Mr. L, Vettel and Hamilton have also come together in the recent past, and Verstappen will be aware he has a chance of a win, perhaps his last of the season (and, moving to Honda engines, maybe the last for quite some time).
Well-behaved women seldom make history. Remain supporters are under no obligation to campaign according to rules that suit you. Leave supporters have given Remain supporters no reason to reconcile themselves to the last vote.
"REMAINERS: KNOW YOUR LIMITS!"
An ordinary dinner party, the sort of occasion we all enjoy. The LEAVERs are exchanging witty stories. And look at the REMAINERs; aren’t they pretty? Look at the way they laugh, they’re delightful. But now the conversation turns to more serious matters.
LEAVER 1: “I wonder if the Government should stay out of the EU Customs Union”
LEAVER 2: “I think it should.”
LEAVER 1: “Good. Then we’re all agreed.”
But oh dear, what’s this? One of the REMAINERs is about to embarrass us all…
REMAINER: “I think the Government should stay in the Customs Union, so that the Pound can reach a level that would keep our exports competitive.”
The REMAINER has foolishly attempted to join the conversation with a wild and dangerous opinion of his own! What half-baked drivel! See how the LEAVERS look at him with utter contempt!
LEAVER 2: “Alastair, we’re going home!!”
REMAINERS: KNOW YOUR LIMITS!
Look at the effect of education on a LEAVER and a REMAINER’s mind. Education passes into the mind of a LEAVER. See how the information is evenly and tidily stored.
Now see the same thing on a REMAINER. At first we see a similar result. But now look. Still at a reasonably low level of education his brain suddenly overloads. He can't take in complicated information. He becomes frantically and absurdly deranged.
Look at these venomous harridans. They went to university. Hard to believe they are all under 25. Yes, over-education leads to ugliness, premature aging and beard growth. And ranting on online political betting fora!
Now, let’s see the proper way.
LEAVER 1: “Good. So we’re all agreed. We should stay out of the EU Customs Union."
REMAINER: “Oh, I don’t know anything about the Northern Ireland Backstop, I’m afraid, but I do love little kittens! They’re so soft, and furry.”
LEAVER 2: “What a delightful thought, you dear, sweet, fragile little thing! I adore you, Alastair!”
REMAINERS: KNOW YOUR LIMITS. In thought, be plain and simple, and let your natural sweetness shine through!
Before the vote, Remain campaigning politicians said there would be no second referendum, this is a once in a generation vote, it would not be politically credible to rerun the vote, people should just get on with their lives and accept it etc etc... but they are not sticking to that now.
On the other hand, it is blindingly obvious that the likes of UKIP/Farage would have continued campaigning to Leave had Remain won, and they never once said that wouldn't be the case
There is a fundamental difference between a campaign to Rejoin and a campaign to frustrate the implementation of the last the people voted
Well-behaved women seldom make history. Remain supporters are under no obligation to campaign according to rules that suit you. Leave supporters have given Remain supporters no reason to reconcile themselves to the last vote.
I believe in democracy. Protecting that has value over and above the result of any individual vote or election.
Mr. L, Vettel and Hamilton have also come together in the recent past, and Verstappen will be aware he has a chance of a win, perhaps his last of the season (and, moving to Honda engines, maybe the last for quite some time).
It’s also worth noting that both Mercedes and Ferrari have been playing the team tactics game in recent races, especially with timing the pit stops to maximise the inconvience to the other team. This will be a lot more difficult with two Red Bulls in the mix tomorrow, it would be easy to mess up the strategy and hand young Max the win.
There is a fundamental difference between a campaign to Rejoin and a campaign to frustrate the implementation of the last the people voted
Which category does the Chuck Chequers campaign fit into?
Leaving with no deal is idiotic but democratic
Chuck Chequers is clearly a campaign to frustrate the government's implementation of the last vote. The difference is that they want to co-opt that vote to go their own way.
In contrast the People's Vote campaign is fundamentally democratic because it respects the right of the people to make the determination about what happens next.
Before the vote, Remain campaigning politicians said there would be no second referendum, this is a once in a generation vote, it would not be politically credible to rerun the vote, people should just get on with their lives and accept it etc etc... but they are not sticking to that now.
