politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now betting opens on whether the self employed NI increase wil

FPT

Richard_Tyndall said:

Bojabob said:

Meanwhile, I note that Guy Verhofstadt is pushing harder for letting Brits keep their EU citizenship after Brexit. If it cost, say £100 a year, I would certainly keep mine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39228245

I do find this idea amusing. The proponents seem to think it is a masterstroke to undermine Brexit when if anything it makes things easier. There is no demand for the UK to reciprocate which means UK citizens will be getting preferential treatment from the EU whilst there is no cost or compulsion placed on the UK at all .

It's bemusing as much as amusing.

It's everything that the Commission purports (with good reason) to not want. Access for Brits in Europe with no reciprocity. A fundamental re-work of Article 20. Detachment of the four freedoms from each other.

Ergo, perhaps Mr Verhofstadt is trolling the UK with a proposal he doesn't think will actually happen.

Cyan said:

Nominations have been updated:

FILLON François 2111
HAMON Benoît 1317
MACRON Emmanuel 1266
DUPONT-AIGNAN Nicolas 623
ARTHAUD Nathalie 593
LE PEN Marine 577
ASSELINEAU François 524
MELENCHON Jean-Luc 432
CHEMINADE Jacques 397
LASSALLE Jean 289
JUPPE Alain 288
POUTOU Philippe 245
YADE Rama 151
each of the others less than 100

Cheminade has struggled before.

Otherwise not of much import.

Melénchon will get the remainder, I'm sure, short of a complete cock up.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Cyan said:

Nominations have been updated:

FILLON François 2111
HAMON Benoît 1317
MACRON Emmanuel 1266
DUPONT-AIGNAN Nicolas 623
ARTHAUD Nathalie 593
LE PEN Marine 577
ASSELINEAU François 524
MELENCHON Jean-Luc 432
CHEMINADE Jacques 397
LASSALLE Jean 289
JUPPE Alain 288
POUTOU Philippe 245
YADE Rama 151
each of the others less than 100

Cheminade has struggled before.

Otherwise not of much import.

Melénchon will get the remainder, I'm sure, short of a complete cock up.

Juppé may get through. Only about a quarter of nominations are in.

A leader for the Remainers if these two bedfellows can't keep it going?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/09/philip-hammond-has-still-not-accepted-brexit-budget-has-turned/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

The pro immigration line from JD Wetherspoon's Tim Martin is what he has always said. Strange that the journalist who tweeted thought he was on to something, doesn't anybody do research anymore?

From last June...

"J.D. Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin, who made headlines earlier this week by distributing pro-Brexit 200,000 beermats to his pubs , has admitted about 1 in 10 of his workers is from overseas.

But he told BuzzFeed his decision to back Brexit had nothing to do with immigration.

He said: “Those people who are entitled to work here from the EU now should be entitled to work here after the referendum. If we leave, the rules should be the same as they were in Ireland before the EU – where people from Ireland could come and work here.”

He added he’s personally pro-immigration, and his big problem with the EU is that it’s not democratic."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pro-brexit-wetherspoons-boss-admits-8109824

Given the public seem broadly supportive and it is perfectly possible, if involving a little embarrassment, to cop to a u-turn i fjustified, and considering the opposition is not primary placed to take advantage, if this doesn't happen it will demonstrate that as with Cameron, May's biggest headaches are her own backbenchers.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Cyan said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Cyan said:

Nominations have been updated:

FILLON François 2111
HAMON Benoît 1317
MACRON Emmanuel 1266
DUPONT-AIGNAN Nicolas 623
ARTHAUD Nathalie 593
LE PEN Marine 577
ASSELINEAU François 524
MELENCHON Jean-Luc 432
CHEMINADE Jacques 397
LASSALLE Jean 289
JUPPE Alain 288
POUTOU Philippe 245
YADE Rama 151
each of the others less than 100

Cheminade has struggled before.

Otherwise not of much import.

Melénchon will get the remainder, I'm sure, short of a complete cock up.

Juppé may get through. Only about a quarter of nominations are in.

I don't know the process, it may be that the nominee must accept the nomination, which Juppe won't.

