Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters now taking a more positive view of Trump’s survival ch

SystemSystem Posts: 12,682
edited April 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters now taking a more positive view of Trump’s survival chances

On the UK betting markets at least punters are taking a more positive view about Donald Trump’s chances of staying in the post till 2020 or beyond.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    Primus inter pares
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 47,052
    edited April 2017
    Second like Hilary.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,817
    Naughty. My first post was deleted after I made it and saw it here!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    Glorious fourth!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    edited April 2017
    IanB2 said:

    Naughty. My first post was deleted after I made it and saw it here!

    I had that happen to me last night :o
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,817
    Someone in administration is playing dirty with the initial posts!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    IanB2 said:

    Someone in administration is playing dirty with the initial posts!

    Shocking accusations. I would never think such a thing, and should the powers that be take note of that perhaps any first posts of mine will not go astray.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    edited April 2017
    Most Presidents do badly in midterms and Trump is unlikely to be any different, so I think the Democrats may well take the House. However the GOP can hardly take him on without losing most of his supporters so he will stay and early polling shows a majority of Americans support his bombing of Syria. I expect Trump to be re elected in 2020 as I expect May to be returned to power in that year, especially as I think the Democratic base will go for a more radical liberal choice like Warren after Hillary's defeat last year following UK Labour in their own mini Corbynista temper tantrum
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    IanB2 said:

    Someone in administration is playing dirty with the initial posts!

    Vanilla is working perfectly, no posts have been deleted!

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yfAeMtcURg0/hqdefault.jpg
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,376
    The competition for first is getting more fixed than an SNP instructed poll.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    IanB2 said:

    Someone in administration is playing dirty with the initial posts!

    Vanilla quirk. It's here

    http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1502062/#Comment_1502062
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,125
    Does Trump employ his spokesman to make himself look borderline competent in comparison ?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39572902
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.

    So not long to wait.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,376
    On topic this is surely just some sanity returning to the market and overcoming the Trump haters irrational beliefs. With a Republican dominated Congress Trump is bullet proof. Only ill health or a bullet is going to stop him serving out his term.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Someone in administration is playing dirty with the initial posts!

    Vanilla quirk. It's here

    http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1502062/#Comment_1502062
    How convenient... :p
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.

    So not long to wait.

    Does it have to be Prime Minister of the UK, or could he form his own micro nation to speed things along?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    We're at the fake apology stage.

    The CEO of United Airlines has apologised for the "truly horrific" removal of a passenger from an overbooked flight.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39572841
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.

    So not long to wait.

    Does it have to be Prime Minister of the UK, or could he form his own micro nation to speed things along?
    The United Kingdom or what's left of it after the Brexiteers have broken it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.

    So not long to wait.

    I can't see the editor of the Evening Standard ever returning to lead the Tory Party again let alone become PM
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.

    So not long to wait.

    I thought George Osborne was already Post Menopausal - the hot flushes of government well past him.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.

    So not long to wait.

    Does it have to be Prime Minister of the UK, or could he form his own micro nation to speed things along?
    The United Kingdom or what's left of it after the Brexiteers have broken it.
    Still going to be difficult when he leaves parliament in the next year or so, given current career priorities.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    Nigelb said:

    Does Trump employ his spokesman to make himself look borderline competent in comparison ?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39572902

    https://twitter.com/NancyPelosi/status/851894608334336000/photo/1
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,125
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.

    So not long to wait.

    Not so much alternate facts as alternate history ?

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,376
    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.

    So not long to wait.

    Does it have to be Prime Minister of the UK, or could he form his own micro nation to speed things along?
    The United Kingdom or what's left of it after the Brexiteers have broken it.
    Still going to be difficult when he leaves parliament in the next year or so, given current career priorities.
    He's a modern day polymath.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    hps://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Whether or not the policy is, despite reporting, not unreasonable, and whether or not one considers the source the headline and how many read it, it is definitely not the type of story you want popping up as a politician, since you have to explain away such a terrible headline in the first place.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
    twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Natonal.. more posts on here than sales.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,949
    edited April 2017
    Did USA and Russia "stage" the whole thing to shore up The Donald?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    You oppose exempting rape victims from the limit?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.

