politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nigel Farage: the Comeback, Comeback, Comeback Kid?

Thrak said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Urquhart, Hoy's a top chap. Come to think of it, practically all the best F1 persons (Lee McKenzie[sp], Allan McNish, Coulthard) are Scottish too.

Still hoping Redgrave will throw Inverdale in the sea.

Don't they always throw the cocks in at the end of the race (or was that cox?)

In Inverdale's case it is more like dicks.

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

So far as I can tell, the anger that did at times run high during the campaign, has largely dissipated, and people are taking Brexit in their stride.

Agreed. I think the vast majority on all sides accept the Brexit will happen and that it is the democratic will of the people.

Nevertheless, we do need to choose - and relatively quickly - what our preferred Brexit destination is.

I think what has helped is that the majority of remainers didnt have much love for the EU but feared the consequences of leaving. Now it will happen it is not a big step to accept it.

The relatively speaking tiny group who were actually EU enthusiasts, who actually believe in the european project (and this group overlaps heavily with modern liberals who dislike the concept of the nation state, hereditsry monarchs etc. ) are appalled but now utterly powerless as there is not a whits chance of the UK electorate post Brexit voting to actually join.

Tony Benn put it best:

Britain’s continuing membership of the Community would mean the end of Britain as a completely self-governing nation and the end of our democratically elected parliament as the supreme law-making body in the United Kingdom.

I am writing, not to argue a case, but to explain — as best I can — what effect British membership of the Common Market has had upon the constitutional relationship between a member of Parliament and his constituents. The Parliamentary democracy we have developed and established in Britain is based, not upon the sovereignty of Parliament, but upon the sovereignty of the People, who, by exercising their vote lend their sovereign powers to Members of Parliament, to use on their behalf, for the duration of a single Parliament only — Powers that must be returned intact to the electorate to whom they belong, to lend again to the Members of Parliament they elect in each subsequent general election. Five basic democratic rights derive from this relationship, and each of them is fundamentally altered by Britain’s membership of the European Community,....

This huge Commission building in Brussels, in the shape of a cross, is absolutely un-British. I felt as if I were going as a slave to Rome; the whole relationship was wrong. Here was I, an elected man who could be removed, doing a job, and here were these people with more power than I had and no accountability to anybody...My visit confirmed in a practical way all my suspicions that this would be the decapitation of British democracy without any countervailing advantage, and the British people, quite rightly, wouldn't accept it. There is no real benefit for Britain.

Alanbrooke said:

FFS what's the point of a conservative government?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/15/taxman-accused-of-using-small-businesses-as-a-cash-cow-after-unv/

Unreal isn't it.

Time for lobbying your local MP.

Quarterly tax returns are pointless. A boon for no-one but accountants.

DavidL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

DavidL said:

<
Not really. The common law principle is do not harm your neighbour. Those that walked on the other side fully met their Donaghue-v- Stephenson duties.

The Lord Justice Atkins explains all in his house of Lords judgement:

"At present I content myself with pointing out that in English law there must be, and is, some general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care, of which the particular cases found in the books are but instances. The liability for negligence, whether you style it such or treat it as in other systems as a species of "culpa," is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay. But acts or omissions which any moral code would censure cannot, in a practical world, be treated so as to give a right to every person injured by them to demand relief. In this way rules of law arise which limit the range of complainants and the extent of their remedy. The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."

But it is actions. If you see someone drowning and do nothing you may have been immoral but you have not breached your legal obligations. Religion seeks to hold people to a different and higher standard.

Derived from and Identical to are not the same thing.

Mortimer said:

Alanbrooke said:

FFS what's the point of a conservative government?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/15/taxman-accused-of-using-small-businesses-as-a-cash-cow-after-unv/

Unreal isn't it.

Time for lobbying your local MP.

Quarterly tax returns are pointless. A boon for no-one but accountants.

For a small business if youre filling in 3 more tax returns thats 6+ days a year your not selling or running your business.

Whats worse is HMRC are not actually able to manage the system they've got let alone 4 times the volume

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
...

So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.

Even more simple allow these systems to exist provided that (a) all participants have certain minimum rights; and (b) all participants have the absolute right to appeal to the UK legal system. That's the model that works well for canon law, for example.

Those minimum rights must however be the rights which English law would afford them.

I don't know about Beth Din but sharia law does not give women the rights they would have under English law so I don't see in practice how your suggestion would work.

It's saying that if they don't then they are not recognised as courts by the UK system.

If for instance women get a comparable financial settlement, decisions on children are made comparably etc I don't care if they want an old man with a beard or and old man with a wig to make the decision.

