So much positive COVID news out last night...React study, leaked SAGE report that predicts we are all going to hell in a handcart, Oxford vaccine trial won't now report until after Christmas....fun times.
Alternative is this is softening us up to ensure good uptake of the vaccine when its rushed through approval.
Mr. Above, the financial playing field isn't fair in F1.
However, it's the regulations more than the money that's led to the current situation. On top of that, Brawn came from nowhere to win, and that was the foundation for Mercedes' reign. Ferrari has had precious little success of late, so suggesting it's all down to money is not something with which I can agree.
Brawn won by exploiting the rules.
That's motorsport. I used to help my mate prep his car for BRSCC cup events. The rules said something to the effect that the stock air intake had to remain attached to the car so we took it off the engine and bolted it to the floor of the boot. There's always a second a lap in the rule book for those that have the wit to go looking.
This creative interpretation of the rules reached its fullest expression with the 'plategate' incident by Toyota on the Group A Celica. Due to turbo intake design of unmatched genius installing the FIA supplied restrictor plate actually increased power by 50hp.
That was a truly stunning half hour from Rashford last night. Speed, positioning, power, ruthlessness, it had the lot. I've never seen him play that well.
Surely nailed on for SPotY.
Still 2/1 with Hills (I think).
I think there might be value on Ronnie O'Sullivan at 9-1.
Jockey Hollie Doyle won't win but is worth keeping in mind for the long place markets when they appear. This year she became the first woman jockey to win five races on a card and more than 100 winners for the second season running, and breaking the record for a woman jockey. She is, I'd have thought, very likely to be shortlisted.
But will people vote for her? The reason Phil Taylor, Kevin Sinfield, Nick Skelton and Jonathan Rea placed is because they have the fans of the sport backing them. Will that be the case with Doyle? I'm not so sure. Tao Geoghegan Hart might be a better bet for a place - if nominated, of course.
The BBC will want some women on the shortlist and there are not many to choose from. Whether Doyle then gets enough public votes to scrape into a place is yet to be seen but she should at least get to the start.
Marcus Rashford is probably nailed on now even if, on sporting achievement, Lewis Hamilton is more deserving. Hamilton is odds-against on Betfair, btw.
It's a tricky one as it's an unprecedented situation, I think. There have been times when contenders for SPOTY have had non-sporting reasons for backing them (Darren Clarke in 2006 and perhaps Barry McGuigan in 1985 come to mind), but Rashford is in the running purely for his off the field activities. I guess he benefits from being a Man Utd player, but I'm not sure how the voting public at large will view his nomination.
Also, does the BBC have to be a little careful. There was a row concerning one of their commentators who had to get a commentary line on Rashford authorised on the grounds of political neutrality. Can the BBC nominate him for this award? I'm not certain - obviously if he isn't, they'll be a hell of an argument, but the BBC does have to play by its own rules.
Ah, but after last night's hat trick in 16 minutes, there are good enough footballing reasons for Rashford to qualify.
I'm trying to envisage his segment on the show - how can the BBC cover it without getting into politics? It's not like he's been raising money for charity. He's lobbying the government to change policy, which is fine, but is it appropriate for the BBC to have a segment on this without giving both sides of the debate?
I dont think he will be nominated for these reasons, but the campaign he led earlier in the year raised £20m for the FareShare charity.
Fair enough, but as you say, they can hardly nominate him on those grounds.
Another option, of course, is to revert to the old fashioned way. Let the public vote for who they want - no nominations and no phone lines.
We are betting on SPotY as is, not as it used to be 20 years ago when the voters were middle class Radio Times readers, football was not so dominant, and the BBC covered a range of sport. Lewis Hamilton (odds-against on Betfair) would have won several times already in that format.
Tucker Carlson's "lost in the post" Bobulinski revelations are the funniest thing to come out in the election so far
Documents so explosive.... you wouldn't scan, take photocopies or photographs of before putting them in the mail? ....and why would you mail them these days, when you can do any of the above and send electronically....story checks out.
If Tory MPs and lockdown sceptics want to make a difference, they should demand that the Government come clean on the costs of current and future restrictions. They should insist on sound accounting
There are three clauses I’d like to see in public procurement contracts (whether for goods or services) like these:-
1. No contracts to be awarded to companies where any part of the corporate structure is established in a tax haven. Companies should not be benefiting from providing goods/services to the public sector and then be able to avoid paying tax on the profits from such contracts.
As a matter of morality I don't disagree, but the turbulence of the public sector removing all Microsoft products from use will be significant, not only because of Office, but also because of how much runs on Azure, particularly since Amazon WS as the main competitor would also be off the table.
Well, let’s start with companies bidding for new contracts and then think about existing ones.
When I did some work last year for a company (not even the government) I had to confirm that payment would not be made to any company registered outside the U.K. which of course I did.
Making it clear to companies that use of tax havens to minimise the tax paid to the British Treasury on money earned from the British taxpayer will be a very big no-no when they come sniffing for contracts is the least we can expect when money, as we are constantly being told, is tight and businesses here in distress are being told that there is not enough around to help them.
If Tory MPs and lockdown sceptics want to make a difference, they should demand that the Government come clean on the costs of current and future restrictions. They should insist on sound accounting
There are three clauses I’d like to see in public procurement contracts (whether for goods or services) like these:-
1. No contracts to be awarded to companies where any part of the corporate structure is established in a tax haven. Companies should not be benefiting from providing goods/services to the public sector and then be able to avoid paying tax on the profits from such contracts.
As a matter of morality I don't disagree, but the turbulence of the public sector removing all Microsoft products from use will be significant, not only because of Office, but also because of how much runs on Azure, particularly since Amazon WS as the main competitor would also be off the table.
Well, let’s start with companies bidding for new contracts and then think about existing ones.
When I did some work last year for a company (not even the government) I had to confirm that payment would not be made to any company registered outside the U.K. which of course I did.
Making it clear to companies that use of tax havens to minimise the tax paid to the British Treasury on money earned from the British taxpayer will be a very big no-no when they come sniffing for contracts is the least we can expect when money, as we are constantly being told, is tight and businesses here in distress are being told that there is not enough around to help them.
A question of fairness I feel.
The problem will be with any international company. How do you define tax haven, and using it to reduce tax payable on (a) the project in question (b) any other work.
Is moving profits to a lower tax jurisdiction *always* an issue?
I agree with the basic idea - just trying to see how the implementation would work.
Mr. Above, the financial playing field isn't fair in F1.