    So not long to wait.

    Does it have to be Prime Minister of the UK, or could he form his own micro nation to speed things along?
    The United Kingdom or what's left of it after the Brexiteers have broken it.
    The UK will last far longer than George's career I can assure you of that, he is cashing in while he still has some clout
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    DavidL said:

    On topic this is surely just some sanity returning to the market and overcoming the Trump haters irrational beliefs. With a Republican dominated Congress Trump is bullet proof. Only ill health or a bullet is going to stop him serving out his term.

    It is difficult to see how a bullet will stop him serving out a full term when he is.....bullet proof!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,376
    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic this is surely just some sanity returning to the market and overcoming the Trump haters irrational beliefs. With a Republican dominated Congress Trump is bullet proof. Only ill health or a bullet is going to stop him serving out his term.

    It is difficult to see how a bullet will stop him serving out a full term when he is.....bullet proof!
    Damn, didn't spot that!
  • HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 1,185
    kle4 said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    hps://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Whether or not the policy is, despite reporting, not unreasonable, and whether or not one considers the source the headline and how many read it, it is definitely not the type of story you want popping up as a politician, since you have to explain away such a terrible headline in the first place.
    To both people that read it?
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    Philip_Thompson said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    You oppose exempting rape victims from the limit?
    ?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    HYUFD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.

    So not long to wait.

    Does it have to be Prime Minister of the UK, or could he form his own micro nation to speed things along?
    The United Kingdom or what's left of it after the Brexiteers have broken it.
    The UK will last far longer than George's career I can assure you of that, he is cashing in while he still has some clout
    Is that the same level of assurance as when you told us Hilary Benn was the Michael Howard to Corbyn's IDS?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Does Trump employ his spokesman to make himself look borderline competent in comparison ?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39572902

    https://twitter.com/NancyPelosi/status/851894608334336000/photo/1
    Silly woman, more outrage than the situation will bear (because it's clear to everyone that Spicer is just a twit), and she should fire whoever drafted the heading of that press release.

    Passover is an interesting one, though: we have Jews partying because it's great if a lot of babies die, provided they are foreign, while the Christians are about to hold pretendy cannibal picnics to celebrate the death by torture of an inoffensive religious nutter. Religion, where would we be without it?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    HaroldO said:

    kle4 said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    hps://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Whether or not the policy is, despite reporting, not unreasonable, and whether or not one considers the source the headline and how many read it, it is definitely not the type of story you want popping up as a politician, since you have to explain away such a terrible headline in the first place.
    To both people that read it?
    Practically doubled the circulation by posting it here. :p
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,608
    edited April 2017
    HYUFD said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
    Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,539
    HYUFD said:

    Most Presidents do badly in midterms and Trump is unlikely to be any different, so I think the Democrats may well take the House. However the GOP can hardly take him on without losing most of his supporters so he will stay and early polling shows a majority of Americans support his bombing of Syria. I expect Trump to be re elected in 2020 as I expect May to be returned to power in that year, especially as I think the Democratic base will go for a more radical liberal choice like Warren after Hillary's defeat last year following UK Labour in their own mini Corbynista temper tantrum

    The Democrats seem inclined to double down on their strategy of alienating swing voters.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,376
    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,376
    edited April 2017
    DavidL said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
    Edit. And I have to pay back all my CB for my son and daughter. Quite right too. Money needs to be spent where it is most needed.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
    Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
    Why ? Have I missed something ? I, of course, believe there should be no limit on anybody.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
    Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
    Yes, but if you are going to limit child benefit it is something that needs to be accounted for.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    surbiton said:

    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
    Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
    Why ? Have I missed something ? I, of course, believe there should be no limit on anybody.
    Because of the form that has to be filled out to claim the exemption.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    DavidL said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
    If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,608
    surbiton said:

