politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB might be struggling in Stoke but don’t risk your money bas

Mr. Royale, it's still disturbing. Grown men and women are acting like vicious children. "He's a Nazi, so assaulting him is ok" is an alarming mindset.

In Viking society, a niding (nothing) could be abused and murdered because they were beyond the bounds of the law. But that's the 9th century for you.

F1: I'm periodically checking the odds/markets even though we haven't even started testing, and it's interesting that Hamilton's odds have been cut from 2.5 to 2.25. Verstappen to Bottas, Ricciardo in between, are covered from 4 to 5.

The test is next week two local by elections at Brinsworth and Dinnington, Rotherham Council. UKIP should be in prime place to take both, especially Dinnnington which they have won before. Lets see what happens.We know what occurred in Sheffield, Newcastle and Sunderland recently. none of which are good omens for UKIP. Lets see what happens this time.

Breaking: the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta has resigned over a condom distribution row with the Pope.

Not sure if that's the Knights Hospitaller, but I'd guess so.

Edited extra bit: possibly, at least. They went to Malta after Rhodes and stayed there as rulers until Napoleon.

http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/knights-of-st-john.html

Edited extra bit 2: here we are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta#The_order_today

Casino_Royale said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Royale, it's still disturbing. Grown men and women are acting like vicious children. "He's a Nazi, so assaulting him is ok" is an alarming mindset.

In Viking society, a niding (nothing) could be abused and murdered because they were beyond the bounds of the law. But that's the 9th century for you.

Even if they were Nazis it wouldn't be ok.

During WWII we didn't assault unarmed German POWs as a matter of policy, and prosecuted those accused of war crimes in the courts.

Yes, there are plenty of incidents where Allied troops shot prisoners out of hand, and some of the trials were a bit victors justice, but never as a matter of policy.

What something thinks or believes does not override the rule of law, no matter how odious they might be.

Whose 'matter of policy' is assaulting Nazis?

SeanT said:

logical_song said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

We live in dark times. An MP was killed on the street.

Everyone has a responsibility to dial it down.

Amen to that.

+1

Sometimes I'm reminded of my six year old. Whenever anyone does anything he doesn't like (like snatching a toy he's playing with) he has a tendency to react with violence, to lash out, and then to justify their behaviour saying it's just "payback".

Instead of blaming "the other side" (Trump supporter, Remoaners, etc. etc. etc.), perhaps we'd be better off not feeding the cycle of recriminations.

Plus another one.
Minor point - why 'Remoaner', why not 'Remainer'?

Remoaner is a brilliant word, and the PB attempt to ban it (now sensibly abandoned?) was absurd.

Because it has all the attributes of an excellent neologism: it describes a new social phenomenon - the Remain voter who will not except the vote, and hopes to thwart it - in a simple, memorable, three syllable way. The sure sign of a great coinage is that the Remoaners themselves are using it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/remoaner-article-50-brexit-labour

"Remoaner" is the "Whig" or "Tory" of our time, I predict this word will enter the OED in the next intake.

The thing about someone using 'Remoaner' is that there's no need to read the rest of the post, you know what they are going to say.

logical_song said:

SeanT said:

logical_song said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

We live in dark times. An MP was killed on the street.

Everyone has a responsibility to dial it down.

Amen to that.

+1

Sometimes I'm reminded of my six year old. Whenever anyone does anything he doesn't like (like snatching a toy he's playing with) he has a tendency to react with violence, to lash out, and then to justify their behaviour saying it's just "payback".

Instead of blaming "the other side" (Trump supporter, Remoaners, etc. etc. etc.), perhaps we'd be better off not feeding the cycle of recriminations.

Plus another one.
Minor point - why 'Remoaner', why not 'Remainer'?

Remoaner is a brilliant word, and the PB attempt to ban it (now sensibly abandoned?) was absurd.

Because it has all the attributes of an excellent neologism: it describes a new social phenomenon - the Remain voter who will not except the vote, and hopes to thwart it - in a simple, memorable, three syllable way. The sure sign of a great coinage is that the Remoaners themselves are using it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/remoaner-article-50-brexit-labour

"Remoaner" is the "Whig" or "Tory" of our time, I predict this word will enter the OED in the next intake.

