Here is some info off the consumeractiongroup.co.uk forum dated April 2012 which may be of assistance:
Directors: Paul Reuben Drake DOB 21/01/1970 Came to Office 10/02/2010 Address: Ebay International Marketing Gmbh Westpark, Pfingstweidstrasse 60, Zurich,
Phillip Rinn DOB 08/12/1973 Came to Office 10/02/2010 Address: Hotham House 1 Heron Square, , Richmond Upon Thames, TW9 1EJ
Current Company Secretary OHS SECRETARIES LIMITED Came to Office 04/02/2011 Address: 9th Floor 107 Cheapside, , London, EC2V 6DN
This seat is not a particularly good fit for UKIP. I think it's possible they'll win a byelection at some point over the next few years, but they would need it to be in a rural and deprived seat (Portsmouth South looks decent for them if Mike Hancock finally gets beached?) where people are very socially conservative and VERY anti-immigration -- poor people in (sub)urban seats like Wythenshawe/Sale West don't tend to get so exercised by immigration and the like. People are also right to point to the sizeable Lib Dem vote here, which has boomed in this type of northern sub/urban seat since 1997 almost entirely thanks to them positioning themselves as to the left of Labour and more concerned about the poor than they are in these types of seats -- one of the groups who are most outraged by the Lib Dems getting into bed with the Tories.
o_O EHCR, working, control over EU budget and CAP opt out ?!
Do you really think the EU will give that lot ?
Remember: Cameron won't be negotiating with the EU, he'll actually be negotiating with Merkel. Ultimately, if she (and to a lesser extent Hollande, Letti, and Rajoy) agrees with Cameron, then it will probably happen. Barosso doesn't get a vote. Think of it like a private member's club: technically the club manager is important - but in actuality it's the other members that matter for decision making.
And also don't forget we'll be giving something up to Merkel and co - we'll give up the right to interfere with internal workings of the Eurozone. That's something the Eurozone members want from us.
I think the ECHR will happen because I don't think Merkel cares about it. It's an irrelevance to her.
Re working practices; I think there will be a (non-treaty) agreement not to enforce some of the regulations.
CAP probably won't happen. *Unless* the French are in severe economic stress and need bailing out. In which case their desire to be saved will over-rule their desire to buy off their farmers.
Budget and the parliament? I don't know.
It doesn't matter Who Cameron is negotiating with. When it actually comes to the treaty itself it would have to be agreed by all the member states individually and there is not a snowballs chance in hell that that would happen. So in the end he (and we) would have nothing to show for his negotiations.
We already know this is how it is going to go. Cameron's promises are worth nothing because he lacks the power to force the other EU states to agree.
If that were to be demonstrated, nothing would do more for the Out case - but it would have to be demonstrated.
At the moment there are many who are ambivalent about EU membership. They were in favour of a free trade area, don't like how it's developed but are wary about leaving. They would support a reformed and loosened relationship and if Cameron got his deal, they would vote In. On the other hand, if it were shown that no such reform were possible, they would become firm Out-ers.
The problem with that being that it cannot be demonstrated until the relevant treaty comes up for ratification by each state which will be long after any referendum in the UK. Cameron's whole timetable is simply ludicrous if he is serious about getting firm watertight commitments from the rest of the EU.
Here is some info off the consumeractiongroup.co.uk forum dated April 2012 which may be of assistance:
Directors: Paul Reuben Drake DOB 21/01/1970 Came to Office 10/02/2010 Address: Ebay International Marketing Gmbh Westpark, Pfingstweidstrasse 60, Zurich,
Phillip Rinn DOB 08/12/1973 Came to Office 10/02/2010 Address: Hotham House 1 Heron Square, , Richmond Upon Thames, TW9 1EJ
Current Company Secretary OHS SECRETARIES LIMITED Came to Office 04/02/2011 Address: 9th Floor 107 Cheapside, , London, EC2V 6DN
"Back in 2007, the Wythenshawe Estate became the poster child for ‘Broken Britain’. David Cameron had visited the estate to make his call to ‘hug a hoodie’. But whatever love Cameron was offering didn’t appear to be reciprocated.