On the other hand, it is blindingly obvious that the likes of UKIP/Farage would have continued campaigning to Leave had Remain won, and they never once said that wouldn't be the case
There is a fundamental difference between a campaign to Rejoin and a campaign to frustrate the implementation of the last the people voted
Well-behaved women seldom make history. Remain supporters are under no obligation to campaign according to rules that suit you. Leave supporters have given Remain supporters no reason to reconcile themselves to the last vote.
I believe in democracy. Protecting that has value over and above the result of any individual vote or election.
It’s a shame you don’t agree.
You’ll find that high ground marshier than you think. Democracy didn’t stop on 23 June 2016. The public is entitled to change its mind at any point, not just when you tell them it’s ok to do so. If the public were decisively to change its mind about the merits of leaving the EU before Britain had left, it would be proper, indeed common sense, to stay in it without leaving first. There would be no point going through huge disruption for the hell of it.
Those who wish to campaign for that change of mind are entitled to do so.
I can't see this working out well....are they going to send in the bailiffs if people don't make repayments and risk terrible PR? If not, who is going to bother to make them? Seems like a lose lose, unless the CoE are just willing to write off several £100 million in the name of charity.
It is like taking on the sub-prime of the sub-prime mortgages.
Thy're an aggressive lot in the Wirral aren't they. First they ran one of he nastiest campaigns in recent election history to oust Esther Mcvey and then they turn on one of their own in Frank Field.
Indee Mr Norm.
Edit - although to let it go would be an act of Mersey.
I think that’s probably the worst pun in the history of PB
They both just seemed to flow naturally towards Liverpool. (And incidentally I think you failed to spot there are two puns in that post.)
Mr. Glenn, just coming at it from another angle, for once, what about the Remain option?
Is that status quo forever? Because if another vote is needed now as the general (let's leave the EU) becomes specific (let's leave the EU in this particular way) then every time there's a change in the EU or EU/UK relationship, that should trigger another referendum before such change takes effect, no?
It won't, of course. But that's the logical conclusion.
I can't see this working out well....are they going to send in the bailiffs if people don't make repayments and risk terrible PR? If not, who is going to bother to make them? Seems like a lose lose, unless the CoE are just willing to write off several £100 million in the name of charity.
It is like taking on the sub-prime of the sub-prime mortgages.
Too many of the “Great and the Good” who criticise the payday loans industry, fail utterly to realise who poor people used to borrow money from before the likes of Wonga came along - and who they’ll continue to borrow money from in their absence.
I can't see this working out well....are they going to send in the bailiffs if people don't make repayments and risk terrible PR? If not, who is going to bother to make them? Seems like a lose lose, unless the CoE are just willing to write off several £100 million in the name of charity.
It is like taking on the sub-prime of the sub-prime mortgages.
It depends on what terms the administrators will sell for. If they can buy the debts for £50 million there's a reasonable chance they'll recoup their money. Or they might see it as a way to setting up the credit unions Welby has talked about in the past.
Speaking as a member of the Church of England though, I'm rather dubious that it is the sort of thing they should be doing on their own. As part of a consortium of a dozen charities dedicated to sorting out the debts in an equitable manner it would be different. Acting on their own just looks like Welby meddling in finance again which for all his vaunted background as an oil executive he's repeatedly proven he's not very good at.
There is a fundamental difference between a campaign to Rejoin and a campaign to frustrate the implementation of the last the people voted
Which category does the Chuck Chequers campaign fit into?
Leaving with no deal is idiotic but democratic
Chuck Chequers is clearly a campaign to frustrate the government's implementation of the last vote. The difference is that they want to co-opt that vote to go their own way.
In contrast the People's Vote campaign is fundamentally democratic because it respects the right of the people to make the determination about what happens next.
No. The people voted to leave. So long as we leave that is democratic. The government can implement it as it sees fit and faces the political consequences.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be legitimate because that is seeking instruction (I don’t think that’s necessary because governments are elected to govern).
But you and I both know that the campaign for a second d referendum is just an attempt by some of the losing side to have another go because they don’t like the fact that people didn’t agree with them
But there’s no point in discussing this. We disagree and I suspect neither of us will change our mind.
I can't see this working out well....are they going to send in the bailiffs if people don't make repayments and risk terrible PR? If not, who is going to bother to make them? Seems like a lose lose, unless the CoE are just willing to write off several £100 million in the name of charity.
It is like taking on the sub-prime of the sub-prime mortgages.
It depends on what terms the administrators will sell for. If they can buy the debts for £50 million there's a reasonable chance they'll recoup their money. Or they might see it as a way to setting up the credit unions Welby has talked about in the past.
