Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Beto O’Rourke: not the new Lincoln but perhaps following in hi

SystemSystem Posts: 12,173
edited October 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Beto O’Rourke: not the new Lincoln but perhaps following in his footsteps

These are not normal times. In normal times, US presidential candidates are vice presidents, senators and governors: people who already have a record in high office. There have always been exceptions but even then, they usually conformed to the rule in a wider sense. Trump does not conform to the rule. Indeed, Trump fails to conform to many received rules of politics. The easy conclusion would be to suggest that it’s Trump who is the exception and while there’s an element of truth in that, the proper conclusion has to be that the old rules are now very imperfect guides – a conclusion strengthened by how close Sanders came to winning the nomination.*

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    first
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,871
    Second!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,676
    Redacted by super injunction
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    Damned new thread.

    FPT: F1: just checking yesterday's practice times. Verstappen topped both. If you backed him at 5.6 (he lengthened a little) on Betfair, you can now hedge at 2.66.

    F1: ha. Raikkonen for pole has gone from 10 to 21, though.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    Frank Luntz sounds credible until it becomes clear he's just a cheer leader for Trump. It takes about two minutes for his petticoat to show.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,300
    Roger said:

    Frank Luntz sounds credible until it becomes clear he's just a cheer leader for Trump. It takes about two minutes for his petticoat to show.

    I think you mean his toupe ?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    Nigelb said:

    Roger said:

    Frank Luntz sounds credible until it becomes clear he's just a cheer leader for Trump. It takes about two minutes for his petticoat to show.

    I think you mean his toupe ?
    LOL! Not too obvious on radio
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,690
    edited October 2018
    Nigelb said:

    Roger said:

    Frank Luntz sounds credible until it becomes clear he's just a cheer leader for Trump. It takes about two minutes for his petticoat to show.

    I think you mean his toupe ?
    Luntz I think you mean c.....(redacted)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,728
    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    Mr. Jessop, quite.

    The billionaire might just survive. Those working the cash registers and in the stockroom will suffer far more.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    I'm quite happy to boycott them, as I have been doing for the last 30 years or so.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,728

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    I'm quite happy to boycott them, as I have been doing for the last 30 years or so.
    Ditto here, for twenty years at least. And that must hurt them, as I'm the epitome of style - people see my style and pity me. ;)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    F1: Renault looking really good in practice. Some long odds, tiny stakes bets to consider (for perspective, my total stake on all of these was equivalent to exactly one bus fare). The bets are made with two things in mind: Renault looking highly competitive, and Red Bull having a terrible DNF rate. All prices are Ladbrokes, with boost.

    Sainz/Hulkenberg to win, each way, at 651 (each).
    Sainz, podium, 23
    Hulkenberg, podium, 29
    Sainz, fastest qualifier, each way, 376
    Hulkenberg, fastest qualifier, each way, 501

    I fully expect Mercedes/Ferrari to up their game a lot. But things look very close. Red Bull appear to be in a league of their own, but their reliability is very fragile, particularly Ricciardo's. To take the P1 times, if that represented the grid, and Ricciardo had a DNF, Sainz and Hulkenberg would finish 2nd and 3rd. If P2 times are used on the same basis, they'd be 2nd and 4th.

    Even allowing for sandbagging and real improvement from Ferrari and Mercedes, the each way win bet (more than 80/1 to be top 2) does look long.

    Anyway, I do advise only putting on tiny stakes. As always, do at your own risk.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,300
    edited October 2018
    It’s an interesting article, but I think it highly unlikely that O’Rourke will even run. His own declarations that he won’t run were noticeably lacking in the wiggle room politicians normally allow themselves. And he has no national apparatus, unlike all the front runners.
    He’s also young, and smart, and must figure his chances much better in 2024 or 2028 - by which time Texas might well vote for a home state Democratic candidate. Which would make him virtually unstoppable.
    An outside chance as VP pick, I guess.

    As for laying the front runners, I’d be hesitant, particularly in Harris’ case (there were some on her saying lay her when she was recently 7/1 for the nomination....). Unless she self-destructs (a possibility for any candidate), the pattern of early primaries make her a formidable candidate.
    Cory Booker is probably her direct competitor. I’d dismissed him until recently, but this is quite a smart populist policy without glaring flaws:
    https://slate.com/business/2018/10/cory-booker-economic-plan-baby-bonds-reparations.html

    Sanders is too old. Biden possibly as well (and though I think he would actually have made a fine president, undeniably prone to campaign missteps) - still has an outside shot, though.
    Warren, I’m not sure. I think she still has an outside shot too - and undoubted appeal to the progressive wing of the party - but has clear vulnerabilities in a fight with Trump.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    edited October 2018
    There is a tide in the affairs of men, which if taken at the flood...