The reality is that sharia courts do not do what you want them to do. They exist because largely men in the Muslim community want to maintain their control over women and families in ways which simply would not be permitted by the English courts. They are not in addition to English law. They are instead of it. It is - or should be - intolerable that we permit English citizens to be deprived of their rights simply because of their religion. There is a very real problem of pressure on and abuse of women in the Muslim community and English law and English society simply should not be standing by and ignoring it just because they're Muslim and so not really English and it's their culture and all the other moral/cultural relativist guff that goes with the refusal to challenge those who reject English law and norms.

Take 3 girls, all born here, all British citizens. One has a granny born in Naples. One has a granny born in Ulverston. One has a granny born in Lahore. All should have the same rights under English law and should in practice - not just in theory - be able to exercise those rights freely. Their respective religions or lack of should be irrelevant.

This should not be a controversial point.

I'm sorry; what power does a Sharia court have?

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

Mortimer said:

JosiasJessop said:

A divorce story:

An acquaintance had been regularly attending the same CofE church from birth, excluding her time at university. She got baptised and married in the church (not on the same day!), and a relative was an organist (*). She had a wide circle of friends from the church. After a few years her marriage broke irrecoverably down, and eventually they got divorced.

What did the vicar, who she had known for more than a decade, do? The Sunday after her divorce was finalised (or whatever the term is), he gave a heated sermon on the evils of divorce. There was no compassion, no understanding.

The result: neither she, nor her family, have stepped foot in that church again. She has lost a couple of so-called friends.

Religion can be brilliant; it can give great help in times of need. It can also be utterly terrible.

(*) Linking to another recent PB conversation.

That is really sad. And terribly hypocritical given the history of the Anglicanism.

Very sad. And an example of someone not understanding the essential message of Christianity.

You can only have a divorce if you're also head of the church?

Do you know Henry VIII had actually secured Papal permission for Princess Mary to marry his illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond? Were it not for Fitzroy's sudden death, an incestuous marriage would have saved England for Rome.

Marrying your half sister?

He would have been popular in some northern cities for that...

Incest is a sin for the common people, but one of the perks of being royal or noble.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

DavidL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

DavidL said:

<
Not really. The common law principle is do not harm your neighbour. Those that walked on the other side fully met their Donaghue-v- Stephenson duties.

The Lord Justice Atkins explains all in his house of Lords judgement:

"At present I content myself with pointing out that in English law there must be, and is, some general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care, of which the particular cases found in the books are but instances. The liability for negligence, whether you style it such or treat it as in other systems as a species of "culpa," is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay. But acts or omissions which any moral code would censure cannot, in a practical world, be treated so as to give a right to every person injured by them to demand relief. In this way rules of law arise which limit the range of complainants and the extent of their remedy. The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."

But it is actions. If you see someone drowning and do nothing you may have been immoral but you have not breached your legal obligations. Religion seeks to hold people to a different and higher standard.

Derived from and Identical to are not the same thing.

Exactly. Those that claim that Donaghue brought the golden rule into our law are simply wrong.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

And Tony Benn on Liberal Democrats (then known as Social Democrats):

I think the SDP really is a very right-wing party. In a funny way it’s more right-wing than Mrs. Thatcher because Mrs. Thatcher is an old-fashioned liberal, if you know what I mean, she believes in market forces and small government. But my knowledge and experience of the SDP is that they believe in a centralised system, they believe in a federal Europe in which we would only be a province under Brussels, they believe in retaining the American bases, they want a statutory pay policy so they would govern the wages of everybody without proper negotiation. I think they’re a very hard right party and I think the Labour Party which has now got a decent policy as a result of all the work we’ve done is going to pick up a lot of support this year.

I think the statutory pay policy was 1983 only! (And that was also Labour Party policy as well.)

Sean_F said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

Mortimer said:

JosiasJessop said:

A divorce story:

An acquaintance had been regularly attending the same CofE church from birth, excluding her time at university. She got baptised and married in the church (not on the same day!), and a relative was an organist (*). She had a wide circle of friends from the church. After a few years her marriage broke irrecoverably down, and eventually they got divorced.

What did the vicar, who she had known for more than a decade, do? The Sunday after her divorce was finalised (or whatever the term is), he gave a heated sermon on the evils of divorce. There was no compassion, no understanding.

The result: neither she, nor her family, have stepped foot in that church again. She has lost a couple of so-called friends.

Religion can be brilliant; it can give great help in times of need. It can also be utterly terrible.

(*) Linking to another recent PB conversation.

That is really sad. And terribly hypocritical given the history of the Anglicanism.

