That's fair enough, and I'm actually surprised there isn't more on that. That might make the system unfair to some businesses, but it doesn't make the system arbitrary, confusing or chaotic.
(@TSE can’t be allowed to be the only one with legendary modesty. 😉)
it is very good. The distinction between an effective manager able to deal with underperformance, insubordination or obstruction and a manager who bullies is being deliberately and wrongly blurred. Yes, have read several comments on here regarding the Patel affair which pretty well do the same thing.
(btw, looks as though Boris is going to bung pubs some cash - but just the ones which only serve drinks.)
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
Of course.... And for Central Government to work with local authorities who know their own area best. As Ed Davey himself says in the paragraph quoted. Not the high-handed top-down approach of the present dictatorship.
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
I'm thinking of phoning the Gambling Commission later today to speak to them about Betfair's continuing failure to settle the remaining US Presidential markets. It would helpand save me some time if you could just let me know where we stand on leagal actions, recounts and like.
My belief is that Arizona has now certified. No recount is possible and I believe there are no legal actions outstanding.
Wisconsin has certified too. Not sure if there any legal actions o/s.
Georgia is recounting still? I think think the outcome is expected today. Again, I think no o/s legal actions.
The other States I am not sure about, although I thinlk there is little doubt about the outcomes.
Cheers. Get back to you all later.
Certification is not the end of the matter. There are still legal challenges in play (frivolous and will lose but still) and in 2000 Bush v Gore had Gore won the case then he could have potentially reversed Florida and reversed the projection post-certification. Had he done so he would then have become the "projected" winner prior to the Electoral College voting.
It would take a series of extremely unlikely events for Trump to become projected winner but it is indeed still legally possible.
I don`t think this matters. BF`s rules say "projected".
That's the way I see it. Indeed, certification actually takes us well beyond the level of finality that is strictly necessary for settlement of all the outstanding markets.
Why? What happens if the courts reverse certification?
What happened in 2000 Bush v Gore? Did the bookies all settle prior to the courts settling?
That is a subsequent event. It would be closely comparable to what happens in horseracing. If your horse wins and you are paid out after they have weighed in, but in the succeeding days the horse is disqualified (drugs test, ownership and identity issues etc) the bookies don't ask for their money back and pay out on the second. The result stands for betting purposes.
Same with the politics markets. It's the rules as stated that matter, not some possible distant event (unless of course that is specified in the rules.) It has to be like that. I doubt very much whether the courts have the power to reverse certification, but even if they did it would not impact the outcome for betting purposes. There has to be finality, otherwise all bets would be open indefinitely pending any possible challenge at any time in the future.
This isn't difficult, Philip. I know it's early. Have another coffee.
Since they're still counting and undergoing court cases so it hasn't been settled yet then how is it a subsequent event?
If in a horse race your horse wins but there's then a steward's enquiry disqualifies your horse then are you still the winner?
The court cases are the equivalent of a steward's enquiry and they're not resolved yet. They should be I agree with you on that, it is farcical they're not, but it is a farce of Trump and the US legal system's making not a farce Betfair have made.
PS I didn't follow political betting in 2000. The legal system now is identical to what happened in 2000 so the precedence then seems relevant, but I don't know what it was. Does anyone know if the bookmakers in 2000 paid out on Bush as winner or did they wait for the Bush v Gore court case to be settled?
I spent yesterday doing an opinion on a provisional decision from the FCA arising from the mis-selling of a hedge product to a small company. The mind set of bankers looking for easy profits from hidden margins, misrepresentation of the market, failure to explain the break costs and forcing short term loans on businesses in long term transactions simply so that they can generate additional renegotiation fees is just appalling.
The economic damage that this has done to our small and family businesses cannot be understated. Many future medium to large businesses have been destroyed by the greed of the banks. We penalise them pointlessly with scams like the PPI claims but fail to get to grips with the fundamental problem of their business models.
"Moment police tell 'citizen journalist' to 'f*** off' before arresting him for 'terrorism' and restraining him on the ground for filming outside a police station"
Is whistleblowing more common in the United States? The last two American megacorps I worked for mandated regular training in all sorts of things like ethics and bribes and there was always a section on how to blow the whistle. Of course, this might have just been windowdressing to cover themselves.
Of course.... And for Central Government to work with local authorities who know their own area best. As Ed Davey himself says in the paragraph quoted. Not the high-handed top-down approach of the present dictatorship.
Is whistleblowing more common in the United States? The last two American megacorps I worked for mandated regular training in all sorts of things like ethics and bribes and there was always a section on how to blow the whistle. Of course, this might have just been windowdressing to cover themselves.
Corporate crime is very severely punished in the US - at both a business and individual level. Whistleblowers often help to expose issues before they pass the point of no return. They can be an immense benefit.
"Moment police tell 'citizen journalist' to 'f*** off' before arresting him for 'terrorism' and restraining him on the ground for filming outside a police station"
Must be the first time the Daily Mail has expressed sympathy for someone wrongly accused of terrorism and roughed up by the police. Let me guess, the citizen journalist isn't brown. Or Irish.
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
The Theresa May issue isn't relevant or what is being discussed here.
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
Mr Davey has panicked at the new polling showing the LDs only level with the Greens and Farage's Party and miles behind the Tories and Labour and decided to put clear yellow water between his party and the two main parties by voting against the tiers and against Boris' Brexit Deal (on the basis it will not be EEA) just as Starmer decides not to oppose the new tiers and Boris' Brexit Deal to expose divisions on the Tory backbenches.
This is all politics, has nothing to do with science
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
The Theresa May issue isn't relevant or what is being discussed here.
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
You brought the real world into it, Phil. And in the real world, Ms Patel's previous conduct would have made her unemployable.
That said, unintentional bullying is not a legal defence. How many bullies admit that they are doing it intentionally? If you knew anything about the real world, you would know the answer is as close to zero as makes no difference.
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
The Theresa May issue isn't relevant or what is being discussed here.
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
Unintentional bullying is not a legal defence. How many bullies admit that they are doing it intentionally? If you knew anything about the real world, you would know the answer is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Didn't the offending behaviour stop as soon as it was reported? No one in the real world would be out of a job in those circumstances.
Is whistleblowing more common in the United States? The last two American megacorps I worked for mandated regular training in all sorts of things like ethics and bribes and there was always a section on how to blow the whistle. Of course, this might have just been windowdressing to cover themselves.
Corporate crime is very severely punished in the US - at both a business and individual level. Whistleblowers often help to expose issues before they pass the point of no return. They can be an immense benefit.
Yes it is quite impressive how the Americans are willing to see senior people end up in jail. I suspect it may come from being a larger country. In the UK senior people in politics, business and the law often all know each other. Hard to put someone away if your children are at school together or you knew each other at Oxford. The other thing is the "nobody likes a grass" mentality that exists right across British society (and in many ways is quite an attractive feature, until it isn't).
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
I won't comment on the rights and wrongs of the Patel case as I've not studied the details, but I agree that it's a complication that opponents are attacking someone you normally support, in terms that are usually exagerrated and seek to spread the blame to everyone that you normally support - "all Tories are racists and bullies", "all Labour people are anti-semites and terorist sympathisers", etc. That's what opponents do in a combative culture and one has to get past it to look at the issue rationally. But Cyclefree is correct that if you downplay a specific instance by "circling the wagons", you give your opponents a weapon they didn't have before - "See, it's not just X, they're all backing him/her up". Loyalty requires that you don't fire people every time they make a mistake, but you don't excuse it or cover it up either.
The public has a good deal of tolerance for minor to moderate errors of judgment, and in the Patel case I think a poll would find that most people - if they have an opinion at all - have concluded that "she doesn't sound very nice to work for but at least she's apologised, so let's move on". The repeated instances of senior posts being given to relatives or friends of Ministers is having a more corrosive effect, because it appears to be a persistent practice rather than a one-off error. At a human level I understand the temptation - "I know X is good, let's give the job to her rather than someone we've never heard of". But it's a serious mistake at several levels and needs to stop.
Re my attempt to contact the Gambling Commission about Betfair's failure to settle the outstanding Presidential markets, it seems that due to Covid their lines are not open today. Will try again tomorrow. Meanwhile I would appreciate any information and updates concerning the status of legal challenges etc affecting the unsettled markets.
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
The Theresa May issue isn't relevant or what is being discussed here.
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
Unintentional bullying is not a legal defence. How many bullies admit that they are doing it intentionally? If you knew anything about the real world, you would know the answer is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Didn't the offending behaviour stop as soon as it was reported? No one in the real world would be out of a job in those circumstances.
We do not know what happened because we are not allowed to see all the evidence.
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
The Theresa May issue isn't relevant or what is being discussed here.
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
Unintentional bullying is not a legal defence. How many bullies admit that they are doing it intentionally? If you knew anything about the real world, you would know the answer is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Intent is relevant and there is a reason for having an escalation procedure and warnings prior to dismissal, which is what ACAS recommends.
There is a three strike system normally for all but Gross Misconduct for a good reason. Bullying can be gross misconduct in extreme cases, especially if it becomes harassment about a protected characteristic but that is not relevant here.
