Thanks everyone. Can anyone recommend a solicitor for me to use? (The person I normally talk to is a partner at Slaughter & May, but I suspect that might be over-kill...)
Or would has any resident pb solicitor (Sean_F, LIAMT or any other) like to consider taking my case on?
Sorry. I'd be useless. I've never been able to get the hang of e-bay.
David Herdson I am no sort of apologist for UKIP strategy, but I believe their leadership is right to recognise that it will be difficult to secure an OUT vote in a referendum if two of the main parties in Parliament are united in favour of IN and the Conservative Party, though split, has a pro IN leadership. A NO vote will be much easier to secure if the governing party is united in its favour, having won an election against a background of severe economic crisis.
The politics might be one aspect but the bigger risk for OUT is they have spent so much time demanding a referendum they will be totally unprepared if they get one. See SNP and Indyref.
Also what happens if Labour win in 2015 and 2020 - result is an epic fail just to spite Cameron ?
On topic, I agree with Mike that a UKIP win would totally change the media narrative but I don't entirely agree that UKIP needs to start winning MPs - it depends what the strategy behind it is.
If the notion is that UKIP should start focussing ruthlessly on a few constituencies and let the rest hang then that's the same blind strategic alley the Lib Dems have driven up and where's it got them? Six decades of intensive campaigning, five years in government delivering very little from their own manifesto and now back to single figures and fourth place in the polls, and staring down the barrel of their most losses at a general election in more than eighty years. The Lib Dems aspire to government yet write off more than 80% of constituencies; they seek an electoral coalition based on 'not being the others' but by definition can only enter government with one of the others, so then undermining their own voter base. Why should UKIP go down the same route?
It's true that UKIP won far fewer council seats in 2013 than the Lib Dems and their vote was far less efficiently distributed on that particular vote share. However, it's also true that in many of the seats they did win, they did so because of the national profile, not local work. Intensive local work is *not* the only route to a breakthrough.
The question is whether UKIP can advance from where they are now and that's where winning a seat would make a big difference. Looking like a credible party (in terms of whether they can win; let's leave policies aside for now), makes a big difference in attracting votes. A parliamentary win in February or March would significantly boost their chances further of winning the Euros in May (and winning more council seats too), and that's where the momentum then really matters.
It's true that a UKIP national vote share at a general election of 15% would deliver at best a handful of seats due to their vote being fairly evenly distributed (cf the Lib Dems, who'd still have top-side of 40 on that score). However, increase that to 20%, 25% or 30% and the picture suddenly starts to look very different. Question is, can they go that far?
You ask where coaltion has got the LDs. Well it's stopped a pile of moves by the nutty Tory right all of which are contained in Cameron "little black book".
So in other words, nothing it couldn't have achieved in opposition given the current parliamentary numbers.
Full-blown political breakthroughs can only be achieved by a national campaign. They can be assisted no end by quality work on the ground locally - and a UKIP win in Wythenshaw would indeed given them a massive boost - but local work alone can *never* deliver a national breakthrough because of the inherant contradictions it will bring.
Labour have an interesting question of timing for this by-election. Do they go early? Do they seek to time it with the EU elections to spread UKIP too thinly (but risk UKIP benefiting from the halo effect of those elections in this constituency)?
Mr. Tyndall, you've rather neglected to mention that Cameron's committed to a referendum.
I grow tired of the 'We don't trust Cameron' line. Even if you don't trust him, you can trust his backbenchers to commit regicide if there's a manifesto promise for a referendum and he doesn't deliver. You've got one chap and his party saying there should be a referendum, which is what you want, and two chaps and their parties that are almost entirely (a few Labour backbenchers aside) committed to ever more EU integration.
Maintaining ideological purity and the luxury of opposition might make UKIP feel all rebellious and cool (no way we're dealing with The Establishment!) but if you actually want to effect a change then the best way to do that is to either cut a party-wide deal with the blues, or do so on a case-by-case basis so you don't end up costing sceptical MPs their seats.
I think some UKIP supporters have moved from wanting to leave as their primary motivation to wanting to kick the big three parties or promote UKIP itself.
Mr. Topping, whilst I don't know about the lightly used issue, it sounds like buying a box of chocolate for £10, eating three-quarters of them and then getting the full £10 refund.
I have not forgotten it at all. But the aim of this whole process is to leave the EU.
You leave the EU by winning the referendum Cameron has promised in 2017. Its that simple.
The UKIP plan seems to be to loose the opportunity to have a 2017 referendum in the hope that at some future point (2022, 2027...) there may be another referendum even though the euro crisis is probably the bast backdrop to have a referendum in.
Let us assume that in 2020, UKIP and the Conservatives have merged, and that the Conservative Party has an official 'out' policy.
I think it is reasonable to assume in this circumstance that the LibDems will be slightly stronger - there are certain Tory supporters (particularly in the City, in big business, law etc.) who are sufficiently pro-EU they would oppose BOO, and there are certain Tories who are not fans of UKIP's social conservatism. Let's put the LibDems on 15%.
Let's also assume that others (Greens, BNP, Respect, etc.) are on 5%.
That means that you have 80% of the vote between Conservative and Labour. If the Conservatives win with - say - 42% of the vote (which I would say would be quite a challenge), would leaving the EU without a referendum be possible?
If the Conservatives were on sub-40%, I would suggest it would not, and if they were at the 44% level or so, then there would clearly be a mandate.
David Herdson I am no sort of apologist for UKIP strategy, but I believe their leadership is right to recognise that it will be difficult to secure an OUT vote in a referendum if two of the main parties in Parliament are united in favour of IN and the Conservative Party, though split, has a pro IN leadership. A NO vote will be much easier to secure if the governing party is united in its favour, having won an election against a background of severe economic crisis.
The politics might be one aspect but the bigger risk for OUT is they have spent so much time demanding a referendum they will be totally unprepared if they get one. See SNP and Indyref.
Also what happens if Labour win in 2015 and 2020 - result is an epic fail just to spite Cameron ?
Well if labour win in 2015 it will be because Cameron has screwed up, you can't blame UKIP for that - bar a handful of consitituencies. The bigger issue if Labour wins is the EU will most likely be shoving another round of treaties then, all the signs are there. Irate kippers yelling EUSSR is not going to stop them going though when Ed rolls over.
David Herdson I am no sort of apologist for UKIP strategy, but I believe their leadership is right to recognise that it will be difficult to secure an OUT vote in a referendum if two of the main parties in Parliament are united in favour of IN and the Conservative Party, though split, has a pro IN leadership. A NO vote will be much easier to secure if the governing party is united in its favour, having won an election against a background of severe economic crisis.
I disagree, while there is an anti politics mood across the country is an ideal time for the BOOers to have a referendum when the three established parties are all on the same side.
The chance for the electorate to give them all a bloody nose would be very tempting for many voters.
Mr. Tyndall, you've rather neglected to mention that Cameron's committed to a referendum.
I grow tired of the 'We don't trust Cameron' line. Even if you don't trust him, you can trust his backbenchers to commit regicide if there's a manifesto promise for a referendum and he doesn't deliver. You've got one chap and his party saying there should be a referendum, which is what you want, and two chaps and their parties that are almost entirely (a few Labour backbenchers aside) committed to ever more EU integration.
Maintaining ideological purity and the luxury of opposition might make UKIP feel all rebellious and cool (no way we're dealing with The Establishment!) but if you actually want to effect a change then the best way to do that is to either cut a party-wide deal with the blues, or do so on a case-by-case basis so you don't end up costing sceptical MPs their seats.
I think some UKIP supporters have moved from wanting to leave as their primary motivation to wanting to kick the big three parties or promote UKIP itself.
Mr. Topping, whilst I don't know about the lightly used issue, it sounds like buying a box of chocolate for £10, eating three-quarters of them and then getting the full £10 refund.
I have not forgotten it at all. But the aim of this whole process is to leave the EU.
You leave the EU by winning the referendum Cameron has promised in 2017. Its that simple.
The UKIP plan seems to be to loose the opportunity to have a 2017 referendum in the hope that at some future point (2022, 2027...) there may be another referendum even though the euro crisis is probably the bast backdrop to have a referendum in.
David Herdson I am no sort of apologist for UKIP strategy, but I believe their leadership is right to recognise that it will be difficult to secure an OUT vote in a referendum if two of the main parties in Parliament are united in favour of IN and the Conservative Party, though split, has a pro IN leadership. A NO vote will be much easier to secure if the governing party is united in its favour, having won an election against a background of severe economic crisis.
I disagree, while there is an anti politics mood across the country is an ideal time for the BOOers to have a referendum when the three established parties are all on the same side.
The chance for the electorate to give them all a bloody nose would be very tempting for many voters.
Spot on. 2017 and the mid term blues have kicked in for a grumpy electorate. Likewise if the kipper rationale is they need one party on board could a less europhile Labour leader play the opportunist card to kick HMG ? If Ed loses odds are he will go.
Mr. Tyndall, you've rather neglected to mention that Cameron's committed to a referendum.
I grow tired of the 'We don't trust Cameron' line. Even if you don't trust him, you can trust his backbenchers to commit regicide if there's a manifesto promise for a referendum and he doesn't deliver. You've got one chap and his party saying there should be a referendum, which is what you want, and two chaps and their parties that are almost entirely (a few Labour backbenchers aside) committed to ever more EU integration.