    Cold logic would say that he should wait. I don’t think that he should follow cold logic.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426
    edited October 2018

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    It is perhaps worth considering whether there is any chance of his being convicted, even if the allegations are true, and criminal, and somebody were to bring a case against him. Recent events must surely have disastrously prejudiced his right to a fair trial.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    Hmm! I can see where OGH is coming from, but not really sure of his arguments. From my following of the US media there seems to be a Blue Wave coming, certainly Rick Scott in Florida is seeing his chances disappear as more and more of his business interests which are entwined in his political business are disclosed, and definitely not pretty. As for Beto, even papers which have traditionally supported the Republicans, are now going Democrat and for sure they wouldn't be doing that if their focus groups hadn't changed direction

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/10/25/1807203/-Right-wing-Dallas-Morning-News-endorses-Beto-for-Senate?detail=emaildkre
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,300
    OchEye said:

    Hmm! I can see where OGH is coming from, but not really sure of his arguments. From my following of the US media there seems to be a Blue Wave coming, certainly Rick Scott in Florida is seeing his chances disappear as more and more of his business interests which are entwined in his political business are disclosed, and definitely not pretty. As for Beto, even papers which have traditionally supported the Republicans, are now going Democrat and for sure they wouldn't be doing that if their focus groups hadn't changed direction

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/10/25/1807203/-Right-wing-Dallas-Morning-News-endorses-Beto-for-Senate?detail=emaildkre

    I think you mean Mr. Herdson.... ?

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    The Philip Green affair begs an interesting question. Why did David Cameron appoint him Waste Tzar? To someone with a carbon footprint equivalent to most smallish African nations it seems an odd decision. What waste was he supposed to be reducing that didn't include himself?

    If you add Brexit to the mix Cameron must be a contender for 'Worst Prime Minister' ever.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,504
    Nigelb said:

    It’s an interesting article, but I think it highly unlikely that O’Rourke will even run. His own declarations that he won’t run were noticeably lacking in the wiggle room politicians normally allow themselves. And he has no national apparatus, unlike all the front runners.
    He’s also young, and smart, and must figure his chances much better in 2024 or 2028 - by which time Texas might well vote for a home state Democratic candidate. Which would make him virtually unstoppable.
    An outside chance as VP pick, I guess.

    As for laying the front runners, I’d be hesitant, particularly in Harris’ case (there were some on her saying lay her when she was recently 7/1 for the nomination....). Unless she self-destructs (a possibility for any candidate), the pattern of early primaries make her a formidable candidate.
    Cory Booker is probably her direct competitor. I’d dismissed him until recently, but this is quite a smart populist policy without glaring flaws:
    https://slate.com/business/2018/10/cory-booker-economic-plan-baby-bonds-reparations.html

    Sanders is too old. Biden possibly as well (and though I think he would actually have made a fine president, undeniably prone to campaign missteps) - still has an outside shot, though.
    Warren, I’m not sure. I think she still has an outside shot too - and undoubted appeal to the progressive wing of the party - but has clear vulnerabilities in a fight with Trump.

    Biden/Harris. East/West

    Biden/O’Rourke East/South

    Harris/O’Rourke. West/South.

    The third option would be a break with the past.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    Mr. Roger, I recall Caroline Lucas being asked why she flies about so much. Turns out her flights are really important for her work fighting global warming. Not like selfish people going on holiday. Their flights are just sinful.
  • Roger said:

    Frank Luntz sounds credible until it becomes clear he's just a cheer leader for Trump. It takes about two minutes for his petticoat to show.

    The combination of doom laden portentousness and avoidance of the big, fat, orange elephant in the room that's brought the US to this point was striking.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Good morning.

    Much has been made recently of Trumps ability to coin catchy nicknames for opponents.

    I am curious if #MAGAbomber is going to stick, and have any effect...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,297
    edited October 2018

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    I'm quite happy to boycott them, as I have been doing for the last 30 years or so.
    You do not need to be convicted of anything; at a campaigning level it is about demonisation, megaphones and media.

    See the commons "spreadsheet of shame", for example.

    Collateral damage in destroyed innocent people is perceived as a price worth paying by campaigners.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,300
    For those actually wagering, probably worth a close look at the 2020 primary schedule:
    https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2020-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/
  • You’d like to think this is fake news, but in the US you can never be certain:
    https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1055912575093792768?s=21
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,300
    Scott_P said:

    Good morning.

    Much has been made recently of Trumps ability to coin catchy nicknames for opponents.

    I am curious if #MAGAbomber is going to stick, and have any effect...

    It can’t help.
    But I don’t think Trump will beaten using the politics of the schoolyard - otherwise TOADUS might already have caught on.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    Mr. P, might not.

    Remember the anecdotes about Republican voters being against Obamacare and for the Affordable Care Act?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Elections in Brazil and Hesse tomorrow.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45988854
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,653
    edited October 2018

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other rata Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    Green became persona non grata a while back. It was the BHS pensions that did for him.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,506

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other rata Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    Green became persona non grata a while back. It was the BHS pensions that did for him.

    I'm probably not alone in not having much time for either Peter Hain or Philip Green.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914

    Mr. Roger, I recall Caroline Lucas being asked why she flies about so much. Turns out her flights are really important for her work fighting global warming. Not like selfish people going on holiday. Their flights are just sinful.

    Sir Philip looking for waste......

    http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article8719501.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/PAY-Sir-Philip-Green-aboard-his-yacht-Lionheart-in-Greece.jpg
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,362
    ydoethur said:

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    It is perhaps worth considering whether there is any chance of his being convicted, even if the allegations are true, and criminal, and somebody were to bring a case against him. Recent events must surely have disastrously prejudiced his right to a fair trial.
    they took the cash in the first place and signed away their rights, they cannot now whinge about it. People nowadays have no principles, just greedy barstewards. Green is an odious creep however.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426
    The SNP have been in power for longer than any party other than Welsh Labour. When looked at with a cold eye, their record is underwhelming. It consists of a series of botched public sector reorganisations, most disastrously of the police, a bill on childcare that was so intrusive and open to abuse that even their own supporters speculated on what they were smoking, and defeats in two referendums.