The thing about someone using 'Remoaner' is that there's no need to read the rest of the post, you know what they are going to say.

I voted Remain - it was the obvious logical choice for those of sane mind. However, I believe we should now Leave (and leave in a 'hard' way as that was what was written on the Leave tin) as that was the democratic choice made by the majority. Yes, it is and will be calamity but democracy trumps logic and good sense.

Am I a remoaner?

logical_song said:

SeanT said:

logical_song said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

We live in dark times. An MP was killed on the street.

Everyone has a responsibility to dial it down.

Amen to that.

+1

Sometimes I'm reminded of my six year old. Whenever anyone does anything he doesn't like (like snatching a toy he's playing with) he has a tendency to react with violence, to lash out, and then to justify their behaviour saying it's just "payback".

Instead of blaming "the other side" (Trump supporter, Remoaners, etc. etc. etc.), perhaps we'd be better off not feeding the cycle of recriminations.

Plus another one.
Minor point - why 'Remoaner', why not 'Remainer'?

Remoaner is a brilliant word, and the PB attempt to ban it (now sensibly abandoned?) was absurd.

Because it has all the attributes of an excellent neologism: it describes a new social phenomenon - the Remain voter who will not except the vote, and hopes to thwart it - in a simple, memorable, three syllable way. The sure sign of a great coinage is that the Remoaners themselves are using it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/remoaner-article-50-brexit-labour

"Remoaner" is the "Whig" or "Tory" of our time, I predict this word will enter the OED in the next intake.

The thing about someone using 'Remoaner' is that there's no need to read the rest of the post, you know what they are going to say.

The appearance of "elites" or "the establishment" early in a post acts equally well as a sign to move on to the next item.

Not the Nine o'clock News did a sketch in which familiar jokes were assigned a number that could be used to avoid time telling the whole joke. Something similar for the arguments pro and con the different aspects of Brexit would work well here.

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Royale, it's still disturbing. Grown men and women are acting like vicious children. "He's a Nazi, so assaulting him is ok" is an alarming mindset.

In Viking society, a niding (nothing) could be abused and murdered because they were beyond the bounds of the law. But that's the 9th century for you.

Even if they were Nazis it wouldn't be ok.

During WWII we didn't assault unarmed German POWs as a matter of policy, and prosecuted those accused of war crimes in the courts.

Yes, there are plenty of incidents where Allied troops shot prisoners out of hand, and some of the trials were a bit victors justice, but never as a matter of policy.

What something thinks or believes does not override the rule of law, no matter how odious they might be.

Whose 'matter of policy' is assaulting Nazis?

I was referring to those who use another's political views - or perceived political views - no matter how odious to be reasonable cause to assault them.

I presume you would also condemn such behaviour.

Mr. W, I do like news that could have broken in 1216.

Edited extra bit: well, except the condom bit. But the first ones did come about centuries ago (think they were linen).

In the US, there have 3813 gun related incidents and 992 fatalities in 2017.

It is January.

Brexit-sceptic should be a thing.

Jonathan said:

In the US, there have 3813 gun related incidents and 992 fatalities in 2017.

It is January.

Source?

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

In the US, there have 3813 gun related incidents and 992 fatalities in 2017.

It is January.

Source?

Not sure which one he had in mind but the figures are here: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Appear legitimate.

Stark_Dawning said:

Carolus_Rex said:

MarqueeMark said:

SeanT said:

logical_song said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

We live in dark times. An MP was killed on the street.

Everyone has a responsibility to dial it down.

Amen to that.

+1

Sometimes "payback".

Instead of blaming "the other side" (Trump supporter, Remoaners, etc. etc. etc.), perhaps we'd be better off not feeding the cycle of recriminations.

Plus another one.
Minor point - why 'Remoaner', why not 'Remainer'?

Remoaner is a brilliant word, and the PB attempt to ban it (now sensibly abandoned?) was absurd.

Because itit.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/remoaner-article-50-brexit-labour

"Remoaner" is the "Whig" or "Tory" of our time, I predict this word will enter the OED in the next intake.

"who will not except accept the vote...."

tut tut...good job you're not a writer!