    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
    Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
    Why ? Have I missed something ? I, of course, believe there should be no limit on anybody.
    I don't know, but I am sure I recall some Tories on here saying they were ashamed of their party over this.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2017
    Interesting article by Danny Finkenstein: (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/no-leavers-are-not-going-to-change-their-minds-fs0bj2rrf
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,539
    DavidL said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
    I suppose the alternative would be to tell rape victims they won't get child benefit - but they'll be spared having to sign a form.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,376
    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
    If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.
    And your evidence for that is?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
    If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.
    What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    foxinsoxuk said:

    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
    If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.
    What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?
    Here's the form

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/606978/nnc1.pdf
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,376
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
    I suppose the alternative would be to tell rape victims they won't get child benefit - but they'll be spared having to sign a form.
    Well they could always make that choice of course. It is not mandatory to apply.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/851902449153708032
  • HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 1,185
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
    I suppose the alternative would be to tell rape victims they won't get child benefit - but they'll be spared having to sign a form.
    It's one of those grimly practical things that most people don't think of in these cases, but have to be accounted for in the real world when enacting a policy like this.
    It's tabloid fodder though.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,969
    RobD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Naughty. My first post was deleted after I made it and saw it here!

    I had that happen to me last night :o
    Rob , that is because you promote the nasty party
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    calum said:

    twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/851902449153708032

    Writing in the Daily Record, Ms Dugdale urged the Scottish Conservative leader to condemn the “horrifically cruel and uncaring policy”, and praised SNP MP Alison Thewliss for campaigning against it.

    No hyperbole here whatsoever.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Naughty. My first post was deleted after I made it and saw it here!

    I had that happen to me last night :o
    Rob , that is because you promote the nasty party
    Malc, I hope you are sitting down. Dugdale isn't agreeing with the Tories. :smiley:
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,892
    calum said:

    https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/851902449153708032

    What are the SNP suggesting, that there shouldn't be an exemption for rape victims in the legislation?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,969
    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    foxinsoxuk said:

    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
    If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.
    What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?
    That is an excellent point. In the stereotype case this is aimed at (woman with 17 children, all called Wayne or Waynetta, by 17 fathers) why would she not claim abusive relationship and lack of consent, and how could her claim be disproved?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,969
    isam said:

    surbiton said:

    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
    Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
    Why ? Have I missed something ? I, of course, believe there should be no limit on anybody.
    I don't know, but I am sure I recall some Tories on here saying they were ashamed of their party over this.
    Shocking that they are not all ashamed, shows how nasty the Tories really are.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    I am surprised this isn't the thread on Boris;'s survival chances . He has been terrible today, just hopeless.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    SquareRoot said:

    I am surprised this isn't the thread on Boris;'s survival chances . He has been terrible today, just hopeless.

    https://twitter.com/mshelicat/status/851896645230972928
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,969
    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    SquareRoot said:

    I am surprised this isn't the thread on Boris;'s survival chances . He has been terrible today, just hopeless.

    May surely only gave him the job in the first place to give him enough rope to hang himself. She probably needs to hang on a bit longer so she can fire him during the Brexit negotiations as an apparent sop to the EU27.
  • HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 1,185
    Ishmael_Z said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
    If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.
    What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?
    That is an excellent point. In the stereotype case this is aimed at (woman with 17 children, all called Wayne or Waynetta, by 17 fathers) why would she not claim abusive relationship and lack of consent, and how could her claim be disproved?
    Having read the form, you need two other signatures one of which has to be a healthcare professional or a social worker. If I read it rightly/
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    SquareRoot said:

    I am surprised this isn't the thread on Boris;'s survival chances . He has been terrible today, just hopeless.

    He has defied quite a few political rules in his time, makes it harder to speculate.
    DavidL said:

    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
    If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.
    And your evidence for that is?
    It sounds plausible.
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.

    So not long to wait.

    Does it have to be Prime Minister of the UK, or could he form his own micro nation to speed things along?
    The United Kingdom or what's left of it after the Brexiteers have broken it.
    Still going to be difficult when he leaves parliament in the next year or so, given current career priorities.
    He's a modern day polymath.
    I bet(figuratively) he'll not be an MP, or not be editor, 24 months from now.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited April 2017
    williamglenn said:

    SquareRoot said:

    I am surprised this isn't the thread on Boris;'s survival chances . He has been terrible today, just hopeless.