    It is not surprising their support is dwindling. What is more significant is that, as with the even more hapless government in Cardiff Bay, they still remain far more popular than any alternatives.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426
    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    It is perhaps worth considering whether there is any chance of his being convicted, even if the allegations are true, and criminal, and somebody were to bring a case against him. Recent events must surely have disastrously prejudiced his right to a fair trial.
    they took the cash in the first place and signed away their rights, they cannot now whinge about it. People nowadays have no principles, just greedy barstewards. Green is an odious creep however.
    My understanding - please correct me if I'm wrong - is that NDAs can only cover civil matters, not criminal ones. The question then arises as to whether there had been any behaviour that is potentially criminal. At this moment I haven't seen anything conclusive on that. But if there were, due to Hain's actions a vaguely competent defence counsel could probably get the case struck down in the first hour.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,537

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    I don't think I've ever seen a Top Shop, let alone shopped in one. Clearly I need to get out more, so that I can find places to boycott.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,777
    Excellent header, thanks David.

    Two points to add. This week's Newstatesman features an article by Robert Kuttner, editor of American Prospect. The piece is mainly about Warren, who he praises highly, is definitely running, has money in place, is already touring etc etc. In his opinion she is "likely to be the nominee".

    But, he also mentions Sherrod Brown of Ohio. I had never heard of him. The author says: "For those who think a white guy from the Midwest is the safer strategy for winning back Trump voters, Brown is the man."

    I have taken a tiny nibble on Brown at 70/1 on BF.

    Still available.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,300

    You’d like to think this is fake news, but in the US you can never be certain:
    https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1055912575093792768?s=21

    It’s been reported in previous elections, too, apparently - and it seems the authorities can’t be bothered to fix the problem:
    https://thehill.com/policy/technology/413320-voters-report-texas-voting-machines-changing-straight-party-selections
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    Scott_P said:
    It's going to take a long time to repair the reputational damage done to that country after the stench of the Trump regime is removed
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,300
    The machines aren’t malfunctioning - they are just badly designed, and make ‘operator error’ more likely:
    https://www.texastribune.org/2018/10/26/texas-voting-machines-2018-straight-ticket-midterm-elections/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    I don't think I've ever seen a Top Shop, let alone shopped in one. Clearly I need to get out more, so that I can find places to boycott.
    Even in Arcadia, there am not I.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,892
    Nigelb said:
    With the early Californian primary I think Harris is the one to beat. On Beto, I am not sure. Lincoln became a national figure because of his long and closely reported debates with Douglas that put him pole position in the nascent Republican party. I am not sure that Beto has an issue of even similar salience nor have I seen much to suggest that he is a particularly profound thinker. He might overcome this is he wins but this looks unlikely.

    I could see Beto as a decent VP candidate to Harris. He has a folksy charm and someone from a red state would give some sort of balance to the ticket.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,362
    ydoethur said:

    The SNP have been in power for longer than any party other than Welsh Labour. When looked at with a cold eye, their record is underwhelming. It consists of a series of botched public sector reorganisations, most disastrously of the police, a bill on childcare that was so intrusive and open to abuse that even their own supporters speculated on what they were smoking, and defeats in two referendums.

    It is not surprising their support is dwindling. What is more significant is that, as with the even more hapless government in Cardiff Bay, they still remain far more popular than any alternatives.
    They have no competition and are light years better than the craven useless no-mark opposition. God help us if Tories and their Labour muppet vote sharing , the hapless Libdems or the mentally deranged greens get more seats. The difference compared to previous Labour crooked halfwit governments is incredible. Far from perfect but head and shoulders abov eprevious rubbish.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,300
    Voting machines are a response to the ridiculous length of US ballot papers - even with them, it takes an average of six minutes to complete the ballot:
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/election-security-remains-just-vulnerable-2016
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,892

    You’d like to think this is fake news, but in the US you can never be certain:
    https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1055912575093792768?s=21

    The American electoral system would embarrass your average, ahem, less developed nation.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,362
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    It is perhaps worth considering whether there is any chance of his being convicted, even if the allegations are true, and criminal, and somebody were to bring a case against him. Recent events must surely have disastrously prejudiced his right to a fair trial.
    they took the cash in the first place and signed away their rights, they cannot now whinge about it. People nowadays have no principles, just greedy barstewards. Green is an odious creep however.
    My understanding - please correct me if I'm wrong - is that NDAs can only cover civil matters, not criminal ones. The question then arises as to whether there had been any behaviour that is potentially criminal. At this moment I haven't seen anything conclusive on that. But if there were, due to Hain's actions a vaguely competent defence counsel could probably get the case struck down in the first hour.
    Exactly , no-one has gone near the police , they made claims , were paid off handsomely and are now whinging to newspapers.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    Scott_P said:

    Good morning.

    Much has been made recently of Trumps ability to coin catchy nicknames for opponents.

    I am curious if #MAGAbomber is going to stick, and have any effect...

    Sid and Doris.....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2aBOyP38W0
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,728

    You’d like to think this is fake news, but in the US you can never be certain:
    https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1055912575093792768?s=21

    The USA is really in danger of becoming a non-functioning democracy.

    Democracy depends on the people believing that the electoral system and process is fair. A system and process can be fair, but it gets in trouble if it is seen as being unfair by enough people. Perception is important.