Is whistleblowing more common in the United States? The last two American megacorps I worked for mandated regular training in all sorts of things like ethics and bribes and there was always a section on how to blow the whistle. Of course, this might have just been windowdressing to cover themselves.
Corporate crime is very severely punished in the US - at both a business and individual level. Whistleblowers often help to expose issues before they pass the point of no return. They can be an immense benefit.
Yes it is quite impressive how the Americans are willing to see senior people end up in jail. I suspect it may come from being a larger country. In the UK senior people in politics, business and the law often all know each other. Hard to put someone away if your children are at school together or you knew each other at Oxford. The other thing is the "nobody likes a grass" mentality that exists right across British society (and in many ways is quite an attractive feature, until it isn't).
That may be part of it, but I also think that US corporates and executives are given a lot more freedom of action than ours are - until the get to the red lines. Once those are crossed, all hell is let loose on them.
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
The Theresa May issue isn't relevant or what is being discussed here.
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
Unintentional bullying is not a legal defence. How many bullies admit that they are doing it intentionally? If you knew anything about the real world, you would know the answer is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Didn't the offending behaviour stop as soon as it was reported? No one in the real world would be out of a job in those circumstances.
We do not know what happened because we are not allowed to see all the evidence.
So you are wilfully pretending it is as bad as is imaginable, despite no evidence of that, because you dislike her. Because you want her scalp.
We have seen no evidence of harassment of protective characteristics. We have seen no evidence of offending behaviour continuing.
But none of that is relevant to you. You dislike her politics and that is enough for you.
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
The Theresa May issue isn't relevant or what is being discussed here.
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
Unintentional bullying is not a legal defence. How many bullies admit that they are doing it intentionally? If you knew anything about the real world, you would know the answer is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Intent is relevant and there is a reason for having an escalation procedure and warnings prior to dismissal, which is what ACAS recommends.
There is a three strike system normally for all but Gross Misconduct for a good reason. Bullying can be gross misconduct in extreme cases, especially if it becomes harassment about a protected characteristic but that is not relevant here.
As Priti Patel has less than 2 years service she can be dismissed for almost any reason with no recourse.
When it comes to the civil service having experience of working with them I am sorry but I have less assumption of them being bullied and more assumption of them being shouted at in frustration for the shit they pull.
Our civil service is often full of very stupid people who do very stupid things because it answers the question. An example I worked on a large dataset I had to work with due to civil service directions only half the roads that were slip roads were labelled as slip roads. I complained that it needed to be correct. There response which made things consistent was to remove the slip road label from all roads
When it comes to the civil service having experience of working with them I am sorry but I have less assumption of them being bullied and more assumption of them being shouted at in frustration for the shit they pull.
Our civil service is often full of very stupid people who do very stupid things because it answers the question. An example I worked on a large dataset I had to work with due to civil service directions only half the roads that were slip roads were labelled as slip roads. I complained that it needed to be correct. There response which made things consistent was to remove the slip road label from all roads
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
The Theresa May issue isn't relevant or what is being discussed here.
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
Unintentional bullying is not a legal defence. How many bullies admit that they are doing it intentionally? If you knew anything about the real world, you would know the answer is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Didn't the offending behaviour stop as soon as it was reported? No one in the real world would be out of a job in those circumstances.
We do not know what happened because we are not allowed to see all the evidence.
So how are you so sure she would be out on her arse?
We do not know what happened because we are not allowed to see all the evidence.
How much evidence did you need to decide that Gordon Brown was a bully? There was quite a bit about.
The claim of routine bullying was today backed up a senior former adviser to Brown in No 10, who told the Guardian: "His intense bouts of anger are unremarkable to anyone who has worked closely with him. You just have to put up with this stuff. It is part of the daily experience, almost part of the furniture. He would behave in that way constantly. He suffers from a massive paranoia and an inability to accept blame, yet he runs a blame culture that allows him to blame others.
"He does not seek to win an argument, he just seeks to bully. If you have not worked closely with him before, it is truly shocking. The more he trusts you, the more he vents."
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
The Theresa May issue isn't relevant or what is being discussed here.
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
Unintentional bullying is not a legal defence. How many bullies admit that they are doing it intentionally? If you knew anything about the real world, you would know the answer is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Intent is relevant and there is a reason for having an escalation procedure and warnings prior to dismissal, which is what ACAS recommends.
There is a three strike system normally for all but Gross Misconduct for a good reason. Bullying can be gross misconduct in extreme cases, especially if it becomes harassment about a protected characteristic but that is not relevant here.
Intent is not a mitigating factor in bullying cases. The issue is impact. Look at the precedent.
We do not know what happened because we are not allowed to see all the evidence.
How much evidence did you need to decide that Gordon Brown was a bully? There was quite a bit about.
The claim of routine bullying was today backed up a senior former adviser to Brown in No 10, who told the Guardian: "His intense bouts of anger are unremarkable to anyone who has worked closely with him. You just have to put up with this stuff. It is part of the daily experience, almost part of the furniture. He would behave in that way constantly. He suffers from a massive paranoia and an inability to accept blame, yet he runs a blame culture that allows him to blame others.
"He does not seek to win an argument, he just seeks to bully. If you have not worked closely with him before, it is truly shocking. The more he trusts you, the more he vents."
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
The Theresa May issue isn't relevant or what is being discussed here.
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
Unintentional bullying is not a legal defence. How many bullies admit that they are doing it intentionally? If you knew anything about the real world, you would know the answer is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Intent is relevant and there is a reason for having an escalation procedure and warnings prior to dismissal, which is what ACAS recommends.
There is a three strike system normally for all but Gross Misconduct for a good reason. Bullying can be gross misconduct in extreme cases, especially if it becomes harassment about a protected characteristic but that is not relevant here.
As Priti Patel has less than 2 years service she can be dismissed for almost any reason with no recourse.
Unless she can claim she's being discriminated against and dismissed for a protected characteristic herself.
If she can claim that a white male colleague doing the same would not have been dismissed then she would have a claim.
We do not know what happened because we are not allowed to see all the evidence.
How much evidence did you need to decide that Gordon Brown was a bully? There was quite a bit about.
The claim of routine bullying was today backed up a senior former adviser to Brown in No 10, who told the Guardian: "His intense bouts of anger are unremarkable to anyone who has worked closely with him. You just have to put up with this stuff. It is part of the daily experience, almost part of the furniture. He would behave in that way constantly. He suffers from a massive paranoia and an inability to accept blame, yet he runs a blame culture that allows him to blame others.
"He does not seek to win an argument, he just seeks to bully. If you have not worked closely with him before, it is truly shocking. The more he trusts you, the more he vents."
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
The Theresa May issue isn't relevant or what is being discussed here.
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
Unintentional bullying is not a legal defence. How many bullies admit that they are doing it intentionally? If you knew anything about the real world, you would know the answer is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Intent is relevant and there is a reason for having an escalation procedure and warnings prior to dismissal, which is what ACAS recommends.
There is a three strike system normally for all but Gross Misconduct for a good reason. Bullying can be gross misconduct in extreme cases, especially if it becomes harassment about a protected characteristic but that is not relevant here.
As Priti Patel has less than 2 years service she can be dismissed for almost any reason with no recourse.
Unless she can claim she's being discriminated against and dismissed for a protected characteristic herself.
If she can claim that a white male colleague doing the same would not have been dismissed then she would have a claim.
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
The Theresa May issue isn't relevant or what is being discussed here.
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
Unintentional bullying is not a legal defence. How many bullies admit that they are doing it intentionally? If you knew anything about the real world, you would know the answer is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Didn't the offending behaviour stop as soon as it was reported? No one in the real world would be out of a job in those circumstances.
We do not know what happened because we are not allowed to see all the evidence.
So how are you so sure she would be out on her arse?
I did not say that she would have been. I said, and I quote: "In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced."
I'm thinking of phoning the Gambling Commission later today to speak to them about Betfair's continuing failure to settle the remaining US Presidential markets. It would helpand save me some time if you could just let me know where we stand on leagal actions, recounts and like.
My belief is that Arizona has now certified. No recount is possible and I believe there are no legal actions outstanding.
Wisconsin has certified too. Not sure if there any legal actions o/s.
Georgia is recounting still? I think think the outcome is expected today. Again, I think no o/s legal actions.
The other States I am not sure about, although I thinlk there is little doubt about the outcomes.
Cheers. Get back to you all later.
Certification is not the end of the matter. There are still legal challenges in play (frivolous and will lose but still) and in 2000 Bush v Gore had Gore won the case then he could have potentially reversed Florida and reversed the projection post-certification. Had he done so he would then have become the "projected" winner prior to the Electoral College voting.
It would take a series of extremely unlikely events for Trump to become projected winner but it is indeed still legally possible.
I don`t think this matters. BF`s rules say "projected".
That's the way I see it. Indeed, certification actually takes us well beyond the level of finality that is strictly necessary for settlement of all the outstanding markets.
Why? What happens if the courts reverse certification?
What happened in 2000 Bush v Gore? Did the bookies all settle prior to the courts settling?
That is a subsequent event. It would be closely comparable to what happens in horseracing. If your horse wins and you are paid out after they have weighed in, but in the succeeding days the horse is disqualified (drugs test, ownership and identity issues etc) the bookies don't ask for their money back and pay out on the second. The result stands for betting purposes.