I have been told by more than one person in the publishing world that writers in general are terrible at spelling and punctuation. Not sure if that's a case of thoughts being on higher things or booze or a combination of the two.

Apparently it's the sub-eds who rescue a lot of writers, according to sub-eds themselves during the Giles Coren fracas a few years back.

If you could only see the state of some of the raw copy we have to knock into shape. It's badly structured, poorly spelt, appallingly punctuated, lazily researched. [...] Strange as it may seem, many writers do not possess your grasp of language; indeed it is sometimes difficult to believe that English is their mother tongue, and they don't give a damn about what they produce because they know that a good, often highly educated sub-editor will correct it, check it and turn it into readable prose.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/jul/29/sundaytimes.pressandpublishing

We have a team of eight people that do nothing but sub copy into shape. We work on the basis that good reporters get stories other people cannot get; but they may not be the best at writing them up. Most of the time, though, our editorial services team is turning turgid prose from lawyers, investors and analysts into stuff that is at least vaguely readable.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jonathan, some time ago so I forget the specifics, but there was a stat on gun deaths in the UK and US, and something like a couple of our centuries equalled a month or two over there.

Mr. Observer, that's the best video. I bet Mexico paid for it.

Britain (including Scotland) is likely to have ~50 gun deaths this year. Adjusted to US population, that would be ~250, i.e about a week in the US.

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

In the US, there have 3813 gun related incidents and 992 fatalities in 2017.

It is January.

Source?

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Royale, it's still disturbing. Grown men and women are acting like vicious children. "He's a Nazi, so assaulting him is ok" is an alarming mindset.

In Viking society, a niding (nothing) could be abused and murdered because they were beyond the bounds of the law. But that's the 9th century for you.

Even if they were Nazis it wouldn't be ok.

During WWII we didn't assault unarmed German POWs as a matter of policy, and prosecuted those accused of war crimes in the courts.

Yes, there are plenty of incidents where Allied troops shot prisoners out of hand, and some of the trials were a bit victors justice, but never as a matter of policy.

What something thinks or believes does not override the rule of law, no matter how odious they might be.

Whose 'matter of policy' is assaulting Nazis?

I was referring to those who use another's political views - or perceived political views - no matter how odious to be reasonable cause to assault them.

I presume you would also condemn such behaviour.

Tbh it's not something that boils my piss particularly, and meaningless condemnations on obscure corners of the internet aint my thang really. It's not something I'd have done personally in that context, but if he (Mr Alt Right but not really a Nazi) or similar was haranguing a black person or a Jew I might be tempted to 'remonstrate forcefully' with them. It's been a close run thing on a couple of occasions when some of the Nazi saluting wing of Unionism have tried to get in my face.

Right. Assaulting people you disagree can be excused.

Got it.

Mr. Meeks, no, it isn't. It's entirely possible to disagree with someone and to condemn threats against them.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, no, it isn't. It's entirely possible to disagree with someone and to condemn threats against them.

But sadly it seems impossible to devote a post in isolation to condemn the threats against Ms Miller. She must be very dislikeable.

AlastairMeeks said:

Here's a source:

https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/824207436601065472

Still, she's a dislikeable woman and that's more important.

Is the shade of her skin colour properly correlated with the left/right scale of the source?

Met have arrested 2 men for threatening Gina Miller.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38744073?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

Saw BBC tweet something about threats to a unnamed 51 year old woman from Kensington earlier on, but I did wonder if it was anything to do with Gina Miller.

SouthamObserver said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Carolus_Rex said:

MarqueeMark said:

SeanT said:

logical_song said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

We live in dark times. An MP was killed on the street.

Everyone has a responsibility to dial it down.

Amen to that.

+1

Sometimes "payback".

Instead of blaming "the other side" (Trump supporter, Remoaners, etc. etc. etc.), perhaps we'd be better off not feeding the cycle of recriminations.

Plus another one.
Minor point - why 'Remoaner', why not 'Remainer'?

Remoaner is a brilliant word, and the PB attempt to ban it (now sensibly abandoned?) was absurd.

Because itit.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/remoaner-article-50-brexit-labour

"Remoaner" is the "Whig" or "Tory" of our time, I predict this word will enter the OED in the next intake.

"who will not except accept the vote...."

tut tut...good job you're not a writer!