Very sad. And an example of someone not understanding the essential message of Christianity.

You can only have a divorce if you're also head of the church?

Do you know Henry VIII had actually secured Papal permission for Princess Mary to marry his illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond? Were it not for Fitzroy's sudden death, an incestuous marriage would have saved England for Rome.

Marrying your half sister?

He would have been popular in some northern cities for that...

Incest is a sin for the common people, but one of the perks of being royal or noble.

Wasn't it actively encouraged by the Pharaohs?

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

A divorce story:

An acquaintance had been regularly attending the same CofE church from birth, excluding her time at university. She got baptised and married in the church (not on the same day!), and a relative was an organist (*). She had a wide circle of friends from the church. After a few years her marriage broke irrecoverably down, and eventually they got divorced.

What did the vicar, who she had known for more than a decade, do? The Sunday after her divorce was finalised (or whatever the term is), he gave a heated sermon on the evils of divorce. There was no compassion, no understanding.

The result: neither she, nor her family, have stepped foot in that church again. She has lost a couple of so-called friends.

Religion can be brilliant; it can give great help in times of need. It can also be utterly terrible.

(*) Linking to another recent PB conversation.

So some times things are good and some times they are bad ?

Is there a point to that ?

My vicar is divorced and remarried in my church with the support of the congregation. So what ?

There are several points, one of which is that religious priests / vicars/ imams etc are endowed with authority within a segment of society. That authority can be misused and, as some people politely mentioned below, the authority figure can even act contrary to the tenets of that religion leaving the aggrieved with very little recourse to justice. This can, and does, cause immense pain to many people.

Any power or authority can be misused, whether the authority is based in civil life or religious. It is therefore important that there is the opportunity for wrongs to be corrected. That is generally the case in civil life: most systems have, or at least should have, ways of appealing.

The lack of ways to appeal against such religious authority figures, and the historic way that churches have covered up transgressions, means that all religion needs to be kept a healthy distance away from the law, whatever the historic connections between that law and a particular church.

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
...

So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.

Even more simple allow these systems to exist provided that (a) all participants have certain minimum rights; and (b) all participants have the absolute right to appeal to the UK legal system. That's the model that works well for canon law, for example.

Those minimum rights must however be the rights which English law would afford them.

I don't know about Beth Din but sharia law does not give women the rights they would have under English law so I don't see in practice how your suggestion would work.

It's saying that if they don't then they are not recognised as courts by the UK system.

If for instance women get a comparable financial settlement, decisions on children are made comparably etc I don't care if they want an old man with a beard or and old man with a wig to make the decision.

The reality is that sharia courts do not do what you want them to do. They exist because largely men in the Muslim community want to maintain their control over women and families in ways which simply would not be permitted by the English courts. They are not in addition to English law. They are instead of it. It is - or should be - intolerable that we permit English citizens to be deprived of their rights simply because of their religion. There is a very real problem of pressure on and abuse of women in the Muslim community and English law and English society simply should not be standing by and ignoring it just because they're Muslim and so not really English and it's their culture and all the other moral/cultural relativist guff that goes with the refusal to challenge those who reject English law and norms.

Take 3 girls, all born here, all British citizens. One has a granny born in Naples. One has a granny born in Ulverston. One has a granny born in Lahore. All should have the same rights under English law and should in practice - not just in theory - be able to exercise those rights freely. Their respective religions or lack of should be irrelevant.

This should not be a controversial point.

And we agree. I'm just looking for an objective standard to determine whether a court should be recognised it not. I have little doubt Sharia wouldn't qualify but don't know enough about Beth Din to judge

My father was always of the opinion that Norfolk was the hotbed for incest. Are there any other Counties who can be claimed to be as incestuous?

MTimT said:

Sean_F said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

Mortimer said:

JosiasJessop said:

A divorce story:

An acquaintance had been regularly attending the same CofE church from birth, excluding her time at university. She got baptised and married in the church (not on the same day!), and a relative was an organist (*). She had a wide circle of friends from the church. After a few years her marriage broke irrecoverably down, and eventually they got divorced.

What did the vicar, who she had known for more than a decade, do? The Sunday after her divorce was finalised (or whatever the term is), he gave a heated sermon on the evils of divorce. There was no compassion, no understanding.

The result: neither she, nor her family, have stepped foot in that church again. She has lost a couple of so-called friends.

Religion can be brilliant; it can give great help in times of need. It can also be utterly terrible.

(*) Linking to another recent PB conversation.

That is really sad. And terribly hypocritical given the history of the Anglicanism.

Very sad. And an example of someone not understanding the essential message of Christianity.

