politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nighthawks is now open

Number 23 is my favourite story.

FPT

Guess this more a 'Nighthawks' post... reminds me of my game playing days on the SNES.

This been on yet? I ranked 'minister'.

http://toys.usvsth3m.com/super-tory-boy/

Ooh. Bit more controversial here:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/11/genetics-teaching-gove-adviser

Carola said:

I agree with a fair bit of this, though ime poor managers are more of a blight on schools than poor teachers:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/11/gove-adviser-thesis-inflammatory-ideas-education?CMP=twt_gu

Tis item 15 on the list.

FPT tim

I don't judge people's ability by their names, but by their track record.

You might choose to do otherwise, but that just reflects your rather narrow mindset.

Carola said:

Quiet. Is everyone playing 'Super Tory Boy'?

Yes

Lack of women...

http://order-order.com/2013/10/11/where-are-the-labour-ladies-at/

RobD said:

Backbencher....

I think you have to declare the dead scrounger fit for work to make 'minister'.

*been playing it a lot*

@alstewitn: .@ityvnews at Ten-ten #PressRegulation Politicians: 'We have a plan' . Press: 'Enjoy.. we are otherwise engaged'. @romillyweeks on dead-lock

@rosschawkins: Industry source tells me some in press considering judicial review of rejection of press' charter

Hmmm. Seant?

"It also appears that the number of comments posted on the article in question was above average and indicated a great deal of interest in the matter among the readers and those who posted their comments. Thus, the court concludes that the applicant company was expected to exercise a degree of caution in the circumstances of the present case in order to avoid being held liable for an infringement of other persons' reputations."

http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2013/oct/11/online-comments-websites-court-ruling-estonian?CMP=twt_gu

Carola said:

Hmmm. Seant?

"It also appears that the number of comments posted on the article in question was above average and indicated a great deal of interest in the matter among the readers and those who posted their comments. Thus, the court concludes that the applicant company was expected to exercise a degree of caution in the circumstances of the present case in order to avoid being held liable for an infringement of other persons' reputations."

http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2013/oct/11/online-comments-websites-court-ruling-estonian?CMP=twt_gu

In other news, those that enjoy playing with fire can sometimes get burnt.

@SeanT I love the Barbican's architecture. It's the one place where brutalism really works.

HYUFD said:

Just been to a very enjoyable evening with Gyles Brandreth

#accidentalpartridge

Feel sorry for the CiF moderators tomorrow.

There's an 1800 word piece going up by Paul Dacre on the Miliband row at CiF

Preview of the Dacre piece

Nick Sutton ‏@suttonnick 6m

Page 44 of The Guardian tomorrow looks interesting #tomorrowspaperstoday

pic.twitter.com/JkqCioq7ZG

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Feel sorry for the CiF moderators tomorrow.

There's a 1800 word piece going up by Paul Dacre on the Miliband row at CiF

I'm fascinated to see how Dacre and the Mail respond to the Earlier Campbell Meltdown on Twitter. He loudly and repeatedly accused them all of being Nazis, in the most juvenile and embarrassing way.

Will they let it go? Why? Because they feel sorry for him?

I suspect Dacre's piece was written before Ali Campbell's twitter fun.

More claret, Mr Campbell? Invokes shade of Mr Cresote.

From the Times, Nigel Farage will be tearing his hair out, Tommy Robinson is interviewed in the Times

UKIP has “ridden on the back of the success of the English Defence League”, Tommy Robinson, the founder of the nationalist street protest movement, claims today.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

fitalass said:

Twitter
Sky News ‏@SkyNews 11s
THE TIMES FRONT PAGE: "Britain and Germany in secret pact to defy EU laws" #skypapers pic.twitter.com/mLVIjvvIiM

The Miliband-Ribbentrop Pact, Comrades?

If I were Poland, I'd be very worried right now

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Feel sorry for the CiF moderators tomorrow.

There's a 1800 word piece going up by Paul Dacre on the Miliband row at CiF

I'm fascinated to see how Dacre and the Mail respond to the Earlier Campbell Meltdown on Twitter. He loudly and repeatedly accused them all of being Nazis, in the most juvenile and embarrassing way.

Will they let it go? Why? Because they feel sorry for him?

I suspect Dacre's piece was written before Ali Campbell's twitter fun.

Almost certainly. If I were Dacre, I'd be incandescently angry, and I'd want Campbell garroted. e.g.