I have been told by more than one person in the publishing world that writers in general are terrible at spelling and punctuation. Not sure if that's a case of thoughts being on higher things or booze or a combination of the two.

Apparently it's the sub-eds who rescue a lot of writers, according to sub-eds themselves during the Giles Coren fracas a few years back.

If you could only see the state of some of the raw copy we have to knock into shape. It's badly structured, poorly spelt, appallingly punctuated, lazily researched. [...] Strange as it may seem, many writers do not possess your grasp of language; indeed it is sometimes difficult to believe that English is their mother tongue, and they don't give a damn about what they produce because they know that a good, often highly educated sub-editor will correct it, check it and turn it into readable prose.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/jul/29/sundaytimes.pressandpublishing

We have a team of eight people that do nothing but sub copy into shape. We work on the basis that good reporters get stories other people cannot get; but they may not be the best at writing them up. Most of the time, though, our editorial services team is turning turgid prose from lawyers, investors and analysts into stuff that is at least vaguely readable.

There was a story that Jeffrey Archer's prose needed extensive rewriting. When the copy-editor was asked why he did not write his own best-selling novels, he replied, "I need the first draft".

GeoffM said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jonathan, some time ago so I forget the specifics, but there was a stat on gun deaths in the UK and US, and something like a couple of our centuries equalled a month or two over there.

Mr. Observer, that's the best video. I bet Mexico paid for it.

Britain (including Scotland) is likely to have ~50 gun deaths this year. Adjusted to US population, that would be ~250, i.e about a week in the US.

And yet plenty of rapes, murders and robberies will occur in the UK that would have been prevented if the victim had been armed (or the criminal had suspected they might be).

So that figure means nothing in isolation.

So, can we have links to data that proves the UK has more rapes, murders and robberies than the US? Then we can see what the benefits of having freely available guns would be.

GeoffM said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jonathan, some time ago so I forget the specifics, but there was a stat on gun deaths in the UK and US, and something like a couple of our centuries equalled a month or two over there.

Mr. Observer, that's the best video. I bet Mexico paid for it.

Britain (including Scotland) is likely to have ~50 gun deaths this year. Adjusted to US population, that would be ~250, i.e about a week in the US.

And yet plenty of rapes, murders and robberies will occur in the UK that would have been prevented if the victim had been armed (or the criminal had suspected they might be).

So that figure means nothing in isolation.

To follow your reasoning, that would mean the rate of rape, murder and robberies should be higher in the UK than the US, due to the lack of home gun ownership.

I doubt this is the case somehow.

GeoffM said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jonathan, some time ago so I forget the specifics, but there was a stat on gun deaths in the UK and US, and something like a couple of our centuries equalled a month or two over there.

Mr. Observer, that's the best video. I bet Mexico paid for it.

Britain (including Scotland) is likely to have ~50 gun deaths this year. Adjusted to US population, that would be ~250, i.e about a week in the US.

And yet plenty of rapes, murders and robberies will occur in the UK that would have been prevented if the victim had been armed (or the criminal had suspected they might be).

So that figure means nothing in isolation.

Canada and Norway have US-style gun laws yet UK levels of gun deaths. It's the American belief that you're not a real man till you've killed that's the problem.

bikbyro said:

Two minutes silence for everybody who looked at the comments and found out they had nothing to do with the article.

I cant understand why people who bet wouldn't have found the "poll" useful. Seems obvious to me that if it is untrustworthy in your judgement, you play the market over reaction.

Lets have plenty more!!

GeoffM said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jonathan, some time ago so I forget the specifics, but there was a stat on gun deaths in the UK and US, and something like a couple of our centuries equalled a month or two over there.

Mr. Observer, that's the best video. I bet Mexico paid for it.

Britain (including Scotland) is likely to have ~50 gun deaths this year. Adjusted to US population, that would be ~250, i.e about a week in the US.

And yet plenty of rapes, murders and robberies will occur in the UK that would have been prevented if the victim had been armed (or the criminal had suspected they might be).

So that figure means nothing in isolation.

I used to think that but now think that legally allowing everyone to arm themselves would lead to far more unnecessary deaths nationwide, both accidental and intentional.