You can only have a divorce if you're also head of the church?

Do you know Henry VIII had actually secured Papal permission for Princess Mary to marry his illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond? Were it not for Fitzroy's sudden death, an incestuous marriage would have saved England for Rome.

Marrying your half sister?

He would have been popular in some northern cities for that...

Incest is a sin for the common people, but one of the perks of being royal or noble.

Wasn't it actively encouraged by the Pharaohs?

And Seleucids, Hapsburgs, Wittlesbachs, and Borgias.

Sorry, just catching up. Re the Horse Dancing (aka Dressage) does anyone know of the horses actually enjoy it? I know horses that love hunting and racing and generally working in partnership with people (as do sheep dogs) but I have never been sure about dressage. It seems so unnatural.

HurstLlama said:

Sorry, just catching up. Re the Horse Dancing (aka Dressage) does anyone know of the horses actually enjoy it? I know horses that love hunting and racing and generally working in partnership with people (as do sheep dogs) but I have never been sure about dressage. It seems so unnatural.

Horses enjoy sweet FA. To get horses ready to be ridden by humans they are mentally broken. Any horse with a human on it's back has been driven mad.

I used to ride regularaly.

SquareRoot said:

My father was always of the opinion that Norfolk was the hotbed for incest. Are there any other Counties who can be claimed to be as incestuous?

Filthy Feltham has that moniker for a reason.

Sean_F said:

SquareRoot said:

My father was always of the opinion that Norfolk was the hotbed for incest. Are there any other Counties who can be claimed to be as incestuous?

It's normal for Norfolk.

My step-father-in-law told me of this council estate in Durham which got demolished by the local council, and the inhabitants dispersed to other council estates, when they discovered that lots of girls were getting pregnant by fathers and brothers.

In the 80s and early 90s it was not unusual to see NFF on medical records. Stood for normal for Fife. Incest was quite common there too, especially in the old fishing villages in the Neuk of Fife.

HurstLlama said:

Sorry, just catching up. Re the Horse Dancing (aka Dressage) does anyone know of the horses actually enjoy it? I know horses that love hunting and racing and generally working in partnership with people (as do sheep dogs) but I have never been sure about dressage. It seems so unnatural.

My daughter is very good at both eventing and dressage. She enjoys the thrill of cross country, but finds the intellectual challenge of dressage compelling.

To score well, a dressage horse has to be incredibly strong - think of the gymnasts who do the rings and the control of power they have to display - that is dressage. But it is not just controlled power that is scored, but also submission of the horse to rider and harmony of rider and horse.

That is impossible to achieve unless the horse has an incredibly strong bond with the rider.

Personally, I have never seen a dressage horse obviously thrilled to go into a dressage ring in the same way as a horse cannot wait to get going on cross country. And I do know that dressage horses love being allowed to do 'silly' games, such as jumping and barrel racing. But I have to think that at some level they have to enjoy dressage big time, otherwise they simply would form that amazing bond with the rider or submit.

PS And the key modern dressage movements are movement wild horses naturally do to impress in the wild. Collection into a frame (head into the neck and high, neck flexed) makes the horse look big to competitor and suitor alike. Impulsion (the high energy in the slow gaits like tempis and piaf) and exaggerated gaits (like the extended trot and the piaf) are also natural show off moves.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

I

The reality is that sharia courts do not do what you want them to do. They exist because largely men in the Muslim community want to maintain their control over women and families in ways which simply would not be permitted by the English courts. They are not in addition to English law. They are instead of it. It is - or should be - intolerable that we permit English citizens to be deprived of their rights simply because of their religion. There is a very real problem of pressure on and abuse of women in the Muslim community and English law and English society simply should not be standing by and ignoring it just because they're Muslim and so not really English and it's their culture and all the other moral/cultural relativist guff that goes with the refusal to challenge those who reject English law and norms.

Take 3 girls, all born here, all British citizens. One has a granny born in Naples. One has a granny born in Ulverston. One has a granny born in Lahore. All should have the same rights under English law and should in practice - not just in theory - be able to exercise those rights freely. Their respective religions or lack of should be irrelevant.

This should not be a controversial point.

They do have the same rights just as everyone has the right to eat at tbe Ritz every day.

However in one case exercising those rights will result in banishment by her family.

There is nothing the state can do about that unless it passes such draconian laws that the result is untold misery for its citizens.

In the case of Islam the only way you could do it is either mass expulsion or setting up an Islam of England sect controlled by parliament which all muslims in England must worship exclusively at and reject any other with hugely draconian penalties if they do.

We tried something like that in 1536 to 1840.