    The arguments over fairness of electoral systems are well-rehearsed, e.g. FPTP versus AV, and each has advantages and disadvantages. But the process by which the system is implemented is vital, and in this the USA is world-leading in showing how it shouldn't be done.

    You need to ensure that people are confident that the vote they cast is accurately and fairly counted, and that is something they are utterly failing in.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220
    All about Peter Casey on rte this morning.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,892
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    It is perhaps worth considering whether there is any chance of his being convicted, even if the allegations are true, and criminal, and somebody were to bring a case against him. Recent events must surely have disastrously prejudiced his right to a fair trial.
    they took the cash in the first place and signed away their rights, they cannot now whinge about it. People nowadays have no principles, just greedy barstewards. Green is an odious creep however.
    My understanding - please correct me if I'm wrong - is that NDAs can only cover civil matters, not criminal ones. The question then arises as to whether there had been any behaviour that is potentially criminal. At this moment I haven't seen anything conclusive on that. But if there were, due to Hain's actions a vaguely competent defence counsel could probably get the case struck down in the first hour.
    NDA agreements about criminal conduct are not enforceable and indeed, in extreme cases, are problematic for both parties because of conspiracy, attempt to pervert and, ahem, blackmail.

    I think that there is room for NDAs which give some privacy to the victim as well as the offender but there is undoubtedly an issue when they are being used to conceal serial offenders. The problem is exacerbated by the extensions of criminal law in recent years into hate speech, etc. as well as a more robust view of what amounts to a sexual assault. My guess is that the government will consult on this but ultimately be reluctant to act as there will be little, if any, consensus.

    None of this excuses the Court of Appeal decision. It is unlikely now that this will be appealed to the Supreme Court as the Court will recognise that there is no point to the order and it leaves another unwelcome precedent where statutory intervention is required.
  • I'm Notting Hill. Seems about right, except that I wouldn't want to live there.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    edited October 2018
    ydoethur said:

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    It is perhaps worth considering whether there is any chance of his being convicted, even if the allegations are true, and criminal, and somebody were to bring a case against him. Recent events must surely have disastrously prejudiced his right to a fair trial.
    Not all harassment or bullying amounts to a potential criminal offence. Even if it did, the evidence may not be good enough and, yes,the issue of a fair trial also arises.

    Worth remembering that the allegations could be that he’s a difficult boss, always shouting, being unreasonable, losing his temper etc. Some people can cope. Others can’t. One of the latter can’t. He/she makes mistakes. Green gets angry. The cycle continues. Relations between them break down. The “trust and confidence” necessary in any employment relationship is no longer there so it’s agreed that the junior member of staff leave and get a pay off and confidentiality and a decent reference as this in the interests of both. None of this is for the criminal courts.

    The allegations may also be very much worse, of course. We don’t know if any of the people involved already went to the police and were told that no action would be taken and hence the settlement route was taken.


    I do not defend Green. He looks from his appearances on TV and other stuff I’ve read to be a bully and to have a hint of the Robert Maxwell about him. But I dislike mob bullying and people subverting the rule of law.

    And, for those who think that the rule of law is some sort of namby pamby nonsense invented by lawyers for the benefit of their own pockets, try living in a country without it.




  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    edited October 2018
  • Re Phillip Green, surely the fair solution would be to allow anyone to break the NDA, provided they first pay back the dosh?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's going to take a long time to repair the reputational damage done to that country after the stench of the Trump regime is removed
    Indeed.

    And yet despite having had Obama and his V-P for 8 years, people chose Trump instead. Perhaps those Obama achievements were built on sandier foundations than we all realised.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318

    Re Phillip Green, surely the fair solution would be to allow anyone to break the NDA, provided they first pay back the dosh?

    Most NDA’s do have a provision to that effect. Though you’d have to be brave to enforce it. Remember that confidentiality may also be for the benefit of the complainant eg if the person leaves after having had a more intimate relationship with the boss than listening to his rages.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,728

    Re Phillip Green, surely the fair solution would be to allow anyone to break the NDA, provided they first pay back the dosh?

    My only experience of NDAs is in the tech industry. Most clauses seem to be that you cannot disclose commercially sensitive information to other parties without permission.

    This has always seemed reasonable. I don't really understand the NDAs that Green and others are supposed to have used.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    I don't think I've ever seen a Top Shop, let alone shopped in one. Clearly I need to get out more, so that I can find places to boycott.
    You are about 50 years above their target market. I used to go there with my kids. The music was incessant and hideous. After a couple of these visits I insisted on online shopping and, tbf, their service was pretty good. The clothes all looked like rags to me but teenagers don’t seem to care about their clothes being properly lined and lasting more than about 3 washes.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's going to take a long time to repair the reputational damage done to that country after the stench of the Trump regime is removed
    Come on Roger,Trump is just another problem of the damaged USA history,Christ sake we had segregation on buses just other 60 years ago and a president assassinated just other 50 years ago.

    Everything wasn't rosy before Trump.

    You probably was saying the same about Bush Jr.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Re Phillip Green, surely the fair solution would be to allow anyone to break the NDA, provided they first pay back the dosh?

    Most NDA’s do have a provision to that effect. Though you’d have to be brave to enforce it. Remember that confidentiality may also be for the benefit of the complainant eg if the person leaves after having had a more intimate relationship with the boss than listening to his rages.
    In which case they are free to shut up and keep the dosh, reportedly a lot of dosh, for what (according to Guardian) appear to be mostly trivial complaints about Green:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/26/revealed-philip-green-paid-seven-figure-sums-to-silence-abuse-claims
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318

    Re Phillip Green, surely the fair solution would be to allow anyone to break the NDA, provided they first pay back the dosh?