Speaking as a member of the Church of England though, I'm rather dubious that it is the sort of thing they should be doing on their own. As part of a consortium of a dozen charities dedicated to sorting out the debts in an equitable manner it would be different. Acting on their own just looks like Welby meddling in finance again which for all his vaunted background as an oil executive he's repeatedly proven he's not very good at.
Perhaps the CoE could exercise Christian charity and reduce the APR to, say, 950%?
Thy're an aggressive lot in the Wirral aren't they. First they ran one of he nastiest campaigns in recent election history to oust Esther Mcvey and then they turn on one of their own in Frank Field.
Indee Mr Norm.
Edit - although to let it go would be an act of Mersey.
I think that’s probably the worst pun in the history of PB
They both just seemed to flow naturally towards Liverpool. (And incidentally I think you failed to spot there are two puns in that post.)
The first was just mediocre and not worthy of comment. The second was downright discgraceful
I can't see this working out well....are they going to send in the bailiffs if people don't make repayments and risk terrible PR? If not, who is going to bother to make them? Seems like a lose lose, unless the CoE are just willing to write off several £100 million in the name of charity.
It is like taking on the sub-prime of the sub-prime mortgages.
Too many of the “Great and the Good” who criticise the payday loans industry, fail utterly to realise who poor people used to borrow money from before the likes of Wonga came along - and who they’ll continue to borrow money from in their absence.
There are two points there, are there not? One is that the payday lenders replaced the loan sharks, basically local gangsters and spivs, and because they were under a limited amount of regulation they were at least prone to pressure from the government to change when they behaved abominably.
The other way of looking at it is that when you strip away the verbiage, there is a reasonable possibility that Wonga etc. were actually just vehicles for massive and repeated theft and fraud based on at best a shockingly poor business model and there was always a suspicion that these fake loans they illegally took from people's bank accounts were actually never there at all or at least Wonga connived at their setting up. Which certainly set them in a class apart from the loan sharks.
Speaking purely for myself, I think payday loan companies are no loss whatsoever.
I can't see this working out well....are they going to send in the bailiffs if people don't make repayments and risk terrible PR? If not, who is going to bother to make them? Seems like a lose lose, unless the CoE are just willing to write off several £100 million in the name of charity.
It is like taking on the sub-prime of the sub-prime mortgages.
Too many of the “Great and the Good” who criticise the payday loans industry, fail utterly to realise who poor people used to borrow money from before the likes of Wonga came along - and who they’ll continue to borrow money from in their absence.
I remember as a doe-eyed youngster moving into my first shared house and one of the guys I shared with used an old school loan shark....one night he did a runner and we had to face a couple of gorillas coming round demanding the monies with menaces.
Thy're an aggressive lot in the Wirral aren't they. First they ran one of he nastiest campaigns in recent election history to oust Esther Mcvey and then they turn on one of their own in Frank Field.
Indee Mr Norm.
Edit - although to let it go would be an act of Mersey.
I think that’s probably the worst pun in the history of PB
They both just seemed to flow naturally towards Liverpool. (And incidentally I think you failed to spot there are two puns in that post.)
The first was just mediocre and not worthy of comment. The second was downright discgraceful
I can't see this working out well....are they going to send in the bailiffs if people don't make repayments and risk terrible PR? If not, who is going to bother to make them? Seems like a lose lose, unless the CoE are just willing to write off several £100 million in the name of charity.
It is like taking on the sub-prime of the sub-prime mortgages.
Too many of the “Great and the Good” who criticise the payday loans industry, fail utterly to realise who poor people used to borrow money from before the likes of Wonga came along - and who they’ll continue to borrow money from in their absence.
There are two points there, are there not? One is that the payday lenders replaced the loan sharks, basically local gangsters and spivs, and because they were under a limited amount of regulation they were at least prone to pressure from the government to change when they behaved abominably.
The other way of looking at it is that when you strip away the verbiage, there is a reasonable possibility that Wonga etc. were actually just vehicles for massive and repeated theft and fraud based on at best a shockingly poor business model and there was always a suspicion that these fake loans they illegally took from people's bank accounts were actually never there at all or at least Wonga connived at their setting up. Which certainly set them in a class apart from the loan sharks.
Speaking purely for myself, I think payday loan companies are no loss whatsoever.