Maintaining ideological purity and the luxury of opposition might make UKIP feel all rebellious and cool (no way we're dealing with The Establishment!) but if you actually want to effect a change then the best way to do that is to either cut a party-wide deal with the blues, or do so on a case-by-case basis so you don't end up costing sceptical MPs their seats.
I think some UKIP supporters have moved from wanting to leave as their primary motivation to wanting to kick the big three parties or promote UKIP itself.
Mr. Topping, whilst I don't know about the lightly used issue, it sounds like buying a box of chocolate for £10, eating three-quarters of them and then getting the full £10 refund.
I have not forgotten it at all. But the aim of this whole process is to leave the EU.
You leave the EU by winning the referendum Cameron has promised in 2017. Its that simple.
The UKIP plan seems to be to loose the opportunity to have a 2017 referendum in the hope that at some future point (2022, 2027...) there may be another referendum even though the euro crisis is probably the bast backdrop to have a referendum in.
"I don't think the Glazers have the luxury of giving Moyes time. (not too much, anyway)"
Are you seriously suggesting that instead they can afford to pay off virtually his full six year contract said to be worth around £5 million per annum?
they paid 71 million in interest on the debt last year. how much does their income fall if they don't make the champions league?
Not so - this from The Guardian on 23 May 2013:
"United say the new loan would have an estimated starting interest rate of around 2.78% and that interest payments should come down from around £31m to £21m per year."
That's the small matter of £50 million less than the figure quoted by you!
Plus, what makes you think that replacing Moyes at a cost of almost £30 million would actually improve Man Utd's chances of qualifying for the Champions League? Such a move might actually reduce their chances.
but it seems that 22m of that 71m was a one-off charge.
Absolutely agree that axeing the manager is potentially a stupid thing to do, but then, who's actually making the decisions there? and at what point to sponsors start to get really edgy?
Mr. Tyndall, you've rather neglected to mention that Cameron's committed to a referendum.
I grow tired of the 'We don't trust Cameron' line. Even if you don't trust him, you can trust his backbenchers to commit regicide if there's a manifesto promise for a referendum and he doesn't deliver. You've got one chap and his party saying there should be a referendum, which is what you want, and two chaps and their parties that are almost entirely (a few Labour backbenchers aside) committed to ever more EU integration.
Maintaining ideological purity and the luxury of opposition might make UKIP feel all rebellious and cool (no way we're dealing with The Establishment!) but if you actually want to effect a change then the best way to do that is to either cut a party-wide deal with the blues, or do so on a case-by-case basis so you don't end up costing sceptical MPs their seats.
I think some UKIP supporters have moved from wanting to leave as their primary motivation to wanting to kick the big three parties or promote UKIP itself.
Mr. Topping, whilst I don't know about the lightly used issue, it sounds like buying a box of chocolate for £10, eating three-quarters of them and then getting the full £10 refund.
I have not forgotten it at all. But the aim of this whole process is to leave the EU.
You leave the EU by winning the referendum Cameron has promised in 2017. Its that simple.
The UKIP plan seems to be to loose the opportunity to have a 2017 referendum in the hope that at some future point (2022, 2027...) there may be another referendum even though the euro crisis is probably the bast backdrop to have a referendum in.
Labour have an interesting question of timing for this by-election. Do they go early? Do they seek to time it with the EU elections to spread UKIP too thinly (but risk UKIP benefiting from the halo effect of those elections in this constituency)?
Early is probably best, on this occasion.
I think early is always best. Get your postal votes returned ASAP, and don't let your opponent generate momentum.
I'm pretty sure that a government wanting to leave the EU could easily win a referendum. They'd be fools to try to do it without one, considering that.
David Herdson I am no sort of apologist for UKIP strategy, but I believe their leadership is right to recognise that it will be difficult to secure an OUT vote in a referendum if two of the main parties in Parliament are united in favour of IN and the Conservative Party, though split, has a pro IN leadership. A NO vote will be much easier to secure if the governing party is united in its favour, having won an election against a background of severe economic crisis.
The politics might be one aspect but the bigger risk for OUT is they have spent so much time demanding a referendum they will be totally unprepared if they get one.
Maybe the Cameroons should have used that excuse for wriggling out of the Cast Iron Lisbon Referendum Pledge, instead of the easily disproved nonsense about it being ratified.
Conservatives could hold Lisbon Treaty referendum after ratification
A Conservative government could hold a referendum on the European Union's Lisbon Treaty even if it has already been ratified, William Hague has said.
Mr. Tyndall, you've rather neglected to mention that Cameron's committed to a referendum.
I grow tired of the 'We don't trust Cameron' line. Even if you don't trust him, you can trust his backbenchers to commit regicide if there's a manifesto promise for a referendum and he doesn't deliver. You've got one chap and his party saying there should be a referendum, which is what you want, and two chaps and their parties that are almost entirely (a few Labour backbenchers aside) committed to ever more EU integration.
Maintaining ideological purity and the luxury of opposition might make UKIP feel all rebellious and cool (no way we're dealing with The Establishment!) but if you actually want to effect a change then the best way to do that is to either cut a party-wide deal with the blues, or do so on a case-by-case basis so you don't end up costing sceptical MPs their seats.
I think some UKIP supporters have moved from wanting to leave as their primary motivation to wanting to kick the big three parties or promote UKIP itself.
Mr. Topping, whilst I don't know about the lightly used issue, it sounds like buying a box of chocolate for £10, eating three-quarters of them and then getting the full £10 refund.
I have not forgotten it at all. But the aim of this whole process is to leave the EU.
You leave the EU by winning the referendum Cameron has promised in 2017. Its that simple.
The UKIP plan seems to be to loose the opportunity to have a 2017 referendum in the hope that at some future point (2022, 2027...) there may be another referendum even though the euro crisis is probably the bast backdrop to have a referendum in.
You leave the EU by changing the terms of debate.
To what ?
To out being the default.
Yeah, that doesn't actually mean anything. The only way you get a meaningful debate is to have an in\out event and llet people deicde.
Let us assume that in 2020, UKIP and the Conservatives have merged, and that the Conservative Party has an official 'out' policy.
I think it is reasonable to assume in this circumstance that the LibDems will be slightly stronger - there are certain Tory supporters (particularly in the City, in big business, law etc.) who are sufficiently pro-EU they would oppose BOO, and there are certain Tories who are not fans of UKIP's social conservatism. Let's put the LibDems on 15%.
Let's also assume that others (Greens, BNP, Respect, etc.) are on 5%.
That means that you have 80% of the vote between Conservative and Labour. If the Conservatives win with - say - 42% of the vote (which I would say would be quite a challenge), would leaving the EU without a referendum be possible?
If the Conservatives were on sub-40%, I would suggest it would not, and if they were at the 44% level or so, then there would clearly be a mandate.
As I have said before, for all that I am vehemently anti-EU and consider it one of the very worst things to have happened to this country in modern times, I still do not believe it is right that such a huge constitutional change should occur without the explicit agreement of the people.
It is not enough in this sort of case to say that the government at the time has a mandate - even if leaving the EU was in their manifesto - and they can therefore start withdrawal without further consultation via a referendum. People elect their MPs for a huge and varying range of reasons and I don't believe you can simply assume that withdrawal would be sanctioned by a General Election. Personally - and I know others might disagree - I would consider it undemocratic.
The concern eurosceptics have is that David Cameron will be able to pull the wool over voters' eyes for a short period (say three months) over how successful renegotiation has been, particularly as people like Merkel would be willing to rhetorically cover for him. I'm pretty sure Cameron's plan is to stage a renegotiation, get some minor, mainly symbolic, concessions and then quickly hold a vote while the three big parties and the BBC cover for him. He'd probably win slightly, before the reality that nothing much has changed sinks in.
David Herdson I am no sort of apologist for UKIP strategy, but I believe their leadership is right to recognise that it will be difficult to secure an OUT vote in a referendum if two of the main parties in Parliament are united in favour of IN and the Conservative Party, though split, has a pro IN leadership. A NO vote will be much easier to secure if the governing party is united in its favour, having won an election against a background of severe economic crisis.
The politics might be one aspect but the bigger risk for OUT is they have spent so much time demanding a referendum they will be totally unprepared if they get one.
Maybe the Cameroons should have used that excuse for wriggling out of the Cast Iron Lisbon Referendum Pledge, instead of the easily disproved nonsense about it being ratified.
Conservatives could hold Lisbon Treaty referendum after ratification
A Conservative government could hold a referendum on the European Union's Lisbon Treaty even if it has already been ratified, William Hague has said.
It really is quite the puzzle why the kippers and so many of his own backbenchers and base don't trust Cammie, isn't it?
Righties always have a degree of healthy cynicism Mick, they'r not like lefties who swallow anything they'r told. I mean imagine you had a leader who said he'd taken extensive advice on the EU and that turned out to be legal advice to block people knowing he hadn't taken any legal advice at all. You'd have to be mad to take anything he said at face value.
I'm pretty sure that a government wanting to leave the EU could easily win a referendum. They'd be fools to try to do it without one, considering that.
I think they'd likely win: but don't forget they'd still be up against big business and the two other main political parties. And the status quo is always a hard thing to fight against (ask Mr Salmond).
Anyone else kinda love the fact that there's an honest difference of opinion about an upcoming election which isn't just a partisan thing? Makes the anticipation much more meaty in my view.
Mr. Tyndall, I agree. Without a referendum that would give moral justification for another party to take us back in without consulting the people.