    My only experience of NDAs is in the tech industry. Most clauses seem to be that you cannot disclose commercially sensitive information to other parties without permission.

    This has always seemed reasonable. I don't really understand the NDAs that Green and others are supposed to have used.
    Broadly the same save that the parties agree not to disclose anything about the employment relationship or any of the events leading to departure etc save as required by law or court order. In return money exchanges hands. The employee gets a lawyer to advise them and there is boilerplate provision which means that the employee cannot make any civil claim under various bits of employment legislation.

    As a general point you owe a duty of confidentiality to your ex-employer anyway regardless of whether you have signed an NDA but that generally applies to commercially sensitive matters and is not often enforced because it is usually more trouble than it is worth.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318

    Cyclefree said:

    Re Phillip Green, surely the fair solution would be to allow anyone to break the NDA, provided they first pay back the dosh?

    Most NDA’s do have a provision to that effect. Though you’d have to be brave to enforce it. Remember that confidentiality may also be for the benefit of the complainant eg if the person leaves after having had a more intimate relationship with the boss than listening to his rages.
    In which case they are free to shut up and keep the dosh, reportedly a lot of dosh, for what (according to Guardian) appear to be mostly trivial complaints about Green:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/26/revealed-philip-green-paid-seven-figure-sums-to-silence-abuse-claims
    I don’t think it is the individuals pushing this but the Telegraph. Two of them are reported to have supported the injunction.
  • Re Phillip Green, surely the fair solution would be to allow anyone to break the NDA, provided they first pay back the dosh?

    My only experience of NDAs is in the tech industry. Most clauses seem to be that you cannot disclose commercially sensitive information to other parties without permission.

    This has always seemed reasonable. I don't really understand the NDAs that Green and others are supposed to have used.
    The gist will typically be that neither party accepts they've done anything wrong, the company agrees to pay a sum to the individual and not to slag him/her off, and the individual agrees not to slag off the company and not to reveal the circumstances that led to the departure. In addition all claims in either direction are agreed to be settled so that both sides know that the matter is closed.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220

    Re Phillip Green, surely the fair solution would be to allow anyone to break the NDA, provided they first pay back the dosh?

    My only experience of NDAs is in the tech industry. Most clauses seem to be that you cannot disclose commercially sensitive information to other parties without permission.

    This has always seemed reasonable. I don't really understand the NDAs that Green and others are supposed to have used.
    My company has NDAs with customers. The main annoyance is that we can't advertise our expertise in the relevant sector. That's as much detail as I can go into !
    Seems odd to use them for personal matters
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited October 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    Re Phillip Green, surely the fair solution would be to allow anyone to break the NDA, provided they first pay back the dosh?

    My only experience of NDAs is in the tech industry. Most clauses seem to be that you cannot disclose commercially sensitive information to other parties without permission.

    This has always seemed reasonable. I don't really understand the NDAs that Green and others are supposed to have used.
    My company has NDAs with customers. The main annoyance is that we can't advertise our expertise in the relevant sector. That's as much detail as I can go into !
    Seems odd to use them for personal matters
    In employment these agreements are often called 'compromise agreements' rather than NDAs. It's a better term because they're not just about confidentiality.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237
    Hmm

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    You are thinking about this the wrong way.

    Assume Top Shop folds and all their business goes to Amazon.

    Well, that means more money for Blue Origin, and therefore hastens the day when mankind will no longer be dependent on this little blue planet.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914

    Re Phillip Green, surely the fair solution would be to allow anyone to break the NDA, provided they first pay back the dosh?

    Sounds like a plan but now the lawyers have smelled blood I can't see it. There are 30,000 Arcadia employees. Take away the males and the fat ones over 40 and you'll still be left with about 10,000.

    Sue Grabbit and Runne will be buying up call centres as we speak
  • Personally, I've been boycotting all clothes shops and especially shoe shops ever since online shopping became easy. I regard the fact that I'll never have to enter a clothes shop again as a major step forward in the march of human progress.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220
    I think winning would be better for O'Rourke
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220
    rcs1000 said:

    Hmm

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    You are thinking about this the wrong way.

    Assume Top Shop folds and all their business goes to Amazon.

    Well, that means more money for Blue Origin, and therefore hastens the day when mankind will no longer be dependent on this little blue planet.
    I'm hoping Teslaquila comes to the UK shortly.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Hmm

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    You are thinking about this the wrong way.

    Assume Top Shop folds and all their business goes to Amazon.

    Well, that means more money for Blue Origin, and therefore hastens the day when mankind will no longer be dependent on this little blue planet.
    Or you save the money your wife and daughters would have spent on clothes and buy a Tesla. You get a nice car and Elon opens the way to Mars. Win-Win
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's going to take a long time to repair the reputational damage done to that country after the stench of the Trump regime is removed
    Come on Roger,Trump is just another problem of the damaged USA history,Christ sake we had segregation on buses just other 60 years ago and a president assassinated just other 50 years ago.

    Everything wasn't rosy before Trump.