However, it's the regulations more than the money that's led to the current situation. On top of that, Brawn came from nowhere to win, and that was the foundation for Mercedes' reign. Ferrari has had precious little success of late, so suggesting it's all down to money is not something with which I can agree.
Brawn won by exploiting the rules.
That's motorsport. I used to help my mate prep his car for BRSCC cup events. The rules said something to the effect that the stock air intake had to remain attached to the car so we took it off the engine and bolted it to the floor of the boot. There's always a second a lap in the rule book for those that have the wit to go looking.
This creative interpretation of the rules reached its fullest expression with the 'plategate' incident by Toyota on the Group A Celica. Due to turbo intake design of unmatched genius installing the FIA supplied restrictor plate actually increased power by 50hp.
I admire the creative rule breakers who get away with it - I just think one guy in the fastest car beating his team mate in a sport that not many seriously ever participate in due to cost, is not a comparable sporting achievement to even being a regular in the Premier League, let alone being at Rashford's level.
That was a truly stunning half hour from Rashford last night. Speed, positioning, power, ruthlessness, it had the lot. I've never seen him play that well.
Surely nailed on for SPotY.
Still 2/1 with Hills (I think).
I think there might be value on Ronnie O'Sullivan at 9-1.
Jockey Hollie Doyle won't win but is worth keeping in mind for the long place markets when they appear. This year she became the first woman jockey to win five races on a card and more than 100 winners for the second season running, and breaking the record for a woman jockey. She is, I'd have thought, very likely to be shortlisted.
But will people vote for her? The reason Phil Taylor, Kevin Sinfield, Nick Skelton and Jonathan Rea placed is because they have the fans of the sport backing them. Will that be the case with Doyle? I'm not so sure. Tao Geoghegan Hart might be a better bet for a place - if nominated, of course.
The BBC will want some women on the shortlist and there are not many to choose from. Whether Doyle then gets enough public votes to scrape into a place is yet to be seen but she should at least get to the start.
Marcus Rashford is probably nailed on now even if, on sporting achievement, Lewis Hamilton is more deserving. Hamilton is odds-against on Betfair, btw.
It's a tricky one as it's an unprecedented situation, I think. There have been times when contenders for SPOTY have had non-sporting reasons for backing them (Darren Clarke in 2006 and perhaps Barry McGuigan in 1985 come to mind), but Rashford is in the running purely for his off the field activities. I guess he benefits from being a Man Utd player, but I'm not sure how the voting public at large will view his nomination.
Also, does the BBC have to be a little careful. There was a row concerning one of their commentators who had to get a commentary line on Rashford authorised on the grounds of political neutrality. Can the BBC nominate him for this award? I'm not certain - obviously if he isn't, they'll be a hell of an argument, but the BBC does have to play by its own rules.
Ah, but after last night's hat trick in 16 minutes, there are good enough footballing reasons for Rashford to qualify.
I'm trying to envisage his segment on the show - how can the BBC cover it without getting into politics? It's not like he's been raising money for charity. He's lobbying the government to change policy, which is fine, but is it appropriate for the BBC to have a segment on this without giving both sides of the debate?
I dont think he will be nominated for these reasons, but the campaign he led earlier in the year raised £20m for the FareShare charity.
Fair enough, but as you say, they can hardly nominate him on those grounds.
Another option, of course, is to revert to the old fashioned way. Let the public vote for who they want - no nominations and no phone lines.
We are betting on SPotY as is, not as it used to be 20 years ago when the voters were middle class Radio Times readers, football was not so dominant, and the BBC covered a range of sport. Lewis Hamilton (odds-against on Betfair) would have won several times already in that format.
A footballer has only won it twice in 30 years. Surprisingly niche sports such as cycling and F1 still seem to dominant the winners. However, I would probably liken this year to when Giggs won it, despite not really doing anything special on the pitch, but in addition.to.the massive positive media coverage of Rashford there is no Olympics medalists, world cup winners, etc.
If Tory MPs and lockdown sceptics want to make a difference, they should demand that the Government come clean on the costs of current and future restrictions. They should insist on sound accounting
There are three clauses I’d like to see in public procurement contracts (whether for goods or services) like these:-
1. No contracts to be awarded to companies where any part of the corporate structure is established in a tax haven. Companies should not be benefiting from providing goods/services to the public sector and then be able to avoid paying tax on the profits from such contracts.
As a matter of morality I don't disagree, but the turbulence of the public sector removing all Microsoft products from use will be significant, not only because of Office, but also because of how much runs on Azure, particularly since Amazon WS as the main competitor would also be off the table.
If Tory MPs and lockdown sceptics want to make a difference, they should demand that the Government come clean on the costs of current and future restrictions. They should insist on sound accounting
There are three clauses I’d like to see in public procurement contracts (whether for goods or services) like these:-
1. No contracts to be awarded to companies where any part of the corporate structure is established in a tax haven. Companies should not be benefiting from providing goods/services to the public sector and then be able to avoid paying tax on the profits from such contracts.
As a matter of morality I don't disagree, but the turbulence of the public sector removing all Microsoft products from use will be significant, not only because of Office, but also because of how much runs on Azure, particularly since Amazon WS as the main competitor would also be off the table.
Can you please define a tax haven? According to some definitions, Ireland is a tax haven.
One way would be to exclude all those countries which do not have full transparency over ownership and who do not fully share information with the U.K. or who make it very difficult to do so.
That was a truly stunning half hour from Rashford last night. Speed, positioning, power, ruthlessness, it had the lot. I've never seen him play that well.
Surely nailed on for SPotY.
Still 2/1 with Hills (I think).
I think there might be value on Ronnie O'Sullivan at 9-1.
Jockey Hollie Doyle won't win but is worth keeping in mind for the long place markets when they appear. This year she became the first woman jockey to win five races on a card and more than 100 winners for the second season running, and breaking the record for a woman jockey. She is, I'd have thought, very likely to be shortlisted.
But will people vote for her? The reason Phil Taylor, Kevin Sinfield, Nick Skelton and Jonathan Rea placed is because they have the fans of the sport backing them. Will that be the case with Doyle? I'm not so sure. Tao Geoghegan Hart might be a better bet for a place - if nominated, of course.
The BBC will want some women on the shortlist and there are not many to choose from. Whether Doyle then gets enough public votes to scrape into a place is yet to be seen but she should at least get to the start.
Marcus Rashford is probably nailed on now even if, on sporting achievement, Lewis Hamilton is more deserving. Hamilton is odds-against on Betfair, btw.
