be a stickler for the rules.
Robinson will be re-convicted I'd guess, but it's still important that he be convicted *fairly*.
We don't do kangaroo courts just because the defendant is one of the worst people alive. That's not who we are.
Jeremy Dein QC played a canny game by emphasising the Criminal Procedure Rules, compliance with which, as he reminded the Court, is considered of utmost importance by Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division.
How dastardly for defence counsel to be a stickler for the rules.
Robinson will be re-convicted I'd guess, but it's still important that he be convicted *fairly*.
We don't do kangaroo courts just because the defendant is one of the worst people alive. That's not who we are.
Indeed. I'd like to think the judge will be sent on a training course to remind him/her of the importance of getting procedures right.
" The particulars of the contempt were not put to the appellant and the appellant was not given the opportunity to admit or deny the contempt. "
What the...?? So now all his supporters are going to go bonkers, does a crown court judge really understand so little about due process and have no-one to tell him when he’s about to make a mistake?
They have counsel on one side telling them they are about to make a mistake, and counsel on t'other telling them they aren't. They get it wrong all the time, why do you think the Court of Appeal stays in business? And the Supreme Court finds the Court of Appeal got it wrong in about 40% of the cases it hears.
A good example of this is Heather Ilott v Blue Cross. After the County Court and Court of Appeal ruled in her favour, the Supreme Court resoundingly overturned the lower courts' decisions, and in the process, overturned about 15 years' worth of precedents in Probate cases.
The tweet made me smile, but Boris has to cement his appear across the whole electorate, not just the 100,000 or so Tory members, who tend to be more royalist than any king over the water.
Jeremy Dein QC played a canny game by emphasising the Criminal Procedure Rules, compliance with which, as he reminded the Court, is considered of utmost importance by Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division.
How dastardly for defence counsel to be a stickler for the rules.
Robinson will be re-convicted I'd guess, but it's still important that he be convicted *fairly*.
We don't do kangaroo courts just because the defendant is one of the worst people alive. That's not who we are.
Indeed. I'd like to think the judge will be sent on a training course to remind him/her of the importance of getting procedures right.
My guess is all the undue haste, leading to this massive cock-up, was caused by the judge wanting to avoid a media circus.
As my old Maths teacher would say, more haste less speed.
Cook keeping up his good form. Out for 13 in 38 minutes today. Why is he still in the team, anyone?
Because we can't even find one decent opener, let alone two.
To be fair, we can - just not very often. Hobbs/Sutcliffe weren't dreadful.
I meant, at this moment in time we can't find one decent opener let alone two. Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Hutton, Boycott, Gooch, Atherton, Stewart, Vaughan, Trescothick were all quite handy. But look who we've tried in the last five years or so - Compton, Root, Robson, Jennings, Hameed, Duckett, Stoneman, Lyth, Bell, Trott...
If we get rid of Cook (which on his current form we probably should) we'll have no opening partnership at all.
Move Bairstow up to open and look for a youngster. Who knows, Hameed might just rediscover his obvious ability to bat....
Agreed, it’s that this particular case should have been one that the judge knew would be high profile. The quashing of his conviction on the grounds of process feeds into his narrative about being hard done by.
As horrible as defending that great fuckbag is, he was arrested, charged, tried and convicted in five hours, without anyone ever having bothered to explain to him what he was pleading to. That's not cricket.
The rule of law, if it means anything, has to apply to everyone equally including spherical headed nazi morons.
Yep, the test of these things is how we treat those with whom we vehemently disagree. People who we consider to be utter scumbags are still entitled to the protections of the law.
Wow, yet more journalists confusing border checks of people with “Freedom of Movement”, which specifically in EU terminology means entitlement to National Insurance numbers and state benefits, nothing whatsoever to do with borders.
Oh, and of course there’s precisely no chance of the UK doing anything about the NI goods border, that’s entirely Varakdar’s and Drunker’s problem if there’s no deal.
Jeremy Dein QC played a canny game by emphasising the Criminal Procedure Rules, compliance with which, as he reminded the Court, is considered of utmost importance by Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division.