    You probably was saying the same about Bush Jr.
    Remember when Ronald Reagan was going to start WW3 ?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    Cyclefree said:

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    I don't think I've ever seen a Top Shop, let alone shopped in one. Clearly I need to get out more, so that I can find places to boycott.
    You are about 50 years above their target market. I used to go there with my kids. The music was incessant and hideous. After a couple of these visits I insisted on online shopping and, tbf, their service was pretty good. The clothes all looked like rags to me but teenagers don’t seem to care about their clothes being properly lined and lasting more than about 3 washes.
    Three washes! Thats a couple of years!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,728
    rcs1000 said:

    Hmm

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    You are thinking about this the wrong way.

    Assume Top Shop folds and all their business goes to Amazon.

    Well, that means more money for Blue Origin, and therefore hastens the day when mankind will no longer be dependent on this little blue planet.
    :)

    Although Blue Origin have access to too much money, if anything. It's intriguing to think of what else they're spending their new $1 billion a year on. Their new factory, ship, BE4 testing and development, and New Glenn construction cannot be taking that much up. Even adding in Blue Moon.

    I'm fairly convinced they've got some major skumkworks developments going on. Although that's probably more hope than anything else. Certainly there are lots of expensive things aside from rockets that need to be developed for Bezos' dream to come to reality.

    That's one area I criticise SpaceX on with the BFR: they're doing the bare minimum (and IMV skimping even on that).
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,504
    Cyclefree said:

    Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's going to take a long time to repair the reputational damage done to that country after the stench of the Trump regime is removed
    Indeed.

    And yet despite having had Obama and his V-P for 8 years, people chose Trump instead. Perhaps those Obama achievements were built on sandier foundations than we all realised.
    After all the EU did for us, people still voted for Brexit.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    Green seems to be a creep, but I don't know the man. And as far as I know being a creep isn't a crime. But we're dealing with playground rules when it comes to social media, and if you don't join in the condemnation, they may turn on you.

    That's why we get all these fake apologies when someone says what they think. If the woman from Southampton University thinks war veterans are enjoying white, male privilege, that's her right. I think she's barmy, but students like to cause upset anyway.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,300
    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    It is perhaps worth considering whether there is any chance of his being convicted, even if the allegations are true, and criminal, and somebody were to bring a case against him. Recent events must surely have disastrously prejudiced his right to a fair trial.
    Not all harassment or bullying amounts to a potential criminal offence. Even if it did, the evidence may not be good enough and, yes,the issue of a fair trial also arises.

    Worth remembering that the allegations could be that he’s a difficult boss, always shouting, being unreasonable, losing his temper etc. Some people can cope. Others can’t. One of the latter can’t. He/she makes mistakes. Green gets angry. The cycle continues. Relations between them break down. The “trust and confidence” necessary in any employment relationship is no longer there so it’s agreed that the junior member of staff leave and get a pay off and confidentiality and a decent reference as this in the interests of both. None of this is for the criminal courts.

    The allegations may also be very much worse, of course. We don’t know if any of the people involved already went to the police and were told that no action would be taken and hence the settlement route was taken.


    I do not defend Green. He looks from his appearances on TV and other stuff I’ve read to be a bully and to have a hint of the Robert Maxwell about him. But I dislike mob bullying and people subverting the rule of law.

    And, for those who think that the rule of law is some sort of namby pamby nonsense invented by lawyers for the benefit of their own pockets, try living in a country without it.

    To be accurate, though, parliamentary privilege is part of the legal structure.
    One can make a very good case that Hain was abusing it (and given this was only a temporary injunction his behaviour would need very strong justification, which it appears to lack), but he was acting welll within the law, even if he was abusing his privilege.
    His behaviour more likely undermines the future security of parliamentary privilege than the rule of law itself.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    Mr. B, aye. Hain's a buffoon.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,504
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    It is perhaps worth considering whether there is any chance of his being convicted, even if the allegations are true, and criminal, and somebody were to bring a case against him. Recent events must surely have disastrously prejudiced his right to a fair trial.
    Not all harassment or bullying amounts to a potential criminal offence. Even if it did, the evidence may not be good enough and, yes,the issue of a fair trial also arises.



    The allegations may also be very much worse, of course. We don’t know if any of the people involved already went to the police and were told that no action would be taken and hence the settlement route was taken.


    I do not defend Green. He looks from his appearances on TV and other stuff I’ve read to be a bully and to have a hint of the Robert Maxwell about him. But I dislike mob bullying and people subverting the rule of law.

    And, for those who think that the rule of law is some sort of namby pamby nonsense invented by lawyers for the benefit of their own pockets, try living in a country without it.

    To be accurate, though, parliamentary privilege is part of the legal structure.
    One can make a very good case that Hain was abusing it (and given this was only a temporary injunction his behaviour would need very strong justification, which it appears to lack), but he was acting welll within the law, even if he was abusing his privilege.
    His behaviour more likely undermines the future security of parliamentary privilege than the rule of law itself.
    Given that this was a temporary injunction (which I for one didn’t realise) I think Hain is an even sillier chap than I thought he was before.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220

    rcs1000 said:

    Hmm

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    You are thinking about this the wrong way.

    Assume Top Shop folds and all their business goes to Amazon.

    Well, that means more money for Blue Origin, and therefore hastens the day when mankind will no longer be dependent on this little blue planet.
    :)

    Although Blue Origin have access to too much money, if anything. It's intriguing to think of what else they're spending their new $1 billion a year on. Their new factory, ship, BE4 testing and development, and New Glenn construction cannot be taking that much up. Even adding in Blue Moon.

    I'm fairly convinced they've got some major skumkworks developments going on. Although that's probably more hope than anything else. Certainly there are lots of expensive things aside from rockets that need to be developed for Bezos' dream to come to reality.