It's a tricky one as it's an unprecedented situation, I think. There have been times when contenders for SPOTY have had non-sporting reasons for backing them (Darren Clarke in 2006 and perhaps Barry McGuigan in 1985 come to mind), but Rashford is in the running purely for his off the field activities. I guess he benefits from being a Man Utd player, but I'm not sure how the voting public at large will view his nomination.
Also, does the BBC have to be a little careful. There was a row concerning one of their commentators who had to get a commentary line on Rashford authorised on the grounds of political neutrality. Can the BBC nominate him for this award? I'm not certain - obviously if he isn't, they'll be a hell of an argument, but the BBC does have to play by its own rules.
Ah, but after last night's hat trick in 16 minutes, there are good enough footballing reasons for Rashford to qualify.
I'm trying to envisage his segment on the show - how can the BBC cover it without getting into politics? It's not like he's been raising money for charity. He's lobbying the government to change policy, which is fine, but is it appropriate for the BBC to have a segment on this without giving both sides of the debate?
I dont think he will be nominated for these reasons, but the campaign he led earlier in the year raised £20m for the FareShare charity.
Fair enough, but as you say, they can hardly nominate him on those grounds.
Another option, of course, is to revert to the old fashioned way. Let the public vote for who they want - no nominations and no phone lines.
We are betting on SPotY as is, not as it used to be 20 years ago when the voters were middle class Radio Times readers, football was not so dominant, and the BBC covered a range of sport. Lewis Hamilton (odds-against on Betfair) would have won several times already in that format.
Hmm, Lewis has been beaten by Joe Calazaghe, Chris Hoy, Geraint Thomas and Ben Stokes. No footballers in there. You have to go back to Ryan Giggs in 2009 (another Man Utd player, admittedly) for the last time one won it. Harry Kane (3rd in 2018) is the only footballer to place since then.
An investigation into the Labour Party by the Equalities Watchdog has found it was responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination.
The party is responsible for three breaches of the Equality Act (2010) relating to:
Political interference in antisemitism complaints. Failure to provide adequate training to those handling antisemitism complaints. Harassment A report just published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission identified what it described as “serious failings in the Labour Party leadership in addressing antisemitism and an inadequate process for handling antisemitism complaints.”
The EHRC said its analysis “points to a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it.”
If Tory MPs and lockdown sceptics want to make a difference, they should demand that the Government come clean on the costs of current and future restrictions. They should insist on sound accounting
There are three clauses I’d like to see in public procurement contracts (whether for goods or services) like these:-
1. No contracts to be awarded to companies where any part of the corporate structure is established in a tax haven. Companies should not be benefiting from providing goods/services to the public sector and then be able to avoid paying tax on the profits from such contracts.
As a matter of morality I don't disagree, but the turbulence of the public sector removing all Microsoft products from use will be significant, not only because of Office, but also because of how much runs on Azure, particularly since Amazon WS as the main competitor would also be off the table.
If Tory MPs and lockdown sceptics want to make a difference, they should demand that the Government come clean on the costs of current and future restrictions. They should insist on sound accounting
There are three clauses I’d like to see in public procurement contracts (whether for goods or services) like these:-
1. No contracts to be awarded to companies where any part of the corporate structure is established in a tax haven. Companies should not be benefiting from providing goods/services to the public sector and then be able to avoid paying tax on the profits from such contracts.
As a matter of morality I don't disagree, but the turbulence of the public sector removing all Microsoft products from use will be significant, not only because of Office, but also because of how much runs on Azure, particularly since Amazon WS as the main competitor would also be off the table.
Can you please define a tax haven? According to some definitions, Ireland is a tax haven.
One way would be to exclude all those countries which do not have full transparency over ownership and who do not fully share information with the U.K. or who make it very difficult to do so.
With that definition, Germany could be on the list. Some of their banking stuff is incredibly opaque...
An investigation into the Labour Party by the Equalities Watchdog has found it was responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination.
The party is responsible for three breaches of the Equality Act (2010) relating to:
Political interference in antisemitism complaints. Failure to provide adequate training to those handling antisemitism complaints. Harassment A report just published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission identified what it described as “serious failings in the Labour Party leadership in addressing antisemitism and an inadequate process for handling antisemitism complaints.”
The EHRC said its analysis “points to a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it.”
"Political interference in antisemitism complaints." "Harassment" KABOOM
2. Penalty clauses in all such contracts. Final payments on such contracts only to be made on a staged basis after a period of time so that final payments are not made until after the contract has been completed and it has been determined that there are no faults with the goods and/or no issues with the services provided. A bit like the bonus provisions in city contracts - where payment is not given until 3 or 5 years after the awards.
This would be a major problem for any SME that wanted to work on a government contract.
Staged payments and a delay for final payment to ensure that the contract has been properly delivered? Really? it doesn’t have to be 3-5 years but something needs to be in there to ensure that companies - even SMEs - don’t deliver something that looks nice on the surface but falls apart a few weeks/months later.
There have been numerous initiatives over the years to try and encourage large companies to pay SME invoices within 30 days precisely because cashflow is such a big deal.
Tucker Carlson's "lost in the post" Bobulinski revelations are the funniest thing to come out in the election so far
Documents so explosive.... you wouldn't scan, take photocopies or photographs of before putting them in the mail? ....and why would you mail them these days, when you can do any of the above and send electronically....story checks out.
Shades of CNN and their "Fake but Accurate" Bush II documents. Originals unfortunately lost, but we have nth generation photocopies that were faxed to us....
That was a truly stunning half hour from Rashford last night. Speed, positioning, power, ruthlessness, it had the lot. I've never seen him play that well.
Surely nailed on for SPotY.
Still 2/1 with Hills (I think).
I think there might be value on Ronnie O'Sullivan at 9-1.
Jockey Hollie Doyle won't win but is worth keeping in mind for the long place markets when they appear. This year she became the first woman jockey to win five races on a card and more than 100 winners for the second season running, and breaking the record for a woman jockey. She is, I'd have thought, very likely to be shortlisted.
But will people vote for her? The reason Phil Taylor, Kevin Sinfield, Nick Skelton and Jonathan Rea placed is because they have the fans of the sport backing them. Will that be the case with Doyle? I'm not so sure. Tao Geoghegan Hart might be a better bet for a place - if nominated, of course.
The BBC will want some women on the shortlist and there are not many to choose from. Whether Doyle then gets enough public votes to scrape into a place is yet to be seen but she should at least get to the start.