Same with the politics markets. It's the rules as stated that matter, not some possible distant event (unless of course that is specified in the rules.) It has to be like that. I doubt very much whether the courts have the power to reverse certification, but even if they did it would not impact the outcome for betting purposes. There has to be finality, otherwise all bets would be open indefinitely pending any possible challenge at any time in the future.
This isn't difficult, Philip. I know it's early. Have another coffee.
Since they're still counting and undergoing court cases so it hasn't been settled yet then how is it a subsequent event?
If in a horse race your horse wins but there's then a steward's enquiry disqualifies your horse then are you still the winner?
The court cases are the equivalent of a steward's enquiry and they're not resolved yet. They should be I agree with you on that, it is farcical they're not, but it is a farce of Trump and the US legal system's making not a farce Betfair have made.
PS I didn't follow political betting in 2000. The legal system now is identical to what happened in 2000 so the precedence then seems relevant, but I don't know what it was. Does anyone know if the bookmakers in 2000 paid out on Bush as winner or did they wait for the Bush v Gore court case to be settled?
No, the counting has stopped, I think, except possibly in Georgia. It has certainly stopped in Arizona, where no recount is allowed and I think there are no court cases outstanding.
But the Courts are irrelevant anyway because they stand outside the election process and were certainly not referred to in the rules, no doubt for the very good reason that invoking them means there cannot be finality. There is no time bar on Court action, so you could never pay out.
Bush/Gore was very different and even there I think Betfair and others paid out promptly on all States except Florida, which was the only one in dispute.
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
The Theresa May issue isn't relevant or what is being discussed here.
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
Unintentional bullying is not a legal defence. How many bullies admit that they are doing it intentionally? If you knew anything about the real world, you would know the answer is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Intent is relevant and there is a reason for having an escalation procedure and warnings prior to dismissal, which is what ACAS recommends.
There is a three strike system normally for all but Gross Misconduct for a good reason. Bullying can be gross misconduct in extreme cases, especially if it becomes harassment about a protected characteristic but that is not relevant here.
As Priti Patel has less than 2 years service she can be dismissed for almost any reason with no recourse.
Unless she can claim she's being discriminated against and dismissed for a protected characteristic herself.
If she can claim that a white male colleague doing the same would not have been dismissed then she would have a claim.
Oh you’re bringing race back into it.
Was it ever out of it? It was named in Cyclefree's post.
As an employer the "protected characteristics" law does indeed have a chilling effect of ensuring every i is dotted and every t is crossed before reaching for gross misconduct dismissal. Which of course is precisely what the law was designed to do.
When it comes to the civil service having experience of working with them I am sorry but I have less assumption of them being bullied and more assumption of them being shouted at in frustration for the shit they pull.
Our civil service is often full of very stupid people who do very stupid things because it answers the question. An example I worked on a large dataset I had to work with due to civil service directions only half the roads that were slip roads were labelled as slip roads. I complained that it needed to be correct. There response which made things consistent was to remove the slip road label from all roads
More victim blaming. You guys are dismal.
I am not a tory fan so therefore not a patel fan so as usual your dismisal of what I say falls flat. Sorry our civil servants are mostly a waste of space from my experience and worth shouting at. Most are time serving slackers that know they cant be sacked so they pull all sorts of shit like I described
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
The Theresa May issue isn't relevant or what is being discussed here.
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
Unintentional bullying is not a legal defence. How many bullies admit that they are doing it intentionally? If you knew anything about the real world, you would know the answer is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Didn't the offending behaviour stop as soon as it was reported? No one in the real world would be out of a job in those circumstances.
We do not know what happened because we are not allowed to see all the evidence.
So you are wilfully pretending it is as bad as is imaginable, despite no evidence of that, because you dislike her. Because you want her scalp.
We have seen no evidence of harassment of protective characteristics. We have seen no evidence of offending behaviour continuing.
But none of that is relevant to you. You dislike her politics and that is enough for you.
You are the "they" of Cyclefree's opening post.
Yes, I dislike her politics immensely. But you will be hard pressed to produce any evidence of me saying she should have been fired for her bullying. You want me to have said that, of course, but if you actually read what I have said you will not see that I have.
I spent yesterday doing an opinion on a provisional decision from the FCA arising from the mis-selling of a hedge product to a small company. The mind set of bankers looking for easy profits from hidden margins, misrepresentation of the market, failure to explain the break costs and forcing short term loans on businesses in long term transactions simply so that they can generate additional renegotiation fees is just appalling.
The economic damage that this has done to our small and family businesses cannot be understated. Many future medium to large businesses have been destroyed by the greed of the banks. We penalise them pointlessly with scams like the PPI claims but fail to get to grips with the fundamental problem of their business models.
Agreed. Lack of transparency is a big reason for all the money in financial services. Always has been. That and the mind-numbing boringness of it. You can get a lot under the radar when you are boring the arse off your client and his/her eyes have glazed over.
I`m tempted to ask what a small and family business is doing investing in hedge funds in the first place? Is it because they had accumulated a surplus of cash in their business and it is a limited company, and so cannot be extracted in a tax-efficient way?
I spent yesterday doing an opinion on a provisional decision from the FCA arising from the mis-selling of a hedge product to a small company. The mind set of bankers looking for easy profits from hidden margins, misrepresentation of the market, failure to explain the break costs and forcing short term loans on businesses in long term transactions simply so that they can generate additional renegotiation fees is just appalling.
The economic damage that this has done to our small and family businesses cannot be understated. Many future medium to large businesses have been destroyed by the greed of the banks. We penalise them pointlessly with scams like the PPI claims but fail to get to grips with the fundamental problem of their business models.
That said, when I used to work for a firm (ok, @Cyclefree, an investment bank) pricing up structured derivative products for commercial companies we were always told to ask the customer "are your views really that complicated?" as often times the payoff of the contract depended on several, perhaps disconnected events transpiring.
And the word "hedge" is one that should be used cautiously.
I'm thinking of phoning the Gambling Commission later today to speak to them about Betfair's continuing failure to settle the remaining US Presidential markets. It would helpand save me some time if you could just let me know where we stand on leagal actions, recounts and like.
My belief is that Arizona has now certified. No recount is possible and I believe there are no legal actions outstanding.
Wisconsin has certified too. Not sure if there any legal actions o/s.
Georgia is recounting still? I think think the outcome is expected today. Again, I think no o/s legal actions.
The other States I am not sure about, although I thinlk there is little doubt about the outcomes.
Cheers. Get back to you all later.
Certification is not the end of the matter. There are still legal challenges in play (frivolous and will lose but still) and in 2000 Bush v Gore had Gore won the case then he could have potentially reversed Florida and reversed the projection post-certification. Had he done so he would then have become the "projected" winner prior to the Electoral College voting.
It would take a series of extremely unlikely events for Trump to become projected winner but it is indeed still legally possible.
I don`t think this matters. BF`s rules say "projected".
That's the way I see it. Indeed, certification actually takes us well beyond the level of finality that is strictly necessary for settlement of all the outstanding markets.
Why? What happens if the courts reverse certification?
What happened in 2000 Bush v Gore? Did the bookies all settle prior to the courts settling?
That is a subsequent event. It would be closely comparable to what happens in horseracing. If your horse wins and you are paid out after they have weighed in, but in the succeeding days the horse is disqualified (drugs test, ownership and identity issues etc) the bookies don't ask for their money back and pay out on the second. The result stands for betting purposes.
Same with the politics markets. It's the rules as stated that matter, not some possible distant event (unless of course that is specified in the rules.) It has to be like that. I doubt very much whether the courts have the power to reverse certification, but even if they did it would not impact the outcome for betting purposes. There has to be finality, otherwise all bets would be open indefinitely pending any possible challenge at any time in the future.
This isn't difficult, Philip. I know it's early. Have another coffee.
Since they're still counting and undergoing court cases so it hasn't been settled yet then how is it a subsequent event?
If in a horse race your horse wins but there's then a steward's enquiry disqualifies your horse then are you still the winner?
The court cases are the equivalent of a steward's enquiry and they're not resolved yet. They should be I agree with you on that, it is farcical they're not, but it is a farce of Trump and the US legal system's making not a farce Betfair have made.
PS I didn't follow political betting in 2000. The legal system now is identical to what happened in 2000 so the precedence then seems relevant, but I don't know what it was. Does anyone know if the bookmakers in 2000 paid out on Bush as winner or did they wait for the Bush v Gore court case to be settled?
No, the counting has stopped, I think, except possibly in Georgia. It has certainly stopped in Arizona, where no recount is allowed and I think there are no court cases outstanding.
But the Courts are irrelevant anyway because they stand outside the election process and were certainly not referred to in the rules, no doubt for the very good reason that invoking them means there cannot be finality. There is no time bar on Court action, so you could never pay out.
Bush/Gore was very different and even there I think Betfair and others paid out promptly on all States except Florida, which was the only one in dispute.
The Courts aren't irrelevant since they're part of the American election process, just like a steward's enquiry in a horse race like you named.
There can and will be finality since there is a time bar, the court cases need resolving (and will be resolved) prior to the Electoral College vote. Just as Florida was.