Mr. Socrates (welcome back, not sure if I said that earlier or not), I think there's some merit in that view. The thing is that the leaderships of all three parties would be for staying In, so that might provoke the anti-establishment feeling as much or more than it sways the uncertain centre.
Jonathan D. Again I am only giving my own assessment of what I understand UKIP's strategy to be. They think, I believe, that a stabilised eurozone, which will perforce be more politically and fiscally integrated, should make voting IN less palatable. If, as some of us wanted, we were having a referendum IN or OUT of the EU now, the issue would be essentially the Single Market, and despite fears on immigration and everything else IN would probably still win. This is especially so as all main Parliamentary party leaders would presently be pro EU. In five years time, after continuing semi-detachment by Britain from the main EU integration process, the choice will be much more stark. The EU and the Eurozone may by then have become effectively coterminous. We would be voting RIGHT IN or RIGHT OUT, no ambiguities or half way houses. Of course, it is easy to see the flaws in this thinking, but one cannot say it is necessarily utterly unreasonable, or counter productive, or mistaken. The beginning of wisdom in fighting UKIP is not to underestimate them.
Mr. 1000, big business swings both ways (ahem). Lots of people will be likelier to vote Out if they've got big firms saying how lovely the EU is, especially if smaller businesses are on the Out side.
Mr. Tyndall, you've rather neglected to mention that Cameron's committed to a referendum.
I grow tired of the 'We don't trust Cameron' line. Even if you don't trust him, you can trust his backbenchers to commit regicide if there's a manifesto promise for a referendum and he doesn't deliver. You've got one chap and his party saying there should be a referendum, which is what you want, and two chaps and their parties that are almost entirely (a few Labour backbenchers aside) committed to ever more EU integration.
Maintaining ideological purity and the luxury of opposition might make UKIP feel all rebellious and cool (no way we're dealing with The Establishment!) but if you actually want to effect a change then the best way to do that is to either cut a party-wide deal with the blues, or do so on a case-by-case basis so you don't end up costing sceptical MPs their seats.
I think some UKIP supporters have moved from wanting to leave as their primary motivation to wanting to kick the big three parties or promote UKIP itself.
Mr. Topping, whilst I don't know about the lightly used issue, it sounds like buying a box of chocolate for £10, eating three-quarters of them and then getting the full £10 refund.
I have not forgotten it at all. But the aim of this whole process is to leave the EU.
You leave the EU by winning the referendum Cameron has promised in 2017. Its that simple.
The UKIP plan seems to be to loose the opportunity to have a 2017 referendum in the hope that at some future point (2022, 2027...) there may be another referendum even though the euro crisis is probably the bast backdrop to have a referendum in.
You leave the EU by changing the terms of debate.
To what ?
To out being the default.
Yeah, that doesn't actually mean anything. The only way you get a meaningful debate is to have an in\out event and llet people deicde.
I had to read a lot of cultural marxist books many years ago. If you can wade through the 1000s of pages of mind-numbing bleep the basic idea is very simple - the only way to get a politically meaningful debate is to win it in advance.
edit: an example would be the Mail and the welfare debate.
David Herdson I am no sort of apologist for UKIP strategy, but I believe their leadership is right to recognise that it will be difficult to secure an OUT vote in a referendum if two of the main parties in Parliament are united in favour of IN and the Conservative Party, though split, has a pro IN leadership. A NO vote will be much easier to secure if the governing party is united in its favour, having won an election against a background of severe economic crisis.
The politics might be one aspect but the bigger risk for OUT is they have spent so much time demanding a referendum they will be totally unprepared if they get one. See SNP and Indyref.
Er, I can't quite see how that makes sense. Just because a party has been around for x or y years doesn't affect how well it performs. Surely a more important element is the structure (or lack of it) of local branches, canvassing volunteers, etc. That is - presumably - a difference between the UKIP and the Yes Campaign (which is not just the SNP, of course, which reminds us that part of the Tory party might effectively join UKIP for the EU referendum).
And surely one could just as well argue that the pro-EU or pro-UK parties have spent so long denying a referendum that they will be/have been totally unprepared for the problems the actual referendums bring.
Don't forget, an independence-minded government could spend a year before any referendum picking fights with the EU about funds going missing, votes for prisoners, serial killers getting the right to leave prison, benefits for immigrants, etc and giving plenty of oxygen for the Mail, Sun, Express etc to have a negative EU story on the front page virtually every day.
Also, eurosceptics typically believe, on principle, of giving the people a say on radical constitutional change. It's only the europhiles that like to transfer sovereignty from one polity to another over the heads of the public.
Don't forget, an independence-minded government could spend a year before any referendum picking fights with the EU about funds going missing, votes for prisoners, serial killers getting the right to leave prison, benefits for immigrants, etc and giving plenty of oxygen for the Mail, Sun, Express etc to have a negative EU story on the front page virtually every day.
Also, eurosceptics typically believe, on principle, of giving the people a say on radical constitutional change. It's only the europhiles that like to transfer sovereignty from one polity to another over the heads of the public.
Don't forget, an independence-minded government could spend a year before any referendum picking fights with the EU about funds going missing, votes for prisoners, serial killers getting the right to leave prison, benefits for immigrants, etc
Some prisoners already have the vote, and no political party favours an absolute ban. In any event, demands for increased prisoner voting and an end to whole life tariffs come from the Strasbourg court, not from the European Union.
Mr. Tyndall, you've rather neglected to mention that Cameron's committed to a referendum.
I grow tired of the 'We don't trust Cameron' line. Even if you don't trust him, you can trust his
Mr. Topping, whilst I don't know about the lightly used issue, it sounds like buying a box of chocolate for £10, eating three-quarters of them and then getting the full £10 refund.
I have not forgotten it at all. But the aim of this whole process is to leave the EU.
You leave the EU by winning the referendum Cameron has promised in 2017. Its that simple.
referendum even though the euro crisis is probably the bast backdrop to have a referendum in.
You leave the EU by changing the terms of debate.
To what ?
To out being the default.
Yeah, that doesn't actually mean anything. The only way you get a meaningful debate is to have an in\out event and llet people deicde.
I had to read a lot of cultural marxist books many years ago. If you can wade through the 1000s of pages of mind-numbing bleep the basic idea is very simple - the only way to get a politically meaningful debate is to win it in advance.
edit: an example would be the Mail and the welfare debate.
So do I take it you don't think you'd win ?
Btw what ever happened to Marxism, did it triumph inevitably and I missed it ?
Gangs tend to be sustained by drug money. A lot of white people from all kinds of backgrounds - rely on them for their highs. If SeanT had not been banned he could tell us a lot more about this, but once crime becomes lucrative it becomes violent. There are many people in London and elsewhere with very different coloured faces and very different political views who have some responsibility for the gang sub-culture's emergence and spread. Anyone on here that likes a line, a spliff or anything else - you do; as does anyone who may have indulged in the past.
Street gangs and drug gangs are different things - although they overlap. Street gangs are about a small percentage of young men between the ages of around 14 to 24 who like to join gangs and throw their weight around. There's nothing unusual about it. It's normal. What's not normal is pretending it doesn't exist.
(That's not to say there's not a feedback loop with the drug gang aspect but street gang cultures can exist independently of that e.g. Teddy Boys etc.)
edit: another example would be the Glasgow gang culture which has been going for 100+ years and nothing to do with drugs the majority of that time.
Street gangs are different to drugs gangs and, as you say, have been around since time immemorial. They tend not to have members that shoot each other. What has changed gang culture in this country is not the colour of people's skins, but the craving for drugs. You can get very well off very quickly by controlling distribution in an area. And people are prepared to defend their turf, enforce their "rights" and so on a violently as they need to in order to hold what they have and/or to expand. That's where the guns have come in predominantly. I have not looked in detail, but I would imagine that in the vast majority of life taking and endangering shootings we see in this country, you do not have to go too far to see a link to drugs - either directly or indirectly. For example, look at Mark Duggan himself.
This is not a case of communities being able to police themselves or not. It is all about a collective failure of political will that has at its root the fact that there are a lot of people - left, right, centre, upper class, middle class, working class, Guardian reading, Telegraph reading, black, white, yellow - that like/need a drugs fix and are more than willing to conspire with criminals to get one. Just ask SeanT.
Perhaps not, but a future UKIP-Conservative merged party may well change its mind on that.
Secondly, I'm fully aware that the ruling comes from the ECHR (as does the right of release), but we are mandated to be a member and abide by its rulings as part of our EU membership. I'm pretty sure the EU would thus have something to say about it if we were to announce we were going to flatly ignore them.
Thanks everyone. Can anyone recommend a solicitor for me to use? (The person I normally talk to is a partner at Slaughter & May, but I suspect that might be over-kill...)
Or would has any resident pb solicitor (Sean_F, LIAMT or any other) like to consider taking my case on?
Robert
I am sure you know this already, but large corporations only react to the following:
1. Legal threats (decisions move to the legal department) 2. Adverse PR (probably still only in the inked press - decisions move to PR department). 3. Competition (doesn't apply here - eBay don't have any).
Try to find a firm of solicitors which specialises in consumer law and have experience in battling with eBay. A letter before litigation may be enough to do the trick. Get it right and eBay may take the hit.
Get a major newspaper blogger to take up your cause (umm, scrap that...). Apart from the implied reason, "Bitcoin miners" mean nothing to the average reader therefore your cause will be deemed unnewsworthy.
Probably best solution is to take a walk and deep breath in the nearest park and write it off to experience, It doesn't take many solicitor's letters to rack up a £1,500 bill!