Marcus Rashford is probably nailed on now even if, on sporting achievement, Lewis Hamilton is more deserving. Hamilton is odds-against on Betfair, btw.
It's a tricky one as it's an unprecedented situation, I think. There have been times when contenders for SPOTY have had non-sporting reasons for backing them (Darren Clarke in 2006 and perhaps Barry McGuigan in 1985 come to mind), but Rashford is in the running purely for his off the field activities. I guess he benefits from being a Man Utd player, but I'm not sure how the voting public at large will view his nomination.
Also, does the BBC have to be a little careful. There was a row concerning one of their commentators who had to get a commentary line on Rashford authorised on the grounds of political neutrality. Can the BBC nominate him for this award? I'm not certain - obviously if he isn't, they'll be a hell of an argument, but the BBC does have to play by its own rules.
Ah, but after last night's hat trick in 16 minutes, there are good enough footballing reasons for Rashford to qualify.
I'm trying to envisage his segment on the show - how can the BBC cover it without getting into politics? It's not like he's been raising money for charity. He's lobbying the government to change policy, which is fine, but is it appropriate for the BBC to have a segment on this without giving both sides of the debate?
I dont think he will be nominated for these reasons, but the campaign he led earlier in the year raised £20m for the FareShare charity.
Fair enough, but as you say, they can hardly nominate him on those grounds.
Another option, of course, is to revert to the old fashioned way. Let the public vote for who they want - no nominations and no phone lines.
We are betting on SPotY as is, not as it used to be 20 years ago when the voters were middle class Radio Times readers, football was not so dominant, and the BBC covered a range of sport. Lewis Hamilton (odds-against on Betfair) would have won several times already in that format.
Thanks Robert, this is just the sort of thing we need so we can judge for ourselves how it's going. Too many of the "pundits" are ill-informed or are spinning a party line. Look forward to Part 2.
That 3.3 day doubling time in London looks bad. Let's see what the ONS data says tomorrow.
London is empty so its hard to imagine an R rate that high
"London is empty"... Er what are you talking about? London has a population of over 9 million people! We are all still here.
I think thats the assumption that 'london' is the central tourist themepark.
London is one of those topics that people who know fuck all about it like to opine on here. Here's a suggestion - people who don't live in London and hate London, why don't you stop talking about London? Or at least stop taking our hard-earned money. One of the two.
It hasn't been a good week for Labour. The folly of a circuit break in Wales, Starmer mowing down a cyclist and confirmation of illegal institutional racism.
@HYUFD the polls are being weighted to account for those white voters without degrees now. So why do you think the polls will be wrong again?
Rasmussen were right in 2016, their final national poll was Clinton +2%, this week they have had a Trump 1% lead or Biden +2%.
Trafalgar were right in Michigan and Pennsylvania and still have Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania tied.
ABC today also had Trump ahead both in the suburbs 49% to 46% for Biden as well as with non college educated whites 56% to 38% for Biden in Michigan and if they turn out in big enough numbers he could again win the pivotal swing state
That does not answer the question. I asked why you think polls are still undercounting white blue collar voters if they are now being weighted for. I didn’t ask “how Trump wins”.
My answer to that would be that the pollsters are using 2016 weightings for white blue collar voters and saying problem solved. The issue is if that category sees another big step up.
There is no doubt we are heading for a very high turnout but Black and Hispanic Americans don't look to be heading out in unprecedented numbers (with some exceptions such as FL). Graduate turnout was already quite high. The NC numbers - if you think they are a good proxy for the nation - are not showing unprecedented numbers of young people voting, quite the opposite. So the turnout is coming from somewhere.
That is why I don't believe the polls. I think this time, like last time, they will underrepresent white blue collar voters.
It's probably more likely related to plummeting poll reponse rates, with those that do respond being highly unrepresentative of their demographic. This is just as much a problem with the data from online panels that the public polls buy in.
We may get a higher turnout, but not necessarily huge. Turnout amongst youth and minorities seems stagnant, and may even fall with a decent ED vote. Any increase in turnout therefore is likely to favour Trump, as the last major demographic with gas in the tank is White non-college.
That was a truly stunning half hour from Rashford last night. Speed, positioning, power, ruthlessness, it had the lot. I've never seen him play that well.
Surely nailed on for SPotY.
Still 2/1 with Hills (I think).
I think there might be value on Ronnie O'Sullivan at 9-1.
Jockey Hollie Doyle won't win but is worth keeping in mind for the long place markets when they appear. This year she became the first woman jockey to win five races on a card and more than 100 winners for the second season running, and breaking the record for a woman jockey. She is, I'd have thought, very likely to be shortlisted.
But will people vote for her? The reason Phil Taylor, Kevin Sinfield, Nick Skelton and Jonathan Rea placed is because they have the fans of the sport backing them. Will that be the case with Doyle? I'm not so sure. Tao Geoghegan Hart might be a better bet for a place - if nominated, of course.
The BBC will want some women on the shortlist and there are not many to choose from. Whether Doyle then gets enough public votes to scrape into a place is yet to be seen but she should at least get to the start.
Marcus Rashford is probably nailed on now even if, on sporting achievement, Lewis Hamilton is more deserving. Hamilton is odds-against on Betfair, btw.
It's a tricky one as it's an unprecedented situation, I think. There have been times when contenders for SPOTY have had non-sporting reasons for backing them (Darren Clarke in 2006 and perhaps Barry McGuigan in 1985 come to mind), but Rashford is in the running purely for his off the field activities. I guess he benefits from being a Man Utd player, but I'm not sure how the voting public at large will view his nomination.
Also, does the BBC have to be a little careful. There was a row concerning one of their commentators who had to get a commentary line on Rashford authorised on the grounds of political neutrality. Can the BBC nominate him for this award? I'm not certain - obviously if he isn't, they'll be a hell of an argument, but the BBC does have to play by its own rules.
Ah, but after last night's hat trick in 16 minutes, there are good enough footballing reasons for Rashford to qualify.
I'm trying to envisage his segment on the show - how can the BBC cover it without getting into politics? It's not like he's been raising money for charity. He's lobbying the government to change policy, which is fine, but is it appropriate for the BBC to have a segment on this without giving both sides of the debate?
I dont think he will be nominated for these reasons, but the campaign he led earlier in the year raised £20m for the FareShare charity.
Fair enough, but as you say, they can hardly nominate him on those grounds.