It was ironic that Wythenshawe should be singled out in this way, tragic that the ideals and vision which had built the estate had been so signally eclipsed.
Lest we forget the story begins with a level of overcrowding and human misery that is – thankfully – almost unimaginable in Britain today. In 1935, Manchester’s Medical Officer of Health condemned 30,000 (of a total of 80,000) inner-city homes as unfit for human habitation; 7000 families were living in single rooms."
For now though, it’s enough to write that His Last Vow is as good a finale as Sherlock’s ever had.
Considering how awesome the Reichenbach Fall was, that's made me squee
this bit: "A few, lone voices have been saying this past fortnight that the Sherlock of old has gone away never to return. His Last Vow will prove them wrong. Coming back stronger is what Sherlock Holmes does. You know his methods, he’s known to be indestructible."
For now though, it’s enough to write that His Last Vow is as good a finale as Sherlock’s ever had.
Considering how awesome the Reichenbach Fall was, that's made me squee
this bit: "A few, lone voices have been saying this past fortnight that the Sherlock of old has gone away never to return. His Last Vow will prove them wrong. Coming back stronger is what Sherlock Holmes does. You know his methods, he’s known to be indestructible."
Is a little playful/cryptic...
I've found this series to be poor frankly - too much bromance not enough detecting. 3 episodes isn't enough to build momentum either.
"Cameron's promises are worth nothing because he lacks the power to force the other EU states to agree."
Actually, I think its worse than that. Cameron can't even get a negotiation going, the other countries are quite within their rights to say, "Not interested in talking about this, piss off" and at least one probably will, though perhaps in a more diplomatic way.
The only way Cameron can force the other countries to the negotiating table is to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. That is to say he would have to declare the UK's intention to leave the EU, but he can't do that because it would prejudge the referendum that is supposed to decide on whether what he has negotiated is acceptable. Furthermore, hasn't Cameron said whatever the results of any negotiations he would campaign for us to remain a member?
Frankly, Cameron seems to have tied himself in knots and come to a position where nobody, including our European friends, can believe a word he says.
Cameron can't do much overtly until after GE 2015 because the FibDems and the Liebourites want to protect their existing EU pensions and future participation on the EU gravy train. If other countries say that they will absolutely not play ball on negotiations he can say that in any future referendum he would refuse to support membership - that would not prejudge the referendum.
I've been arb laying on betfair/trying to take value on Betfair. Though the fiver on Jones was an error.
Hopefully he'll go with Flores... but I doubt it.
I think Peace must be in with the bookies ! They must have made a fortune on this one...
Looks like they may delay until next week - perhaps that is what has killed the trading.
Did you lay either Schaaf or Mel at odds on ?
Schaaf yes - not Mel, green on Flores, Shaaf, Pearce, Mackay and level on Zola - small red on anyone else.
Cheers - Just added £3 of Pearce to my book at 19.33, he is amongst considered candidates and is precisely the sort of cheap as chips/dogshit candidate they may well go to if they can't land Flores. 33s available at Victor >< oops..
""[The Conservative Party] have devised a system to trawl the nation for ‘small c’ sympathisers, those whose hearts and heads would label them as instinctive supporters. Their email addresses have been collated, and in recent days they’ve received personal notes from Cameron, the chancellor and other cabinet figures.""
A personal note from Cameron would be enough to put me off for life, but luckily by request, I have been removed from their mailing list.
No fewer than three Labour Party members in Broxtowe have had this, to much enjoyment. All three of them are well off and I assume the algorithm looks at that and assumes they're closet Tories.
"Cameron's promises are worth nothing because he lacks the power to force the other EU states to agree."
Actually, I think its worse than that. Cameron can't even get a negotiation going, the other countries are quite within their rights to say, "Not interested in talking about this, piss off" and at least one probably will, though perhaps in a more diplomatic way.