Mr. Tyndall, you've rather neglected to mention that Cameron's committed to a referendum.
I grow tired of the 'We don't trust Cameron' line. Even if you don't trust him, you can trust his
Mr. Topping, whilst I don't know about the lightly used issue, it sounds like buying a box of chocolate for £10, eating three-quarters of them and then getting the full £10 refund.
I have not forgotten it at all. But the aim of this whole process is to leave the EU.
You leave the EU by winning the referendum Cameron has promised in 2017. Its that simple.
referendum even though the euro crisis is probably the bast backdrop to have a referendum in.
You leave the EU by changing the terms of debate.
To what ?
To out being the default.
Yeah, that doesn't actually mean anything. The only way you get a meaningful debate is to have an in\out event and llet people deicde.
I had to read a lot of cultural marxist books many years ago. If you can wade through the 1000s of pages of mind-numbing bleep the basic idea is very simple - the only way to get a politically meaningful debate is to win it in advance.
edit: an example would be the Mail and the welfare debate.
So do I take it you don't think you'd win ?
Btw what ever happened to Marxism, did it triumph inevitably and I missed it ?
Out can win if and when the cultural tide is pointing the right way.
Righties always have a degree of healthy cynicism Mick, they'r not like lefties who swallow anything they'r told.
Who couldn't help but be impressed by the healthy cynicism of the tory backbenchers who cheered Cammie to the rafters after his EU flounce triumph. There was no danger whatsoever that they would very quickly be proved gullible fools.
Eurosceptics treated Cameron like a foul smell
Betrayed by their hero, Cameron's eurosceptics are quickly returning to their bitter, angry roots.
The last time David Cameron updated the Commons on his return from Brussels he was treated like a hero. The acclaim appeared to have no limits; the prodigal son, had he seen this display of lionising, must have felt like a big disappointment upon his own return. What a difference a follow-up summit makes. Today the Tory eurosceptics edged away from the PM, collectively wrinkling their noses as if he had made a bad smell.
Indeed John Major Cast Iron Cameron knew his own party trusted him so much he bravely decided he needed some kind of legislation in place to somehow be certain he wouldn't go back on it.
David Cameron denies being 'panicked' into rushing out draft EU referendum laws
David Cameron has denied that he was panicked into rushing out draft laws on plans for an EU referendum to silence his critics in the Conservative Party.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said that voters can now believe the Conservatives are "solidly committed" to an EU referendum by 2017 regardless of pressure from Ukip. He said draft laws setting out plans for an EU referendum show the Tories "really do mean" to give voters a say on Britain's relationship with Brussels.
So as we can clearly see, the very notion that gullible tory eurosceptics are repeatedly taken for a ride, again, and again, and again by Cammie, is utterly baseless nonsense.
David Herdson I am no sort of apologist for UKIP strategy, but I believe their leadership is right to recognise that it will be difficult to secure an OUT vote in a referendum if two of the main parties in Parliament are united in favour of IN and the Conservative Party, though split, has a pro IN leadership. A NO vote will be much easier to secure if the governing party is united in its favour, having won an election against a background of severe economic crisis.
The politics might be one aspect but the bigger risk for OUT is they have spent so much time demanding a referendum they will be totally unprepared if they get one. See SNP and Indyref.
Er, I can't quite see how that makes sense. Just because a party has been around for x or y years doesn't affect how well it performs. Surely a more important element is the structure (or lack of it) of local branches, canvassing volunteers, etc. That is - presumably - a difference between the UKIP and the Yes Campaign (which is not just the SNP, of course, which reminds us that part of the Tory party might effectively join UKIP for the EU referendum).
And surely one could just as well argue that the pro-EU or pro-UK parties have spent so long denying a referendum that they will be/have been totally unprepared for the problems the actual referendums bring.
The people looking the change should have their arguments polished, this is after all what they've been pushing for. The Indyref simply showed Yes ( which basically is the SNP ) hadn't spent enough time preparing their case. The EU and currency issues being two of the more obvious examples.
Righties always have a degree of healthy cynicism Mick, they'r not like lefties who swallow anything they'r told.
Who couldn't help but be impressed by the healthy cynicism of the tory backbenchers who cheered Cammie to the rafters after his EU flounce triumph. There was no danger whatsoever that they would very quickly be proved gullible fools.
Eurosceptics treated Cameron like a foul smell
Betrayed by their hero, Cameron's eurosceptics are quickly returning to their bitter, angry roots.
The last time David Cameron updated the Commons on his return from Brussels he was treated like a hero. The acclaim appeared to have no limits; the prodigal son, had he seen this display of lionising, must have felt like a big disappointment upon his own return. What a difference a follow-up summit makes. Today the Tory eurosceptics edged away from the PM, collectively wrinkling their noses as if he had made a bad smell.
Indeed John Major Cast Iron Cameron knew his own party trusted him so much he bravely decided he needed some kind of legislation in place to somehow be certain he wouldn't go back on it.
David Cameron denies being 'panicked' into rushing out draft EU referendum laws
David Cameron has denied that he was panicked into rushing out draft laws on plans for an EU referendum to silence his critics in the Conservative Party.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said that voters can now believe the Conservatives are "solidly committed" to an EU referendum by 2017 regardless of pressure from Ukip. He said draft laws setting out plans for an EU referendum show the Tories "really do mean" to give voters a say on Britain's relationship with Brussels.
So as we can clearly see, the very notion that gullible tory eurosceptics are repeatedly taken for a ride, again, and again, and again by Cammie, is utterly baseless nonsense.
Gangs tend to be sustained by drug money. A lot of white people from all kinds of backgrounds - rely on them for their highs. If SeanT had not been banned he could tell us a lot more about this, but once crime becomes lucrative it becomes violent. There are many people in London and elsewhere with very different coloured faces and very different political views who have some responsibility for the gang sub-culture's emergence and spread. Anyone on here that likes a line, a spliff or anything else - you do; as does anyone who may have indulged in the past.
Street gangs and drug gangs are different things - although they overlap. Street gangs are about a small percentage of young men between the ages of around 14 to 24 who like to join gangs and throw their weight around. There's nothing unusual about it. It's normal. What's not normal is pretending it doesn't exist.
(That's not to say there's not a feedback loop with the drug gang aspect but street gang cultures can exist independently of that e.g. Teddy Boys etc.)
edit: another example would be the Glasgow gang culture which has been going for 100+ years and nothing to do with drugs the majority of that time.
Street gangs are different to drugs gangs and, as you say, have been around since time immemorial. They tend not to have members that shoot each other. What has changed gang culture in this country is not the colour of people's skins, but the craving for drugs. You can get very well off very quickly by controlling distribution in an area. And people are prepared to defend their turf, enforce their "rights" and so on a violently as they need to in order to hold what they have and/or to expand. That's where the guns have come in predominantly. I have not looked in detail, but I would imagine that in the vast majority of life taking and endangering shootings we see in this country, you do not have to go too far to see a link to drugs - either directly or indirectly. For example, look at Mark Duggan himself.
This is not a case of communities being able to police themselves or not. It is all about a collective failure of political will that has at its root the fact that there are a lot of people - left, right, centre, upper class, middle class, working class, Guardian reading, Telegraph reading, black, white, yellow - that like/need a drugs fix and are more than willing to conspire with criminals to get one. Just ask SeanT.
Mr. Tyndall, you've rather neglected to mention that Cameron's committed to a referendum.
I grow tired of the 'We don't trust Cameron' line. Even if you don't trust him, you can trust his
Mr. Topping, whilst I don't know about the lightly used issue, it sounds like buying a box of chocolate for £10, eating three-quarters of them and then getting the full £10 refund.
I have not forgotten it at all. But the aim of this whole process is to leave the EU.
You leave the EU by winning the referendum Cameron has promised in 2017. Its that simple.
referendum even though the euro crisis is probably the bast backdrop to have a referendum in.
You leave the EU by changing the terms of debate.
To what ?
To out being the default.
Yeah, that doesn't actually mean anything. The only way you get a meaningful debate is to have an in\out event and llet people deicde.
I had to read a lot of cultural marxist books many years ago. If you can wade through the 1000s of pages of mind-numbing bleep the basic idea is very simple - the only way to get a politically meaningful debate is to win it in advance.
edit: an example would be the Mail and the welfare debate.
So do I take it you don't think you'd win ?
Btw what ever happened to Marxism, did it triumph inevitably and I missed it ?
Out can win if and when the cultural tide is pointing the right way.
Righties always have a degree of healthy cynicism Mick, they'r not like lefties who swallow anything they'r told.
Who couldn't help but be impressed by the healthy cynicism of the tory backbenchers who cheered Cammie to the rafters after his EU flounce triumph. There was no danger whatsoever that they would very quickly be proved gullible fools.
Eurosceptics treated Cameron like a foul smell
Betrayed by their hero, Cameron's eurosceptics are quickly returning to their bitter, angry roots.
The last time David Cameron updated the Commons on his return from Brussels he was treated like a hero. The acclaim appeared to have no limits; the prodigal son, had he seen this display of lionising, must have felt like a big disappointment upon his own return. What a difference a follow-up summit makes. Today the Tory eurosceptics edged away from the PM, collectively wrinkling their noses as if he had made a bad smell.
Indeed John Major Cast Iron Cameron knew his own party trusted him so much he bravely decided he needed some kind of legislation in place to somehow be certain he wouldn't go back on it.