Another option, of course, is to revert to the old fashioned way. Let the public vote for who they want - no nominations and no phone lines.
We are betting on SPotY as is, not as it used to be 20 years ago when the voters were middle class Radio Times readers, football was not so dominant, and the BBC covered a range of sport. Lewis Hamilton (odds-against on Betfair) would have won several times already in that format.
Rory Mcilroy at 100-1 takes some figuring out
He's 12-1 to win the Masters. That's probably fair. If he wins it, he absolutely gets nominated for for SPOTY as only the sixth person to win the modern career grand slam. Does he win it? Maybe.
2. Penalty clauses in all such contracts. Final payments on such contracts only to be made on a staged basis after a period of time so that final payments are not made until after the contract has been completed and it has been determined that there are no faults with the goods and/or no issues with the services provided. A bit like the bonus provisions in city contracts - where payment is not given until 3 or 5 years after the awards.
This would be a major problem for any SME that wanted to work on a government contract.
Staged payments and a delay for final payment to ensure that the contract has been properly delivered? Really? it doesn’t have to be 3-5 years but something needs to be in there to ensure that companies - even SMEs - don’t deliver something that looks nice on the surface but falls apart a few weeks/months later.
There have been numerous initiatives over the years to try and encourage large companies to pay SME invoices within 30 days precisely because cashflow is such a big deal.
So the issue is when the final invoice is delivered. There are often retention monies in building contracts, even small ones.
I get your concern about established SMEs. My concern is about companies with no track record, set up one day, getting a contract, providing the square root of f*** all or something wholly inadequate, sending the money offshore and buggering off, with no effective remedy for the taxpayer.
There should be a way of dealing with this without penalising SMEs who behave properly.
‘Helping the president’: HHS official sought to rebrand coronavirus campaign https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/29/coronavirus-ad-campaign-rebrand-433578 The Trump appointee who steered a $300 million taxpayer-funded ad campaign to "defeat despair" about the coronavirus privately pitched a different theme last month: "Helping the President will Help the Country."
That proposal, which came in a meeting between Trump administration officials and campaign contractors, is among documents obtained by the House Oversight Committee that further illustrate how political considerations shaped the massive campaign as officials rushed to get public service announcements on the air before Election Day. The committee shared the documents with POLITICO, which first detailed the campaign in a series of reports last month.
For instance, contractors vetted at least 274 potential celebrity contributors for their stances on gay rights, gun control and the 2016 election before allowing them to participate in the campaign. One promised public service announcement, which would have also featured infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, was nixed because the celebrity who was set to participate with Fauci had been critical of President Donald Trump, according to documents.
The official overseeing the campaign — Michael Caputo, who Trump personally tapped as the health department’s top spokesperson — also sought to overrule the career civil servants assigned to the campaign, directly urging contractors to rush production of ads with celebrities like Trump-supporting actor Antonio Sabato, Jr....
We found evidence of political interference in the handling of antisemitism complaints throughout the period of the investigation. We have concluded that this practice of political interference was unlawful. The evidence shows that staff from the Leader of the Opposition’s Office (LOTO) were able to influence decisions on complaints, especially decisions on whether to suspend someone. Sometimes these decisions were made because of likely press interest rather than any clear formal criteria.
It hasn't been a good week for Labour. The folly of a circuit break in Wales, Starmer mowing down a cyclist and confirmation of illegal institutional racism.
Things can only get better!
They've only released the report today to deflect attention away from Starmer's lack of a Barnard Castle Eye Test
That business of "not investigating mere likes and reposts" is pregnant with unintended consequences. Can we expect political parties to now experience DDOS-like waves of complaints over every questionable like or repost? When they can't investigate all of them -- and remember, vexatious complaints needn't even be plausible, they can just be made to overwhelm the complaints team -- opponents will point to this document and accuse them of failing to learn from Labour's mistake. If I were a party leader, I would be giving serious consideration to telling anyone who could legally expose my party to just wipe their accounts and start again, just to be on the safe side, and that's not a happy place to be in.
In a wider context, I feel vindicated in not voting Labour. This is grim.
That was a truly stunning half hour from Rashford last night. Speed, positioning, power, ruthlessness, it had the lot. I've never seen him play that well.
Surely nailed on for SPotY.
Still 2/1 with Hills (I think).
I think there might be value on Ronnie O'Sullivan at 9-1.
Jockey Hollie Doyle won't win but is worth keeping in mind for the long place markets when they appear. This year she became the first woman jockey to win five races on a card and more than 100 winners for the second season running, and breaking the record for a woman jockey. She is, I'd have thought, very likely to be shortlisted.
But will people vote for her? The reason Phil Taylor, Kevin Sinfield, Nick Skelton and Jonathan Rea placed is because they have the fans of the sport backing them. Will that be the case with Doyle? I'm not so sure. Tao Geoghegan Hart might be a better bet for a place - if nominated, of course.
The BBC will want some women on the shortlist and there are not many to choose from. Whether Doyle then gets enough public votes to scrape into a place is yet to be seen but she should at least get to the start.
Marcus Rashford is probably nailed on now even if, on sporting achievement, Lewis Hamilton is more deserving. Hamilton is odds-against on Betfair, btw.
It's a tricky one as it's an unprecedented situation, I think. There have been times when contenders for SPOTY have had non-sporting reasons for backing them (Darren Clarke in 2006 and perhaps Barry McGuigan in 1985 come to mind), but Rashford is in the running purely for his off the field activities. I guess he benefits from being a Man Utd player, but I'm not sure how the voting public at large will view his nomination.
Also, does the BBC have to be a little careful. There was a row concerning one of their commentators who had to get a commentary line on Rashford authorised on the grounds of political neutrality. Can the BBC nominate him for this award? I'm not certain - obviously if he isn't, they'll be a hell of an argument, but the BBC does have to play by its own rules.
Ah, but after last night's hat trick in 16 minutes, there are good enough footballing reasons for Rashford to qualify.
I'm trying to envisage his segment on the show - how can the BBC cover it without getting into politics? It's not like he's been raising money for charity. He's lobbying the government to change policy, which is fine, but is it appropriate for the BBC to have a segment on this without giving both sides of the debate?
I dont think he will be nominated for these reasons, but the campaign he led earlier in the year raised £20m for the FareShare charity.
Fair enough, but as you say, they can hardly nominate him on those grounds.
Another option, of course, is to revert to the old fashioned way. Let the public vote for who they want - no nominations and no phone lines.