How dastardly for defence counsel to be a stickler for the rules.
Robinson will be re-convicted I'd guess, but it's still important that he be convicted *fairly*.
We don't do kangaroo courts just because the defendant is one of the worst people alive. That's not who we are.
Careful - on the Leeds matter he is innocent until proven guilty.
Jeremy Dein QC played a canny game by emphasising the Criminal Procedure Rules, compliance with which, as he reminded the Court, is considered of utmost importance by Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division.
How dastardly for defence counsel to be a stickler for the rules.
Robinson will be re-convicted I'd guess, but it's still important that he be convicted *fairly*.
We don't do kangaroo courts just because the defendant is one of the worst people alive. That's not who we are.
Careful - on the Leeds matter he is innocent until proven guilty.
Wow, yet more journalists confusing border checks of people with “Freedom of Movement”, which specifically in EU terminology means entitlement to National Insurance numbers and state benefits, nothing whatsoever to do with borders.
I was surprised Mr Glenn posted that. I thought he was better informed.....
There are all going to be negative because it is a risk assessment. i.e what can go wrong so lets plan to handle it if it happens. I am sure the councils have another document about what would be beneficial to the council. It should be reported as "Councils getting prepared for Brexit."
Hah! Yes every council will have a "what would be beneficial to the council" Brexit planning document... aka an empty sheet of paper.
I bet no 1 would be - less pressure on social housing if immigration fell. I could go on, but well.
Having worked for the public sector, nobody creates a 'things that will be lovely' register. Prince II (which was, in my day, the standard for project management) requires a comprehensive risk register to be created and updated within the project or program life cycle. The Pembrokeshire document looks as if it's using the Prince II template.
TLDR; Risk registers aren't supposed to be feel-good documents.
PRINCE II defines a risk in such a way that they can have a positive or negative impact.
This really isn't much of a reveal though, everyone knows there are downside risks around Brexit, it would be really daft if councils didn't have plans in place.
I've always thought it odd that 'opportunities' are held on the register, but then methodologies don't always make sense.
Yeah one of the things I disliked most about having to learn PRINCE II was the way they define things using the wrong words. If you look up the definition of 'risk' in the dictionary, it's about bad things happening. I can't help but suspect they do this so that if you took the test without reading the materials you would fail.
That is a truly extraordinary letter, and tends to support my comment about Corbyn living all his life in an echo chamber. That said, it goes further than I would ever have expected even of him?
Surely, if the allegation he conspired with the police to evict Jewish attendees to appease activists who were openly racist is substantiated, even he's finished?
Yes if that allegation is true he is finished.
Unlike Cressida Dick , who was cleared by a jury of any blame.
Jeremy Dein QC played a canny game by emphasising the Criminal Procedure Rules, compliance with which, as he reminded the Court, is considered of utmost importance by Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division.
How dastardly for defence counsel to be a stickler for the rules.
Robinson will be re-convicted I'd guess, but it's still important that he be convicted *fairly*.
We don't do kangaroo courts just because the defendant is one of the worst people alive. That's not who we are.
Careful - on the Leeds matter he is innocent until proven guilty.
Jeremy Dein QC played a canny game by emphasising the Criminal Procedure Rules, compliance with which, as he reminded the Court, is considered of utmost importance by Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division.
How dastardly for defence counsel to be a stickler for the rules.
Robinson will be re-convicted I'd guess, but it's still important that he be convicted *fairly*.
We don't do kangaroo courts just because the defendant is one of the worst people alive. That's not who we are.
Careful - on the Leeds matter he is innocent until proven guilty.
Wow, yet more journalists confusing border checks of people with “Freedom of Movement”, which specifically in EU terminology means entitlement to National Insurance numbers and state benefits, nothing whatsoever to do with borders.
Oh, and of course there’s precisely no chance of the UK doing anything about the NI goods border, that’s entirely Varakdar’s and Drunker’s problem if there’s no deal.
The UK government will have its hands full ensuring there is adequate food to worry about things like National Insurance numbers.