Frankly, Cameron seems to have tied himself in knots and come to a position where nobody, including our European friends, can believe a word he says.
Nice to see Hurst Llama posting regularly again. My reading of the Continental press is that they absolutely don't want to get into a new Treaty round (after a brief period where they thought they might have to, until they found they could fudge the banking union thing), but also don't want to offend Britain just for the hell of it. So I think they'll agree to leisurely talks about talks, and if Cameron wants to spin that as splendid progress domestically, they won't be bothered. As you and Richard T say, they is zero chance of their all agreeing to anything substantial like getting rd of the ECHR or free movement, and the idea of their all agreeing by 2017 is risible.
Thus, as PM in 2017 Cameron would either have to say "Er, this is taking longer than expected, we'll let you know" (surely unlikely) or have a referendum on a non-Treaty. I assume he'd go for a "mandate referendum", asking for endorsement of all kinds of popular things, while the Continent eyes the procedure with detached amusement. It could be technically in/out since he could say he'd interpret rejection of the mandate as power to commence withdrawal proceedings, which would put those of us who like the current arrangement on the spot - do we vote for horrid changes or withdrawal? But I think he'd win it, do an EU deal with a few face-saving commitments to review, move in the direction, etc., and declare victory ("You had an in/out referendum as promised, nothing's perfect, we've been debating it for a decade, stop whinging").
Totally agree with you there, Mr. Town. I understand from reading these forums that you are a practising lawyer so maybe you can help with a question that has been bugging me for some years.
When the power of arrest was extended to any offence it was balanced (supposedly) by the introduction of the necessity test - i.e. to be lawful an arrest had to be necessary. However, from what I read, have been told by members of the police themselves and from a personal experience (I was stopped one evening and because they police computer wrongly said I wasn't insured to drive the car, I was and the certificate was in the house 200 yards away, the stupid girl wanted to arrest me and take me 12 miles to the police station) the police seem to either be ignorant of this provision or just ignore it as a matter of course. How do they get away with it?
As I have said already on this thread and on previous occasions, I am not a practicing lawyer! I do, however, have an intellectual interest in law.
The necessity test is found in section 24 of PACE, as amended. For an arrest to be lawful, the constable must have reasonable grounds for believing it is necessary for a reason mentioned in subsection (5). Paragraphs (a), (b), (e) and (f) of that subsection are very widely drafted, and it is difficult to envisage a circumstance in which a constable did not have reasonable grounds to believe that an arrest was necessary where he believed an offence had been committed. Proving, even on the balance of probabilities, that someone lacked a reasonable belief is a very difficult task indeed.
“We want a United States of Europe says top EU official.
Voters must decide for or against a United States of Europe during EU elections this spring, says vice president of the European Commission.
Viviane Reding, vice president of the European Commission and the longest serving Brussels commissioner, has called for "a true political union" to be put on the agenda for EU elections this spring.
"We need to build a United States of Europe with the Commission as government and two chambers – the European Parliament and a "Senate" of Member States," she said.
Mrs Reding's vision, which is shared by many in the European institutions, would transform the EU into superstate relegating national governments and parliaments to a minor political role equivalent to that played by local councils in Britain.
Under her plan, the commission would have supremacy over governments and MEPs in the European Parliament would supersede the sovereignty of MPs in the House of Commons.”
Time is running out, can UKIP afford to wait until 2020>?
Time is running out, can UKIP afford to wait until 2020>?
The time to stop that ship sailing was 1986.
The time to stop that ship sailing - or rather to ensure we weren't on board - was probably 1975
No doubt you are correct, but unlike 1975, the cat is well and truly out of the bag as to the true expansionist nature of the EU. – There’s a slogan in there somewhere for the right party.
“We want a United States of Europe says top EU official.
Voters must decide for or against a United States of Europe during EU elections this spring, says vice president of the European Commission.
Viviane Reding, vice president of the European Commission and the longest serving Brussels commissioner, has called for "a true political union" to be put on the agenda for EU elections this spring.