The nominations (parrainages) are officially "présentations", so I think nominees have to accept, but it will be interesting if the place on the ballot is there for Juppé to take if he wants it.

kle4 said:

Given the public seem broadly supportive and it is perfectly possible, if involving a little embarrassment, to cop to a u-turn i fjustified, and considering the opposition is not primary placed to take advantage, if this doesn't happen it will demonstrate that as with Cameron, May's biggest headaches are her own backbenchers.

I do not understand betting on it being implemented this year. It is not due to happen until April 2018 and it will surely be in the budget statement this Autumn once Matthew Taylor's summer report is published and absolutely endorses these mild tax changes

williamglenn said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FPT

Richard_Tyndall said:

Bojabob said:

Meanwhile, I note that Guy Verhofstadt is pushing harder for letting Brits keep their EU citizenship after Brexit. If it cost, say £100 a year, I would certainly keep mine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39228245

I do find this idea amusing. The proponents seem to think it is a masterstroke to undermine Brexit when if anything it makes things easier. There is no demand for the UK to reciprocate which means UK citizens will be getting preferential treatment from the EU whilst there is no cost or compulsion placed on the UK at all .

It's bemusing as much as amusing.

It's everything that the Commission purports (with good reason) to not want. Access for Brits in Europe with no reciprocity. A fundamental re-work of Article 20. Detachment of the four freedoms from each other.

Ergo, perhaps Mr Verhofstadt is trolling the UK with a proposal he doesn't think will actually happen.

It's adding to the list of things the UK wants that in truth it can only get by remaining full members. Things like this will undermine the will for Brexiting as the negotiations drag on.

We are not going to remain and we are going to get a mutually beneficial divorce from the EU. Today's MEP discussion from Brussels was totally focussed on remaining good close friends with a mutual acceptable trade deal

I do not know how you will cope when your 100% negativity is blown out of the water

kle4 said:

Given the public seem broadly supportive and it is perfectly possible, if involving a little embarrassment, to cop to a u-turn i fjustified, and considering the opposition is not primary placed to take advantage, if this doesn't happen it will demonstrate that as with Cameron, May's biggest headaches are her own backbenchers.

If they don't push it through it would be a sign of vacillation and weakness. Or perhaps worse, a false perception of weakness when the position is in fact strong...

Most people are employed and have relatively little sympathy for the position of self-employed people bearing in mind the differential in the way they are taxed. (Plenty see self-employment as nothing more than a tax wheeze - and for some people it probably is.) Higher earning self-employed people seem unlikely to turn en masse to the party of Jeremy Corbyn. Lower earning self-employed people will benefit from the abolition of Class 2 anyway. Shame the two moves couldn't have been cobbled together in a more coordinated manner really.

And there are plenty of reasons to say that things have changed since the election in a manner that was not foreseen at the time of the manifesto. The NHS/social care crisis this winter makes rises in NICs far less politically toxic than they would otherwise have been. Brexit. The top leadership have changed. I'm dubious of the extent to which voters are going to hold the May government to account for things that were promised by Cameron. May's "manifesto" is really Brexit means Brexit, in the eyes of the general population. How she navigates those waters will define her electoral success, not a list of promises George Osborne churned out 5 years ago.

The government is anyhow likely to shake up the entire treatment and classification of the self-employed in the next few years given the rise in the "gig economy". If they can put in some sweeteners, presumably in terms of additional rights, then I'm sure they can get away with this one.

isam said:

What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

Such a poor level of debate

Martin made hefty donations to Vote Leave which exploited the immigration issue heavily

Cyan said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Cyan said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Cyan said:

Nominations have been updated:

FILLON François 2111
HAMON Benoît 1317
MACRON Emmanuel 1266
DUPONT-AIGNAN Nicolas 623
ARTHAUD Nathalie 593
LE PEN Marine 577
ASSELINEAU François 524
MELENCHON Jean-Luc 432
CHEMINADE Jacques 397
LASSALLE Jean 289
JUPPE Alain 288
POUTOU Philippe 245
YADE Rama 151
each of the others less than 100

Cheminade has struggled before.

Otherwise not of much import.

Melénchon will get the remainder, I'm sure, short of a complete cock up.