Bush/Gore was exactly the same - an election being disputed without concession with both sides claiming they should have won. Betfair and others promptly paying out on all States except the one in dispute (Florida) seems to be exactly what has happened in 2020. The only states not paid out yet are those in dispute.
There are more states in dispute than 2000, because Trump is being ridiculous. But blame Trump not Betfair. Betfair are following according to what you've just written the same precedent to the same scenario.
It isn't nice, but it is the 2000 precedent being repeated.
There was a long letter in the last issue of Priti Patel's local paper, defending her. How the write had seen nothing but courteous and appropriate behaviour in his dealings with her and so on.
It was from the Chair of her Local Association.
Mandy Rice-Davies, slightly misquoted, I think, applies.
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
The Theresa May issue isn't relevant or what is being discussed here.
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
Unintentional bullying is not a legal defence. How many bullies admit that they are doing it intentionally? If you knew anything about the real world, you would know the answer is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Didn't the offending behaviour stop as soon as it was reported? No one in the real world would be out of a job in those circumstances.
We do not know what happened because we are not allowed to see all the evidence.
So you are wilfully pretending it is as bad as is imaginable, despite no evidence of that, because you dislike her. Because you want her scalp.
We have seen no evidence of harassment of protective characteristics. We have seen no evidence of offending behaviour continuing.
But none of that is relevant to you. You dislike her politics and that is enough for you.
You are the "they" of Cyclefree's opening post.
Jesus, we are talking about the Home Secretary here. Could we perhaps apply higher standards than the rules governing the sacking of a middle manager from a borderline legal sweatshop? She shouted and swore at people - a grown woman in one of the great offices of state.
I was disappointed to note last year at what thinks it is the smartest hotel in Gros Islet, St Lucia that the list of rules by the swimming pool includes "Do not defecate in the pool." There are some behaviours where you don't need to get down to the nitty gritty of Yebbut the formal written warning in paragraph 3 was incorrectly served.
I spent yesterday doing an opinion on a provisional decision from the FCA arising from the mis-selling of a hedge product to a small company. The mind set of bankers looking for easy profits from hidden margins, misrepresentation of the market, failure to explain the break costs and forcing short term loans on businesses in long term transactions simply so that they can generate additional renegotiation fees is just appalling.
The economic damage that this has done to our small and family businesses cannot be understated. Many future medium to large businesses have been destroyed by the greed of the banks. We penalise them pointlessly with scams like the PPI claims but fail to get to grips with the fundamental problem of their business models.
That said, when I used to work for a firm (ok, @Cyclefree, an investment bank) pricing up structured derivative products for commercial companies we were always told to ask the customer "are your views really that complicated?" as often times the payoff of the contract depended on several, perhaps disconnected events transpiring.
And the word "hedge" is one that should be used cautiously.
Yes - it is irritating when people talk of hedge funds as highly speculative things when they are, in fact, the opposite. The clue`s in the name. They are still crap though - due to the eyewatering costs.
There was a long letter in the last issue of Priti Patel's local paper, defending her. How the write had seen nothing but courteous and appropriate behaviour in his dealings with her and so on.
It was from the Chair of her Local Association.
Mandy Rice-Davies, slightly misquoted, I think, applies.
No, because bullies know who to bully and who to suck up to, so it will actually be true, just irrelevant. Like saying I met Chris Huhne dozens of times and he never once asked me to take a speeding fine for him.
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
The Theresa May issue isn't relevant or what is being discussed here.
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
Unintentional bullying is not a legal defence. How many bullies admit that they are doing it intentionally? If you knew anything about the real world, you would know the answer is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Didn't the offending behaviour stop as soon as it was reported? No one in the real world would be out of a job in those circumstances.
We do not know what happened because we are not allowed to see all the evidence.
So you are wilfully pretending it is as bad as is imaginable, despite no evidence of that, because you dislike her. Because you want her scalp.
We have seen no evidence of harassment of protective characteristics. We have seen no evidence of offending behaviour continuing.
But none of that is relevant to you. You dislike her politics and that is enough for you.
You are the "they" of Cyclefree's opening post.
Jesus, we are talking about the Home Secretary here. Could we perhaps apply higher standards than the rules governing the sacking of a middle manager from a borderline legal sweatshop? She shouted and swore at people - a grown woman in one of the great offices of state.
I was disappointed to note last year at what thinks it is the smartest hotel in Gros Islet, St Lucia that the list of rules by the swimming pool includes "Do not defecate in the pool." There are some behaviours where you don't need to get down to the nitty gritty of Yebbut the formal written warning in paragraph 3 was incorrectly served.
No. I don't expect higher standards from the Home Secretary.
Anywhere I've ever worked has from time to time seen shouting and swearing. People who care get passionate sometimes. If nobody has complained and there's no feedback then that's not gross misconduct.
I expect the Home Secretary to care about her job, work hard and maybe sometimes get passionate or see frayed tempers.
I spent yesterday doing an opinion on a provisional decision from the FCA arising from the mis-selling of a hedge product to a small company. The mind set of bankers looking for easy profits from hidden margins, misrepresentation of the market, failure to explain the break costs and forcing short term loans on businesses in long term transactions simply so that they can generate additional renegotiation fees is just appalling.
The economic damage that this has done to our small and family businesses cannot be understated. Many future medium to large businesses have been destroyed by the greed of the banks. We penalise them pointlessly with scams like the PPI claims but fail to get to grips with the fundamental problem of their business models.
That said, when I used to work for a firm (ok, @Cyclefree, an investment bank) pricing up structured derivative products for commercial companies we were always told to ask the customer "are your views really that complicated?" as often times the payoff of the contract depended on several, perhaps disconnected events transpiring.
And the word "hedge" is one that should be used cautiously.
Yes - it is irritating when people talk of hedge funds as highly speculative things when they are, in fact, the opposite. The clue`s in the name. They are still crap though - due to the eyewatering costs.
Is that right? Odey for instance calls himself a hedge fund and is basically a speculator. Hedges can get repurposed: frinstance CDSs are in conception the most cautious things imaginable but that ain't how they are always used.
I'm thinking of phoning the Gambling Commission later today to speak to them about Betfair's continuing failure to settle the remaining US Presidential markets. It would helpand save me some time if you could just let me know where we stand on leagal actions, recounts and like.
My belief is that Arizona has now certified. No recount is possible and I believe there are no legal actions outstanding.
Wisconsin has certified too. Not sure if there any legal actions o/s.
Georgia is recounting still? I think think the outcome is expected today. Again, I think no o/s legal actions.
The other States I am not sure about, although I thinlk there is little doubt about the outcomes.
Cheers. Get back to you all later.
Certification is not the end of the matter. There are still legal challenges in play (frivolous and will lose but still) and in 2000 Bush v Gore had Gore won the case then he could have potentially reversed Florida and reversed the projection post-certification. Had he done so he would then have become the "projected" winner prior to the Electoral College voting.
It would take a series of extremely unlikely events for Trump to become projected winner but it is indeed still legally possible.
I don`t think this matters. BF`s rules say "projected".
That's the way I see it. Indeed, certification actually takes us well beyond the level of finality that is strictly necessary for settlement of all the outstanding markets.
Why? What happens if the courts reverse certification?
What happened in 2000 Bush v Gore? Did the bookies all settle prior to the courts settling?
That is a subsequent event. It would be closely comparable to what happens in horseracing. If your horse wins and you are paid out after they have weighed in, but in the succeeding days the horse is disqualified (drugs test, ownership and identity issues etc) the bookies don't ask for their money back and pay out on the second. The result stands for betting purposes.
Same with the politics markets. It's the rules as stated that matter, not some possible distant event (unless of course that is specified in the rules.) It has to be like that. I doubt very much whether the courts have the power to reverse certification, but even if they did it would not impact the outcome for betting purposes. There has to be finality, otherwise all bets would be open indefinitely pending any possible challenge at any time in the future.
This isn't difficult, Philip. I know it's early. Have another coffee.
Since they're still counting and undergoing court cases so it hasn't been settled yet then how is it a subsequent event?
If in a horse race your horse wins but there's then a steward's enquiry disqualifies your horse then are you still the winner?
The court cases are the equivalent of a steward's enquiry and they're not resolved yet. They should be I agree with you on that, it is farcical they're not, but it is a farce of Trump and the US legal system's making not a farce Betfair have made.
PS I didn't follow political betting in 2000. The legal system now is identical to what happened in 2000 so the precedence then seems relevant, but I don't know what it was. Does anyone know if the bookmakers in 2000 paid out on Bush as winner or did they wait for the Bush v Gore court case to be settled?
No, the counting has stopped, I think, except possibly in Georgia. It has certainly stopped in Arizona, where no recount is allowed and I think there are no court cases outstanding.
But the Courts are irrelevant anyway because they stand outside the election process and were certainly not referred to in the rules, no doubt for the very good reason that invoking them means there cannot be finality. There is no time bar on Court action, so you could never pay out.
Bush/Gore was very different and even there I think Betfair and others paid out promptly on all States except Florida, which was the only one in dispute.
The Courts aren't irrelevant since they're part of the American election process, just like a steward's enquiry in a horse race like you named.