David Cameron denies being 'panicked' into rushing out draft EU referendum laws
David Cameron has denied that he was panicked into rushing out draft laws on plans for an EU referendum to silence his critics in the Conservative Party.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said that voters can now believe the Conservatives are "solidly committed" to an EU referendum by 2017 regardless of pressure from Ukip. He said draft laws setting out plans for an EU referendum show the Tories "really do mean" to give voters a say on Britain's relationship with Brussels.
So as we can clearly see, the very notion that gullible tory eurosceptics are repeatedly taken for a ride, again, and again, and again by Cammie, is utterly baseless nonsense.
The UKIP candidate in Wythenshawe in 2010, Chris Cassidy, used to be a regular contributor to the VoteUK discussion forum. He also stood in the 2012 Manchester Central by-election, coming within 5 votes of beating the Tories into fourth place:
Mr. Tyndall, you've rather neglected to mention that Cameron's committed to a referendum.
I grow tired of the 'We don't trust Cameron' line. Even if you don't trust him, you can trust his
Mr. Topping, whilst I don't know about the lightly used issue, it sounds like buying a box of chocolate for £10, eating three-quarters of them and then getting the full £10 refund.
I have not forgotten it at all. But the aim of this whole process is to leave the EU.
You leave the EU by winning the referendum Cameron has promised in 2017. Its that simple.
referendum even though the euro crisis is probably the bast backdrop to have a referendum in.
You leave the EU by changing the terms of debate.
To what ?
To out being the default.
Yeah, that doesn't actually mean anything. The only way you get a meaningful debate is to have an in\out event and llet people deicde.
I had to read a lot of cultural marxist books many years ago. If you can wade through the 1000s of pages of mind-numbing bleep the basic idea is very simple - the only way to get a politically meaningful debate is to win it in advance.
edit: an example would be the Mail and the welfare debate.
So do I take it you don't think you'd win ?
Btw what ever happened to Marxism, did it triumph inevitably and I missed it ?
Out can win if and when the cultural tide is pointing the right way.
So that might be never.
Sure, the point is all this stuff about what Cameron says is irrelevant. What matters is the tide.
Righties always have a degree of healthy cynicism Mick, they'r not like lefties who swallow anything they'r told.
Who couldn't help but be impressed by the healthy cynicism of the tory backbenchers who cheered Cammie to the rafters after his EU flounce triumph. There was no danger whatsoever that they would very quickly be proved gullible fools.
Eurosceptics treated Cameron like a foul smell
Betrayed by their hero, Cameron's eurosceptics are quickly returning to their bitter, angry roots.
The last time David Cameron updated the Commons on his return from Brussels he was treated like a hero. The acclaim appeared to have no limits; the prodigal son, had he seen this display of lionising, must have felt like a big disappointment upon his own return. What a difference a follow-up summit makes. Today the Tory eurosceptics edged away from the PM, collectively wrinkling their noses as if he had made a bad smell.
Indeed John Major Cast Iron Cameron knew his own party trusted him so much he bravely decided he needed some kind of legislation in place to somehow be certain he wouldn't go back on it.
David Cameron denies being 'panicked' into rushing out draft EU referendum laws
David Cameron has denied that he was panicked into rushing out draft laws on plans for an
So as we can clearly see, the very notion that gullible tory eurosceptics are repeatedly taken for a ride, again, and again, and again by Cammie, is utterly baseless nonsense.
I once had an much loved and eccentric Italian as a boss. Whenever anyone claimed that an individual had an irreplaceable value, he would intervene by claiming that "the graveyards of Italy are full of indispensable bankers".
Let's all hope this is not a battle fought to the death.
I think that graveyards are full of bankers, whether Italian or otherwise, who thought themselves indispensable.
A subtle but crucial difference, IMO.
Ah, but in the case of this distinguished gentleman his whole world view derived from his Italian origin.
For example, he was fond of telling a story of how the computer in his Italian bank failed requiring him to order that it be "thrown out of the window".
I believe this is an uniquely Italian management method.
Mr. 1000, big business swings both ways (ahem). Lots of people will be likelier to vote Out if they've got big firms saying how lovely the EU is, especially if smaller businesses are on the Out side.
While that's true, I think you have to remember that there are going to be big businesses in certain parts of the country that have supply chains and who will be very vocal about staying in the EU. (Technically, it's not the EU they want to stay in, but the Maastricht Free Trade Area. The big benefit of which is that when Ford ship a Duratorq engine from Dagenham, and a transmission from Halewood, they know that the truck won't be stopped at Calais for a customs inspection. And if we want to stay a member of the FTA - as Norway is - then we'll end up blindly accepting EU regulations anyway, and paying billions a year for the privilege.)
Socrates is right, though, that a sitting government has the advantage of picking lots of fights in Europe.
That said, I think the Murdoch press may become less Eurosceptic than it has been (at least temporarily). Right now, they are very keen to merge BSkyB, Sky Italia, and Sky Deutschland to create a new EuroSky. This would then be able to bid for pan-European rights for football and movies - something that under current competition law would require EU approval. Would Murdoch want to rock the boat on something worth possibly tens of billions?
Btw what ever happened to Marxism, did it triumph inevitably and I missed it ?
That, of course, suggests that Marx predicted the inevitability of the demise of capitalism. The once fashionable Louis Althusser claimed that the teleological and Hegelian Marx of the Communist Manifesto was not really Marx at all, but a young Marx, and that Marxism proper, i.e. the non-teleological, non-Hegelian analytical science, began only after an "epistemological break" in circa 1845, reaching its fulfilment in Capital.
The UKIP candidate in Wythenshawe in 2010, Chris Cassidy, used to be a regular contributor to the VoteUK discussion forum. He also stood in the 2012 Manchester Central by-election, coming within 5 votes of beating the Tories into fourth place:
He still lost his deposit though, a fairly chastening experience given two weeks later other UKIP by-election candidates would record 2nd place results with 4 times his vote share. I'm sure he's a good guy, but Manchester just isn't fertile ground for his party right now.
I don't think UKIP will win any MPs, whether in this seat or elsewhere, and if that continues, their only lasting contribution to British politics will be to split the right, much like the SDP did in the 1980's.
Whether they will succeed in changing the Tory party into something more like them, I don't know, but if they do they will make it more rather than less electable. I find UKIP deeply unappealing almost regardless of whether I hear Farage saying anything I agree with or not.
And your last sentence informs the whole of the rest of your post.
I'd have thought that it would be interesting to know why I find them so unappealing, even though some of what they say resonates. I find them to be a very male organisation with a rather old-fashioned and condescending approach to women, particularly working women, as I am. That may be unfair. But it is how I feel. It's not so much their policies I dislike (to the extent I know what they are) but their style and image.
They seem to me to be a man's party, in essence. And the party of a certain type of man who thinks that pretty much every change since the 1950's has been for the worse.
BTW I'm not saying that this applies to you personally. You're very eloquent in your arguments. I'm just describing why - at a visceral level - I find them unappealing.
so if all the stuff about Cameron is irrelevant ( which I happen to agree with you ) then why is UKIP so fixated on him ? If a referendum is going to carry it will do so irrespective of DC. Why not just push for a date ?
You have made a courageous, principled and judicious intervention in the tim/SeanT spat and should be congratulated. Especially as it involves a risk to the site of losing two longstanding and prominent posters which, in their own inimitable ways, have made major contributions to the special attraction and culture of PB.
I hope you are rewarded by both posters swallowing their prides and returning to the site duly chastened.
I once had an much loved and eccentric Italian as a boss. Whenever anyone claimed that an individual had an irreplaceable value, he would intervene by claiming that "the graveyards of Italy are full of indispensable bankers".
Let's all hope this is not a battle fought to the death.
Might we have to form a PB rota to search below London bridges, let's hope not.
These are rare and valuable truffles we need to recover.
The leader of the posse must have the nose for such a task.
Btw what ever happened to Marxism, did it triumph inevitably and I missed it ?
That, of course, suggests that Marx predicted the inevitability of the demise of capitalism. The once fashionable Louis Althusser claimed that the teleological and Hegelian Marx of the Communist Manifesto was not really Marx at all, but a young Marx, and that Marxism proper, i.e. the non-teleological, non-Hegelian analytical science, began only after an "epistemological break" in circa 1845, reaching its fulfilment in Capital.
Righties always have a degree of healthy cynicism Mick, they'r not like lefties who swallow anything they'r told.
Who couldn't help but be impressed by the healthy cynicism of the tory backbenchers who cheered Cammie to the rafters after his EU flounce triumph. There was no danger whatsoever that they would very quickly be proved gullible fools.
Eurosceptics treated Cameron like a foul smell
Betrayed by their hero, Cameron's eurosceptics are quickly returning to their bitter, angry roots.
The last time David Cameron updated the Commons on his return from Brussels he was treated like a hero. The acclaim appeared to have no limits; the prodigal son, had he seen this display of lionising, must have felt like a big disappointment upon his own return. What a difference a follow-up summit makes. Today the Tory eurosceptics edged away from the PM, collectively wrinkling their noses as if he had made a bad smell.
Indeed John Major Cast Iron Cameron knew his own party trusted him so much he bravely decided he needed some kind of legislation in place to somehow be certain he wouldn't go back on it.
David Cameron denies being 'panicked' into rushing out draft EU referendum laws
David Cameron has denied that he was panicked into rushing out draft laws on plans for an
So as we can clearly see, the very notion that gullible tory eurosceptics are repeatedly taken for a ride, again, and again, and again by Cammie, is utterly baseless nonsense.