I think it is nearly impossible to be in the loan business without having at some point make some tough decisions e.g. from turning down people in need to sending in the bailiffs to recoup unpaid debt.
If you are are a total walk over, you will end up loaning to people who aren't in a position to use the money wisely / nobody will be incentivized to repay you.
That doesn't mean you have to be like Wonga, but not sure CoE are best equipped for that kind of role.
Thy're an aggressive lot in the Wirral aren't they. First they ran one of he nastiest campaigns in recent election history to oust Esther Mcvey and then they turn on one of their own in Frank Field.
Indee Mr Norm.
Edit - although to let it go would be an act of Mersey.
I think that’s probably the worst pun in the history of PB
They both just seemed to flow naturally towards Liverpool. (And incidentally I think you failed to spot there are two puns in that post.)
The first was just mediocre and not worthy of comment. The second was downright discgraceful
Thy're an aggressive lot in the Wirral aren't they. First they ran one of he nastiest campaigns in recent election history to oust Esther Mcvey and then they turn on one of their own in Frank Field.
Indee Mr Norm.
Edit - although to let it go would be an act of Mersey.
I think that’s probably the worst pun in the history of PB
They both just seemed to flow naturally towards Liverpool. (And incidentally I think you failed to spot there are two puns in that post.)
The first was just mediocre and not worthy of comment. The second was downright discgraceful
I can't see this working out well....are they going to send in the bailiffs if people don't make repayments and risk terrible PR? If not, who is going to bother to make them? Seems like a lose lose, unless the CoE are just willing to write off several £100 million in the name of charity.
It is like taking on the sub-prime of the sub-prime mortgages.
Too many of the “Great and the Good” who criticise the payday loans industry, fail utterly to realise who poor people used to borrow money from before the likes of Wonga came along - and who they’ll continue to borrow money from in their absence.
There are two points there, are there not? One is that the payday lenders replaced the loan sharks, basically local gangsters and spivs, and because they were under a limited amount of regulation they were at least prone to pressure from the government to change when they behaved abominably.
The other way of looking at it is that when you strip away the verbiage, there is a reasonable possibility that Wonga etc. were actually just vehicles for massive and repeated theft and fraud based on at best a shockingly poor business model and there was always a suspicion that these fake loans they illegally took from people's bank accounts were actually never there at all or at least Wonga connived at their setting up. Which certainly set them in a class apart from the loan sharks.
Speaking purely for myself, I think payday loan companies are no loss whatsoever.
I think it is nearly impossible to be in the loan business without having at some point make some tough decisions e.g. from turning down people in need to sending in the bailiffs to recoup unpaid debt.
If you are are a total walk over, you will end up loaning to people who aren't in a position to use the money wisely / nobody will be incentivized to repay you.
That doesn't mean you have to be like Wonga, but not sure CoE are best equipped for that kind of role.
With that I would agree, which is why I don't think they should do it, at least, not alone and not as an investment. That said of course, as a major landowner and financier the CofE almost certainly does send in bailiffs at times.
I can't see this working out well....are they going to send in the bailiffs if people don't make repayments and risk terrible PR? If not, who is going to bother to make them? Seems like a lose lose, unless the CoE are just willing to write off several £100 million in the name of charity.
It is like taking on the sub-prime of the sub-prime mortgages.
Too many of the “Great and the Good” who criticise the payday loans industry, fail utterly to realise who poor people used to borrow money from before the likes of Wonga came along - and who they’ll continue to borrow money from in their absence.
There are two points there, are there not? One is that the payday lenders replaced the loan sharks, basically local gangsters and spivs, and because they were under a limited amount of regulation they were at least prone to pressure from the government to change when they behaved abominably.
The other way of looking at it is that when you strip away the verbiage, there is a reasonable possibility that Wonga etc. were actually just vehicles for massive and repeated theft and fraud based on at best a shockingly poor business model and there was always a suspicion that these fake loans they illegally took from people's bank accounts were actually never there at all or at least Wonga connived at their setting up. Which certainly set them in a class apart from the loan sharks.
Speaking purely for myself, I think payday loan companies are no loss whatsoever.
I don’t know enough to comment on your second paragraph, but if there’s criminal offences committed then the directors will be held accountable by the authorities.
It’s a very difficult industry to regulate properly for lots of reasons, with high default rates but providing a valuable service otherwise served by a completely unregulated and physically violent black market. Most importantly, those doing the regulating have no idea what life is like for people who use companies like Wonga.