Juppé may get through. Only about a quarter of nominations are in.

I don't know the process, it may be that the nominee must accept the nomination, which Juppe won't.

The nominations (parrainages) are officially "présentations", so I think nominees have to accept, but it will be interesting if the place on the ballot is there for Juppé to take if he wants it.

Confirmed: yes a nominee can refuse.

"(Le Conseil constitutionnel) s’assure que les personnes ayant valablement recueilli 500 parrainages consentent à être candidates".

(The Constitutional Council ensures that each person who has received 500 valid nominations consents to being a candidate.)

JosiasJessop said:

Thurst.

The NIC mess is unimportant in itself. However it is an indication that the government would be in trouble if they faced a credible and capable opposition.

Which means they're fine ...

They do though. It is called the tabloids and the Tory right unfortunately.

Pulpstar said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

It will happen voters back it, including Tories and there is no alternative to pay for the extra funding given to social care, it will just be delayed until the autumn

It is not a matter of delaying until the autumn because the change does take effect until April 2019 anyway.

Not quite - the first 1% is in April 2018 followed by another 1% in April 2019

I'm staying out of the bet then, though difficult to see how strictly speaking the 1-2 loses.

I do not known much about betting but if there is a 1-2 bet on it not being implemented this year that must be a certain winner as it never was to be in force this year. Seems the bookies may have a problem depending on the small print !!

HYUFD said:

Bojabob said:

HYUFD said:

isam said:

What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

Such a poor level of debate

Martin made hefty donations to Vote Leave which exploited the immigration issue heavily

Indeed. The chickens have come home to roost.

For him certainly

He wanted to leave for his own reasons. Remainers are jumping all over todays comments as if they are a surprise, why should they be? He said it before the referendum too

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I do not know how you will cope when your 100% negativity is blown out of the water

I'm 100% positive. I still think Brexit will go off the rails before we exit. If I ever start saying Brexit will definitely go ahead then you can start calling me negative.

isam said:

HYUFD said:

Bojabob said:

HYUFD said:

isam said:

What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

Such a poor level of debate

Martin made hefty donations to Vote Leave which exploited the immigration issue heavily

Indeed. The chickens have come home to roost.

For him certainly

He wanted to leave for his own reasons. Remainers are jumping all over todays comments as if they are a surprise, why should they be? He said it before the referendum too

Yes but he was quite prepared to exploit grievances over immigration to get a Leave win as long as he could wash his hands of those with the grievances once he achieved a Leave victory

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Mr. Nabavi, what was wrong with it? Never been to one myself.

I realised that I wasn't exactly in a temple of gastronomy, so I went for what I thought was a pretty safe option, sausages and baked beans IIRC. The sausages seemed to made of flaked cardboard stuffed into a plastic tube.

Floater said:

Another attack in Dusseldorf - man aged 80 assaulted with machete - no further details

For a country that has very good healthcare reputation, Germany's mental health provision appears to be woefully broken.

HYUFD said:

isam said:

HYUFD said:

Bojabob said:

HYUFD said:

isam said:

What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

Such a poor level of debate

Martin made hefty donations to Vote Leave which exploited the immigration issue heavily

Indeed. The chickens have come home to roost.

For him certainly

He wanted to leave for his own reasons. Remainers are jumping all over todays comments as if they are a surprise, why should they be? He said it before the referendum too

Yes but he was quite prepared to exploit grievances over immigration to get a Leave win as long as he could wash his hands of those with the grievances once he achieved a Leave victory

Not really, he backed Vote Leave. Your argument would make more sense if he backed Leave.EU , complained about immigration before the ref, or was moaning about the NHS not being funded now

Be careful what you post on tw@tter...

Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over a tweet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079

isam said:

HYUFD said:

isam said:

HYUFD said:

Bojabob said:

HYUFD said:

isam said:

What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

Such a poor level of debate

Martin made hefty donations to Vote Leave which exploited the immigration issue heavily

Indeed. The chickens have come home to roost.