Alastair Campbell ‏@campbellclaret 9h
I'm forever printing rubbish, Racist rubbish in the Mail.. I hate the left, I am far right - That's why my paper's full of shite #coward

For me, Dacre vs Campbell is Iran vs Iraq all over again.

Nah, Dacre is a bruiser, but Campbell lied to start a war. The weird thing is I suspect Campbell knows this - he is morally lower than the Daily Mail - which is why he is so angry and tormented. Hence his weird Twitter-spasm today.

I'm more forgiving, given Campbell's past problems.

Then again, I do admire Dacre on one level, without him, the murderers of Stephen Lawrence would still be walking the streets

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Feel sorry for the CiF moderators tomorrow.

There's a 1800 word piece going up by Paul Dacre on the Miliband row at CiF

I'm fascinated to see how Dacre and the Mail respond to the Earlier Campbell Meltdown on Twitter. He loudly and repeatedly accused them all of being Nazis, in the most juvenile and embarrassing way.

Will they let it go? Why? Because they feel sorry for him?

I suspect Dacre's piece was written before Ali Campbell's twitter fun.

Almost certainly. If I were Dacre, I'd be incandescently angry, and I'd want Campbell garroted. e.g.

Alastair Campbell ‏@campbellclaret 9h
I'm forever printing rubbish, Racist rubbish in the Mail.. I hate the left, I am far right - That's why my paper's full of shite #coward

For me, Dacre vs Campbell is Iran vs Iraq all over again.

Or even Alien vs. Predator - whoever wins, we lose?

Dacre making sure that petrol is added to the flames with another of The Mail's heroes from the '80s.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2454561/Len-McCluskey-hails-Ed-Miliband-best-Labour-leader-Michael-Foot.html

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Feel sorry for the CiF moderators tomorrow.

There's a 1800 word piece going up by Paul Dacre on the Miliband row at CiF

I'm fascinated to see how Dacre and the Mail respond to the Earlier Campbell Meltdown on Twitter. He loudly and repeatedly accused them all of being Nazis, in the most juvenile and embarrassing way.

Will they let it go? Why? Because they feel sorry for him?

I suspect Dacre's piece was written before Ali Campbell's twitter fun.

Almost certainly. If I were Dacre, I'd be incandescently angry, and I'd want Campbell garroted. e.g.

Alastair Campbell ‏@campbellclaret 9h
I'm forever printing rubbish, Racist rubbish in the Mail.. I hate the left, I am far right - That's why my paper's full of shite #coward

For me, Dacre vs Campbell is Iran vs Iraq all over again.

Or even Alien vs. Predator - whoever wins, we lose?

Nah, it's a pity both can't lose.

Plus I enjoyed most of the original Alien and Predator films, and the AvP computer games.

The films sucked more than a hooker that swallowed a dyson

@Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town

You perhaps missed the fact that Leveson was set up to examine the culture, practices and ethics of newspapers and that part 2 hasn't even happened yet.

As for the newspaper proprietors supposed outrage at a statute backed system - it certainly hasn't stopped the Irish Daily Mail, the Irish Sun, The Irish Times, Irish Mirror, Irish Daily Star, Irish Express, Irish Independent and the rest of the papers and their proprietors operating under their system of a press council underpinned by statute - all of which they have done without the sky falling in.

Funny that, isn't it?

It's their choice though. They stay out then they don't get the benefits and the next scandal is all on them as will be the consequences.

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Feel sorry for the CiF moderators tomorrow.

There's a 1800 word piece going up by Paul Dacre on the Miliband row at CiF

I'm fascinated to see how Dacre and the Mail respond to the Earlier Campbell Meltdown on Twitter. He loudly and repeatedly accused them all of being Nazis, in the most juvenile and embarrassing way.

Will they let it go? Why? Because they feel sorry for him?

I suspect Dacre's piece was written before Ali Campbell's twitter fun.

Almost certainly. If I were Dacre, I'd be incandescently angry, and I'd want Campbell garroted. e.g.

Alastair Campbell ‏@campbellclaret 9h
I'm forever printing rubbish, Racist rubbish in the Mail.. I hate the left, I am far right - That's why my paper's full of shite #coward

For me, Dacre vs Campbell is Iran vs Iraq all over again.

Nah, Dacre is a bruiser, but Campbell lied to start a war. The weird thing is I suspect Campbell knows this - he is morally lower than the Daily Mail - which is why he is so angry and tormented. Hence his weird Twitter-spasm today.

I'm more forgiving, given Campbell's past problems.