There can and will be finality since there is a time bar, the court cases need resolving (and will be resolved) prior to the Electoral College vote. Just as Florida was.
Bush/Gore was exactly the same - an election being disputed without concession with both sides claiming they should have won. Betfair and others promptly paying out on all States except the one in dispute (Florida) seems to be exactly what has happened in 2020. The only states not paid out yet are those in dispute.
There are more states in dispute than 2000, because Trump is being ridiculous. But blame Trump not Betfair. Betfair are following according to what you've just written the same precedent to the same scenario.
It isn't nice, but it is the 2000 precedent being repeated.
No, you're terribly confused about this Philip. The Courts can become involved once the process is completed, just as they can be (and sometimes are) invoked in respect of a horserace which has been concluded and settled and finalised in accordance with the rules of racing. Unless the rules of the event make the improbable provision that the Courts shall determine the outcome, the winner is the one certified in accordance with race/election market rules. In the US Election case, these are actually very clear and succinct. The conditions for settlement were fulfilled some time back. Certification only puts the matter beyond any reasonable dispute, at least for the purposes of settling the market.
The Stewards Enquiry analogy works because the Stewards have the ultimate authority, at least for betting purposes. The equivalent authority in the US elections would be the elections officials. Once they have ruled, that's it. The Courts can always come in later, but they work on a defined result.
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
@Cyclefree - your phrasing “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” sums it up perfectly. No one in positions of power is interested in anything other than shoring up their side of whatever activity they are engaged in.
It is why I have stopped giving a d*mn. My default position has become "All any of them want is to line their pockets"
This is why the country is on its way to becoming a second rate basket case.
I'm thinking of phoning the Gambling Commission later today to speak to them about Betfair's continuing failure to settle the remaining US Presidential markets. It would helpand save me some time if you could just let me know where we stand on leagal actions, recounts and like.
My belief is that Arizona has now certified. No recount is possible and I believe there are no legal actions outstanding.
Wisconsin has certified too. Not sure if there any legal actions o/s.
Georgia is recounting still? I think think the outcome is expected today. Again, I think no o/s legal actions.
The other States I am not sure about, although I thinlk there is little doubt about the outcomes.
Cheers. Get back to you all later.
Certification is not the end of the matter. There are still legal challenges in play (frivolous and will lose but still) and in 2000 Bush v Gore had Gore won the case then he could have potentially reversed Florida and reversed the projection post-certification. Had he done so he would then have become the "projected" winner prior to the Electoral College voting.
It would take a series of extremely unlikely events for Trump to become projected winner but it is indeed still legally possible.
I don`t think this matters. BF`s rules say "projected".
That's the way I see it. Indeed, certification actually takes us well beyond the level of finality that is strictly necessary for settlement of all the outstanding markets.
Why? What happens if the courts reverse certification?
What happened in 2000 Bush v Gore? Did the bookies all settle prior to the courts settling?
That is a subsequent event. It would be closely comparable to what happens in horseracing. If your horse wins and you are paid out after they have weighed in, but in the succeeding days the horse is disqualified (drugs test, ownership and identity issues etc) the bookies don't ask for their money back and pay out on the second. The result stands for betting purposes.
Same with the politics markets. It's the rules as stated that matter, not some possible distant event (unless of course that is specified in the rules.) It has to be like that. I doubt very much whether the courts have the power to reverse certification, but even if they did it would not impact the outcome for betting purposes. There has to be finality, otherwise all bets would be open indefinitely pending any possible challenge at any time in the future.
This isn't difficult, Philip. I know it's early. Have another coffee.
Since they're still counting and undergoing court cases so it hasn't been settled yet then how is it a subsequent event?
If in a horse race your horse wins but there's then a steward's enquiry disqualifies your horse then are you still the winner?
The court cases are the equivalent of a steward's enquiry and they're not resolved yet. They should be I agree with you on that, it is farcical they're not, but it is a farce of Trump and the US legal system's making not a farce Betfair have made.
PS I didn't follow political betting in 2000. The legal system now is identical to what happened in 2000 so the precedence then seems relevant, but I don't know what it was. Does anyone know if the bookmakers in 2000 paid out on Bush as winner or did they wait for the Bush v Gore court case to be settled?
No, the counting has stopped, I think, except possibly in Georgia. It has certainly stopped in Arizona, where no recount is allowed and I think there are no court cases outstanding.
But the Courts are irrelevant anyway because they stand outside the election process and were certainly not referred to in the rules, no doubt for the very good reason that invoking them means there cannot be finality. There is no time bar on Court action, so you could never pay out.
Bush/Gore was very different and even there I think Betfair and others paid out promptly on all States except Florida, which was the only one in dispute.
The Courts aren't irrelevant since they're part of the American election process, just like a steward's enquiry in a horse race like you named.
There can and will be finality since there is a time bar, the court cases need resolving (and will be resolved) prior to the Electoral College vote. Just as Florida was.
Bush/Gore was exactly the same - an election being disputed without concession with both sides claiming they should have won. Betfair and others promptly paying out on all States except the one in dispute (Florida) seems to be exactly what has happened in 2020. The only states not paid out yet are those in dispute.
There are more states in dispute than 2000, because Trump is being ridiculous. But blame Trump not Betfair. Betfair are following according to what you've just written the same precedent to the same scenario.
It isn't nice, but it is the 2000 precedent being repeated.
No, you're terribly confused about this Philip. The Courts can become involved once the process is completed, just as they can be (and sometimes are) invoked in respect of a horserace which has been concluded and settled and finalised in accordance with the rules of racing. Unless the rules of the event make the improbable provision that the Courts shall determine the outcome, the winner is the one certified in accordance with race/election market rules. In the US Election case, these are actually very clear and succinct. The conditions for settlement were fulfilled some time back. Certification only puts the matter beyond any reasonable dispute.
The Stewards Enquiry analogy works because the Stewards have the ultimate authority, at least for betting purposes. The equivalent authority in the US elections would be the elections officials. Once they have ruled, that's it. The Courts can always come in later, but they work on a defined result.
Sorry Philip, but this is water is wet stuff.
Sorry Peter but if that's the case why wasn't there an uproar twenty years ago when they didn't settle when Florida was certified and waited for the court cases to be resolved?
The precedence was set twenty years ago. Unless something has changed since what is wrong with following precedence?
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
There was a long letter in the last issue of Priti Patel's local paper, defending her. How the write had seen nothing but courteous and appropriate behaviour in his dealings with her and so on.
It was from the Chair of her Local Association.
Mandy Rice-Davies, slightly misquoted, I think, applies.
No, because bullies know who to bully and who to suck up to, so it will actually be true, just irrelevant. Like saying I met Chris Huhne dozens of times and he never once asked me to take a speeding fine for him.
Slight misunderstanding here somewhere. I would expect the Chair of the Witham Conservative Association to have found Ms Patel polite and courteous in her dealings with him. As indeed she has generally been with me, as a constituent. That experience is not necessarily a guide as to how she behaves on other occasions.
I spent yesterday doing an opinion on a provisional decision from the FCA arising from the mis-selling of a hedge product to a small company. The mind set of bankers looking for easy profits from hidden margins, misrepresentation of the market, failure to explain the break costs and forcing short term loans on businesses in long term transactions simply so that they can generate additional renegotiation fees is just appalling.
The economic damage that this has done to our small and family businesses cannot be understated. Many future medium to large businesses have been destroyed by the greed of the banks. We penalise them pointlessly with scams like the PPI claims but fail to get to grips with the fundamental problem of their business models.
That said, when I used to work for a firm (ok, @Cyclefree, an investment bank) pricing up structured derivative products for commercial companies we were always told to ask the customer "are your views really that complicated?" as often times the payoff of the contract depended on several, perhaps disconnected events transpiring.
And the word "hedge" is one that should be used cautiously.
Yes - it is irritating when people talk of hedge funds as highly speculative things when they are, in fact, the opposite. The clue`s in the name. They are still crap though - due to the eyewatering costs.
Is that right? Odey for instance calls himself a hedge fund and is basically a speculator. Hedges can get repurposed: frinstance CDSs are in conception the most cautious things imaginable but that ain't how they are always used.
Well it's right and wrong. Most hedge funds now just take outright bets (or speculation as you say). Originally they might have had an element of hedging in them eg making market neutral bets but now are just like anyone else, with similar return profiles but are freer of some restrictions and also have more restrictive terms for investing in them than, say, a unit trust fund might be or have.
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
You know so little about this that you think the fresh shellfish industry can just freeze everything, all sorted, what's the problem? So I don't think your rebuttal carries very much force.
There was a long letter in the last issue of Priti Patel's local paper, defending her. How the write had seen nothing but courteous and appropriate behaviour in his dealings with her and so on.
It was from the Chair of her Local Association.
Mandy Rice-Davies, slightly misquoted, I think, applies.
No, because bullies know who to bully and who to suck up to, so it will actually be true, just irrelevant. Like saying I met Chris Huhne dozens of times and he never once asked me to take a speeding fine for him.
Slight misunderstanding here somewhere. I would expect the Chair of the Witham Conservative Association to have found Ms Patel polite and courteous in her dealings with him. As indeed she has generally been with me, as a constituent. That experience is not necessarily a guide as to how she behaves on other occasions.