But, I hold very little sympathy for the Rights of anyone who intentionally breaks into someone else's home to commit a crime and what happens to them as a result.

MikeK said:

PlatoSaid said:

Alistair said:

PlatoSaid said:

Alistair said:

Flipping heck, multiple anti trump protestors have been shot over the last few months without comment then one Nazi gets punched in the face and it's the end of civilisation

Citations would be helpful.

Don't worry, it's all just false flag photoshopped fake news - you will not need to adjust your world view.

So you don't have anything. Claiming anti-Trump supporters were shot was incredible - and you've no evidence to support this wild assertion.

What a silly moo you are.

People like Mr Meeks have no shame where President Trump is concerned. Anything and everything bad thats going is grist their mill.

All Alistairs look the same to people like you.

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Here's a source:

https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/824207436601065472

Still, she's a dislikeable woman and that's more important.

Every single person who has criticised Gina Miller on this thread (including me) has prefaced their remarks by saying the threats are unacceptable, vile and wrong. Which they are.

Here's the thing, Meeks, that doesn't stop her being a liar and a hypocrite, because she is. She's just fucking lying when she says she never intended to stop Brexit, as I have proved, with that piece from Reuters in July 2016, where she says, inter alia, that her preferred outcome of her legal challenge is for Britain to remain a member of the EU.

https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/824180666015318018

Here's the thing, T: for you it is evidently more important that in your view that she is a liar and a hypocrite rather than that her life is being threatened.

You need to take a hard look at your priorities.

Since Brexit, you've managed to become weird, ranty, sanctimonious, idiotic, and laughable all at once. It's quite something.

You should know.

MikeK said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MikeK said:

PlatoSaid said:

Alistair said:

PlatoSaid said:

Alistair said:

Flipping heck, multiple anti trump protestors have been shot over the last few months without comment then one Nazi gets punched in the face and it's the end of civilisation

Citations would be helpful.

Don't worry, it's all just false flag photoshopped fake news - you will not need to adjust your world view.

So you don't have anything. Claiming anti-Trump supporters were shot was incredible - and you've no evidence to support this wild assertion.

What a silly moo you are.

People like Mr Meeks have no shame where President Trump is concerned. Anything and everything bad thats going is grist their mill.

You can apologise now or later. Your call.

I have nothing to apologise for. All your posts show a visceral hatred of Donald Trump and all he stands for.

OK so you can't read. My mistake.

MikeK said:

Ishmael_Z said:

MikeK said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MikeK said:

PlatoSaid said:

Alistair said:

PlatoSaid said:

Alistair said:

Flipping heck, multiple anti trump protestors have been shot over the last few months without comment then one Nazi gets punched in the face and it's the end of civilisation

Citations would be helpful.

Don't worry, it's all just false flag photoshopped fake news - you will not need to adjust your world view.

So you don't have anything. Claiming anti-Trump supporters were shot was incredible - and you've no evidence to support this wild assertion.

What a silly moo you are.

People like Mr Meeks have no shame where President Trump is concerned. Anything and everything bad thats going is grist their mill.

You can apologise now or later. Your call.

I have nothing to apologise for. All your posts show a visceral hatred of Donald Trump and all he stands for.

I think it is the Alistair/Alastair distinction he is on about.

edit for d'oh.

"Well, you've got me there". Sez me, scratching my head in wonder.

I could be wrong, but I think he was saying that you have two people with similar first names mixed up. If that is right then you certainly do owe Mr Meeks an apology.

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Royale, it's still disturbing. Grown men and women are acting like vicious children. "He's a Nazi, so assaulting him is ok" is an alarming mindset.

In Viking society, a niding (nothing) could be abused and murdered because they were beyond the bounds of the law. But that's the 9th century for you.

Even if they were Nazis it wouldn't be ok.

During WWII we didn't assault unarmed German POWs as a matter of policy, and prosecuted those accused of war crimes in the courts.

Yes, there are plenty of incidents where Allied troops shot prisoners out of hand, and some of the trials were a bit victors justice, but never as a matter of policy.

What something thinks or believes does not override the rule of law, no matter how odious they might be.

Whose 'matter of policy' is assaulting Nazis?

I was referring to those who use another's political views - or perceived political views - no matter how odious to be reasonable cause to assault them.