LOL
Too wordy, could you do me a summary ?
Easily.
Fake Fop can't be trusted.
Thanks, but haven't you said that before ?
Indeed. During Cammie's EU flounce for a start. Sadly it was not a view the PB tories seemed to share. Most unfortunate.
I'm pretty sure the EU would thus have something to say about it if we were to announce we were going to flatly ignore them.
Convention rights are not directly enforceable in English law, and there has been no case in which the Commission has successfully launched infraction proceedings against the United Kingdom for failing to abide by judgments of the ECtHR. Until the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union changes (which given its scant regard for precedent or strict construction is perfectly possible), failures of the HMG to obey the judgments of the ECtHR remain a matter between HMG and the Council of Europe in international law.
so if all the stuff about Cameron is irrelevant ( which I happen to agree with you ) then why is UKIP so fixated on him ? If a referendum is going to carry it will do so irrespective of DC. Why not just push for a date ?
Are they? You may be right and i haven't noticed but I thought everyone had pretty much stopped paying any attention to Cameron.
Btw what ever happened to Marxism, did it triumph inevitably and I missed it ?
That, of course, suggests that Marx predicted the inevitability of the demise of capitalism. The once fashionable Louis Althusser claimed that the teleological and Hegelian Marx of the Communist Manifesto was not really Marx at all, but a young Marx, and that Marxism proper, i.e. the non-teleological, non-Hegelian analytical science, began only after an "epistemological break" in circa 1845, reaching its fulfilment in Capital.
If you made a list of what cultural marxists in 1930 or 1950 wanted to achieve then they've done most of it.
(economic marxism is a different kettle of fish obv)
@MrJones - The gangs that you post so cryptically about are almost all linked to drug supply at one level or another. You focus on the skin colour/cultural background of their members, without acknowledging that these gangs only exist in the form they do in the first place because there is a huge demand from all sectors of British society for what they supply. As a few members of the current cabinet would no doubt attest, demand for drugs goes beyond Guardian and BBC journalists wishing to bring white culture down. It's not an evil left-wing conspiracy; it's capitalism in the raw.
Thanks everyone. Can anyone recommend a solicitor for me to use? (The person I normally talk to is a partner at Slaughter & May, but I suspect that might be over-kill...)
Or would has any resident pb solicitor (Sean_F, LIAMT or any other) like to consider taking my case on?
Robert
I am sure you know this already, but large corporations only react to the following:
1. Legal threats (decisions move to the legal department) 2. Adverse PR (probably still only in the inked press - decisions move to PR department). 3. Competition (doesn't apply here - eBay don't have any).
Try to find a firm of solicitors which specialises in consumer law and have experience in battling with eBay. A letter before litigation may be enough to do the trick. Get it right and eBay may take the hit.
Get a major newspaper blogger to take up your cause (umm, scrap that...). Apart from the implied reason, "Bitcoin miners" mean nothing to the average reader therefore your cause will be deemed unnewsworthy.
Probably best solution is to take a walk and deep breath in the nearest park and write it off to experience, It doesn't take many solicitor's letters to rack up a £1,500 bill!
I'd have thought that Slaughter and May (no & please!) would be handily placed first of all to get eBay to take the issue very seriously and then to negotiate a settlement that involved their costs being covered.
so if all the stuff about Cameron is irrelevant ( which I happen to agree with you ) then why is UKIP so fixated on him ? If a referendum is going to carry it will do so irrespective of DC. Why not just push for a date ?
Are they? You may be right and i haven't noticed but I thought everyone had pretty much stopped paying any attention to Cameron.
I'd be a bit surprised if everyone had stopped paying attention to the PM.
@MrJones - The gangs that you post so cryptically about are almost all linked to drug supply at one level or another. You focus on the skin colour/cultural background of their members, without acknowledging that these gangs only exist in the form they do in the first place because there is a huge demand from all sectors of British society for what they supply. As a few members of the current cabinet would no doubt attest, demand for drugs goes beyond Guardian and BBC journalists wishing to bring white culture down. It's not an evil left-wing conspiracy; it's capitalism in the raw.
I thought she came over as rather aggressive last night, but respect to Mark Duggan's aunt, who has committed to courts-based approach and rejects violence:
@MrJones - The gangs that you post so cryptically about are almost all linked to drug supply at one level or another. You focus on the skin colour/cultural background of their members, without acknowledging that these gangs only exist in the form they do in the first place because there is a huge demand from all sectors of British society for what they supply. As a few members of the current cabinet would no doubt attest, demand for drugs goes beyond Guardian and BBC journalists wishing to bring white culture down. It's not an evil left-wing conspiracy; it's capitalism in the raw.
Fine, they exist because of drugs. The main point is they exist.
"these gangs only exist in the form they do in the first place because there is a huge demand from all sectors of British society for what they supply"
If you made a list of what cultural marxists in 1930 or 1950 wanted to achieve then they've done most of it.
(economic marxism is a different kettle of fish obv)
It would help if the term "cultural Marxism" were defined. A hardline interpreter of Marx, eg G.A. Cohen (1968), would claim that culture was superstructural and thus derivative of the economic base. It would therefore be pure folly to try to change the superstructure without altering the mode of production, and accordingly, trying to differentiate between cultural and economic Marxism is intellectually incoherent.
It's not capitalism, it's prohibition. These gangs would not exist if it were legal to sell drugs, and drug transactions were backed up by contractual law and the justice system, thus mitigating the need for violence to enforce payment or resolve disputes.
so if all the stuff about Cameron is irrelevant ( which I happen to agree with you ) then why is UKIP so fixated on him ? If a referendum is going to carry it will do so irrespective of DC. Why not just push for a date ?
Are they? You may be right and i haven't noticed but I thought everyone had pretty much stopped paying any attention to Cameron.
I'd be a bit surprised if everyone had stopped paying attention to the PM.
@MrJones - The gangs that you post so cryptically about are almost all linked to drug supply at one level or another. You focus on the skin colour/cultural background of their members, without acknowledging that these gangs only exist in the form they do in the first place because there is a huge demand from all sectors of British society for what they supply. As a few members of the current cabinet would no doubt attest, demand for drugs goes beyond Guardian and BBC journalists wishing to bring white culture down. It's not an evil left-wing conspiracy; it's capitalism in the raw.
And members of the shadow cabinet, perchance?
I'd have thought so. My point is that this is not the left-wing conspiracy that MrJones likes to portray it as. I do not think that anyone in the current cabinet can be classed as left-wing.
Thanks everyone. Can anyone recommend a solicitor for me to use? (The person I normally talk to is a partner at Slaughter & May, but I suspect that might be over-kill...)
Or would has any resident pb solicitor (Sean_F, LIAMT or any other) like to consider taking my case on?
Robert
I am sure you know this already, but large corporations only react to the following:
1. Legal threats (decisions move to the legal department) 2. Adverse PR (probably still only in the inked press - decisions move to PR department). 3. Competition (doesn't apply here - eBay don't have any).
Try to find a firm of solicitors which specialises in consumer law and have experience in battling with eBay. A letter before litigation may be enough to do the trick. Get it right and eBay may take the hit.
Get a major newspaper blogger to take up your cause (umm, scrap that...). Apart from the implied reason, "Bitcoin miners" mean nothing to the average reader therefore your cause will be deemed unnewsworthy.
Probably best solution is to take a walk and deep breath in the nearest park and write it off to experience, It doesn't take many solicitor's letters to rack up a £1,500 bill!
I'd have thought that Slaughter and May (no & please!) would be handily placed first of all to get eBay to take the issue very seriously and then to negotiate a settlement that involved their costs being covered.
When you start relying on recovering solicitors' costs to justify action, you've already lost.
If you made a list of what cultural marxists in 1930 or 1950 wanted to achieve then they've done most of it.
(economic marxism is a different kettle of fish obv)
It would help if the term "cultural Marxism" were defined. A hardline interpreter of Marx, eg G.A. Cohen (1968), would claim that culture was superstructural and thus derivative of the economic base. It would therefore be pure folly to try to change the superstructure without altering the mode of production, and accordingly, trying to differentiate between cultural and economic Marxism is intellectually incoherent.
Don't think UKIP have a chance of anything better than 2nd here.
O/T @rcs: Your best bet is probably diy; it's incredibly easy (and cheap) to initiate small claims proceedings online. If nothing else, it should grab the attention of ebay's legal department, so you should get a meaningful dialogue going.
It's not capitalism, it's prohibition. These gangs would not exist if it were legal to sell drugs, and drug transactions were backed up by contractual law and the justice system, thus mitigating the need for violence to enforce payment or resolve disputes.
The gangs would just move onto whatever else was profitable.
Surely a more important element is the structure (or lack of it) of local branches, canvassing volunteers, etc.
Must you bring the sordid facts of a campaign into this? Far better to enjoy the reaction when the No campaign's cheerleaders belatedly realise that having Darling appear very infrequently in the media is not quite the same thing as having a well organised and enthusiastic base and membership willing to do the hard work for GOTV and the ground campaign in the crucial final weeks.
But surely Lamont and SLAB have an army of eager volunteers and members expertly managed and deployed by the same strategic brains who masterminded SLAB's 2011 scottish election triumph? A sobering thought I know but we'll have to manage against that onslaught somehow.
It's not capitalism, it's prohibition. These gangs would not exist if it were legal to sell drugs, and drug transactions were backed up by contractual law and the justice system, thus mitigating the need for violence to enforce payment or resolve disputes.