We are betting on SPotY as is, not as it used to be 20 years ago when the voters were middle class Radio Times readers, football was not so dominant, and the BBC covered a range of sport. Lewis Hamilton (odds-against on Betfair) would have won several times already in that format.
Rory Mcilroy at 100-1 takes some figuring out
He's 12-1 to win the Masters. That's probably fair. If he wins it, he absolutely gets nominated for for SPOTY as only the sixth person to win the modern career grand slam. Does he win it? Maybe.
Rory would have the Northern Ireland as well as the golf votes.
2. Penalty clauses in all such contracts. Final payments on such contracts only to be made on a staged basis after a period of time so that final payments are not made until after the contract has been completed and it has been determined that there are no faults with the goods and/or no issues with the services provided. A bit like the bonus provisions in city contracts - where payment is not given until 3 or 5 years after the awards.
This would be a major problem for any SME that wanted to work on a government contract.
Staged payments and a delay for final payment to ensure that the contract has been properly delivered? Really? it doesn’t have to be 3-5 years but something needs to be in there to ensure that companies - even SMEs - don’t deliver something that looks nice on the surface but falls apart a few weeks/months later.
There have been numerous initiatives over the years to try and encourage large companies to pay SME invoices within 30 days precisely because cashflow is such a big deal.
So the issue is when the final invoice is delivered. There are often retention monies in building contracts, even small ones.
I get your concern about established SMEs. My concern is about companies with no track record, set up one day, getting a contract, providing the square root of f*** all or something wholly inadequate, sending the money offshore and buggering off, with no effective remedy for the taxpayer.
There should be a way of dealing with this without penalising SMEs who behave properly.
If companies set up a couple of weeks back are awarded contracts with 30-40% margins, I wouldn't have thought a retention clause which doesn't penalise honest SMEs is going to be particularly effective. The problem there is plain corruption.
Have I missed anything apart from the odd general election, leadership elections, pandemic, POTUS campaign and TSE going over to the dark side of pineapple pizza?
I literally walked out of the Labour party when I witnessed half my CLP comrades arguing about how AS was a smear by the other half of my CLP comrades. With Corbyn's own official definition of AS including marches Corbyn went on repeatedly. I had one of those absolute moments of clarity that come along now and then, thought "fuck this" and left the meeting and the party.
That the report is as brutal as it is doesn't surprise me. The party was riddled with anti-semitism as part of the dogmatic personality cult which had Corbyn like the Pope - infallible and untouchable in His perfection. And yet here we are. Illegal. Harassing. Bullying. Anti-semitic.
The Labour Party has been prima fascie brought into disrepute. Later this morning I expect to hear that various people who were on the receiving end of the behaviours catalogued in the report to announce that they will sue the party to death.
Starmer needs to announce the immediate suspension of Corbyn. Murphy. Milne. Formby. And all the others who have done this. If he doesn't announce that today then all his hand-wringing is for nothing and what is the point of him?
"In my traditional Taiwanese Chinese family, privacy was an alien concept. Whenever I wanted to have some time alone and close my bedroom door, my family would ask: “Why do you want to shut the door? Do you have something to hide?”
When I became a teenager the only times I was allowed to have my bedroom door shut (but not locked) was when I changed my clothes or went to bed."
If this Imperial College report of 100,000 infections per day in the UK is in anyway accurate then any semblance of the idea that mandatory mask wearing prevents infection must be out of the window.
In regards to the report's accuracy yesterday the testing capacity in the UK yesterday was 440,000, and 280,000 had a test so there is loads of spare capacity. Its likely that 25,000 of those will be postive. That means there are 75,000 people each day getting Covid with absolutely no idea that they have it (or they would have a test). Therefore herd immunity will be achieved well before a vaccine programme is completed.
Those statistics seem very similar to those described by Merkel yesterday. She said that they only knew where 25% of infections were coming from.
And she used it to point out that statements such as "there is little evidence to suggest that covid is spread in restaurants" are unreliable, because the location of infaction is so often unknown.
A relative got involved (via the NAACP) in the US College Title 9 stuff - essentially where Universities were holding "trials" and "hearings" to judge student accused of harassment - and worse.
He was working on cases where racial issues had clearly not been dealt with. Ludicrous hearings where witness were officially threatened with retaliation, and the arbitrators declared the result hearing any evidence....
One thing he told me was that it wasn't uncommon to come across people who had the viewpoint of "I am an unbiased, proven academic authority. Therefore I do not need to adhere to any stupid rules that get in the way of my administering True Justice"
Well at least Texas can reply on even handed law enforcement...
All seven of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's whistleblowers have resigned, been fired or put on leave https://www.texastribune.org/2020/10/28/texas-ken-paxton-whistleblowers/ ...Bangert and six of his colleagues alerted law enforcement weeks ago that they had a “good faith” belief that their boss had committed bribery and abuse of office by using the agency to serve the interests of a political donor, Austin real estate investor Nate Paul.
Paxton has called the employees “rogue” and their allegations “false.” But documents and media reports have shown several highly unusual instances when Paxton’s office got involved in separate legal matters that involved Paul...
Election Integrity https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/initiatives/election-integrity Secure elections are the cornerstone of a thriving republic. The legislature made significant improvements in the laws governing state election integrity in 2017 which has contributed to a steady increase in the number of voter fraud referrals. A key priority of the Attorney General is to investigate and prosecute the increasing allegations of voter fraud to ensure election integrity within Texas...
Have I missed anything apart from the odd general election, leadership elections, pandemic, POTUS campaign and TSE going over to the dark side of pineapple pizza?
There's been a minor change in our trading relationships with Europe that some are quite exercised about.
Have I missed anything apart from the odd general election, leadership elections, pandemic, POTUS campaign and TSE going over to the dark side of pineapple pizza?
Well... there is a serious chance of a Jacobite return now that you have! Any news from the ARSE re: next Tuesday?
If this Imperial College report of 100,000 infections per day in the UK is in anyway accurate then any semblance of the idea that mandatory mask wearing prevents infection must be out of the window.
In regards to the report's accuracy yesterday the testing capacity in the UK yesterday was 440,000, and 280,000 had a test so there is loads of spare capacity. Its likely that 25,000 of those will be postive. That means there are 75,000 people each day getting Covid with absolutely no idea that they have it (or they would have a test). Therefore herd immunity will be achieved well before a vaccine programme is completed.
Those statistics seem very similar to those described by Merkel yesterday. She said that they only knew where 25% of infections were coming from.