Then when the contest comes and JRM announces he has no intention of standing and urges his supporters to support Boris its hard to see how he can be stopped...
Quite. I just don't understand how people think that Tory MPs, about 40% of whom voted Leave, are going to manufacture the outcome of a leadership election to put two Remainers to the party vote.
Tory MPs have never deserved their soubriquet, the most sophisticated electorate in the world. Invariably they elect the wrong leader -- by which I do not mean with hindsight but they elect the leader they did not intend, going right back to Mrs Thatcher whose election depended on Airey Neave keeping secret that she was in with a real chance.
The 40 per cent of Leave-voting backbenchers, who by the way do not feel strongly enough about it to write 48 letters to the 1922, will not vote as a block and are probably not capable of doing so.
Hunt, Javid or Hammond. Assuming Theresa May does stand down: she might easily go for another walk and decide to stay on.
If Conservative MPs are at all concerned about preserving their seats, and I think they are, then Johnson starts with a huge advantage over all other contenders. And any Brexiteer on the final ballot of members would clearly win over a Remainer. Moreover, you can be sure that his team will make sure that more of such polls are commissioned and published in the run up to any contest:
YouGov 23rd July
"Which of these would make the best PM" (Con voters) Johnson 24% Rees Mogg 20% Davidson 9% Javid 4% Hunt 2%
Voting intentions at a general election with different Con leaders (All voters) May - Con 38% Lab 39%: 1% behind Johnson - Con 38% Lab 38%: Level Rees Mogg - Con 35% Lab 40%: 5% behind Gove - Con 30% Lab 40%: 10% behind Javid - Con 29% Lab 40%: 11% behind Hunt - Con 29% Lab 41%: 12% behind
(Hammond - Not worth even asking about)
Yes -- and I used to say the same myself on this very pb: Boris is charismatic and won mayor twice and Brexit once. But events have changed my mind: outriders for the other candidates will be showing backbenchers lists of Boris's unfortunate remarks and pointing to the hole Jeremy Corbyn has dug for Labour over antisemitism. "Why take the risk?" they will ask.
And that poll is rubbish, btw. You can see from the order of batting it just measures name recognition. They'd have got the same results by showing photos and asking respondents to name them. Whoever becomes the new PM will soon be famous.
Jeremy Dein QC played a canny game by emphasising the Criminal Procedure Rules, compliance with which, as he reminded the Court, is considered of utmost importance by Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division.
How dastardly for defence counsel to be a stickler for the rules.
Robinson will be re-convicted I'd guess, but it's still important that he be convicted *fairly*.
We don't do kangaroo courts just because the defendant is one of the worst people alive. That's not who we are.
Careful - on the Leeds matter he is innocent until proven guilty.
So are Akhtar and others
Well we don't know - that's more like Schrödinger's cat. All will be revealed in due course, no doubt.
Wow, yet more journalists confusing border checks of people with “Freedom of Movement”, which specifically in EU terminology means entitlement to National Insurance numbers and state benefits, nothing whatsoever to do with borders.
Oh, and of course there’s precisely no chance of the UK doing anything about the NI goods border, that’s entirely Varakdar’s and Drunker’s problem if there’s no deal.
The UK government will have its hands full ensuring there is adequate food to worry about things like National Insurance numbers.
Wow, yet more journalists confusing border checks of people with “Freedom of Movement”, which specifically in EU terminology means entitlement to National Insurance numbers and state benefits, nothing whatsoever to do with borders.
Oh, and of course there’s precisely no chance of the UK doing anything about the NI goods border, that’s entirely Varakdar’s and Drunker’s problem if there’s no deal.
Has the process for EU citizens already here to legitimise themselves yet?
Time is getting tight to be able to determine who is and isn't entitled to work here. So if, say, it has not been completed by no deal time then the govt won't know who is eligible to live and work here and will presumably have to give such authorisation to everyone.
There are all going to be negative because it is a risk assessment. i.e what can go wrong so lets plan to handle it if it happens. I am sure the councils have another document about what would be beneficial to the council. It should be reported as "Councils getting prepared for Brexit."