You stop sharia courts operating. You stop turning a blind eye to them. You make sure that girls in school are taught about their rights. Your make sure that they are not educated in schools funded by foreign governments or their bodies who have views at odds with English laws. You prosecute - pour encourager les autres - those who mistreat girls who choose to live like British citizens. There are many ways in which you can change attitudes and make clear that certain behaviours are not acceptable. We have done it with racism and homophobia. We can and should do it in relation to religiously/culturally inspired behaviour we find wrong.

As I understand it, there's no recognition of the court of any type outside the official ones. Anyone may seek a settlement outside of the law from any court, arbiter, or pb poster they like. They are only bound by these courts as far as they have volunteered to be bound by them (de jure, de facto is of course more complicated) but their legal rights to apply to the official courts.

It's been a traditional point of freedom, whereby if two parties wish to have it settled outside the courts they can.

That's the theory, in practice the conservative ends of judaism and islam both tend to be very restrictive of women (not that they are alone anong religions in that).

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
...

So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.

Even more simple allow these systems to exist provided that (a) all participants have certain minimum rights; and (b) all participants have the absolute right to appeal to the UK legal system. That's the model that works well for canon law, for example.

Those minimum rights must however be the rights which English law would afford them.

I don't know about Beth Din but sharia law does not give women the rights they would have under English law so I don't see in practice how your suggestion would work.

It's saying that if they don't then they are not recognised as courts by the UK system.

If for instance women get a comparable financial settlement, decisions on children are made comparably etc I don't care if they want an old man with a beard or and old man with a wig to make the decision.

The reality is that sharia courts do not do what you want them to do. They exist because largely men in the Muslim community want to maintain their control over women and families in ways which simply would not be permitted by the English courts. They are not in addition to English law. They are instead of it. It is - or should be - intolerable that we permit English citizens to be deprived of their rights simply because of their religion. There is a very real problem of pressure on and abuse of women in the Muslim community and English law and English society simply should not be standing by and ignoring it just because they're Muslim and so not really English and it's their culture and all the other moral/cultural relativist guff that goes with the refusal to challenge those who reject English law and norms.

Take 3 girls, all born here, all British citizens. One has a granny born in Naples. One has a granny born in Ulverston. One has a granny born in Lahore. All should have the same rights under English law and should in practice - not just in theory - be able to exercise those rights freely. Their respective religions or lack of should be irrelevant.

This should not be a controversial point.

I'm sorry; what power does a Sharia court have?

The name court is silly they're not courts.

MTimT said:

HurstLlama said:

Sorry, just catching up. Re the Horse Dancing (aka Dressage) does anyone know of the horses actually enjoy it? I know horses that love hunting and racing and generally working in partnership with people (as do sheep dogs) but I have never been sure about dressage. It seems so unnatural.

My daughter is very good at both eventing and dressage. She enjoys the thrill of cross country, but finds the intellectual challenge of dressage compelling.

To score well, a dressage horse has to be incredibly strong - think of the gymnasts who do the rings and the control of power they have to display - that is dressage. But it is not just controlled power that is scored, but also submission of the horse to rider and harmony of rider and horse.

That is impossible to achieve unless the horse has an incredibly strong bond with the rider.

Personally, I have never seen a dressage horse obviously thrilled to go into a dressage ring in the same way as a horse cannot wait to get going on cross country. And I do know that dressage horses love being allowed to do 'silly' games, such as jumping and barrel racing. But I have to think that at some level they have to enjoy dressage big time, otherwise they simply would form that amazing bond with the rider or submit.

PS And the key modern dressage movements are movement wild horses naturally do to impress in the wild. Collection into a frame (head into the neck and high, neck flexed) makes the horse look big to competitor and suitor alike. Impulsion (the high energy in the slow gaits like tempis and piaf) and exaggerated gaits (like the extended trot and the piaf) are also natural show off moves.

Thanks for that, Mr. T.

corporeal said:

As I understand it, there's no recognition of the court of any type outside the official ones. Anyone may seek a settlement outside of the law from any court, arbiter, or pb poster they like. They are only bound by these courts as far as they have volunteered to be bound by them (de jure, de facto is of course more complicated) but their legal rights to apply to the official courts.

It's been a traditional point of freedom, whereby if two parties wish to have it settled outside the courts they can.

That's the theory, in practice the conservative ends of judaism and islam both tend to be very restrictive of women (not that they are alone anong religions in that).

According to Wiki (yes, I know):

In a similar way to Jewish Beth Din courts, sharia tribunals can make verdicts in cases involving financial and property issues which, under the Arbitration Act 1996, are enforceable by county courts or the high court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Cox,_Baroness_Cox

If I had the brainpower available I'd try reading the Arbitration Act 1996, but I need to stay awake...