I presume you would also condemn such behaviour.

Tbh it's not something that boils my piss particularly, and meaningless condemnations on obscure corners of the internet aint my thang really. It's not something I'd have done personally in that context, but if he (Mr Alt Right but not really a Nazi) or similar was haranguing a black person or a Jew I might be tempted to 'remonstrate forcefully' with them. It's been a close run thing on a couple of occasions when some of the Nazi saluting wing of Unionism have tried to get in my face.

Right. Assaulting people you disagree can be excused.

Got it.

Ah, another (slightly incoherent) display of internet sanctimony that has prevented literally ZERO assaults.

Your response was very equivocal.

I can only conclude that physical assault simply isn't a problem for you.

If I'm wrong, please put me right.

Do you mean all physical assaults or in particular contexts, or assaults that involve hair pulling & pinching, or spitting, or pushing, or publicly inducing other people to make assaults?

Please put me right.

Actually, no need, I don't give a toss.

It's ok. I think we're all clear now where you stand.

I have my own views on what that says about you, but I'll leave it for others to make their own minds up.

Pulpstar said:

MikeK said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MikeK said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MikeK said:

PlatoSaid said:

Alistair said:

PlatoSaid said:

Alistair said:

Flipping heck, multiple anti trump protestors have been shot over the last few months without comment then one Nazi gets punched in the face and it's the end of civilisation

Citations would be helpful.

Don't worry, it's all just false flag photoshopped fake news - you will not need to adjust your world view.

So you don't have anything. Claiming anti-Trump supporters were shot was incredible - and you've no evidence to support this wild assertion.

What a silly moo you are.

People like Mr Meeks have no shame where President Trump is concerned. Anything and everything bad thats going is grist their mill.

You can apologise now or later. Your call.

I have nothing to apologise for. All your posts show a visceral hatred of Donald Trump and all he stands for.

OK so you can't read. My mistake.

Meekie, I'm a simple man and have no time for semantic or other games that you may play on PB.

It's ok, Sean.

https://youtu.be/eucpZjDCat0

PlatoSaid said:

Alistair said:

PlatoSaid said:

Alistair said:

Flipping heck, multiple anti trump protestors have been shot over the last few months without comment then one Nazi gets punched in the face and it's the end of civilisation

Citations would be helpful.

Don't worry, it's all just false flag photoshopped fake news - you will not need to adjust your world view.

So you don't have anything. Claiming anti-Trump supporters were shot was incredible - and you've no evidence to support this wild assertion.

What a silly moo you are.

The irony of the queen of fake news links asking for sources and evidence!

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/man-shot-anti-trump-protest-rally-portland-oregon-police-a7413276.html?amp

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/anti-fascist-protester-shot-by-trump-fan-during-brawl-outside-breitbart-editors-speech/

stodge said:

Politics has always been a "rough trade" as John Major once said.

Indeed, some of what has gone on in the name of political discourse in the past makes what is happening now seem tame.

On reflection, I'd rather have the sound than silence. For too long, too many people had no voice at all. Now, technology has given more people a voice than ever before and democracy, perversely, benefits if more voices are heard.

Yes, it's discordant and at times dangerous but I'd rather hear the anger than silence. If you can hear and feel the anger, you can try to understand it and deal with it. You may not be able to reason with it but perhaps as the angry hear other voices, they might reason with it themselves.

In my experience - and I've been doing it for 50 years now! - politics isn't really a rough trade in *personal* interaction unless you cooperate in making it so. George Gallloway once called me a murderer (for voting for Iraq, so actually an arguable political point), and someone once threatened by phone to kill me if I voted to ban fox-hunting (I did and he didn't, so meh), but after that I'm down to people saying "nah, sod off" and stuff like that. And there isn't any sort of neighbourhood that I've not canvassed, often on my own - Glasgow tenements, semi-derelict buildings, dark alleys, whatever. The thing is that I always start the conversation politely, and if someone's said they're sorry to bother you it's difficult to respond by swearing at them, even if you're a bit drunk. No PB reader should be put off from politics by thinking that they'll runinto constant abuse.