Hah! Yes every council will have a "what would be beneficial to the council" Brexit planning document... aka an empty sheet of paper.
I bet no 1 would be - less pressure on social housing if immigration fell. I could go on, but well.
Having worked for the public sector, nobody creates a 'things that will be lovely' register. Prince II (which was, in my day, the standard for project management) requires a comprehensive risk register to be created and updated within the project or program life cycle. The Pembrokeshire document looks as if it's using the Prince II template.
TLDR; Risk registers aren't supposed to be feel-good documents.
PRINCE II defines a risk in such a way that they can have a positive or negative impact.
This really isn't much of a reveal though, everyone knows there are downside risks around Brexit, it would be really daft if councils didn't have plans in place.
I've always thought it odd that 'opportunities' are held on the register, but then methodologies don't always make sense.
Yeah one of the things I disliked most about having to learn PRINCE II was the way they define things using the wrong words. If you look up the definition of 'risk' in the dictionary, it's about bad things happening. I can't help but suspect they do this so that if you took the test without reading the materials you would fail.
Don’t ever do PMP - they use some of the same words as P2 but with different, sometimes even opposite meanings!
English juries don't clear people of any blame, they just find that the prosecution has failed to prove the specific charges made against a defendant. There is a world of difference.
I am mystified by your rabid Dick worship. She is just a lucky woman - at least a lot luckier than Jean Charles de Menezes.
Wow, yet more journalists confusing border checks of people with “Freedom of Movement”, which specifically in EU terminology means entitlement to National Insurance numbers and state benefits, nothing whatsoever to do with borders.
Oh, and of course there’s precisely no chance of the UK doing anything about the NI goods border, that’s entirely Varakdar’s and Drunker’s problem if there’s no deal.
The UK government will have its hands full ensuring there is adequate food to worry about things like National Insurance numbers.
it's just any old shite isnt it ?
Germany is facing a disatrous harvest this year as are many other EU country.
That is a truly extraordinary letter, and tends to support my comment about Corbyn living all his life in an echo chamber. That said, it goes further than I would ever have expected even of him?
Surely, if the allegation he conspired with the police to evict Jewish attendees to appease activists who were openly racist is substantiated, even he's finished?
Yes if that allegation is true he is finished.
Unlike Cressida Dick , who was cleared by a jury of any blame.
Wow, yet more journalists confusing border checks of people with “Freedom of Movement”, which specifically in EU terminology means entitlement to National Insurance numbers and state benefits, nothing whatsoever to do with borders.
Oh, and of course there’s precisely no chance of the UK doing anything about the NI goods border, that’s entirely Varakdar’s and Drunker’s problem if there’s no deal.
The UK government will have its hands full ensuring there is adequate food to worry about things like National Insurance numbers.
You do know they have to actively hand out the NI numbers to immigrants? If they have their hands full and don’t do so for a bit then that’s probably okay by most people.
Wow, yet more journalists confusing border checks of people with “Freedom of Movement”, which specifically in EU terminology means entitlement to National Insurance numbers and state benefits, nothing whatsoever to do with borders.
Oh, and of course there’s precisely no chance of the UK doing anything about the NI goods border, that’s entirely Varakdar’s and Drunker’s problem if there’s no deal.
The UK government will have its hands full ensuring there is adequate food to worry about things like National Insurance numbers.
it's just any old shite isnt it ?
Germany is facing a disatrous harvest this year as are many other EU country.
Wow, yet more journalists confusing border checks of people with “Freedom of Movement”, which specifically in EU terminology means entitlement to National Insurance numbers and state benefits, nothing whatsoever to do with borders.
Oh, and of course there’s precisely no chance of the UK doing anything about the NI goods border, that’s entirely Varakdar’s and Drunker’s problem if there’s no deal.
The UK government will have its hands full ensuring there is adequate food to worry about things like National Insurance numbers.
it's just any old shite isnt it ?
Germany is facing a disatrous harvest this year as are many other EU country.
Wow, yet more journalists confusing border checks of people with “Freedom of Movement”, which specifically in EU terminology means entitlement to National Insurance numbers and state benefits, nothing whatsoever to do with borders.