DavidL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

DavidL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

DavidL said:

<
Not really. The common law principle is do not harm your neighbour. Those that walked on the other side fully met their Donaghue-v- Stephenson duties.

The Lord Justice Atkins explains all in his house of Lords judgement:

"At present I content myself with pointing out that in English law there must be, and is, some general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care, of which the particular cases found in the books are but instances. The liability for negligence, whether you style it such or treat it as in other systems as a species of "culpa," is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay. But acts or omissions which any moral code would censure cannot, in a practical world, be treated so as to give a right to every person injured by them to demand relief. In this way rules of law arise which limit the range of complainants and the extent of their remedy. The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."

But it is actions. If you see someone drowning and do nothing you may have been immoral but you have not breached your legal obligations. Religion seeks to hold people to a different and higher standard.

Derived from and Identical to are not the same thing.

Exactly. Those that claim that Donaghue brought the golden rule into our law are simply wrong.

It was already in the common law. That case just clarified

SquareRoot said:

My father was always of the opinion that Norfolk was the hotbed for incest. Are there any other Counties who can be claimed to be as incestuous?

Isn't it Norfolk where everyone sits on the same side of the church at a wedding?

MTimT said:

HaroldO said:

Anyone else reading Michael P Deacon's twitter thread? He is at a Momentum event with Saint Corbyn, the quotes he is sticking up from attendees and speeches are amazing.

No, but please post some of the juicier ones for those of us not on Twitter.

Here we go then;

"The first speaker, a teacher, tells the rally that he has developed a theory known as "The Many Meanings of Jeremy Corbyn""

"Line of the evening so far: "[Jeremy Corbyn] knows what it means to nurture plants""

"A speaker representing Latinos For Corbyn begins, "You may wonder what the connection is between Jeremy Corbyn and Latin America...""

""The Tories fear Jeremy Corbyn, precisely because he will be our next prime minister." Applause"

""It is right that we seek a New World Order," declares a pro-Corbyn speaker, unexpectedly"

"Jeremy Corbyn: "We're all normal. We're all so normal that every one of us is absolutely unique""

"Jeremy Corbyn tells his supporters that it isn't for "commentators" to decide "what competence is""

"Corbyn: "I don't invite you to have a free ice cream, because there are no free ice creams available. But there is love for each other""

Carnage caused by Cavendish in the cycling.

Naughty Cavendish.

MTimT said:

HaroldO said:

MTimT said:

HaroldO said:

Anyone else reading Michael P Deacon's twitter thread? He is at a Momentum event with Saint Corbyn, the quotes he is sticking up from attendees and speeches are amazing.

No, but please post some of the juicier ones for those of us not on Twitter.

Here we go then;

"The first speaker, a teacher, tells the rally that he has developed a theory known as "The Many Meanings of Jeremy Corbyn""

"Line of the evening so far: "[Jeremy Corbyn] knows what it means to nurture plants""

"A speaker representing Latinos For Corbyn begins, "You may wonder what the connection is between Jeremy Corbyn and Latin America...""

""The Tories fear Jeremy Corbyn, precisely because he will be our next prime minister." Applause"

""It is right that we seek a New World Order," declares a pro-Corbyn speaker, unexpectedly"

"Jeremy Corbyn: "We're all normal. We're all so normal that every one of us is absolutely unique""

"Jeremy Corbyn tells his supporters that it isn't for "commentators" to decide "what competence is""

"Corbyn: "I don't invite you to have a free ice cream, because there are no free ice creams available. But there is love for each other""

Wow! I am so inspired!

It sounds like something out of citizen smith

MTimT said:

HaroldO said:

MTimT said:

HaroldO said:

Anyone else reading Michael P Deacon's twitter thread? He is at a Momentum event with Saint Corbyn, the quotes he is sticking up from attendees and speeches are amazing.

No, but please post some of the juicier ones for those of us not on Twitter.

Here we go then;

"The first speaker, a teacher, tells the rally that he has developed a theory known as "The Many Meanings of Jeremy Corbyn""

"Line of the evening so far: "[Jeremy Corbyn] knows what it means to nurture plants""

"A speaker representing Latinos For Corbyn begins, "You may wonder what the connection is between Jeremy Corbyn and Latin America...""