Yes, we are agreeing. My point is that "He would say that wouldn't he" originally meant "He is lying" whereas the CotWCA is, as we agree, telling the truth.
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
Which would be a problem if it were true.
Spoiler: It is not.
If the price to the end user rises, in this case, I suspect to chefs and consumers on the continent, then several things will happen. The consumers may not pay the increase. The chefs may source their ingredients elsewhere. The dock price may fall to allow for the tariffs imposed. None of these are to advantage of the guy who brings the fish to the dock.
Why aren't you a business consultant charging £20,000 per day plus VAT and disbursements ?
I mean you clearly know more about, inter alia, road haulage, fishing, supermarkets, and financial services than those who work and the recognised trade bodies in those sectors.
Quite rightly UK politicians are pleased numbers are dropping but there appears early signs that they are dropping across Europe, what makes this virus seem to act in a coordinated way or is it that we all use the same tactics. Still think Xmas relaxation a severe error I think Spain is going for one day with up to ten family members getting together is better.
But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.
The Theresa May issue isn't relevant or what is being discussed here.
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
Unintentional bullying is not a legal defence. How many bullies admit that they are doing it intentionally? If you knew anything about the real world, you would know the answer is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Didn't the offending behaviour stop as soon as it was reported? No one in the real world would be out of a job in those circumstances.
We do not know what happened because we are not allowed to see all the evidence.
So you are wilfully pretending it is as bad as is imaginable, despite no evidence of that, because you dislike her. Because you want her scalp.
We have seen no evidence of harassment of protective characteristics. We have seen no evidence of offending behaviour continuing.
But none of that is relevant to you. You dislike her politics and that is enough for you.
You are the "they" of Cyclefree's opening post.
Jesus, we are talking about the Home Secretary here. Could we perhaps apply higher standards than the rules governing the sacking of a middle manager from a borderline legal sweatshop? She shouted and swore at people - a grown woman in one of the great offices of state.
I was disappointed to note last year at what thinks it is the smartest hotel in Gros Islet, St Lucia that the list of rules by the swimming pool includes "Do not defecate in the pool." There are some behaviours where you don't need to get down to the nitty gritty of Yebbut the formal written warning in paragraph 3 was incorrectly served.
No. I don't expect higher standards from the Home Secretary.
Anywhere I've ever worked has from time to time seen shouting and swearing. People who care get passionate sometimes. If nobody has complained and there's no feedback then that's not gross misconduct.
I expect the Home Secretary to care about her job, work hard and maybe sometimes get passionate or see frayed tempers.
The government used to have an expert on where the line was for ministerial behaviour. What was maddening but reasonable passion, what was unreasonable bullying.
The expert investigated the allegations as far as he could- though it seems he was prevented from talking to one of the key players who has contradicted parts of the case for the defence. In particular, that Ms Patel had been given feedback fairly early on in her time at the Home Office.
Sir Alex Allan (for it was he) concluded that Priti Patel's behaviour had crossed the line. And that if his advice is going to be ignored by the Prime Minister, there's not much point him preparing such advice.
So yes, the Prime Minister has the power to have whoever he wants in his Cabinet for as long as he wants, subject to him being Prime Minister. That's literally the process. Priti Patel is still Home Secretary, not because her behaviour wasn't that bad, but because Boris Johnson can do that.
Which is exactly the same justification for dogs doing unspeakable things with their tongues.
Quite rightly UK politicians are pleased numbers are dropping but there appears early signs that they are dropping across Europe, what makes this virus seem to act in a coordinated way or is it that we all use the same tactics. Still think Xmas relaxation a severe error I think Spain is going for one day with up to ten family members getting together is better.
Restrictions have come into place all around Europe in the last couple of months. The exact nature may be different, but they all have a similar effect.
There was a long letter in the last issue of Priti Patel's local paper, defending her. How the write had seen nothing but courteous and appropriate behaviour in his dealings with her and so on.
It was from the Chair of her Local Association.
Mandy Rice-Davies, slightly misquoted, I think, applies.
No, because bullies know who to bully and who to suck up to, so it will actually be true, just irrelevant. Like saying I met Chris Huhne dozens of times and he never once asked me to take a speeding fine for him.
Slight misunderstanding here somewhere. I would expect the Chair of the Witham Conservative Association to have found Ms Patel polite and courteous in her dealings with him. As indeed she has generally been with me, as a constituent. That experience is not necessarily a guide as to how she behaves on other occasions.
Yes, we are agreeing. My point is that "He would say that wouldn't he" originally meant "He is lying" whereas the CotWCA is, as we agree, telling the truth.
Point taken. I don't know the chap and I've no idea how otherwise 'aware' he is.
Why aren't you a business consultant charging £20,000 per day plus VAT and disbursements ?
I mean you clearly know more about, inter alia, road haulage, fishing, supermarkets, and financial services than those who work and the recognised trade bodies in those sectors.
You should be out there earning serious wonga.
You forgot poker wizard, brexit guru, and various other skills including being an expert on electoral systems.
this might have been posted already. BBC releasing the 6-person SPOTY shortlist during today. Lewis Hamilton and Stuart Broad named so far. next at 14:10
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
Which would be a problem if it were true.
Spoiler: It is not.
If the price to the end user rises, in this case, I suspect to chefs and consumers on the continent, then several things will happen. The consumers may not pay the increase. The chefs may source their ingredients elsewhere. The dock price may fall to allow for the tariffs imposed. None of these are to advantage of the guy who brings the fish to the dock.
Yes that is the market in action. The goods will find their way to the customers because the market finds a way, prices may adjust and a new price equilibrium will be found because that is how markets work.
That is an entirely different concept to @IshmaelZ 's infantile suggestion (which I dismissed with an infantile mocking "Spoiler") that there is "no one you can sell them to".
You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to. There already is since not 100% of our sales go to the EU anyway.
I spent yesterday doing an opinion on a provisional decision from the FCA arising from the mis-selling of a hedge product to a small company. The mind set of bankers looking for easy profits from hidden margins, misrepresentation of the market, failure to explain the break costs and forcing short term loans on businesses in long term transactions simply so that they can generate additional renegotiation fees is just appalling.
The economic damage that this has done to our small and family businesses cannot be understated. Many future medium to large businesses have been destroyed by the greed of the banks. We penalise them pointlessly with scams like the PPI claims but fail to get to grips with the fundamental problem of their business models.
There are two main reasons for serving food with drinks:
1. It allows more people through the pub in any given day, which is important as many have reduced capacities. 2. People who are primarily drinking behave differently to those who are primarily eating - and those behavioural differences are a significant factor in the spread of the nasty virus that’s going round!
Quite rightly UK politicians are pleased numbers are dropping but there appears early signs that they are dropping across Europe, what makes this virus seem to act in a coordinated way or is it that we all use the same tactics. Still think Xmas relaxation a severe error I think Spain is going for one day with up to ten family members getting together is better.
Basically, waves seem to take 3 months or so. I suspect a lot is due to changes in behaviour, either by law or by caution rather than immunity. These waves burn themselves out, before the next one builds. Christmas is clearly a risk.
Personally, I would have gone with 48 hours from 1800 on 24/12, with the rule of six plus kids. I suspect many or even most would have smaller numbers.
I spent yesterday doing an opinion on a provisional decision from the FCA arising from the mis-selling of a hedge product to a small company. The mind set of bankers looking for easy profits from hidden margins, misrepresentation of the market, failure to explain the break costs and forcing short term loans on businesses in long term transactions simply so that they can generate additional renegotiation fees is just appalling.
The economic damage that this has done to our small and family businesses cannot be understated. Many future medium to large businesses have been destroyed by the greed of the banks. We penalise them pointlessly with scams like the PPI claims but fail to get to grips with the fundamental problem of their business models.
Agreed. Lack of transparency is a big reason for all the money in financial services. Always has been. That and the mind-numbing boringness of it. You can get a lot under the radar when you are boring the arse off your client and his/her eyes have glazed over.
I'm tempted to ask what a small and family business is doing investing in hedge funds in the first place? Is it because they had accumulated a surplus of cash in their business and it is a limited company, and so cannot be extracted in a tax-efficient way?
I think in these cases, their banks told them they could mitigate either currency or interest rate risks through the use of packaged products - without disclosing properly that they thereby subjected themselves to much greater risks if either of things moved too far.
In my experience bullies are rarely effective managers, partly because the culture of fear prevents free exchange of information, but mostly because bullying is usually a cover for personal incompetence.
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
Which would be a problem if it were true.
Spoiler: It is not.
If the price to the end user rises, in this case, I suspect to chefs and consumers on the continent, then several things will happen. The consumers may not pay the increase. The chefs may source their ingredients elsewhere. The dock price may fall to allow for the tariffs imposed. None of these are to advantage of the guy who brings the fish to the dock.
Yes that is the market in action. The goods will find their way to the customers because the market finds a way, prices may adjust and a new price equilibrium will be found because that is how markets work.
That is an entirely different concept to @IshmaelZ 's infantile suggestion (which I dismissed with an infantile mocking "Spoiler") that there is "no one you can sell them to".
You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to. There already is since not 100% of our sales go to the EU anyway.