    May surely only gave him the job in the first place to give him enough rope to hang himself. She probably needs to hang on a bit longer so she can fire him during the Brexit negotiations as an apparent sop to the EU27.
    I wonder if he might not quit of his own accord soon. Judging by his leadership campaign (or lack thereof), he's pretty thin-skinned when he starts getting some media criticism.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,969
    HYUFD said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
    No surprise that you support it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    edited April 2017
    Scott_P said:

    SquareRoot said:

    I am surprised this isn't the thread on Boris;'s survival chances . He has been terrible today, just hopeless.

    http//twitter.com/mshelicat/status/851896645230972928
    They'd never give Russia an ultimatum. Maybe we should have pushed for a penultimatum?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    isam said:

    surbiton said:

    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
    Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
    Why ? Have I missed something ? I, of course, believe there should be no limit on anybody.
    I don't know, but I am sure I recall some Tories on here saying they were ashamed of their party over this.
    I would suggest that when you get to the point where you have to make these sorts of exceptions to a policy, the time is probably long overdue to go back and look at the policy as a whole rather than just trying to defend the exceptions.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Ishmael_Z said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
    If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.
    What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?
    That is an excellent point. In the stereotype case this is aimed at (woman with 17 children, all called Wayne or Waynetta, by 17 fathers) why would she not claim abusive relationship and lack of consent, and how could her claim be disproved?

    Have a look at the form RobD posted at 10:01.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,969
    RobD said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
    twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Natonal.. more posts on here than sales.
    Dear Dear Rob, alow for you supporting this type of thing.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    malcolmg said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.
    That headline says far more about Scottish nationalists than it does about Ruth Davidson
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    HYUFD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.

    So not long to wait.

    Does it have to be Prime Minister of the UK, or could he form his own micro nation to speed things along?
    The United Kingdom or what's left of it after the Brexiteers have broken it.
    The UK will last far longer than George's career I can assure you of that, he is cashing in while he still has some clout
    Is that the same level of assurance as when you told us Hilary Benn was the Michael Howard to Corbyn's IDS?
    Provided he was in the Shadow Cabinet which he no longer is and last I heard Osborne was no longer in the Cabinet either
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,969
    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Naughty. My first post was deleted after I made it and saw it here!

    I had that happen to me last night :o
    Rob , that is because you promote the nasty party
    Malc, I hope you are sitting down. Dugdale isn't agreeing with the Tories. :smiley:
    You know the Tories are in the wrong completely Rob when it is so horrific Labour are against them.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Ishmael_Z said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
    If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.
    What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?
    That is an excellent point. In the stereotype case this is aimed at (woman with 17 children, all called Wayne or Waynetta, by 17 fathers) why would she not claim abusive relationship and lack of consent, and how could her claim be disproved?
    The form requires one of a rape conviction, a CICA award, or a recognised professional to support that it was an abusive relationship. The father needs to not be cohabiting. I can seesocial workers being supportive of their clients.

    The number of children conceived this way must be small. I would have written such rules differently, with discretionary supporton grounds of hardship.

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Interesting article on Corbyn from the Guardian:

    "But even some of those closest to Corbyn now talk of “steering the ship safely home”: completing the political project of shifting Labour off the centrist trajectory of the Blair years, towards a less interventionist foreign policy; and a more full-throated opposition to public spending cuts.

    They believe Corbyn’s leadership of the party, and the transformation in the ideological makeup of the membership, has changed the political landscape so that Labour would be safe in the hands of a leader from a different strand of party opinion, such as Lisa Nandy or even Yvette Cooper.