Maybe there’s an opportunity for the Church or other charities to set up a credit union to enter this market, but they will likely find out quickly that it’s not a sustainable model without interest rates that most middle-classes would consider usurious.
Thy're an aggressive lot in the Wirral aren't they. First they ran one of he nastiest campaigns in recent election history to oust Esther Mcvey and then they turn on one of their own in Frank Field.
Indee Mr Norm.
Edit - although to let it go would be an act of Mersey.
I think that’s probably the worst pun in the history of PB
They both just seemed to flow naturally towards Liverpool. (And incidentally I think you failed to spot there are two puns in that post.)
The first was just mediocre and not worthy of comment. The second was downright discgraceful
I'll be aiming for Severn puns by the evening.
Charles may think it a bore, but I really enjoy it when your punning is in full spate. Keep up the torrent.
Thy're an aggressive lot in the Wirral aren't they. First they ran one of he nastiest campaigns in recent election history to oust Esther Mcvey and then they turn on one of their own in Frank Field.
Indee Mr Norm.
Edit - although to let it go would be an act of Mersey.
I think that’s probably the worst pun in the history of PB
They both just seemed to flow naturally towards Liverpool. (And incidentally I think you failed to spot there are two puns in that post.)
The first was just mediocre and not worthy of comment. The second was downright discgraceful
I'll be aiming for Severn puns by the evening.
That won’t Wash. if you think otherwise you are in deNile. In fact I’d say you’re positively Volga. In any event it’d be ‘El Be-ing around you. I might even Kiel over with the Konstanz flow - it’s driving me inSeine.
Thy're an aggressive lot in the Wirral aren't they. First they ran one of he nastiest campaigns in recent election history to oust Esther Mcvey and then they turn on one of their own in Frank Field.
Indee Mr Norm.
Edit - although to let it go would be an act of Mersey.
I think that’s probably the worst pun in the history of PB
They both just seemed to flow naturally towards Liverpool. (And incidentally I think you failed to spot there are two puns in that post.)
The first was just mediocre and not worthy of comment. The second was downright discgraceful
I'll be aiming for Severn puns by the evening.
Charles may think it a bore, but I really enjoy it when your punning is in full spate. Keep up the torrent.
I don’t know enough to comment on your second paragraph, but if there’s criminal offences committed then the directors will be held accountable by the authorities.
It’s a very difficult industry to regulate properly for lots of reasons, with high default rates but providing a valuable service otherwise served by a completely unregulated and physically violent black market. Most importantly, those doing the regulating have no idea what life is like for people who use companies like Wonga.
Maybe there’s an opportunity for the Church or other charities to set up a credit union to enter this market, but they will likely find out quickly that it’s not a sustainable model without interest rates that most middle-classes would consider usurious.
My understanding is that the interest rates aren't actually the key issue. Yes in terms of APR they are massively high, but the whole point is that you are only supposed to borrowing money for a week or two until your next pay packet comes in.
The big problem is that a significant number of people miss the repayment date, then the likes of Wonga were particularly bad for adding on charges ontop of charges ontop of charges. Therefore your £200 loan, that you should be paying back £220 next week, soon became £400-500 with all the charges, which then had interest added on for as long as you failed to repay.
In order to cover costs you really can't loan somebody small amounts for just a £1-2 "fee", you just can't make that work, it has to be £10-20 to simply cover the cost of doing the transaction / admin.
Mr. L, Vettel and Hamilton have also come together in the recent past, and Verstappen will be aware he has a chance of a win, perhaps his last of the season (and, moving to Honda engines, maybe the last for quite some time).
It’s also worth noting that both Mercedes and Ferrari have been playing the team tactics game in recent races, especially with timing the pit stops to maximise the inconvience to the other team. This will be a lot more difficult with two Red Bulls in the mix tomorrow, it would be easy to mess up the strategy and hand young Max the win.
Speaking of whom, that was also a pretty fine lap from Verstappen, gapping his teammate by a similar margin to Hamilton.
I don’t know enough to comment on your second paragraph, but if there’s criminal offences committed then the directors will be held accountable by the authorities.
It’s a very difficult industry to regulate properly for lots of reasons, with high default rates but providing a valuable service otherwise served by a completely unregulated and physically violent black market. Most importantly, those doing the regulating have no idea what life is like for people who use companies like Wonga.