For him certainly

He wanted to leave for his own reasons. Remainers are jumping all over todays comments as if they are a surprise, why should they be? He said it before the referendum too

Yes but he was quite prepared to exploit grievances over immigration to get a Leave win as long as he could wash his hands of those with the grievances once he achieved a Leave victory

Not really, he backed Vote Leave. Your argument would make more sense if he backed Leave.EU , complained about immigration before the ref, or was moaning about the NHS not being funded now

Given the posters Vote Leave put out about immigration fears, including the one about Turkey, the comment stands
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_immigration.html
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vote+leave+immigration&client=ms-android-tmobile-gb&source=android-browser&prmd=niv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwju0PCPlczSAhUIChoKHWc5AToQ_AUICCgC&biw=360&bih=508#imgrc=t8fj9ALdbDM73M:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

Such a poor level of debate

All it does is show how mixed up people were when they voted for Brexit. Immigration was the main issue cited for voting Leave. Not for him; he didn't like the sovereignty. Fair enough. But he should have realised that Brexit is not pick and mix. He obviously disliked the sovereignty aspect enough such that it overrode the immigration issue.

So he should not now complain that the immigration issue is also being addressed.

Either that or he is a fucking idiot.

Seems he wanted us to Leave the EU first and foremost. At the next GE he can vote for the party that offers him the immigration policy that he likes best.

Yep. Glad to see you would be cool with a party winning the next GE on a platform of free movement for EU citizens.

Of course! That really would be democracy in action.

I have said on here many many times, I would rather PM Corbyn and us out of the EU than PM Farage with us in

Ishmael_Z said:

fpt

kjh said:

PlatoSaid said:

I really don't care about Snopes' embezzlement stuff - but its not some satirical mag story - it's in the divorce case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html

What on earth has that got to do with the two articles?

You do not seem to have any concept of how sucked into this cult mentality you are, but I guess that is how cults work.

No, you need to actually read material before commenting on it. The evidence that Snopes is untrustworthy is a great deal stronger than the average evidence which Snopes adduces when it wants to discredit a story. You have simply bought uncritically in to the Snopes brand. You are like someone who is happy to buy a used car from Honest John, because he must be honest or he wouldn't call himself that.

No I am not. You seem to be missing the whole point I am making. I know nothing about Snopes, let alone having bought into the brand. In fact I have heard of them before now so could not possibly have bought into the brand. You need to read the thread before. You seem to be making the point I was making rather than disagreeing with me.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Be careful what you post on tw@tter...

Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over a tweet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079

No problem - do not use it - but to those who do David Cameron had the right response to it

Don't break manifesto pledges?

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Be careful what you post on tw@tter...

Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over a tweet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079

Seems a bit low for a libel settlement.

The trial took 21 months, unless the legal profession has taken an unprecedented pay cut then costs are going to be substantially more than £24,000. Will Hopkins be liable for those ?

Katie looks about 65 in that image.

She recently had some major brain surgery related to epilepsy I think.

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Be careful what you post on tw@tter...

Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over a tweet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079

Seems a bit low for a libel settlement.

The trial took 21 months, unless the legal profession has taken an unprecedented pay cut then costs are going to be substantially more than £24,000. Will Hopkins be liable for those ?

Katie looks about 65 in that image.

I wonder if she will be punished in costs by decline Jack's (very public) offer to settle for £5,000, i.e. less that the £24,000.

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

Such a poor level of debate

All it does is show how mixed up people were when they voted for Brexit. Immigration was the main issue cited for voting Leave. Not for him; he didn't like the sovereignty. Fair enough. But he should have realised that Brexit is not pick and mix. He obviously disliked the sovereignty aspect enough such that it overrode the immigration issue.

So he should not now complain that the immigration issue is also being addressed.

Either that or he is a fucking idiot.

Seems he wanted us to Leave the EU first and foremost. At the next GE he can vote for the party that offers him the immigration policy that he likes best.

Yep. Glad to see you would be cool with a party winning the next GE on a platform of free movement for EU citizens.

Of course! That really would be democracy in action.

I have said on here many many times, I would rather PM Corbyn and us out of the EU than PM Farage with us in

I salute your equanimity. Presumably along the same lines you think it perfectly legitimate and the epitome of a democratic society for people to want to stop Brexit or water it down?