""The Tories fear Jeremy Corbyn, precisely because he will be our next prime minister." Applause"

""It is right that we seek a New World Order," declares a pro-Corbyn speaker, unexpectedly"

"Jeremy Corbyn: "We're all normal. We're all so normal that every one of us is absolutely unique""

"Jeremy Corbyn tells his supporters that it isn't for "commentators" to decide "what competence is""

"Corbyn: "I don't invite you to have a free ice cream, because there are no free ice creams available. But there is love for each other""

Wow! I am so inspired!

All this from a man that endorses Hamas, the IRA, Venezuela, Iran, Putin etc etc.

Amazing how two faced the man is, he coasted in life to get where he is so doesn't understand for a second what real struggle is. Instead it's all hugs and kisses in a support group and anti-Imperialist bullshit at the hustings, knowing full well he will never have to suffer the consequences of the fallout.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Alanbrooke said:

Mortimer said:

Alanbrooke said:

FFS what's the point of a conservative government?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/15/taxman-accused-of-using-small-businesses-as-a-cash-cow-after-unv/

Unreal isn't it.

Time for lobbying your local MP.

Quarterly tax returns are pointless. A boon for no-one but accountants.

For a small business if youre filling in 3 more tax returns thats 6+ days a year your not selling or running your business.

Whats worse is HMRC are not actually able to manage the system they've got let alone 4 times the volume

Well, if the Telegraph bothered to trouble themselves to include a link in their article to the actual proposals, rather than giving us a series of breathless but completely incoherent indignant opinions, we might be able to figure out what they were talking about and then lobby our MPs, if we thought it worthwhile to do so.

The article even manages to omit to tell us which tax they are talking about. Is it perhaps Corporation Tax? Who knows? You can't tell from the article.

Companies already pay corporation tax quarterly. (At least, I do.)

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Alanbrooke said:

Mortimer said:

Alanbrooke said:

FFS what's the point of a conservative government?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/15/taxman-accused-of-using-small-businesses-as-a-cash-cow-after-unv/

Unreal isn't it.

Time for lobbying your local MP.

Quarterly tax returns are pointless. A boon for no-one but accountants.

For a small business if youre filling in 3 more tax returns thats 6+ days a year your not selling or running your business.

Whats worse is HMRC are not actually able to manage the system they've got let alone 4 times the volume

Well, if the Telegraph bothered to trouble themselves to include a link in their article to the actual proposals, rather than giving us a series of breathless but completely incoherent indignant opinions, we might be able to figure out what they were talking about and then lobby our MPs, if we thought it worthwhile to do so.

The article even manages to omit to tell us which tax they are talking about. Is it perhaps Corporation Tax? Who knows? You can't tell from the article.

Companies already pay corporation tax quarterly. (At least, I do.)

Small companies pay annually, up to nine months after the end of their financial year.

Richard_Nabavi said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Alanbrooke said:

Mortimer said:

Alanbrooke said:

FFS what's the point of a conservative government?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/15/taxman-accused-of-using-small-businesses-as-a-cash-cow-after-unv/

Unreal isn't it.

Time for lobbying your local MP.

Quarterly tax returns are pointless. A boon for no-one but accountants.

For a small business if youre filling in 3 more tax returns thats 6+ days a year your not selling or running your business.

Whats worse is HMRC are not actually able to manage the system they've got let alone 4 times the volume

Well, if the Telegraph bothered to trouble themselves to include a link in their article to the actual proposals, rather than giving us a series of breathless but completely incoherent indignant opinions, we might be able to figure out what they were talking about and then lobby our MPs, if we thought it worthwhile to do so.

The article even manages to omit to tell us which tax they are talking about. Is it perhaps Corporation Tax? Who knows? You can't tell from the article.

Companies already pay corporation tax quarterly. (At least, I do.)

Small companies pay annually, up to nine months after the end of their financial year.

How big do you have to be before you become a non-small company?

Cavendish picks up another 5 pts in the Omnium. - in medal position.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

DavidL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

DavidL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

DavidL said:

<
Not really. The common law principle is do not harm your neighbour. Those that walked on the other side fully met their Donaghue-v- Stephenson duties.

The Lord Justice Atkins explains all in his house of Lords judgement:

But it is actions. If you see someone drowning and do nothing you may have been immoral but you have not breached your legal obligations. Religion seeks to hold people to a different and higher standard.

Derived from and Identical to are not the same thing.

Exactly. Those that claim that Donaghue brought the golden rule into our law are simply wrong.

It was already in the common law. That case just clarified

SquareRoot said:

My father was always of the opinion that Norfolk was the hotbed for incest. Are there any other Counties who can be claimed to be as incestuous?

Isn't it Norfolk where everyone sits on the same side of the church at a wedding?

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

DavidL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

DavidL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

DavidL said:

<
Not really. The common law principle is do not harm your neighbour. Those that walked on the other side fully met their Donaghue-v- Stephenson duties.