Oh, and of course there’s precisely no chance of the UK doing anything about the NI goods border, that’s entirely Varakdar’s and Drunker’s problem if there’s no deal.
The UK government will have its hands full ensuring there is adequate food to worry about things like National Insurance numbers.
it's just any old shite isnt it ?
Germany is facing a disatrous harvest this year as are many other EU country.
But not because of a man-made calamity called Brexit.
We get no rain the same as everyone else, round me the shops are still full. The impact of the sever summer will hit us long before Brexit, when spuds double in price will you be telling me we havent left yet ?
In any event now that China has stopped buying US farm goods, there lots more to go around.
Wow, yet more journalists confusing border checks of people with “Freedom of Movement”, which specifically in EU terminology means entitlement to National Insurance numbers and state benefits, nothing whatsoever to do with borders.
Oh, and of course there’s precisely no chance of the UK doing anything about the NI goods border, that’s entirely Varakdar’s and Drunker’s problem if there’s no deal.
The UK government will have its hands full ensuring there is adequate food to worry about things like National Insurance numbers.
it's just any old shite isnt it ?
Germany is facing a disatrous harvest this year as are many other EU country.
Wow, yet more journalists confusing border checks of people with “Freedom of Movement”, which specifically in EU terminology means entitlement to National Insurance numbers and state benefits, nothing whatsoever to do with borders.
Oh, and of course there’s precisely no chance of the UK doing anything about the NI goods border, that’s entirely Varakdar’s and Drunker’s problem if there’s no deal.
The UK government will have its hands full ensuring there is adequate food to worry about things like National Insurance numbers.
You do know they have to actively hand out the NI numbers to immigrants? If they have their hands full and don’t do so for a bit then that’s probably okay by most people.
If the state breaks down to that extent, enforcing immigration controls at the point where people are employed won't be top of the list.
There are all going to be negative because it is a risk assessment. i.e what can go wrong so lets plan to handle it if it happens. I am sure the councils have another document about what would be beneficial to the council. It should be reported as "Councils getting prepared for Brexit."
Hah! Yes every council will have a "what would be beneficial to the council" Brexit planning document... aka an empty sheet of paper.
I bet no 1 would be - less pressure on social housing if immigration fell. I could go on, but well.
Having worked for the public sector, nobody creates a 'things that will be lovely' register. Prince II (which was, in my day, the standard for project management) requires a comprehensive risk register to be created and updated within the project or program life cycle. The Pembrokeshire document looks as if it's using the Prince II template.
TLDR; Risk registers aren't supposed to be feel-good documents.
PRINCE II defines a risk in such a way that they can have a positive or negative impact.
This really isn't much of a reveal though, everyone knows there are downside risks around Brexit, it would be really daft if councils didn't have plans in place.
I've always thought it odd that 'opportunities' are held on the register, but then methodologies don't always make sense.
Yeah one of the things I disliked most about having to learn PRINCE II was the way they define things using the wrong words. If you look up the definition of 'risk' in the dictionary, it's about bad things happening. I can't help but suspect they do this so that if you took the test without reading the materials you would fail.
Don’t ever do PMP - they use some of the same words as P2 but with different, sometimes even opposite meanings!
Fianna Fail and Fine Gael spent nearly 100 years hating each other over which side they were on in the 1922 civil war. Now they are in a confidence and supply arrangement - the former larger party propping up the latter.
Strange how things change in Irish politics - and the impact the 2008 crash created.
Comments
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/08/01/1533116572000/Grant-Shapps-resigns-from-blockchain-positions-after-FTAV-discovers-secret-pay-deal-/
So now all his supporters are going to go bonkers, does a crown court judge really understand so little about due process and have no-one to tell him when he’s about to make a mistake?
Surely, if the allegation he conspired with the police to evict Jewish attendees to appease activists who were openly racist is substantiated, even he's finished?
Oh, and Cook is bowled by Ashwin.
A system in which appeals are rarely successful or even allowed is a system that has way too much confidence in its own infallibility, which is never good.