'You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to'
If, of course, you sell below production, or in this case, catching, costs you are heading for disaster. Remember Mr Micawber. And building a new market, once one's original one is lost, takes time.
There are as many Debenhams employees as fishermen in the UK.
There used to be a lot more fishermen in the uk before the eu became a thing. I know as was one of them. We are often told quotas were sold and it's true. What they don't say though is why quota's were sold. It got to the point when the trawler I was on could only fish 6 weeks of the year because of quota's. People like me couldnt afford to be employed only 6 weeks of the year. People owning the trawler in our case our skipper couldnt afford the upkeep on a boat that could only work 6 weeks a year. We were just a small beam trawler not a massive factory ship
Quite rightly UK politicians are pleased numbers are dropping but there appears early signs that they are dropping across Europe, what makes this virus seem to act in a coordinated way or is it that we all use the same tactics. Still think Xmas relaxation a severe error I think Spain is going for one day with up to ten family members getting together is better.
Basically, waves seem to take 3 months or so. I suspect a lot is due to changes in behaviour, either by law or by caution rather than immunity. These waves burn themselves out, before the next one builds. Christmas is clearly a risk.
Personally, I would have gone with 48 hours from 1800 on 24/12, with the rule of six plus kids. I suspect many or even most would have smaller numbers.
The problem with that is not everyone gets Christmas Day and Boxing Day off. Mostly working would be key workers who have worked all year through the pandemic - like your own colleagues.
Its tough enough at the best of times being a key worker who needs to celebrate on the 23rd or 27th instead. Being told that not only have you worked all through the pandemic, not only have you worked on Christmas Day, but now everyone else can legally see family on Christmas Day but you seeing anyone is against the law?
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
Which would be a problem if it were true.
Spoiler: It is not.
If the price to the end user rises, in this case, I suspect to chefs and consumers on the continent, then several things will happen. The consumers may not pay the increase. The chefs may source their ingredients elsewhere. The dock price may fall to allow for the tariffs imposed. None of these are to advantage of the guy who brings the fish to the dock.
Yes that is the market in action. The goods will find their way to the customers because the market finds a way, prices may adjust and a new price equilibrium will be found because that is how markets work.
That is an entirely different concept to @IshmaelZ 's infantile suggestion (which I dismissed with an infantile mocking "Spoiler") that there is "no one you can sell them to".
You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to. There already is since not 100% of our sales go to the EU anyway.
"Ian Perkes is sitting at his computer screen by the harbour buying sole in an online auction to sell to markets across Europe. He fears that if Mr Johnson allows EU trade talks to collapse in a dispute about fisheries, the industry will face crippling tariffs in its main market on January 1 when the UK’s Brexit transition period ends.
“If the tariff was only 5 per cent we would be killed,” said Mr Perkes, the founder of a £5m-a-year fish exporting company. In fact, if trade talks collapse, the EU will soon be levying tariffs of 20 per cent on key catches like scallops."
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
Which would be a problem if it were true.
Spoiler: It is not.
If the price to the end user rises, in this case, I suspect to chefs and consumers on the continent, then several things will happen. The consumers may not pay the increase. The chefs may source their ingredients elsewhere. The dock price may fall to allow for the tariffs imposed. None of these are to advantage of the guy who brings the fish to the dock.
Yes that is the market in action. The goods will find their way to the customers because the market finds a way, prices may adjust and a new price equilibrium will be found because that is how markets work.
That is an entirely different concept to @IshmaelZ 's infantile suggestion (which I dismissed with an infantile mocking "Spoiler") that there is "no one you can sell them to".
You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to. There already is since not 100% of our sales go to the EU anyway.
'You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to'
If, of course, you sell below production, or in this case, catching, costs you are heading for disaster. Remember Mr Micawber. And building a new market, once one's original one is lost, takes time.
True but it won't happen. Its not like magically tonnes of new stock are going to be created to displace these sales.
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
Which would be a problem if it were true.
Spoiler: It is not.
If the price to the end user rises, in this case, I suspect to chefs and consumers on the continent, then several things will happen. The consumers may not pay the increase. The chefs may source their ingredients elsewhere. The dock price may fall to allow for the tariffs imposed. None of these are to advantage of the guy who brings the fish to the dock.
Yes that is the market in action. The goods will find their way to the customers because the market finds a way, prices may adjust and a new price equilibrium will be found because that is how markets work.
That is an entirely different concept to @IshmaelZ 's infantile suggestion (which I dismissed with an infantile mocking "Spoiler") that there is "no one you can sell them to".
You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to. There already is since not 100% of our sales go to the EU anyway.
"Ian Perkes is sitting at his computer screen by the harbour buying sole in an online auction to sell to markets across Europe. He fears that if Mr Johnson allows EU trade talks to collapse in a dispute about fisheries, the industry will face crippling tariffs in its main market on January 1 when the UK’s Brexit transition period ends.
“If the tariff was only 5 per cent we would be killed,” said Mr Perkes, the founder of a £5m-a-year fish exporting company. In fact, if trade talks collapse, the EU will soon be levying tariffs of 20 per cent on key catches like scallops."
What a jerk.
Not a jerk. Just lobbying for his sector.
Mr Portus on your link has a completely different opinion.
You agree with Mr Perkes, I agree with Mr Portus. Both covered by the same article.
An excellent article by Ms Cyclefree, but I'd like to pick up one point. When critics lay into politicians, it is often very much the case that '“they” want to tear this person down', rather than there being fair-minded criticism. We've seen innumerable examples over the years, such as the Daily Telegraph laying into Alan Beith on his expenses on completely spurious grounds, or very recently the attacks on Rishi Sunak's register of interests, a textbook example of a politically-motivated smear attempt, and clearly a pre-emptive strike aimed purely at damaging his reputation since he's considered a possible future party leader.
So we shouldn't fall into the trap (which I fear the generally excellent Cyclefree occasionally does) of assuming that the lies and dishonest spin is invariably on the side of the attacked, just because they are politicians and therefore by definition rascals. Instead, we need to keep as objective and fair-minded assessment of the motives and consistency of the attackers. Not easy to do, admittedly - but it's much easier if you consciously set out to try to do it, and remind yourself of the need to do it every time.
There was a long letter in the last issue of Priti Patel's local paper, defending her. How the write had seen nothing but courteous and appropriate behaviour in his dealings with her and so on.
It was from the Chair of her Local Association.
Mandy Rice-Davies, slightly misquoted, I think, applies.
No, because bullies know who to bully and who to suck up to, so it will actually be true, just irrelevant. Like saying I met Chris Huhne dozens of times and he never once asked me to take a speeding fine for him.
In the one case of serious bullying I was ever involved in dealing with, over half of the organisation were genuinely in fear of their careers if they spoke out, while the rest were almost completely unaware of the seriousness the problem.
There are as many Debenhams employees as fishermen in the UK.
There used to be a lot more fishermen in the uk before the eu became a thing. I know as was one of them. We are often told quotas were sold and it's true. What they don't say though is why quota's were sold. It got to the point when the trawler I was on could only fish 6 weeks of the year because of quota's. People like me couldnt afford to be employed only 6 weeks of the year. People owning the trawler in our case our skipper couldnt afford the upkeep on a boat that could only work 6 weeks a year. We were just a small beam trawler not a massive factory ship
Of course the whole point of a quota is to preserve fishing stocks.
Setting An Example – politicalbetting.com
Comments
So what is he proposing instead? I suspect if pushed it would be something extremely similar.
https://twitter.com/EdwardJDavey/status/1333686909021851650
It’s brilliant.
(@TSE can’t be allowed to be the only one with legendary modesty. 😉)
The distinction between an effective manager able to deal with underperformance, insubordination or obstruction and a manager who bullies is being deliberately and wrongly blurred.
Yes, have read several comments on here regarding the Patel affair which pretty well do the same thing.
(btw, looks as though Boris is going to bung pubs some cash - but just the ones which only serve drinks.)
Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.
The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.
"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.
The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.
The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.
Current Betfair prices:-
Biden 1.05
Democrats 1.05
Biden PV 1.04
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.06
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.06
Trump ECV 210-239 1.1
Biden ECV 300-329 1.09
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.07
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.08
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 1.01
AZ Dem 1.06
GA Dem 1.05
MI Dem 1.05
NV Dem 1.04
PA Dem 1.06
WI Dem 1.05
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.11
Trump exit date 2021 1.1
If in a horse race your horse wins but there's then a steward's enquiry disqualifies your horse then are you still the winner?
The court cases are the equivalent of a steward's enquiry and they're not resolved yet. They should be I agree with you on that, it is farcical they're not, but it is a farce of Trump and the US legal system's making not a farce Betfair have made.
PS I didn't follow political betting in 2000. The legal system now is identical to what happened in 2000 so the precedence then seems relevant, but I don't know what it was. Does anyone know if the bookmakers in 2000 paid out on Bush as winner or did they wait for the Bush v Gore court case to be settled?