Anyone who tweets should read the Monroe v Hopkins judgment. Quite apart from being highly entertaining, it is also a valuable corrective (if still needed) that Twitter isn't some wild west which somehow doesn't really matter for libel purposes:

https://t.co/lwdeQgPiDb

PlatoSaid said:

kjh said:

Ishmael_Z said:

fpt

kjh said:

PlatoSaid said:

I really don't care about Snopes' embezzlement stuff - but its not some satirical mag story - it's in the divorce case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html

What on earth has that got to do with the two articles?

You do not seem to have any concept of how sucked into this cult mentality you are, but I guess that is how cults work.

No, you need to actually read material before commenting on it. The evidence that Snopes is untrustworthy is a great deal stronger than the average evidence which Snopes adduces when it wants to discredit a story. You have simply bought uncritically in to the Snopes brand. You are like someone who is happy to buy a used car from Honest John, because he must be honest or he wouldn't call himself that.

No I am not. You seem to be missing the whole point I am making. I know nothing about Snopes, let alone having bought into the brand. In fact I have heard of them before now so could not possibly have bought into the brand. You need to read the thread before. You seem to be making the point I was making rather than disagreeing with me.

The observation in general is that supposed *fact checkers* all come from the liberal left and have an agenda. Hence why they've bugger all credibility with the Right and loved by the Left.

The same goes for the MSM - the Democrats think they're trustworthy, the Republicans think they're liars. That's not a healthy balance when it comes to convincing the other side.

In a world where there is so much disinformation, how do you find out what's true? Isn't the danger that we all believe what we want to be true.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Be careful what you post on tw@tter...

Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over a tweet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079

Seems a bit low for a libel settlement.

The trial took 21 months, unless the legal profession has taken an unprecedented pay cut then costs are going to be substantially more than £24,000. Will Hopkins be liable for those ?

Katie looks about 65 in that image.

I wonder if she will be punished in costs by decline Jack's (very public) offer to settle for £5,000, i.e. less that the £24,000.

This case has been about the particular tweets complained of by this claimant against this defendant. It may have little wider significance. But I cannot leave it without making two observations. The first is that the case could easily have been resolved at an early stage. There was an open offer to settle for £5,000. It was a reasonable offer. There could have been an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996. Such an offer attracts a substantial discount: up to half if the offer is prompt and unqualified. Such an offer would have meant the compensation would have been modest. The costs would have been a fraction of those which I am sure these parties have incurred in the event. Those costs have largely been incurred in contesting the issue of whether a statement which on its face had a defamatory tendency had actually caused serious harm.

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

Such a poor level of debate

All it does is show how mixed up people were when they voted for Brexit. Immigration was the main issue cited for voting Leave. Not for him; he didn't like the sovereignty. Fair enough. But he should have realised that Brexit is not pick and mix. He obviously disliked the sovereignty aspect enough such that it overrode the immigration issue.

So he should not now complain that the immigration issue is also being addressed.

Either that or he is a fucking idiot.

Seems he wanted us to Leave the EU first and foremost. At the next GE he can vote for the party that offers him the immigration policy that he likes best.

Yep. Glad to see you would be cool with a party winning the next GE on a platform of free movement for EU citizens.

Of course! That really would be democracy in action.

I have said on here many many times, I would rather PM Corbyn and us out of the EU than PM Farage with us in

I salute your equanimity. Presumably along the same lines you think it perfectly legitimate and the epitome of a democratic society for people to want to stop Brexit or water it down?

No I think it is best to let the government get on with it, it is causing too much hate. I also said many times I would be happy if TM the PMs deal was the same as Cameron negotiated. Just get us out. From then on, different govts will lean one way or the other, depending on how we vote, there never will be a final deal, it will always change

https://twitter.com/MarksLarks/status/840211287426646016

Mrs C, that is a genuine possibility. However, as I posted at the time (during the spate of French/German attacks last year), the erosion of trust in police, politicians and media means that a lot of people simply won't believe the official line on what occurred.

Jean-Claude Juncker is missing Britain already:

https://www.ft.com/content/0ad56edb-13ea-3363-9ecc-c2db797c405a

kjh said:

Ishmael_Z said:

fpt

kjh said:

PlatoSaid said:

I really don't care about Snopes' embezzlement stuff - but its not some satirical mag story - it's in the divorce case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html

What on earth has that got to do with the two articles?