Maybe there’s an opportunity for the Church or other charities to set up a credit union to enter this market, but they will likely find out quickly that it’s not a sustainable model without interest rates that most middle-classes would consider usurious.
Surely that though is as much an indictment of High Street Banks and their stupid charges as anything else? If they were properly regulated then Wonga wouldn't have had even an official reason for its existence, given it only gave loans to people with bank accounts that THEY (please note) could access over the internet.
TBQH though I feel that if anything is to be done along these lines it would be better done through emergency financial support from local charities. The bizarre thing is I used to run a charity that could literally provide hundreds of pounds to anyone in need of money at an hour's notice and hardly anyone ever applied to it.
Thy're an aggressive lot in the Wirral aren't they. First they ran one of he nastiest campaigns in recent election history to oust Esther Mcvey and then they turn on one of their own in Frank Field.
Indee Mr Norm.
Edit - although to let it go would be an act of Mersey.
I think that’s probably the worst pun in the history of PB
They both just seemed to flow naturally towards Liverpool. (And incidentally I think you failed to spot there are two puns in that post.)
The first was just mediocre and not worthy of comment. The second was downright discgraceful
I'll be aiming for Severn puns by the evening.
That won’t Wash. if you think otherwise you are in deNile. In fact I’d say you’re positively Volga. In any event it’d be ‘El Be-ing around you. I might even Kiel over with the Konstanz flow - it’s driving me inSeine.
We're Avon some good Thames with river puns today. Kennet be kept up?
I don’t know enough to comment on your second paragraph, but if there’s criminal offences committed then the directors will be held accountable by the authorities.
It’s a very difficult industry to regulate properly for lots of reasons, with high default rates but providing a valuable service otherwise served by a completely unregulated and physically violent black market. Most importantly, those doing the regulating have no idea what life is like for people who use companies like Wonga.
Maybe there’s an opportunity for the Church or other charities to set up a credit union to enter this market, but they will likely find out quickly that it’s not a sustainable model without interest rates that most middle-classes would consider usurious.
Surely that though is as much an indictment of High Street Banks and their stupid charges as anything else? If they were properly regulated then Wonga wouldn't have had even an official reason for its existence, given it only gave loans to people with bank accounts that THEY (please note) could access over the internet.
TBQH though I feel that if anything is to be done along these lines it would be better done through emergency financial support from local charities. The bizarre thing is I used to run a charity that could literally provide hundreds of pounds to anyone in need of money at an hour's notice and hardly anyone ever applied to it.
Could small charities really supply the amount of money the pay-day lending industry is doing? It doesn't seem likely they have the billions that the likes of Wonga lend out every year.
As for banks, given they got burned over sub-prime mortgages, I am not sure they are going to be wanting to get into the sub-prime loan business with even more high risk individuals e.g. don't own their own home, so the bank doesn't have anything to recoup if they default.
Thy're an aggressive lot in the Wirral aren't they. First they ran one of he nastiest campaigns in recent election history to oust Esther Mcvey and then they turn on one of their own in Frank Field.
Indee Mr Norm.
Edit - although to let it go would be an act of Mersey.
I think that’s probably the worst pun in the history of PB
They both just seemed to flow naturally towards Liverpool. (And incidentally I think you failed to spot there are two puns in that post.)
The first was just mediocre and not worthy of comment. The second was downright discgraceful
I'll be aiming for Severn puns by the evening.
That won’t Wash. if you think otherwise you are in deNile. In fact I’d say you’re positively Volga. In any event it’d be ‘El Be-ing around you. I might even Kiel over with the Konstanz flow - it’s driving me inSeine.
We're Avon some good Thames with river puns today. Kennet be kept up?
Mr. L, Vettel and Hamilton have also come together in the recent past, and Verstappen will be aware he has a chance of a win, perhaps his last of the season (and, moving to Honda engines, maybe the last for quite some time).
It’s also worth noting that both Mercedes and Ferrari have been playing the team tactics game in recent races, especially with timing the pit stops to maximise the inconvience to the other team. This will be a lot more difficult with two Red Bulls in the mix tomorrow, it would be easy to mess up the strategy and hand young Max the win.
Speaking of whom, that was also a pretty fine lap from Verstappen, gapping his teammate by a similar margin to Hamilton.