His arrest to sentence certainly seemed very fast. I'd like to hope it was more cock up than conspiracy - I do not want to see our justice system reduced to the rampant political activism (Mostly, but not all, from the left side of the spectrum at the moment) that seems to be occuring under the current administration in the USA.
Edit: As others have said we have the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court as well working backstops.
Half his supporters don't care, and the other half don't regard antisemitism as racism.
My guess is he'll be convicted again, and then released in lieu of time served. Though I guess the legal question here is whether filming *near* a court is covered by the same legal restrictions as filming *in* a court?
Bigger courts have biggerer courts, so on ad infinitum
https://twitter.com/GerardBattenMEP/status/1024605982779944960
[What's Mad Hattie up to these days, anyway? Compared to the current mob, I almost look back on her with nostalgic fondness.]
Hobbs/Sutcliffe weren't dreadful.
I could go on, but well.
If we get rid of Cook (which on his current form we probably should) we'll have no opening partnership at all.
TLDR; Risk registers aren't supposed to be feel-good documents.
The rule of law, if it means anything, has to apply to everyone equally including spherical headed nazi morons.
http://www.thenational.scot/news/16390838.bbc-lawyers-refuse-to-answer-on-air-why-wings-over-scotland-channel-targeted/?ref=twtrec
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/07/18/tommy-robinsons-appeal-what-happened/
Jeremy Dein QC played a canny game by emphasising the Criminal Procedure Rules, compliance with which, as he reminded the Court, is considered of utmost importance by Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division.
How dastardly for defence counsel to be a stickler for the rules.
This really isn't much of a reveal though, everyone knows there are downside risks around Brexit, it would be really daft if councils didn't have plans in place.
YouGov 23rd July
"Which of these would make the best PM" (Con voters)
Johnson 24%
Rees Mogg 20%
Davidson 9%
Javid 4%
Hunt 2%
Voting intentions at a general election with different Con leaders (All voters)
May - Con 38% Lab 39%: 1% behind
Johnson - Con 38% Lab 38%: Level
Rees Mogg - Con 35% Lab 40%: 5% behind
Gove - Con 30% Lab 40%: 10% behind
Javid - Con 29% Lab 40%: 11% behind
Hunt - Con 29% Lab 41%: 12% behind
(Hammond - Not worth even asking about)
We don't do kangaroo courts just because the defendant is one of the worst people alive. That's not who we are.
https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/1024590875622625280
The tweet made me smile, but Boris has to cement his appear across the whole electorate, not just the 100,000 or so Tory members, who tend to be more royalist than any king over the water.
As my old Maths teacher would say, more haste less speed.
Oh, and of course there’s precisely no chance of the UK doing anything about the NI goods border, that’s entirely Varakdar’s and Drunker’s problem if there’s no deal.
No evidence of any appetite for a change in strategy from the EU27 from where I'm sitting.
And that poll is rubbish, btw. You can see from the order of batting it just measures name recognition. They'd have got the same results by showing photos and asking respondents to name them. Whoever becomes the new PM will soon be famous.
https://bit.ly/2vouNwd
Time is getting tight to be able to determine who is and isn't entitled to work here. So if, say, it has not been completed by no deal time then the govt won't know who is eligible to live and work here and will presumably have to give such authorisation to everyone.
I am mystified by your rabid Dick worship. She is just a lucky woman - at least a lot luckier than Jean Charles de Menezes.
Germany is facing a disatrous harvest this year as are many other EU country.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/ernteausfall-wegen-duerre-bauernverband-will-geld-vom-staat-15715204.html
In any event now that China has stopped buying US farm goods, there lots more to go around.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/6/28/17515188/us-cheese-surplus-billion-pounds
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/23/germany-running-beer-bottles-heatwave-fuels-demand/
I don't see it
Irish shenanigans make Brexit more fun.
https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/08/01/is-the-taoiseach-trying-to-silence-micheal-martin-over-his-handling-of-brexit-before-december/
Hard to tell the outcome though.
Strange how things change in Irish politics - and the impact the 2008 crash created.