You do not seem to have any concept of how sucked into this cult mentality you are, but I guess that is how cults work.

No, you need to actually read material before commenting on it. The evidence that Snopes is untrustworthy is a great deal stronger than the average evidence which Snopes adduces when it wants to discredit a story. You have simply bought uncritically in to the Snopes brand. You are like someone who is happy to buy a used car from Honest John, because he must be honest or he wouldn't call himself that.

No I am not. You seem to be missing the whole point I am making. I know nothing about Snopes, let alone having bought into the brand. In fact I have heard of them before now so could not possibly have bought into the brand. You need to read the thread before. You seem to be making the point I was making rather than disagreeing with me.

That has got me frustrated. I think we are on exactly the same wavelength Ishmael Z.

Definite misunderstanding.

I made another post on the last thread not realising we had moved on (thought it seemed a bit quiet!) which might help.

The point I was making is everything printed is biased in some way even if only subconsciously. Some rather more than others. Plato goes to the mind boggling extreme in her acceptance and rejection of stuff to the point of conspiracy theory to fit in with her beliefs.

It is something that particularly frustrates me. My degree was in Mathematics and when selecting for later study I focused on logic topics. I don't remember much of it now but have faint memories of dissecting this sort of stuff mathematically.

Pulpstar said:

Jack Monroe costs estimated at £150,000

Hopkins settlement £24,000. Ordered to pay £107,000 towards Mx Monroe's legal costs.

So that is Hopkins £131,000 out of pocket and Monroe £19,000 out of pocket by my calculations.

Looks like the lawyers are the winners from this case.

Presumably she'll be paying costs on the indemnity basis, if she turned down an offer to settle for £5,000.

Sean_F said:

Pulpstar said:

Jack Monroe costs estimated at £150,000

Hopkins settlement £24,000. Ordered to pay £107,000 towards Mx Monroe's legal costs.

So that is Hopkins £131,000 out of pocket and Monroe £19,000 out of pocket by my calculations.

Looks like the lawyers are the winners from this case.

Presumably she'll be paying costs on the indemnity basis, if she turned down an offer to settle for £5,000.

£131,000 out of pocket (final bill TBC) of c.£150,000 is pretty much a indemnity basis.

Pulpstar said:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/monroe-v-hopkins-2017-ewhc-433-qb-20170310.pdf

Full judgement is a complete hoot.

You can tell that the judge enjoyed writing that one.

Sean_F said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

Pulpstar said:

Jack Monroe costs estimated at £150,000

Hopkins settlement £24,000. Ordered to pay £107,000 towards Mx Monroe's legal costs.

So that is Hopkins £131,000 out of pocket and Monroe £19,000 out of pocket by my calculations.

Looks like the lawyers are the winners from this case.

Presumably she'll be paying costs on the indemnity basis, if she turned down an offer to settle for £5,000.

£131,000 out of pocket (final bill TBC) of c.£150,000 is pretty much a indemnity basis.

Indemnity costs are usually 80-85% of the total, so she'll be looking at £120-£125,000 plus the £24,000 damages.

Sorry I got my numbers confused but you said it better anyway

Pulpstar said:

Jack Monroe costs estimated at £150,000

Hopkins settlement £24,000. Ordered to pay £107,000 towards Mx Monroe's legal costs.

So that is Hopkins £131,000 out of pocket and Monroe £19,000 out of pocket by my calculations.

Looks like the lawyers are the winners from this case.

Isn't it £107,000 now and the rest later? Can't imagine Monroe will end up out of pocket on this.

isam said:

As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.

Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.

Wow

They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging

Same old!

A pitiful level of debate.

I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.

Bojabob said:

Richard T FPT

Undoubtedly it does make Brexit easier. I simply think it is a great idea and I will take advantage of it, should it come to pass. Still think that it is unlikely to, however.

I hope so too. I'll definitely sign up if it happens. Apart from anything else, accidentally getting it out during meetings with European clients will be a way of showing that I'm not one of those Brexit types.