The economic damage that this has done to our small and family businesses cannot be understated. Many future medium to large businesses have been destroyed by the greed of the banks. We penalise them pointlessly with scams like the PPI claims but fail to get to grips with the fundamental problem of their business models.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9004519/Moment-police-tell-citizen-journalist-f-arresting-terrorism.html
I have worked with many good, competent managers that some staff felt were bullying and others didn't. I suspect almost everyone has at one stage or another. Considering the report gives no hint that Patel was intentionally bullying anyone and says that since the issue was raised to her attention the culture has improved already that most businesses would entirely appropriately draw a line in the sand at that - at most maybe leaving a note in the personnel file in case there are similar complaints again in the future.
If a real world Patel were dismissed for gross misconduct with zero evidence that she was intentionally bullying anyone, zero opportunity to correct the actions and having already changed the atmosphere there and resolving concerns prior to dismissal then I suspect a real world Patel would have a very good case for taking the employer to a tribunal for wrongful termination.
This is all politics, has nothing to do with science
That said, unintentional bullying is not a legal defence. How many bullies admit that they are doing it intentionally? If you knew anything about the real world, you would know the answer is as close to zero as makes no difference.
The public has a good deal of tolerance for minor to moderate errors of judgment, and in the Patel case I think a poll would find that most people - if they have an opinion at all - have concluded that "she doesn't sound very nice to work for but at least she's apologised, so let's move on". The repeated instances of senior posts being given to relatives or friends of Ministers is having a more corrosive effect, because it appears to be a persistent practice rather than a one-off error. At a human level I understand the temptation - "I know X is good, let's give the job to her rather than someone we've never heard of". But it's a serious mistake at several levels and needs to stop.
Re my attempt to contact the Gambling Commission about Betfair's failure to settle the outstanding Presidential markets, it seems that due to Covid their lines are not open today. Will try again tomorrow. Meanwhile I would appreciate any information and updates concerning the status of legal challenges etc affecting the unsettled markets.
Please email if it's easier: arklebar@gmail.com
Thanks
No problem with that, of course, if we want to live under a permanent dictatorship.
There is a three strike system normally for all but Gross Misconduct for a good reason. Bullying can be gross misconduct in extreme cases, especially if it becomes harassment about a protected characteristic but that is not relevant here.
We have seen no evidence of harassment of protective characteristics.
We have seen no evidence of offending behaviour continuing.
But none of that is relevant to you. You dislike her politics and that is enough for you.
You are the "they" of Cyclefree's opening post.
Our civil service is often full of very stupid people who do very stupid things because it answers the question. An example I worked on a large dataset I had to work with due to civil service directions only half the roads that were slip roads were labelled as slip roads. I complained that it needed to be correct. There response which made things consistent was to remove the slip road label from all roads
"He does not seek to win an argument, he just seeks to bully. If you have not worked closely with him before, it is truly shocking. The more he trusts you, the more he vents."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/feb/21/gordon-brown-fresh-bullying-allegations
If she can claim that a white male colleague doing the same would not have been dismissed then she would have a claim.
But the Courts are irrelevant anyway because they stand outside the election process and were certainly not referred to in the rules, no doubt for the very good reason that invoking them means there cannot be finality. There is no time bar on Court action, so you could never pay out.
Bush/Gore was very different and even there I think Betfair and others paid out promptly on all States except Florida, which was the only one in dispute.
As an employer the "protected characteristics" law does indeed have a chilling effect of ensuring every i is dotted and every t is crossed before reaching for gross misconduct dismissal. Which of course is precisely what the law was designed to do.
I`m tempted to ask what a small and family business is doing investing in hedge funds in the first place? Is it because they had accumulated a surplus of cash in their business and it is a limited company, and so cannot be extracted in a tax-efficient way?
This was a cause celebre many years ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/13/business/gibson-files-lawsuit-over-derivatives.html
That said, when I used to work for a firm (ok, @Cyclefree, an investment bank) pricing up structured derivative products for commercial companies we were always told to ask the customer "are your views really that complicated?" as often times the payoff of the contract depended on several, perhaps disconnected events transpiring.
And the word "hedge" is one that should be used cautiously.
There can and will be finality since there is a time bar, the court cases need resolving (and will be resolved) prior to the Electoral College vote. Just as Florida was.
Bush/Gore was exactly the same - an election being disputed without concession with both sides claiming they should have won. Betfair and others promptly paying out on all States except the one in dispute (Florida) seems to be exactly what has happened in 2020. The only states not paid out yet are those in dispute.
There are more states in dispute than 2000, because Trump is being ridiculous. But blame Trump not Betfair. Betfair are following according to what you've just written the same precedent to the same scenario.
It isn't nice, but it is the 2000 precedent being repeated.
It was from the Chair of her Local Association.
Mandy Rice-Davies, slightly misquoted, I think, applies.
I was disappointed to note last year at what thinks it is the smartest hotel in Gros Islet, St Lucia that the list of rules by the swimming pool includes "Do not defecate in the pool." There are some behaviours where you don't need to get down to the nitty gritty of Yebbut the formal written warning in paragraph 3 was incorrectly served.
Anywhere I've ever worked has from time to time seen shouting and swearing. People who care get passionate sometimes. If nobody has complained and there's no feedback then that's not gross misconduct.
I expect the Home Secretary to care about her job, work hard and maybe sometimes get passionate or see frayed tempers.
The Stewards Enquiry analogy works because the Stewards have the ultimate authority, at least for betting purposes. The equivalent authority in the US elections would be the elections officials. Once they have ruled, that's it. The Courts can always come in later, but they work on a defined result.
Sorry Philip, but this is water is wet stuff.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
It is why I have stopped giving a d*mn. My default position has become "All any of them want is to line their pockets"
This is why the country is on its way to becoming a second rate basket case.
The precedence was set twenty years ago. Unless something has changed since what is wrong with following precedence?
Spoiler: It is not.
That experience is not necessarily a guide as to how she behaves on other occasions.
You know so little about this that you think the fresh shellfish industry can just freeze everything, all sorted, what's the problem? So I don't think your rebuttal carries very much force.
None of these are to advantage of the guy who brings the fish to the dock.
I mean you clearly know more about, inter alia, road haulage, fishing, supermarkets, and financial services than those who work and the recognised trade bodies in those sectors.
You should be out there earning serious wonga.
The expert investigated the allegations as far as he could- though it seems he was prevented from talking to one of the key players who has contradicted parts of the case for the defence. In particular, that Ms Patel had been given feedback fairly early on in her time at the Home Office.
Sir Alex Allan (for it was he) concluded that Priti Patel's behaviour had crossed the line. And that if his advice is going to be ignored by the Prime Minister, there's not much point him preparing such advice.
So yes, the Prime Minister has the power to have whoever he wants in his Cabinet for as long as he wants, subject to him being Prime Minister. That's literally the process. Priti Patel is still Home Secretary, not because her behaviour wasn't that bad, but because Boris Johnson can do that.
Which is exactly the same justification for dogs doing unspeakable things with their tongues.
Why didn't they ask Phil?
That is an entirely different concept to @IshmaelZ 's infantile suggestion (which I dismissed with an infantile mocking "Spoiler") that there is "no one you can sell them to".
You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to. There already is since not 100% of our sales go to the EU anyway.
There are two main reasons for serving food with drinks:
1. It allows more people through the pub in any given day, which is important as many have reduced capacities.
2. People who are primarily drinking behave differently to those who are primarily eating - and those behavioural differences are a significant factor in the spread of the nasty virus that’s going round!
Personally, I would have gone with 48 hours from 1800 on 24/12, with the rule of six plus kids. I suspect many or even most would have smaller numbers.
I'll save the other arm for the Covid vaccine...
If, of course, you sell below production, or in this case, catching, costs you are heading for disaster. Remember Mr Micawber.
And building a new market, once one's original one is lost, takes time.
Its tough enough at the best of times being a key worker who needs to celebrate on the 23rd or 27th instead. Being told that not only have you worked all through the pandemic, not only have you worked on Christmas Day, but now everyone else can legally see family on Christmas Day but you seeing anyone is against the law?
https://www.ft.com/content/4f224474-4604-431a-9752-0e5cf00c67bd
"Ian Perkes is sitting at his computer screen by the harbour buying sole in an online auction to sell to markets across Europe. He fears that if Mr Johnson allows EU trade talks to collapse in a dispute about fisheries, the industry will face crippling tariffs in its main market on January 1 when the UK’s Brexit transition period ends.
“If the tariff was only 5 per cent we would be killed,” said Mr Perkes, the founder of a £5m-a-year fish exporting company. In fact, if trade talks collapse, the EU will soon be levying tariffs of 20 per cent on key catches like scallops."
What a jerk.
Instead prices will adjust like you said.
Have the usual suspects been missing the point and/or defending the indefensible?
I do hope so. In these troubled times we need to hold onto whatever secure fixings we can.
Mr Portus on your link has a completely different opinion.
You agree with Mr Perkes, I agree with Mr Portus. Both covered by the same article.
PS Mr Perkes never said what you said.
So we shouldn't fall into the trap (which I fear the generally excellent Cyclefree occasionally does) of assuming that the lies and dishonest spin is invariably on the side of the attacked, just because they are politicians and therefore by definition rascals. Instead, we need to keep as objective and fair-minded assessment of the motives and consistency of the attackers. Not easy to do, admittedly - but it's much easier if you consciously set out to try to do it, and remind yourself of the need to do it every time.