Indeed. It’s a very long and technical lap, there was a lot of time available for someone who could get the tyres in the right place and not miss a brake point or an apex. Hamilton and Verstappen nailed their first Q3 laps, interestingly no-one improved on the second run, they all made errors.
I don’t know enough to comment on your second paragraph, but if there’s criminal offences committed then the directors will be held accountable by the authorities.
It’s a very difficult industry to regulate properly for lots of reasons, with high default rates but providing a valuable service otherwise served by a completely unregulated and physically violent black market. Most importantly, those doing the regulating have no idea what life is like for people who use companies like Wonga.
Maybe there’s an opportunity for the Church or other charities to set up a credit union to enter this market, but they will likely find out quickly that it’s not a sustainable model without interest rates that most middle-classes would consider usurious.
Surely that though is as much an indictment of High Street Banks and their stupid charges as anything else? If they were properly regulated then Wonga wouldn't have had even an official reason for its existence, given it only gave loans to people with bank accounts that THEY (please note) could access over the internet.
TBQH though I feel that if anything is to be done along these lines it would be better done through emergency financial support from local charities. The bizarre thing is I used to run a charity that could literally provide hundreds of pounds to anyone in need of money at an hour's notice and hardly anyone ever applied to it.
Could small charities really supply the amount of money the pay-day lending industry is doing? It doesn't seem likely they have the billions that the likes of Wonga lend out every year.
As for banks, given they got burned over sub-prime mortgages, I am not sure they are going to be wanting to get into the sub-prime loan business with even more high risk individuals e.g. don't own their own home, so the bank doesn't have anything to recoup if they default.
For your second paragraph, nor did Wonga.
For your first, you might be surprised. Most parishes in the Church of England have links to local funds left by benefactors in times past that most people never realise exist, and some of them have vast resources that are never properly tapped.
Thy're an aggressive lot in the Wirral aren't they. First they ran one of he nastiest campaigns in recent election history to oust Esther Mcvey and then they turn on one of their own in Frank Field.
Indee Mr Norm.
Edit - although to let it go would be an act of Mersey.
I think that’s probably the worst pun in the history of PB
They both just seemed to flow naturally towards Liverpool. (And incidentally I think you failed to spot there are two puns in that post.)
The first was just mediocre and not worthy of comment. The second was downright discgraceful
I'll be aiming for Severn puns by the evening.
That won’t Wash. if you think otherwise you are in deNile. In fact I’d say you’re positively Volga. In any event it’d be ‘El Be-ing around you. I might even Kiel over with the Konstanz flow - it’s driving me inSeine.
We're Avon some good Thames with river puns today. Kennet be kept up?
If you put more effort it you might get a Forth pun in that post. But I suppose you need to draw the Lyme somewhere. I’m running dry though as my knowledge of rovers should be Dneiper. You’ll probably think I’m just Yellow however.
There is also next-to-no chance of parliament agreeing on the right wording for one. Things are so finely in the balance that it only takes one or other faction to vote it down.
Comments
https://theconversation.com/want-a-brexit-deal-referendum-a-major-voting-problem-is-being-overlooked-102678
An ordinary dinner party, the sort of occasion we all enjoy. The LEAVERs are exchanging witty stories. And look at the REMAINERs; aren’t they pretty? Look at the way they laugh, they’re delightful. But now the conversation turns to more serious matters.
LEAVER 1:
“I wonder if the Government should stay out of the EU Customs Union”
LEAVER 2:
“I think it should.”
LEAVER 1:
“Good. Then we’re all agreed.”
But oh dear, what’s this? One of the REMAINERs is about to embarrass us all…
REMAINER:
“I think the Government should stay in the Customs Union, so that the Pound can reach a level that would keep our exports competitive.”
The REMAINER has foolishly attempted to join the conversation with a wild and dangerous opinion of his own! What half-baked drivel! See how the LEAVERS look at him with utter contempt!
LEAVER 2:
“Alastair, we’re going home!!”
REMAINERS: KNOW YOUR LIMITS!
Look at the effect of education on a LEAVER and a REMAINER’s mind. Education passes into the mind of a LEAVER. See how the information is evenly and tidily stored.
Now see the same thing on a REMAINER. At first we see a similar result. But now look. Still at a reasonably low level of education his brain suddenly overloads. He can't take in complicated information. He becomes frantically and absurdly deranged.
Look at these venomous harridans. They went to university. Hard to believe they are all under 25. Yes, over-education leads to ugliness, premature aging and beard growth. And ranting on online political betting fora!