Then again, I do admire Dacre on one level, without him, the murderers of Stephen Lawrence would still be walking the streets

Are Campbell's demons in his past ?
His recent tone suggests that he has fallen off the wagon and collided with the whisky truck.

"Jack of Kent ‏@JackofKent 5h
It may well be that, if challenged, the High Court would rule that this press regulation charter is outwith the Royal Prerogative."

twitter.com/JackofKent/status/388705574109462528

It does seem outrageous to end the free press without at least the consent of parliament.

SeanT said:

Almost certainly. If I were Dacre, I'd be incandescently angry, and I'd want Campbell garroted. e.g.

Alastair Campbell ‏@campbellclaret 9h
I'm forever printing rubbish, Racist rubbish in the Mail.. I hate the left, I am far right - That's why my paper's full of shite #coward

Angry? No, that's the kind of attack which makes the attacker look like such a prize berk that the target of the attacks can just look on pityingly and make sympathetic noises about how sad it is.

Some interesting contradictions in terms of US immigration
“The improving Mexican economy, lower Mexican fertility, the U.S. construction bust, and increased enforcement have combined to bring net Mexican immigration to zero or negative since 2008. That bears repeating: On net, Mexicans are no longer moving to the United States at all.”

Instead, it is Asians who are moving to America “at a rate of about half a million a year… the Asian-American percentage of the population has already reached 6%.”

Thinking about it, this seems to makes sense. After all, Asia has plenty of people to spare, right? Well, no, actually:

“In 2012, the working-age population of China fell by 3.45 million. In other words, last year China lost a number of workers approximately equal to the entire population of Lebanon. This year the drop will be bigger, and the drops will accelerate through the 2030s. That means that China’s inexhaustible supply of cheap labor is going to be exhausted a lot faster than most people expected.”
http://www.conservativehome.com/the-deep-end/2013/10/heresy-of-the-week-everything-you-know-is-wrong-or-soon-will-be.html

Perhaps m'learned colleagues could advise, but I didn't think that 'I was drunk at the time' was a defence in law? Campbell is a very silly boy drunk or sober and deserves anything coming to him from the Mail, the easiest of which would be a libel writ (though an over-the-top personal attack would be more their style, just far enough below the belt to garner him some sympathy).

Mick_Pork said:

@Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town

You perhaps missed the fact that Leveson was set up to examine the culture, practices and ethics of newspapers and that part 2 hasn't even happened yet.

As for the newspaper proprietors supposed outrage at a statute backed system - it certainly hasn't stopped the Irish Daily Mail, the Irish Sun, The Irish Times, Irish Mirror, Irish Daily Star, Irish Express, Irish Independent and the rest of the papers and their proprietors operating under their system of a press council underpinned by statute - all of which they have done without the sky falling in.

Funny that, isn't it?

It's their choice though. They stay out then they don't get the benefits and the next scandal is all on them as will be the consequences.

The fact that newspapers are prepared to sign up to a coercive system of regulation should be of no surprise if the consequences of failing to do so involve greater coercion than signing up. The Republic of Ireland, where jury trial is all but abrogated in serious criminal cases by the "Special Criminal Court" and where a government minister can authorise members of the Gárda Síochána to seize and destroy "seditious foreign newspapers" can scarcely be cited as a system which respects freedom of the press. Sections 34 to 42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 remain unjustifiable in principle and in practice.

david_herdson said:

Perhaps m'learned colleagues could advise, but I didn't think that 'I was drunk at the time' was a defence in law?

For calling them racists? Didn't seem to bother Cameron or Heseltine too much when they labelled UKIP as such.

For that matter Campbell's odious lies about Iraq were not just bought wholesale by gullible and inept tories and labour supporters but also parroted eagerly by the likes of the Mail, the Sun and most of the press.

Bit much for those who believed his obvious nonsense on Iraq to now complain about it.

david_herdson said:

Perhaps m'learned colleagues could advise, but I didn't think that 'I was drunk at the time' was a defence in law?

Per Lord Elwyn-Jones C in Director of Public Prosecutions v Majewski [1977] AC 443, 476:

'it is no excuse in law that, because of drink or drugs which the accused himself had taken knowingly and willingly, he had deprived himself of the ability to exercise self-control, to realise the possible consequences of what he was doing, or even to be conscious that he was doing it.'

david_herdson said:

anotherDave said:

"Jack of Kent ‏@JackofKent 5h
It may well be that, if challenged, the High Court would rule that this press regulation charter is outwith the Royal Prerogative."

twitter.com/JackofKent/status/388705574109462528

It does seem outrageous to end the free press without at least the consent of parliament.