"We need to build a United States of Europe with the Commission as government and two chambers – the European Parliament and a "Senate" of Member States," she said.
Mrs Reding's vision, which is shared by many in the European institutions, would transform the EU into superstate relegating national governments and parliaments to a minor political role equivalent to that played by local councils in Britain.
Under her plan, the commission would have supremacy over governments and MEPs in the European Parliament would supersede the sovereignty of MPs in the House of Commons.”
Time is running out, can UKIP afford to wait until 2020>?
This is precisely the problem Cameron - or anyone else - faces. There is the EU as it is now, there is an EU with a looser relationship, at least for Britain, which Cameron says he wants and then there is the "ever closer union" or United States of Europe as this woman wants. Cameron is trying not just to stop the last but also to move back to something which existed, if at all, years ago. That's like fighting on two fronts. The chances of success on one front are tiny; and on two, even less so.
“We want a United States of Europe says top EU official.
Voters must decide for or against a United States of Europe during EU elections this spring, says vice president of the European Commission.
Viviane Reding, vice president of the European Commission and the longest serving Brussels commissioner, has called for "a true political union" to be put on the agenda for EU elections this spring.
"We need to build a United States of Europe with the Commission as government and two chambers – the European Parliament and a "Senate" of Member States," she said.
Mrs Reding's vision, which is shared by many in the European institutions, would transform the EU into superstate relegating national governments and parliaments to a minor political role equivalent to that played by local councils in Britain.
Under her plan, the commission would have supremacy over governments and MEPs in the European Parliament would supersede the sovereignty of MPs in the House of Commons.”
Time is running out, can UKIP afford to wait until 2020>?
Oh, Just a point - Remember we should not quote more than a paragraph of a Newspaper article. I remember OGH saying he'd received letters from various newspaper's learned friends over this in the past.
I'm not a mod but I don't want to see OGH in the shit.
Time is running out, can UKIP afford to wait until 2020>?
The time to stop that ship sailing was 1986.
The time to stop that ship sailing - or rather to ensure we weren't on board - was probably 1975
No doubt you are correct, but unlike 1975, the cat is well and truly out of the bag as to the true expansionist nature of the EU. – There’s a slogan in there somewhere for the right party.
If you watch this you will see that some people knew the cat was out of the bag in 1975
"Those who warned that the first step was being taken towards the political unification of western Europe, and the degrading of UK to the status of European province, were laughed to scorn... "
Not that I've seen - they should have Lib Dems at fairly short odds if they do.
Does that factor in Don Foster standing down ?
Yes, Bath is one of the few places where the Lib Dems have made gains at local elections since the last GE. Obviously it will be tougher without Don Foster but this is one of the places they should be hanging on in.
“We want a United States of Europe says top EU official.
Voters must decide for or against a United States of Europe during EU elections this spring, says vice president of the European Commission.
Viviane Reding, vice president of the European Commission and the longest serving Brussels commissioner, has called for "a true political union" to be put on the agenda for EU elections this spring.
"We need to build a United States of Europe with the Commission as government and two chambers – the European Parliament and a "Senate" of Member States," she said.
Mrs Reding's vision, which is shared by many in the European institutions, would transform the EU into superstate relegating national governments and parliaments to a minor political role equivalent to that played by local councils in Britain.
Under her plan, the commission would have supremacy over governments and MEPs in the European Parliament would supersede the sovereignty of MPs in the House of Commons.”
Time is running out, can UKIP afford to wait until 2020>?
From her perspective, that would be ideal. If UKIP do well enough, whether at the EU elections or later, so that Labour or a Labour-Lib Dem coalition is in government in the UK after 2015, that's a win for the Euro-bureaucrats, no?
If there was still a tradition of bribes to constituencies with by-elections, then HS2 would be safe - this is probably the most pro-HS2 constituency in the entire UK.