Now, let’s see the proper way.
LEAVER 1:
“Good. So we’re all agreed. We should stay out of the EU Customs Union."
REMAINER:
“Oh, I don’t know anything about the Northern Ireland Backstop, I’m afraid, but I do love little kittens! They’re so soft, and furry.”
LEAVER 2:
“What a delightful thought, you dear, sweet, fragile little thing! I adore you, Alastair!”
REMAINERS: KNOW YOUR LIMITS. In thought, be plain and simple, and let your natural sweetness shine through!
It’s a shame you don’t agree.
In contrast the People's Vote campaign is fundamentally democratic because it respects the right of the people to make the determination about what happens next.
Those who wish to campaign for that change of mind are entitled to do so.
Edited extra bit: welcome to PB, Mr. R.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45534283
I can't see this working out well....are they going to send in the bailiffs if people don't make repayments and risk terrible PR? If not, who is going to bother to make them? Seems like a lose lose, unless the CoE are just willing to write off several £100 million in the name of charity.
It is like taking on the sub-prime of the sub-prime mortgages.
https://twitter.com/seanjonesqc/status/1040878334983450624
Is that status quo forever? Because if another vote is needed now as the general (let's leave the EU) becomes specific (let's leave the EU in this particular way) then every time there's a change in the EU or EU/UK relationship, that should trigger another referendum before such change takes effect, no?
It won't, of course. But that's the logical conclusion.
Speaking as a member of the Church of England though, I'm rather dubious that it is the sort of thing they should be doing on their own. As part of a consortium of a dozen charities dedicated to sorting out the debts in an equitable manner it would be different. Acting on their own just looks like Welby meddling in finance again which for all his vaunted background as an oil executive he's repeatedly proven he's not very good at.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be legitimate because that is seeking instruction (I don’t think that’s necessary because governments are elected to govern).
But you and I both know that the campaign for a second d referendum is just an attempt by some of the losing side to have another go because they don’t like the fact that people didn’t agree with them
But there’s no point in discussing this. We disagree and I suspect neither of us will change our mind.
The other way of looking at it is that when you strip away the verbiage, there is a reasonable possibility that Wonga etc. were actually just vehicles for massive and repeated theft and fraud based on at best a shockingly poor business model and there was always a suspicion that these fake loans they illegally took from people's bank accounts were actually never there at all or at least Wonga connived at their setting up. Which certainly set them in a class apart from the loan sharks.
Speaking purely for myself, I think payday loan companies are no loss whatsoever.
If you are are a total walk over, you will end up loaning to people who aren't in a position to use the money wisely / nobody will be incentivized to repay you.
That doesn't mean you have to be like Wonga, but not sure CoE are best equipped for that kind of role.
It’s a very difficult industry to regulate properly for lots of reasons, with high default rates but providing a valuable service otherwise served by a completely unregulated and physically violent black market. Most importantly, those doing the regulating have no idea what life is like for people who use companies like Wonga.
Maybe there’s an opportunity for the Church or other charities to set up a credit union to enter this market, but they will likely find out quickly that it’s not a sustainable model without interest rates that most middle-classes would consider usurious.
Keep up the torrent.
The big problem is that a significant number of people miss the repayment date, then the likes of Wonga were particularly bad for adding on charges ontop of charges ontop of charges. Therefore your £200 loan, that you should be paying back £220 next week, soon became £400-500 with all the charges, which then had interest added on for as long as you failed to repay.
In order to cover costs you really can't loan somebody small amounts for just a £1-2 "fee", you just can't make that work, it has to be £10-20 to simply cover the cost of doing the transaction / admin.
TBQH though I feel that if anything is to be done along these lines it would be better done through emergency financial support from local charities. The bizarre thing is I used to run a charity that could literally provide hundreds of pounds to anyone in need of money at an hour's notice and hardly anyone ever applied to it.
Further down the order, Grosjean was some way ahead of Magnussen.
As for banks, given they got burned over sub-prime mortgages, I am not sure they are going to be wanting to get into the sub-prime loan business with even more high risk individuals e.g. don't own their own home, so the bank doesn't have anything to recoup if they default.
NEW THREAD
For your first, you might be surprised. Most parishes in the Church of England have links to local funds left by benefactors in times past that most people never realise exist, and some of them have vast resources that are never properly tapped.