The advent of social media circumvents that, since people aren't responding to any conversational approach but just venting about public figures who they're probably not met. Equally, it doesn't matter very much that some stranger doesn't like you - I've never lost any sleep over someone anonymous on PB calling me a traitor or whatever. The one area where it does matter is when social media abuse spills into direct contact and/or encourages personal aggression and violence (as in the Gina case), and I agree that's a modern, genuine problem.

isam said:

Stan James a little defensive on Lib Dems and Conservatives in Stoke!

LD 7/1 (Betfair 54/1)
Cons 12/1 (69/1)

Also 6/4 UKIP which is a fair arb

Looks like they just don't check the market very often

Stan James is a nonsense bookie anyway. First bookie to ban me for following @Raceclear (Was only £80 up)

NickPalmer said:

stodge said:

Politics has always been a "rough trade" as John Major once said.

Indeed, some of what has gone on in the name of political discourse in the past makes what is happening now seem tame.

On reflection, I'd rather have the sound than silence. For too long, too many people had no voice at all. Now, technology has given more people a voice than ever before and democracy, perversely, benefits if more voices are heard.

Yes, it's discordant and at times dangerous but I'd rather hear the anger than silence. If you can hear and feel the anger, you can try to understand it and deal with it. You may not be able to reason with it but perhaps as the angry hear other voices, they might reason with it themselves.

In my experience - and I've been doing it for 50 years now! - politics isn't really a rough trade in *personal* interaction unless you cooperate in making it so. George Gallloway once called me a murderer (for voting for Iraq, so actually an arguable political point), and someone once threatened by phone to kill me if I voted to ban fox-hunting (I did and he didn't, so meh), but after that I'm down to people saying "nah, sod off" and stuff like that. And there isn't any sort of neighbourhood that I've not canvassed, often on my own - Glasgow tenements, semi-derelict buildings, dark alleys, whatever. The thing is that I always start the conversation politely, and if someone's said they're sorry to bother you it's difficult to respond by swearing at them, even if you're a bit drunk. No PB reader should be put off from politics by thinking that they'll runinto constant abuse.

The advent of social media circumvents that, since people aren't responding to any conversational approach but just venting about public figures who they're probably not met. Equally, it doesn't matter very much that some stranger doesn't like you - I've never lost any sleep over someone anonymous on PB calling me a traitor or whatever. The one area where it does matter is when social media abuse spills into direct contact and/or encourages personal aggression and violence (as in the Gina case), and I agree that's a modern, genuine problem.

Good analysis Nick.

Off Topic, what's the feeling in Broxtowe to Anna Soubry's Brexit position? She seem's to be positioning herself to inherit the Ken Clarke mantle within the Tory party, which (at least locally) hasn't done him any harm.

SeanT said:

Jonathan said:

In the US, there have 3813 gun related incidents and 992 fatalities in 2017.

It is January.

So the number of Americans shot dead in January of this year (with six days still left) is higher than the total number of soldiers killed on both sides in the Falklands War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

The response from the African American community when a white cop shoots dead a black man will be er.....interesting under Trump.......

TheScreamingEagles said:

I like Mrs May and her government now as they appear to be choking the funding of grammar schools.

Grammar schools in England may ask parents for hundreds of pounds a year to cope with funding cuts, their head teachers' association has warned.

A majority of grammars will be left worse off by proposed funding changes, according to analysis by the Grammar School Heads' Association.

A number of Conservative MPs are urging the government to change its plans.

But the Department for Education said it was ending a postcode lottery in school funding.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38739744

Speaking as a parent with 3 children at school near Bognor (constituency of Schools Minister Nick Gibb) I would much appreciate it if Mrs May would pull her finger out of her arse and sort out some fair funding for schools nationwide rather than banging on about grammar schools. Best to walk before trying to run etc etc.

Full line up on the front bench - May, Hammond, Rudd, Johnson, Fallon....

Casino_Royale said:

...
I know - from the rather dogmatic Islington Marxist I share an office with - ....

You share an office with a dogmatic Islington Marxist?

Could you possibly fix up a live feed so we can see and hear the interaction for ourselves?

So we have a major shake up in our trading relations, creaking infrastructure, the NHS as a political football, a massive BOP deficit to match our govt spending deficit and MPs want to push this all aside so they can legislate on womens shoes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38737300