Comments
I would predict:
Labour 58%
Tories 18%
UKIP 17%
Lib Dems 4%
Good spot, Watcher!
http://municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/the-wythenshawe-estate-manchester-the-world-of-the-future/
"Back in 2007, the Wythenshawe Estate became the poster child for ‘Broken Britain’. David Cameron had visited the estate to make his call to ‘hug a hoodie’. But whatever love Cameron was offering didn’t appear to be reciprocated.
It was ironic that Wythenshawe should be singled out in this way, tragic that the ideals and vision which had built the estate had been so signally eclipsed.
Lest we forget the story begins with a level of overcrowding and human misery that is – thankfully – almost unimaginable in Britain today. In 1935, Manchester’s Medical Officer of Health condemned 30,000 (of a total of 80,000) inner-city homes as unfit for human habitation; 7000 families were living in single rooms."
"A few, lone voices have been saying this past fortnight that the Sherlock of old has gone away never to return. His Last Vow will prove them wrong. Coming back stronger is what Sherlock Holmes does. You know his methods, he’s known to be indestructible."
Is a little playful/cryptic...
Thus, as PM in 2017 Cameron would either have to say "Er, this is taking longer than expected, we'll let you know" (surely unlikely) or have a referendum on a non-Treaty. I assume he'd go for a "mandate referendum", asking for endorsement of all kinds of popular things, while the Continent eyes the procedure with detached amusement. It could be technically in/out since he could say he'd interpret rejection of the mandate as power to commence withdrawal proceedings, which would put those of us who like the current arrangement on the spot - do we vote for horrid changes or withdrawal? But I think he'd win it, do an EU deal with a few face-saving commitments to review, move in the direction, etc., and declare victory ("You had an in/out referendum as promised, nothing's perfect, we've been debating it for a decade, stop whinging").
The necessity test is found in section 24 of PACE, as amended. For an arrest to be lawful, the constable must have reasonable grounds for believing it is necessary for a reason mentioned in subsection (5). Paragraphs (a), (b), (e) and (f) of that subsection are very widely drafted, and it is difficult to envisage a circumstance in which a constable did not have reasonable grounds to believe that an arrest was necessary where he believed an offence had been committed. Proving, even on the balance of probabilities, that someone lacked a reasonable belief is a very difficult task indeed.
Voters must decide for or against a United States of Europe during EU elections this spring, says vice president of the European Commission.
Viviane Reding, vice president of the European Commission and the longest serving Brussels commissioner, has called for "a true political union" to be put on the agenda for EU elections this spring.
"We need to build a United States of Europe with the Commission as government and two chambers – the European Parliament and a "Senate" of Member States," she said.
Mrs Reding's vision, which is shared by many in the European institutions, would transform the EU into superstate relegating national governments and parliaments to a minor political role equivalent to that played by local councils in Britain.
Under her plan, the commission would have supremacy over governments and MEPs in the European Parliament would supersede the sovereignty of MPs in the House of Commons.”
Time is running out, can UKIP afford to wait until 2020>?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10559458/We-want-a-United-States-of-Europe-says-top-EU-official.html
Interesting post. Tories could try to argue a vote for UKIP is a vote for a superstate....
http://www.murdermap.co.uk/Investigate.asp
Umunna
Dorries
Baker
Nuttall
Boniface
I'm not a mod but I don't want to see OGH in the shit.
"Those who warned that the first step was being taken towards the political unification of western Europe, and the degrading of UK to the status of European province, were laughed to scorn... "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiNO7ptBWNw
Boniface was the rival of Aetius. A great shame they couldn't work together.
The sooner we're shot of the EU the better.
Footage from container ship on the atlantic in the storm this week - not for landlubbers..
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e56_1389058712
Here's my prediction:
I think Nuttal will do well tonight. Baker will come across as competent and Boniface will probably get the audience onside the most...
Nadine and Chuka both to look very very average.
Incidentally, The Bridge has returned (BBC4, Saturday [I think] 9-11pm). In it there was an extremist who was referred to as Mad Nads (I think).