    That's one area I criticise SpaceX on with the BFR: they're doing the bare minimum (and IMV skimping even on that).
    Elon can't do it all on his own !He's always said ... He will build the rocket !
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    You’d like to think this is fake news, but in the US you can never be certain:
    https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1055912575093792768?s=21

    Specifically they are turning Beto votes I to Ted votes and Ted votes into No-one voted. For.

    So affects both candidates but rather devastating for the Dem/good for the Republican overall.
  • I'm Notting Hill. Seems about right, except that I wouldn't want to live there.

    Sound man.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,728
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Hmm

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    You are thinking about this the wrong way.

    Assume Top Shop folds and all their business goes to Amazon.

    Well, that means more money for Blue Origin, and therefore hastens the day when mankind will no longer be dependent on this little blue planet.
    :)

    Although Blue Origin have access to too much money, if anything. It's intriguing to think of what else they're spending their new $1 billion a year on. Their new factory, ship, BE4 testing and development, and New Glenn construction cannot be taking that much up. Even adding in Blue Moon.

    I'm fairly convinced they've got some major skumkworks developments going on. Although that's probably more hope than anything else. Certainly there are lots of expensive things aside from rockets that need to be developed for Bezos' dream to come to reality.

    That's one area I criticise SpaceX on with the BFR: they're doing the bare minimum (and IMV skimping even on that).
    Elon can't do it all on his own !He's always said ... He will build the rocket !
    Indeed, but they're skimping even on that. He's taking some extreme risks with radiation protection, for instance.

    Before Apollo, the US did the Gemini project to develop the tech needed to bridge between Mercury and Apollo. It's likely that that expensive project enabled Apollo's success - especially in the given time period - by allowing the tech and processes to be developed and tested in parallel with Apollo. IMV that's what Musk is missing out on: getting to Mars is not just about building a rocket and refuelling it.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Worth remembering that the allegations could be that he’s a difficult boss, always shouting, being unreasonable, losing his temper etc. Some people can cope. Others can’t. One of the latter can’t. He/she makes mistakes. Green gets angry. The cycle continues. Relations between them break down. The “trust and confidence” necessary in any employment relationship is no longer there so it’s agreed that the junior member of staff leave and get a pay off and confidentiality and a decent reference as this in the interests of both. None of this is for the criminal courts.

    The allegations may also be very much worse, of course. We don’t know if any of the people involved already went to the police and were told that no action would be taken and hence the settlement route was taken.


    I do not defend Green. He looks from his appearances on TV and other stuff I’ve read to be a bully and to have a hint of the Robert Maxwell about him. But I dislike mob bullying and people subverting the rule of law.

    And, for those who think that the rule of law is some sort of namby pamby nonsense invented by lawyers for the benefit of their own pockets, try living in a country without it.

    To be accurate, though, parliamentary privilege is part of the legal structure.
    One can make a very good case that Hain was abusing it (and given this was only a temporary injunction his behaviour would need very strong justification, which it appears to lack), but he was acting welll within the law, even if he was abusing his privilege.
    His behaviour more likely undermines the future security of parliamentary privilege than the rule of law itself.
    Agree, up to a point.

    Hain - knowing nothing about the case - was substituting his personal view for the courts which had had the benefit of hearing from all the parties. If people think it is OK to do that then it does tend to undermine the rule of law. Why go to court, why trust someone’s legally binding promise if someone else can just tear it all up for no good reason?

    Trial / decisions by Twitter, by the uninformed are not likely to lead to good decisions and can lead to all sorts of unintended consequences eg a company or person being ruined by false or malicious allegations. See Lord MacAlpine, for instance.

    He had no good reason and so far has failed to come up with one for doing what he did. Potentially he could be causing a lot of harm to a number of people beyond Green himself. And who is Hain? Not a lawyer. Not even an elected representative at this point. Brutally, he has no more standing to do what he did than Tommy Robinson.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,504
    Alistair said:

    You’d like to think this is fake news, but in the US you can never be certain:
    https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1055912575093792768?s=21

    Specifically they are turning Beto votes I to Ted votes and Ted votes into No-one voted. For.

    So affects both candidates but rather devastating for the Dem/good for the Republican overall.
    We all laughed when, at the Time of the Hanging Chad, Mugabe offered advice to the US on how to conduct a democratic election.........
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,628
    Off to the Schoolhouse, Mothecombe (near Modbury) for lunch. Giles Coren might just have been wearing his biggest hyperbole boots when he said it was the best place to eat in northern Europe, but I'll report back.....
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,297
    edited October 2018
    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    I don't think I've ever seen a Top Shop, let alone shopped in one. Clearly I need to get out more, so that I can find places to boycott.
    You are about 50 years above their target market. I used to go there with my kids. The music was incessant and hideous. After a couple of these visits I insisted on online shopping and, tbf, their service was pretty good. The clothes all looked like rags to me but teenagers don’t seem to care about their clothes being properly lined and lasting more than about 3 washes.
    Three washes! Thats a couple of years!
    I think Top Shop are the downmarket end of teenagers and fast fashion.

    Therefore to blame, says Stacey forgettable of BBC3, for draining the Aral Sea. Nothing to do with the broken infrastructure put in 50 years ago that loses all the water.

    Had the delight of moving the stuff around a house the other week in procession so that carpet could be laid in each room in sequence, as the floor was briefly exposed.