And she used it to point out that statements such as "there is little evidence to suggest that covid is spread in restaurants" are unreliable, because the location of infaction is so often unknown.
What I noticed is that when restaurants first reopened they made sure everyone filled in contact forms, but after a while they just left QR codes on tables and lots of people didn't bother any more. In fact, everything has been very lax for several weeks now, so no wonder they don't know where people are getting infected.
If this Imperial College report of 100,000 infections per day in the UK is in anyway accurate then any semblance of the idea that mandatory mask wearing prevents infection must be out of the window.
In regards to the report's accuracy yesterday the testing capacity in the UK yesterday was 440,000, and 280,000 had a test so there is loads of spare capacity. Its likely that 25,000 of those will be postive. That means there are 75,000 people each day getting Covid with absolutely no idea that they have it (or they would have a test). Therefore herd immunity will be achieved well before a vaccine programme is completed.
Those statistics seem very similar to those described by Merkel yesterday. She said that they only knew where 25% of infections were coming from.
And she used it to point out that statements such as "there is little evidence to suggest that covid is spread in restaurants" are unreliable, because the location of infaction is so often unknown.
What I noticed is that when restaurants first reopened they made sure everyone filled in contact forms, but after a while they just left QR codes on tables and lots of people didn't bother any more. In fact, everything has been very lax for several weeks now, so no wonder they don't know where people are getting infected.
Yes the first few time I was asked to fill out the QR code on my app etc, but not so much recently.
If this Imperial College report of 100,000 infections per day in the UK is in anyway accurate then any semblance of the idea that mandatory mask wearing prevents infection must be out of the window.
In regards to the report's accuracy yesterday the testing capacity in the UK yesterday was 440,000, and 280,000 had a test so there is loads of spare capacity. Its likely that 25,000 of those will be postive. That means there are 75,000 people each day getting Covid with absolutely no idea that they have it (or they would have a test). Therefore herd immunity will be achieved well before a vaccine programme is completed.
Those statistics seem very similar to those described by Merkel yesterday. She said that they only knew where 25% of infections were coming from.
And she used it to point out that statements such as "there is little evidence to suggest that covid is spread in restaurants" are unreliable, because the location of infaction is so often unknown.
What I noticed is that when restaurants first reopened they made sure everyone filled in contact forms, but after a while they just left QR codes on tables and lots of people didn't bother any more. In fact, everything has been very lax for several weeks now, so no wonder they don't know where people are getting infected.
That drop off coincided with the news that there had been 1.5 million QR code scans and just 1 person had received a notification to isolate/test because of it. I wonder why. Thank Dido and those who appointed her with her exemplary record of consistent failure.
Have I missed anything apart from the odd general election, leadership elections, pandemic, POTUS campaign and TSE going over to the dark side of pineapple pizza?
There's been a minor change in our trading relationships with Europe that some are quite exercised about.
Yes I had noticed that David. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find east European staff to pick pineapples from my hothouses for the new Auchentennach Pizza Extravanganza ....
Have I missed anything apart from the odd general election, leadership elections, pandemic, POTUS campaign and TSE going over to the dark side of pineapple pizza?
I am not sure that it is. The thesis behind the EHCR report seems to be that the leadership of the party should not "lead" on these matters and should allow some quasi-judicial, allegedly independent process to take place instead. That strikes me as rubbish. This is a political party not a public body. It has views and exists to express them.
If every example was of Corbyn trying to speed up and resolve the process I think he would have done his job and I personally would not be critical of him. It is the cases where he seemed to be doing the opposite that is the problem.
"We also found evidence of political interference in the handling of antisemitism complaints throughout the period of the investigation. The Labour Party has shown an ability to act decisively when it wants to, through the introduction of a bespoke process to deal with sexual harassment complaints. It is hard not to conclude that antisemitism within the Labour Party could have been tackled more effectively if the leadership had chosen to do so."
Wonder how Corbyn and his close team will spin out of that, Starmer has an opportunity to make sure that the drains aren't swamped again.
Have I missed anything apart from the odd general election, leadership elections, pandemic, POTUS campaign and TSE going over to the dark side of pineapple pizza?
There's been a minor change in our trading relationships with Europe that some are quite exercised about.
Yes I had noticed that David. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find east European staff to pick pineapples from my hothouses for the new Auchentennach Pizza Extravanganza ....
Have you been inspired by Trafalgar to launch a polling operation in the US?
If this Imperial College report of 100,000 infections per day in the UK is in anyway accurate then any semblance of the idea that mandatory mask wearing prevents infection must be out of the window.
In regards to the report's accuracy yesterday the testing capacity in the UK yesterday was 440,000, and 280,000 had a test so there is loads of spare capacity. Its likely that 25,000 of those will be postive. That means there are 75,000 people each day getting Covid with absolutely no idea that they have it (or they would have a test). Therefore herd immunity will be achieved well before a vaccine programme is completed.
Those statistics seem very similar to those described by Merkel yesterday. She said that they only knew where 25% of infections were coming from.
And she used it to point out that statements such as "there is little evidence to suggest that covid is spread in restaurants" are unreliable, because the location of infaction is so often unknown.
What I noticed is that when restaurants first reopened they made sure everyone filled in contact forms, but after a while they just left QR codes on tables and lots of people didn't bother any more. In fact, everything has been very lax for several weeks now, so no wonder they don't know where people are getting infected.
That drop off coincided with the news that there had been 1.5 million QR code scans and just 1 person had received a notification to isolate/test because of it. I wonder why. Thank Dido and those who appointed her with her exemplary record of consistent failure.
For clarity, I meant here in Germany. But I think apps have failed to make a big difference here too, which is a shame because they seemed to have a lot of potential.
Comments
It looks as if the US will be testing previous peaks by November 3rd. Surely not good for Trump.
This creative interpretation of the rules reached its fullest expression with the 'plategate' incident by Toyota on the Group A Celica. Due to turbo intake design of unmatched genius installing the FIA supplied restrictor plate actually increased power by 50hp.
When I did some work last year for a company (not even the government) I had to confirm that payment would not be made to any company registered outside the U.K. which of course I did.
Making it clear to companies that use of tax havens to minimise the tax paid to the British Treasury on money earned from the British taxpayer will be a very big no-no when they come sniffing for contracts is the least we can expect when money, as we are constantly being told, is tight and businesses here in distress are being told that there is not enough around to help them.
A question of fairness I feel.
Is moving profits to a lower tax jurisdiction *always* an issue?