Thanks everyone. Can anyone recommend a solicitor for me to use? (The person I normally talk to is a partner at Slaughter & May, but I suspect that might be over-kill...)
Or would has any resident pb solicitor (Sean_F, LIAMT or any other) like to consider taking my case on?
Robert
I am sure you know this already, but large corporations only react to the following:
1. Legal threats (decisions move to the legal department) 2. Adverse PR (probably still only in the inked press - decisions move to PR department). 3. Competition (doesn't apply here - eBay don't have any).
Try to find a firm of solicitors which specialises in consumer law and have experience in battling with eBay. A letter before litigation may be enough to do the trick. Get it right and eBay may take the hit.
Get a major newspaper blogger to take up your cause (umm, scrap that...). Apart from the implied reason, "Bitcoin miners" mean nothing to the average reader therefore your cause will be deemed unnewsworthy.
Probably best solution is to take a walk and deep breath in the nearest park and write it off to experience, It doesn't take many solicitor's letters to rack up a £1,500 bill!
I'd have thought that Slaughter and May (no & please!) would be handily placed first of all to get eBay to take the issue very seriously and then to negotiate a settlement that involved their costs being covered.
When you start relying on recovering solicitors' costs to justify action, you've already lost.
Yes, I think I would run through the £1,000 I was likely to win in about 20 minutes with Slaughter & May
It's not capitalism, it's prohibition. These gangs would not exist if it were legal to sell drugs, and drug transactions were backed up by contractual law and the justice system, thus mitigating the need for violence to enforce payment or resolve disputes.
If drugs were legal however, it is illogical to assume that these gangs would cease to exist, but rather be moved into another area of criminal activity.
Thanks everyone. Can anyone recommend a solicitor for me to use? (The person I normally talk to is a partner at Slaughter & May, but I suspect that might be over-kill...)
Or would has any resident pb solicitor (Sean_F, LIAMT or any other) like to consider taking my case on?
Robert
I am sure you know this already, but large corporations only react to the following:
1. Legal threats (decisions move to the legal department) 2. Adverse PR (probably still only in the inked press - decisions move to PR department). 3. Competition (doesn't apply here - eBay don't have any).
Try to find a firm of solicitors which specialises in consumer law and have experience in battling with eBay. A letter before litigation may be enough to do the trick. Get it right and eBay may take the hit.
Get a major newspaper blogger to take up your cause (umm, scrap that...). Apart from the implied reason, "Bitcoin miners" mean nothing to the average reader therefore your cause will be deemed unnewsworthy.
Probably best solution is to take a walk and deep breath in the nearest park and write it off to experience, It doesn't take many solicitor's letters to rack up a £1,500 bill!
I'd have thought that Slaughter and May (no & please!) would be handily placed first of all to get eBay to take the issue very seriously and then to negotiate a settlement that involved their costs being covered.
When you start relying on recovering solicitors' costs to justify action, you've already lost.
A fair point. If cost is a driving issue in this case, the only solution is to walk away.
It's not capitalism, it's prohibition. These gangs would not exist if it were legal to sell drugs, and drug transactions were backed up by contractual law and the justice system, thus mitigating the need for violence to enforce payment or resolve disputes.
If drugs were legal however, it is illogical to assume that these gangs would cease to exist, but rather be moved into another area of criminal activity.
Yes. But the history of prohibition in America suggests that there would be less criminal activity it was less lucrative. Criminals, it turns out, are economically rational.
It's not capitalism, it's prohibition. These gangs would not exist if it were legal to sell drugs, and drug transactions were backed up by contractual law and the justice system, thus mitigating the need for violence to enforce payment or resolve disputes.
If drugs were legal however, it is illogical to assume that these gangs would cease to exist, but rather be moved into another area of criminal activity.
Not in the long term. The better the employment prospects for criminals, the more criminals the free market will find to take criminal jobs. This is particularly true if employers are organized (for example into gangs) and will have methods of recruiting people to join them if they need more people to do the available work.
It's not capitalism, it's prohibition. These gangs would not exist if it were legal to sell drugs, and drug transactions were backed up by contractual law and the justice system, thus mitigating the need for violence to enforce payment or resolve disputes.
There is supply, there is demand, so there is a market in which people can make a profit. That looks like capitalism to me. But, as you say, the key issue is regulation - the way the market works is currently dysfunctional and only encourages venality and violence. But all those who take drugs or have done so in the past are complicit in this; they know/knew exactly what it is they have created and continue to enable.
It's not capitalism, it's prohibition. These gangs would not exist if it were legal to sell drugs, and drug transactions were backed up by contractual law and the justice system, thus mitigating the need for violence to enforce payment or resolve disputes.
If drugs were legal however, it is illogical to assume that these gangs would cease to exist, but rather be moved into another area of criminal activity.
Street gangs are an age thing at first (c. 14-24) which then morphs into money-making because of the drugs trade. Without drugs a larger percentage would start dropping out around 18-19 ish.
@MrJones - The gangs that you post so cryptically about are almost all linked to drug supply at one level or another. You focus on the skin colour/cultural background of their members, without acknowledging that these gangs only exist in the form they do in the first place because there is a huge demand from all sectors of British society for what they supply. As a few members of the current cabinet would no doubt attest, demand for drugs goes beyond Guardian and BBC journalists wishing to bring white culture down. It's not an evil left-wing conspiracy; it's capitalism in the raw.
Fine, they exist because of drugs. The main point is they exist.
"these gangs only exist in the form they do in the first place because there is a huge demand from all sectors of British society for what they supply"
"But we will not give peace to the authorities until we get justice.
"We will still be here for as long as it takes."
So, the judgement of a panel of independent jurors isn't good enough, as they gave the 'wrong answer'.
She'd do better diverting her energy into persuading other young men not to join gangs, and swan around North London toting guns like toys from a Hollywood fantasy.
You ask where coaltion has got the LDs. Well it's stopped a pile of moves by the nutty Tory right all of which are contained in Cameron "little black book".
This is the eternal, unanswerable conundrum about the LibDem role in the coalition. On one interpretation they've done the country a great service by stopping all kinds of crazy things that the Tories like to talk about but the government isn't actually doing. On the other interpretation the Tories were never going to do those things in the first place, because they're crazy.
It's not capitalism, it's prohibition. These gangs would not exist if it were legal to sell drugs, and drug transactions were backed up by contractual law and the justice system, thus mitigating the need for violence to enforce payment or resolve disputes.
There is supply, there is demand, so there is a market in which people can make a profit. That looks like capitalism to me. But, as you say, the key issue is regulation - the way the market works is currently dysfunctional and only encourages venality and violence. But all those who take drugs or have done so in the past are complicit in this; they know/knew exactly what it is they have created and continue to enable.
Totally anecdotal the 'markets' of west Sheffield (Hallam) and South London were very, very different. And no this is not 'first hand' experience...
Fundamental to capitalism is the right to private property. The control of the drugs trade by violent criminals is because that right is absent. It thus does not make any sense to describe it as capitalism.
On topic I'd say beware of people who build up UKIP expectations only so they can call it a failure when they don't win
Or influence bookie prices
No! More of these people! UKIP odds on favourite please, Labour pushed way out.
What price do you think the main parties should be? Or what % of 100?
UKIP are unpredictable enough to make it a tough call, but I'd predict something along the lines of:
Labour 55% UKIP 20% Tories 13% LDs 7% Random Others 5%
But I wouldn't rule out the Tory and LD vote holding up a bit better than that, LDs around 10% and the Tories not losing much from their current 20%ish. UKIP might get some voters from each party, but I reckon the Tories in the Trafford area are pretty loyal, the LDs in the area are heading to Labour not to UKIP and the Labour voters are pretty tribal. I wouldn't rule out UKIP not even coming second, and would be astonished if they made it a close race.
As for odds, I've never had work in the industry but my rough guess would be:
Lab: 1/6 UKIP: 4/1 Tories: 10/1 (maybe a bit longer) LDs: 25/1 (or longer)
@MrJones - The gangs that you post so cryptically about are almost all linked to drug supply at one level or another. You focus on the skin colour/cultural background of their members, without acknowledging that these gangs only exist in the form they do in the first place because there is a huge demand from all sectors of British society for what they supply. As a few members of the current cabinet would no doubt attest, demand for drugs goes beyond Guardian and BBC journalists wishing to bring white culture down. It's not an evil left-wing conspiracy; it's capitalism in the raw.
Fine, they exist because of drugs. The main point is they exist.
"these gangs only exist in the form they do in the first place because there is a huge demand from all sectors of British society for what they supply"
So, the judgement of a panel of independent jurors isn't good enough, as they gave the 'wrong answer'.
Interested parties have the right to challenge the determination or finding of a coronial inquisition by way of judicial review. Juries do not have the final say.
Comments
Full-blown political breakthroughs can only be achieved by a national campaign. They can be assisted no end by quality work on the ground locally - and a UKIP win in Wythenshaw would indeed given them a massive boost - but local work alone can *never* deliver a national breakthrough because of the inherant contradictions it will bring.
Early is probably best, on this occasion.
I think it is reasonable to assume in this circumstance that the LibDems will be slightly stronger - there are certain Tory supporters (particularly in the City, in big business, law etc.) who are sufficiently pro-EU they would oppose BOO, and there are certain Tories who are not fans of UKIP's social conservatism. Let's put the LibDems on 15%.