    The 19 year old person of the household had some old Top Shop stuff, but has now gone to University and graduated to Michael Kors handbags and umpteen brands of shoes.They are all poverty-stricken, these students :-) .
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914

    Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's going to take a long time to repair the reputational damage done to that country after the stench of the Trump regime is removed
    Come on Roger,Trump is just another problem of the damaged USA history,Christ sake we had segregation on buses just other 60 years ago and a president assassinated just other 50 years ago.

    Everything wasn't rosy before Trump.

    You probably was saying the same about Bush Jr.
    You make an interesting point and yes I would say the same about semi literate G.W Bush. Obviously there's someting wrong with the system which gives the voters a choice of two and by the minutest of margins they end up with Bush at one election and Trump at another. Both on any yardstick dreadful candidates and completely unsuitable. Have you ever wondered why we end up with good Popes and bad Presidents?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,819
    edited October 2018
    Excellent article David.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,751
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:
    With the early Californian primary I think Harris is the one to beat. On Beto, I am not sure. Lincoln became a national figure because of his long and closely reported debates with Douglas that put him pole position in the nascent Republican party. I am not sure that Beto has an issue of even similar salience nor have I seen much to suggest that he is a particularly profound thinker. He might overcome this is he wins but this looks unlikely.

    I could see Beto as a decent VP candidate to Harris. He has a folksy charm and someone from a red state would give some sort of balance to the ticket.
    Seward was favourite to in 1860 but had too many people opposed. Lincoln was a more acceptable compromise candidate. A similar dynamic could help O'Rourke.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,300
    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Worth remembering that the allegations could be that he’s a difficult boss, always shouting, being unreasonable, losing his temper etc. Some people can cope. Others can’t. One of the latter can’t. He/she makes mistakes. Green gets angry. The cycle continues. Relations between them break down. The “trust and confidence” necessary in any employment relationship is no longer there so it’s agreed that the junior member of staff leave and get a pay off and confidentiality and a decent reference as this in the interests of both. None of this is for the criminal courts....

    And, for those who think that the rule of law is some sort of namby pamby nonsense invented by lawyers for the benefit of their own pockets, try living in a country without it.

    To be accurate, though, parliamentary privilege is part of the legal structure.
    One can make a very good case that Hain was abusing it (and given this was only a temporary injunction his behaviour would need very strong justification, which it appears to lack), but he was acting welll within the law, even if he was abusing his privilege.
    His behaviour more likely undermines the future security of parliamentary privilege than the rule of law itself.
    Agree, up to a point.

    Hain - knowing nothing about the case - was substituting his personal view for the courts which had had the benefit of hearing from all the parties. If people think it is OK to do that then it does tend to undermine the rule of law. Why go to court, why trust someone’s legally binding promise if someone else can just tear it all up for no good reason?

    Trial / decisions by Twitter, by the uninformed are not likely to lead to good decisions and can lead to all sorts of unintended consequences eg a company or person being ruined by false or malicious allegations. See Lord MacAlpine, for instance.

    He had no good reason and so far has failed to come up with one for doing what he did. Potentially he could be causing a lot of harm to a number of people beyond Green himself. And who is Hain? Not a lawyer. Not even an elected representative at this point. Brutally, he has no more standing to do what he did than Tommy Robinson.
    Well, he has standing in that he is a peer.

    I think what we’re seeig his is more akin to what is happening on a much wider scale in Trump’s America. It is quite possible to stay within the rules of the system, and yet seriously undermine it, if you ignore the unwritten norms and responsibilities on which its functioning depends every bit as much as it does on the rules themselves.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,300

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:
    With the early Californian primary I think Harris is the one to beat. On Beto, I am not sure. Lincoln became a national figure because of his long and closely reported debates with Douglas that put him pole position in the nascent Republican party. I am not sure that Beto has an issue of even similar salience nor have I seen much to suggest that he is a particularly profound thinker. He might overcome this is he wins but this looks unlikely.

    I could see Beto as a decent VP candidate to Harris. He has a folksy charm and someone from a red state would give some sort of balance to the ticket.
    Seward was favourite to in 1860 but had too many people opposed. Lincoln was a more acceptable compromise candidate. A similar dynamic could help O'Rourke.
    But why is Harris not ‘acceptable’ ?

    In any event, I don’t think O’Rourke has a prayer this cycle, even should he suddenly decide to repudiate his avowals that he’s not running.
  • Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Going off-topic, I see some right-on people are calling for a boycott of Top Shop and other Arcadia groups.

    Whilst it is utterly their right to do so, it seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, Green has not been convicted of anything - except perhaps for the evil sin of being a Conservative supporter.

    Secondly, even if a boycott were to kill off those chains, Green won't get hurt much - but it will hurt the staff who work in the stores. And with the rise of Internet shopping, it is unlikely that other high street brands will take over.

    I don't think I've ever seen a Top Shop, let alone shopped in one. Clearly I need to get out more, so that I can find places to boycott.
    You are about 50 years above their target market. I used to go there with my kids. The music was incessant and hideous. After a couple of these visits I insisted on online shopping and, tbf, their service was pretty good. The clothes all looked like rags to me but teenagers don’t seem to care about their clothes being properly lined and lasting more than about 3 washes.
    Three washes! Thats a couple of years!
    You jest, but I understand that expensive £200-£300 plus selvedge jeans should never be washed for that full hipster look. The mind (and nose) boggles.
This discussion has been closed.