I agree with the basic idea - just trying to see how the implementation would work.
BBC News - Labour Party broke equality laws
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54730425
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-maga-special-trump-bettors-speak/id1437934639?i=1000496445968
The party is responsible for three breaches of the Equality Act (2010) relating to:
Political interference in antisemitism complaints.
Failure to provide adequate training to those handling antisemitism complaints.
Harassment
A report just published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission identified what it described as “serious failings in the Labour Party leadership in addressing antisemitism and an inadequate process for handling antisemitism complaints.”
The EHRC said its analysis “points to a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it.”
ARSE in fine fettle, I trust.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1321754077567590407/photo/1
or at least in The former Leader's Office.
"Harassment"
KABOOM
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/investigation-antisemitism-labour-party?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SocialSignIn
At least two people were killed at a church in the southern city of Nice.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/world/europe/nice-attack-france.html?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage
Things can only get better!
We may get a higher turnout, but not necessarily huge. Turnout amongst youth and minorities seems stagnant, and may even fall with a decent ED vote. Any increase in turnout therefore is likely to favour Trump, as the last major demographic with gas in the tank is White non-college.
https://twitter.com/EHRC/status/1321754550487928833?s=20
I get your concern about established SMEs. My concern is about companies with no track record, set up one day, getting a contract, providing the square root of f*** all or something wholly inadequate, sending the money offshore and buggering off, with no effective remedy for the taxpayer.
There should be a way of dealing with this without penalising SMEs who behave properly.
https://twitter.com/PeterOuld/status/1321756298153725953
‘Helping the president’: HHS official sought to rebrand coronavirus campaign
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/29/coronavirus-ad-campaign-rebrand-433578
The Trump appointee who steered a $300 million taxpayer-funded ad campaign to "defeat despair" about the coronavirus privately pitched a different theme last month: "Helping the President will Help the Country."
That proposal, which came in a meeting between Trump administration officials and campaign contractors, is among documents obtained by the House Oversight Committee that further illustrate how political considerations shaped the massive campaign as officials rushed to get public service announcements on the air before Election Day. The committee shared the documents with POLITICO, which first detailed the campaign in a series of reports last month.
For instance, contractors vetted at least 274 potential celebrity contributors for their stances on gay rights, gun control and the 2016 election before allowing them to participate in the campaign. One promised public service announcement, which would have also featured infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, was nixed because the celebrity who was set to participate with Fauci had been critical of President Donald Trump, according to documents.
The official overseeing the campaign — Michael Caputo, who Trump personally tapped as the health department’s top spokesperson — also sought to overrule the career civil servants assigned to the campaign, directly urging contractors to rush production of ads with celebrities like Trump-supporting actor Antonio Sabato, Jr....
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/investigation-into-antisemitism-in-the-labour-party.pdf
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1321675239194087425?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1321667723424923648?s=20
While people in the West go to great lengths to respect individualism, Luisa Tam’s personal experience tells her other values matter more to Chinese
Luisa Tam"
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/2139946/why-privacy-alien-concept-chinese-culture
If I were a party leader, I would be giving serious consideration to telling anyone who could legally expose my party to just wipe their accounts and start again, just to be on the safe side, and that's not a happy place to be in.
In a wider context, I feel vindicated in not voting Labour. This is grim.
The problem there is plain corruption.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/may/14/rory-mcilroy-intention-play-2020-olympics-ireland
That the report is as brutal as it is doesn't surprise me. The party was riddled with anti-semitism as part of the dogmatic personality cult which had Corbyn like the Pope - infallible and untouchable in His perfection. And yet here we are. Illegal. Harassing. Bullying. Anti-semitic.
The Labour Party has been prima fascie brought into disrepute. Later this morning I expect to hear that various people who were on the receiving end of the behaviours catalogued in the report to announce that they will sue the party to death.
Starmer needs to announce the immediate suspension of Corbyn. Murphy. Milne. Formby. And all the others who have done this. If he doesn't announce that today then all his hand-wringing is for nothing and what is the point of him?
"In my traditional Taiwanese Chinese family, privacy was an alien concept. Whenever I wanted to have some time alone and close my bedroom door, my family would ask: “Why do you want to shut the door? Do you have something to hide?”
When I became a teenager the only times I was allowed to have my bedroom door shut (but not locked) was when I changed my clothes or went to bed."
https://twitter.com/ianinthornaby/status/1321737521789915136
A relative got involved (via the NAACP) in the US College Title 9 stuff - essentially where Universities were holding "trials" and "hearings" to judge student accused of harassment - and worse.
He was working on cases where racial issues had clearly not been dealt with. Ludicrous hearings where witness were officially threatened with retaliation, and the arbitrators declared the result hearing any evidence....
One thing he told me was that it wasn't uncommon to come across people who had the viewpoint of "I am an unbiased, proven academic authority. Therefore I do not need to adhere to any stupid rules that get in the way of my administering True Justice"
All seven of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's whistleblowers have resigned, been fired or put on leave
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/10/28/texas-ken-paxton-whistleblowers/
...Bangert and six of his colleagues alerted law enforcement weeks ago that they had a “good faith” belief that their boss had committed bribery and abuse of office by using the agency to serve the interests of a political donor, Austin real estate investor Nate Paul.
Paxton has called the employees “rogue” and their allegations “false.” But documents and media reports have shown several highly unusual instances when Paxton’s office got involved in separate legal matters that involved Paul...
Election Integrity
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/initiatives/election-integrity
Secure elections are the cornerstone of a thriving republic. The legislature made significant improvements in the laws governing state election integrity in 2017 which has contributed to a steady increase in the number of voter fraud referrals. A key priority of the Attorney General is to investigate and prosecute the increasing allegations of voter fraud to ensure election integrity within Texas...
What does that tell us?
(A: It tells us I've invented a new word for 'more significantly'.)
Any news from the ARSE re: next Tuesday?
If every example was of Corbyn trying to speed up and resolve the process I think he would have done his job and I personally would not be critical of him. It is the cases where he seemed to be doing the opposite that is the problem.
complaints throughout the period of the investigation.
The Labour Party has shown an ability to act decisively when it wants to, through
the introduction of a bespoke process to deal with sexual harassment
complaints. It is hard not to conclude that antisemitism within the Labour Party
could have been tackled more effectively if the leadership had chosen to do so."
Wonder how Corbyn and his close team will spin out of that, Starmer has an opportunity to make sure that the drains aren't swamped again.