Let's also assume that others (Greens, BNP, Respect, etc.) are on 5%.
That means that you have 80% of the vote between Conservative and Labour. If the Conservatives win with - say - 42% of the vote (which I would say would be quite a challenge), would leaving the EU without a referendum be possible?
If the Conservatives were on sub-40%, I would suggest it would not, and if they were at the 44% level or so, then there would clearly be a mandate.
The chance for the electorate to give them all a bloody nose would be very tempting for many voters.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/sep/18/manchester-united-record-financial-results
but it seems that 22m of that 71m was a one-off charge.
Absolutely agree that axeing the manager is potentially a stupid thing to do, but then, who's actually making the decisions there? and at what point to sponsors start to get really edgy?
I'm pretty sure that a government wanting to leave the EU could easily win a referendum. They'd be fools to try to do it without one, considering that.
It is not enough in this sort of case to say that the government at the time has a mandate - even if leaving the EU was in their manifesto - and they can therefore start withdrawal without further consultation via a referendum. People elect their MPs for a huge and varying range of reasons and I don't believe you can simply assume that withdrawal would be sanctioned by a General Election. Personally - and I know others might disagree - I would consider it undemocratic.
The concern eurosceptics have is that David Cameron will be able to pull the wool over voters' eyes for a short period (say three months) over how successful renegotiation has been, particularly as people like Merkel would be willing to rhetorically cover for him. I'm pretty sure Cameron's plan is to stage a renegotiation, get some minor, mainly symbolic, concessions and then quickly hold a vote while the three big parties and the BBC cover for him. He'd probably win slightly, before the reality that nothing much has changed sinks in.
Righties always have a degree of healthy cynicism Mick, they'r not like lefties who swallow anything they'r told. I mean imagine you had a leader who said he'd taken extensive advice on the EU and that turned out to be legal advice to block people knowing he hadn't taken any legal advice at all. You'd have to be mad to take anything he said at face value.
We shall see- it will be an interesting period.
Mr. Socrates (welcome back, not sure if I said that earlier or not), I think there's some merit in that view. The thing is that the leaderships of all three parties would be for staying In, so that might provoke the anti-establishment feeling as much or more than it sways the uncertain centre.
Again I am only giving my own assessment of what I understand UKIP's strategy to be. They think, I believe, that a stabilised eurozone, which will perforce be more politically and fiscally integrated, should make voting IN less palatable. If, as some of us wanted, we were having a referendum IN or OUT of the EU now, the issue would be essentially the Single Market, and despite fears on immigration and everything else IN would probably still win. This is especially so as all main Parliamentary party leaders would presently be pro EU. In five years time, after continuing semi-detachment by Britain from the main EU integration process, the choice will be much more stark. The EU and the Eurozone may by then have become effectively coterminous. We would be voting RIGHT IN or RIGHT OUT, no ambiguities or half way houses. Of course, it is easy to see the flaws in this thinking, but one cannot say it is necessarily utterly unreasonable, or counter productive, or mistaken. The beginning of wisdom in fighting UKIP is not to underestimate them.
edit: an example would be the Mail and the welfare debate.
And surely one could just as well argue that the pro-EU or pro-UK parties have spent so long denying a referendum that they will be/have been totally unprepared for the problems the actual referendums bring.
Don't forget, an independence-minded government could spend a year before any referendum picking fights with the EU about funds going missing, votes for prisoners, serial killers getting the right to leave prison, benefits for immigrants, etc and giving plenty of oxygen for the Mail, Sun, Express etc to have a negative EU story on the front page virtually every day.
Also, eurosceptics typically believe, on principle, of giving the people a say on radical constitutional change. It's only the europhiles that like to transfer sovereignty from one polity to another over the heads of the public.
So do I take it you don't think you'd win ?
Btw what ever happened to Marxism, did it triumph inevitably and I missed it ?
This is not a case of communities being able to police themselves or not. It is all about a collective failure of political will that has at its root the fact that there are a lot of people - left, right, centre, upper class, middle class, working class, Guardian reading, Telegraph reading, black, white, yellow - that like/need a drugs fix and are more than willing to conspire with criminals to get one. Just ask SeanT.
Perhaps not, but a future UKIP-Conservative merged party may well change its mind on that.
Secondly, I'm fully aware that the ruling comes from the ECHR (as does the right of release), but we are mandated to be a member and abide by its rulings as part of our EU membership. I'm pretty sure the EU would thus have something to say about it if we were to announce we were going to flatly ignore them.
I am sure you know this already, but large corporations only react to the following:
1. Legal threats (decisions move to the legal department)
2. Adverse PR (probably still only in the inked press - decisions move to PR department).
3. Competition (doesn't apply here - eBay don't have any).
Try to find a firm of solicitors which specialises in consumer law and have experience in battling with eBay. A letter before litigation may be enough to do the trick. Get it right and eBay may take the hit.
Get a major newspaper blogger to take up your cause (umm, scrap that...). Apart from the implied reason, "Bitcoin miners" mean nothing to the average reader therefore your cause will be deemed unnewsworthy.
Probably best solution is to take a walk and deep breath in the nearest park and write it off to experience, It doesn't take many solicitor's letters to rack up a £1,500 bill!
LOL
LOL
Too wordy, could you do me a summary ?
Yes.
LOL
Too wordy, could you do me a summary ?
Easily.
Fake Fop can't be trusted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Central_by-election,_2012
Easily.
Fake Fop can't be trusted.
Thanks, but haven't you said that before ?
For example, he was fond of telling a story of how the computer in his Italian bank failed requiring him to order that it be "thrown out of the window".
I believe this is an uniquely Italian management method.
Or influence bookie prices
Socrates is right, though, that a sitting government has the advantage of picking lots of fights in Europe.
That said, I think the Murdoch press may become less Eurosceptic than it has been (at least temporarily). Right now, they are very keen to merge BSkyB, Sky Italia, and Sky Deutschland to create a new EuroSky. This would then be able to bid for pan-European rights for football and movies - something that under current competition law would require EU approval. Would Murdoch want to rock the boat on something worth possibly tens of billions?
They seem to me to be a man's party, in essence. And the party of a certain type of man who thinks that pretty much every change since the 1950's has been for the worse.
BTW I'm not saying that this applies to you personally. You're very eloquent in your arguments. I'm just describing why - at a visceral level - I find them unappealing.
so if all the stuff about Cameron is irrelevant ( which I happen to agree with you ) then why is UKIP so fixated on him ? If a referendum is going to carry it will do so irrespective of DC. Why not just push for a date ?
The leader of the posse must have the nose for such a task.
Fake Fop can't be trusted.
Thanks, but haven't you said that before ?
Indeed. During Cammie's EU flounce for a start. Sadly it was not a view the PB tories seemed to share. Most unfortunate.
Amazon
More substitution than competition but I take your point. Can't see though how Robert can leverage.
(economic marxism is a different kettle of fish obv)
is the practical issue that you used paypal?
ie it was credited to your paypal a/c but never withdrawn, so they can send "your" money back against your wishes?
If so, I had some success last year in reversing a paypal decison. You may be interested in the (legal) method.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25665484
"these gangs only exist in the form they do in the first place because there is a huge demand from all sectors of British society for what they supply"
Explain Glasgow.
It's not capitalism, it's prohibition. These gangs would not exist if it were legal to sell drugs, and drug transactions were backed up by contractual law and the justice system, thus mitigating the need for violence to enforce payment or resolve disputes.
O/T @rcs: Your best bet is probably diy; it's incredibly easy (and cheap) to initiate small claims proceedings online. If nothing else, it should grab the attention of ebay's legal department, so you should get a meaningful dialogue going.
https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome
But surely Lamont and SLAB have an army of eager volunteers and members expertly managed and deployed by the same strategic brains who masterminded SLAB's 2011 scottish election triumph? A sobering thought I know but we'll have to manage against that onslaught somehow.
The Aunt has just gone up in my estimation, after the family’s performance yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25665484
imo
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/crime-gang-busted-police-seize-2259654
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22600187
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/police-vow-to-keep-fighting-glasgow-crime-gangs-as-operation-myriad-135351n.22016195
http://www.scotsman.com/news/50-years-in-jail-for-biggest-scots-drug-gang-1-2912357
"We will still be here for as long as it takes."
So, the judgement of a panel of independent jurors isn't good enough, as they gave the 'wrong answer'.
She'd do better diverting her energy into persuading other young men not to join gangs, and swan around North London toting guns like toys from a Hollywood fantasy.
Fundamental to capitalism is the right to private property. The control of the drugs trade by violent criminals is because that right is absent. It thus does not make any sense to describe it as capitalism.
I see that Farage has a growing left wing fan club.
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2014/01/nigel-farage-is-right-but-for-the-wrong-reasons/
Labour 55%
UKIP 20%
Tories 13%
LDs 7%
Random Others 5%
But I wouldn't rule out the Tory and LD vote holding up a bit better than that, LDs around 10% and the Tories not losing much from their current 20%ish. UKIP might get some voters from each party, but I reckon the Tories in the Trafford area are pretty loyal, the LDs in the area are heading to Labour not to UKIP and the Labour voters are pretty tribal. I wouldn't rule out UKIP not even coming second, and would be astonished if they made it a close race.
As for odds, I've never had work in the industry but my rough guess would be:
Lab: 1/6
UKIP: 4/1
Tories: 10/1 (maybe a bit longer)
LDs: 25/1 (or longer)
You've worked in oddsetting, what do you think?