Didn't parliament implicitly agree it back in March, which because it was deliberately not explicit about a specific Charter, effectively subcontracted the details to those drawing it up?

Ref Jack's point, if parliament has already agreed in principle that such a Charter can exist, then surely it's within HM's right (or ministers on her behalf) to create one?

But what if the rejection of the IPSO charter has been accepted for judicial review?

A question to which I am awaiting an answer from Town, LJ.

@Life_ina_market_town

Yes the next thing we know the Irish will be having some kind of D Notice system or, perish the thought, the chief of their security services will publicly castigate/threaten a paper for releasing leaks from a whistleblower that exposed a massive surveilance system operating in the US.

They're fine with the Irish system and show no sign of pulling out. (Even Desmond signed up to it for god's sake) The royal press charter isn't what Leveson proposed (which was closer to the Irish model) but a hastily cobbled together 'compromise' after Cameron rejected Leveson's main findings.

So to be clear this is a compromise on Leveson they would be rejecting in favour of their idea of a PCC mark 2 and a return to business as usual, which they absolutely can.

AveryLP said:

david_herdson said:

anotherDave said:

"Jack of Kent ‏@JackofKent 5h
It may well be that, if challenged, the High Court would rule that this press regulation charter is outwith the Royal Prerogative."

twitter.com/JackofKent/status/388705574109462528

It does seem outrageous to end the free press without at least the consent of parliament.

Didn't parliament implicitly agree it back in March, which because it was deliberately not explicit about a specific Charter, effectively subcontracted the details to those drawing it up?

Ref Jack's point, if parliament has already agreed in principle that such a Charter can exist, then surely it's within HM's right (or ministers on her behalf) to create one?

But what if the rejection of the IPSO charter has been accepted for judicial review?

A question to which I am awaiting an answer from Town, LJ.

I'm not sure I understand the question? For that matter, I don't see what there is to review - why wouldn't it be within the government's right either to create a Charter on the lines mentioned during the debates in the Spring, or to not create one, given that no specific Charter was written into law?

AveryLP said:

But what if the rejection of the IPSO charter has been accepted for judicial review?

A question to which I am awaiting an answer from Town, LJ.

As I said earlier, it is notable that no section 19 statement has been made in relation to the relevant provisions of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Article 10 is a qualified right, as much as the press would like to suggest otherwise. On the other hand, there are serious questions about whether the Royal Charter complies with the principle of legality for the purposes of the European Convention.

MrJones said:

Mick_Pork said:

david_herdson said:

Perhaps m'learned colleagues could advise, but I didn't think that 'I was drunk at the time' was a defence in law?

For calling them racists? Didn't seem to bother Cameron or Heseltine too much when they labelled UKIP as such.

For that matter Campbell's odious lies about Iraq were not just bought wholesale by gullible and inept tories and labour supporters but also parroted eagerly by the likes of the Mail, the Sun and most of the press.

Bit much for those who believed his obvious nonsense on Iraq to now complain about it.

Not at all. People who made decisions based on dodgy information they were given in bad faith are perfectly entitled to complain about it until doomsday or the people responsible have been held to account.

As long as they admit what fools they were to believe it in the first place. The idea that the Blair doctrine on Iraq was the only view in town or that because he spouted it somehow meant it must be believed is fatuous nonsense. Robin Cook quit after completely demolishing the lies yet still some idiots believed it. Notably one David Cameron who still thought it was right to back the Iraq war many years after the truth was known.

Mick_Pork said:

@Life_ina_market_town

Yes the next thing we know the Irish will be having some kind of D Notice system or, perish the thought, the chief of their security services will publicly castigate/threaten a paper for releasing leaks from a whistleblower that exposed a massive surveilance system operating in the US.

They're fine with the Irish system and show no sign of pulling out. (Even Desmond signed up to it for god's sake) The royal press charter isn't what Leveson proposed (which was closer to the Irish model) but a hastily cobbled together 'compromise' after Cameron rejected Leveson's main findings.

So to be clear this is a compromise on Leveson they would be rejecting in favour of their idea of a PCC mark 2 and a return to business as usual, which they absolutely can.

It is of course the right of any property owner to ensure that their property is not subject to misuse. The Crown had a right to its property unlawfully held by The Guardian, which the newspaper did not dispute. Cameron has agreed to a mad scheme, but that scheme is incapable of justification.

Forgive me for sounding naive, but has Alistair Campbell had an emotional day ?