The Lord Justice Atkins explains all in his house of Lords judgement:

But it is actions. If you see someone drowning and do nothing you may have been immoral but you have not breached your legal obligations. Religion seeks to hold people to a different and higher standard.

Derived from and Identical to are not the same thing.

Exactly. Those that claim that Donaghue brought the golden rule into our law are simply wrong.

It was already in the common law. That case just clarified

SquareRoot said:

My father was always of the opinion that Norfolk was the hotbed for incest. Are there any other Counties who can be claimed to be as incestuous?

Isn't it Norfolk where everyone sits on the same side of the church at a wedding?

I saw an episode of "The Suspicions of Mr Whicher" where the participants in the incestuous subplot came from the Forest of Dean.

Richard_Nabavi said:

rcs1000 said:

How big do you have to be before you become a non-small company?

I think for this purpose it's taxable profits up to £1.5m.

https://www.gov.uk/pay-corporation-tax/overview

Small businesses do not have such accountancy support, so there is disproportionate hassle to do quarterly returns.

If the government wants to get quarterly payments then it would be far simpler to project payments and get payment in advance, reconciled with the annual return, much as personal income tax is for none PAYE earnings.

Cat dressage. Now there's a sport.

williamglenn said:

HaroldO said:

"Corbyn: "I don't invite you to have a free ice cream, because there are no free ice creams available. But there is love for each other""

Those are the policies for the 99s that will win him the election.

A bit flakey.

Silver for Cavendish....

Moses_ said:

Omnium
I think I am officially confused as to who is doing what and where ?

Cavendish has just won the Silver.

At least Milibandism promised free owls, Corbyn just promises not to give you free ice cream

Moses_ said:

Omnium
I think I am officially confused as to who is doing what and where ?

Not as weird as Ki-rin.

Re Ominium Points Race....Crickey that new spin work out looks like a toughy...

TheScreamingEagles said:

I consider myself a very intelligent chap, but bugger me with a fishfork, I'll never understand how the Ominium works

I'd explain but I wouldn't want to get in the way of your fishfork fun

HaroldO said:

MTimT said:

HaroldO said:

MTimT said:

HaroldO said:

Anyone else reading Michael P Deacon's twitter thread? He is at a Momentum event with Saint Corbyn, the quotes he is sticking up from attendees and speeches are amazing.

No, but please post some of the juicier ones for those of us not on Twitter.

Here we go then;

"The first speaker, a teacher, tells the rally that he has developed a theory known as "The Many Meanings of Jeremy Corbyn""

"Line of the evening so far: "[Jeremy Corbyn] knows what it means to nurture plants""

"A speaker representing Latinos For Corbyn begins, "You may wonder what the connection is between Jeremy Corbyn and Latin America...""

""The Tories fear Jeremy Corbyn, precisely because he will be our next prime minister." Applause"

""It is right that we seek a New World Order," declares a pro-Corbyn speaker, unexpectedly"

"Jeremy Corbyn: "We're all normal. We're all so normal that every one of us is absolutely unique""

"Jeremy Corbyn tells his supporters that it isn't for "commentators" to decide "what competence is""

"Corbyn: "I don't invite you to have a free ice cream, because there are no free ice creams available. But there is love for each other""

Wow! I am so inspired!

All this from a man that endorses Hamas, the IRA, Venezuela, Iran, Putin etc etc.

Amazing how two faced the man is, he coasted in life to get where he is so doesn't understand for a second what real struggle is. Instead it's all hugs and kisses in a support group and anti-Imperialist bullshit at the hustings, knowing full well he will never have to suffer the consequences of the fallout.

In case it was lost in translation, mine was an ironic post.

williamglenn said:

Jonathan said:

Cat dressage. Now there's a sport.

Bonus style points for the degree of smugness on the cat's face as it nonchalantly ignores its handler.

I'm certain that dressage need alcohol to enjoy, I'm not sure whether the greatest entertainment comes from giving it to the spectators, the ridera, or the horses

This cycle race is good. Be more fun and spice up the speed if all the rest of the cyclists only heard a single gunshot every time one cyclist was eliminated.

corporeal said:

williamglenn said:

Jonathan said:

Cat dressage. Now there's a sport.

Bonus style points for the degree of smugness on the cat's face as it nonchalantly ignores its handler.

I'm certain that dressage need alcohol to enjoy, I'm not sure whether the greatest entertainment comes from giving it to the spectators, the ridera, or the horses

The judges, I think.

2-0 up in Quarter Finals of the jolly hockey sticks.