@old_labour

Yellow boxes! That makes it official and correct!

old_labour said:

Boomtime: Britain bounces back Share prices, house prices, luxury cars... The recession is over and the country has started spending again

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10372896/Boomtime-Britain-bounces-back.html

Meanwhile those Marxists at The Red Cross apparently pulled off a publicity stunt by saying they are arranging to give out food parcels for the first time since the second world war.....in the very same country.

Mick_Pork said:

MrJones said:

but the abuse of trust point - the critical one - stands.

You're telling me that it never occurred to you till then that a government might run copious propaganda, bend the truth and even outright lie on such matters? That's adorable.

All my adult life, I have expected the government to not tell me the whole truth, massage figures, deal in tractor stats, but I have to admit that the dodgy dossier was an order of magnitude way beyond that. That Blair has seemingly just walked away from it unscathed is still quite hard to believe.

Meanwhile the Mail goes on miracle wonder drug and the Express goes on Diana.

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/86374/the_daily_mail_saturday_12th_october_2013.html

Some things will never change.

AveryLP said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

AveryLP said:

LIAMT

Please translate for us ordinary mortals.

The only bit I think I understand is the last sentence where it appears you are suggesting that the actions of the Privy Council are subject to challenge on basis that they conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights (?).

I can make neither head nor tail of your first two sentences though.

I am sorry that I have been so unclear. My first point was that no government minister has made a statement that the provisions of sections 34 to 42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 are compatible with the convention rights. My second point was that HRA 1998 does not provide an absolute right to free speech. My third point was that the government's system of regulation is so convoluted that it may not comply with the principle of legality, per article 7 ECHR.

Neil said:

@old_labour

Yellow boxes! That makes it official and correct!

Neil





Not only official and correct, but good news too

perdix said:

RedRag1 said:

old_labour said:

Boomtime: Britain bounces back Share prices, house prices, luxury cars... The recession is over and the country has started spending again

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10372896/Boomtime-Britain-bounces-back.html

Meanwhile those Marxists at The Red Cross apparently pulled off a publicity stunt by saying they are arranging to give out food parcels for the first time since the second world war.....in the very same country.

The Red Cross doing for 3 day sonly apparently.

Oh that makes it ok then. Maybe they could give the food parcels out from all the new luxury cars that have been sold.

Life_ina_market_town said:

AveryLP said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

AveryLP said:

LIAMT

Please translate for us ordinary mortals.

The only bit I think I understand is the last sentence where it appears you are suggesting that the actions of the Privy Council are subject to challenge on basis that they conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights (?).

I can make neither head nor tail of your first two sentences though.

I am sorry that I have been so unclear. My first point was that no government minister has made a statement that the provisions of sections 34 to 42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 are compatible with the convention rights. My second point was that HRA 1998 does not provide an absolute right to free speech. My third point was that the government's system of regulation is so convoluted that it may not comply with the principle of legality, per article 7 ECHR.

Thanks for your clarification. I am now better informed.

So:

1. The "series of incentives for members of the press in the application of costs and exemplary damages" may not be compliant or consistent with ECHR rights. Such incentives being promoted as encouragement for publications to participate in the voluntary regulatory body (or probably better described as penalties for not participating).

2. HRA 98 gives a limited and conditional right to publication when "in the public interest", or at least a right not to be restrained from publication.

3. Article 7 of the ECHR appears to prohibit and/or constrain retrospective application of the law. This bit appears not to fit unless I am missing something.

Am I right that these are (some if not all) the potential grounds for 'appeal' by the IPSO connections of the Privy Council decision to outlaw their charter?

RedRag1 said:

perdix said:

RedRag1 said:

old_labour said:

Boomtime: Britain bounces back Share prices, house prices, luxury cars... The recession is over and the country has started spending again

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10372896/Boomtime-Britain-bounces-back.html

Meanwhile those Marxists at The Red Cross apparently pulled off a publicity stunt by saying they are arranging to give out food parcels for the first time since the second world war.....in the very same country.

The Red Cross doing for 3 day sonly apparently.

Oh that makes it ok then. Maybe they could give the food parcels out from all the new luxury cars that have been sold.

Red Rag

The Red Cross parcels contain tins of spam and baked beans to compensate those unfortunate enough not to have been sufficiently funded and street wise to have stagged the Royal Mail IPO.

Don't mock the actions of the Red Cross. What they are doing clearly a valuable contribution to the fairness of society. All hard working families up and down the country will welcome this one nation initiative.

Just been reading the comments to Polly's latest piece - I think car crash best sum's it up, LOL!