    But diehard Corbynites still fear unless they can win a crucial rule change at September’s party conference – dubbed the “McDonnell clause” by critics – that would allow a contender from the left wing of the party to run in a future leadership race with nominations from only 5% of MPs, they will risk a return to a brand of Labour politics they despise."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/11/corbyn-embarks-on-an-easter-policy-blitz-but-is-it-too-little-too-late
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    isam said:

    surbiton said:

    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
    Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
    Why ? Have I missed something ? I, of course, believe there should be no limit on anybody.
    I don't know, but I am sure I recall some Tories on here saying they were ashamed of their party over this.
    I would suggest that when you get to the point where you have to make these sorts of exceptions to a policy, the time is probably long overdue to go back and look at the policy as a whole rather than just trying to defend the exceptions.

    Pretty much every benefit these days has hard cases and complex & invasive forms to fill out.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
    Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
    Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,969
    Sandpit said:

    calum said:

    https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/851902449153708032

    What are the SNP suggesting, that there shouldn't be an exemption for rape victims in the legislation?
    They are suggesting that the woman should not have to fill in an 8 page form to prove she was raped to be able to get child credits. It is shocking that anyone can defend this , you should be hanging your head in shame.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,608
    https://twitter.com/littlelostlad/status/851895261555281923
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,256
    Looking at the subsets of today's YouGov.

    The Conservatives lead Labour in :

    2/2 Genders
    3/4 Ages
    2/2 Social Grades
    5/5 Regions

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x4597y9nuj/TimesResults_170406_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

    The single subset which Labour is ahead on has just 39% on the 10/10 certainty to vote scale.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
    No surprise that you support it.
    No surprise that you don't
  • HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 1,185
    isam said:

    https://twitter.com/littlelostlad/status/851895261555281923

    Aren't there two very emotional space cops in The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,969
    HYUFD said:

    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
    Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
    Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
    For heartless Tory barstewards maybe
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    HaroldO said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
    If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.
    What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?
    That is an excellent point. In the stereotype case this is aimed at (woman with 17 children, all called Wayne or Waynetta, by 17 fathers) why would she not claim abusive relationship and lack of consent, and how could her claim be disproved?
    Having read the form, you need two other signatures one of which has to be a healthcare professional or a social worker. If I read it rightly/
    Just one other signature, from someone you have spoken to at the time *or subsequently* about the coercion etc. It really isn't very difficult to see widespread exploitation of the exception.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    malcolmg said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
    I am beginning to realise it is not so straight-forward. I think it is the ignominy of having to fill in the form which is difficult for some people to accept.

    Does "rape" have to be proved ? This is a classic case of something which was perhaps well intentioned begin with, takes on complications simply to implement it. What about the right of the father ? Does he have a say ?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,892
    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    calum said:

    https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/851902449153708032

    What are the SNP suggesting, that there shouldn't be an exemption for rape victims in the legislation?
    They are suggesting that the woman should not have to fill in an 8 page form to prove she was raped to be able to get child credits. It is shocking that anyone can defend this , you should be hanging your head in shame.
    What would be your proposal, other than "Evil nasty Tories"?

    I dare say that if this exception had not been in the legislation, you'd be shouting "But what about the rape victims?" just as loudly.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    isam said:

    https://twitter.com/littlelostlad/status/851895261555281923

    A dentist friend of mine uses a version of that routine to calm his more nervous patients.

    Works very well, he says!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    surbiton said:

    malcolmg said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
    I am beginning to realise it is not so straight-forward. I think it is the ignominy of having to fill in the form which is difficult for some people to accept.

    Does "rape" have to be proved ? This is a classic case of something which was perhaps well intentioned begin with, takes on complications simply to implement it. What about the right of the father ? Does he have a say ?
    I don't believe it has to be proved in a court of law, and I don't think the father is involved at all.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    Did SNP MPs abuse short money on NYC visit?
    https://order-order.com/2017/04/11/snps-controversial-nyc-visit-timeline-know/
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    calum said:

    https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/851902449153708032

    What are the SNP suggesting, that there shouldn't be an exemption for rape victims in the legislation?
    They are suggesting that the woman should not have to fill in an 8 page form to prove she was raped to be able to get child credits. It is shocking that anyone can defend this , you should be hanging your head in shame.

    The woman fills out 1 page - the rest is completed by the healthcare/social worker.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,376
    malcolmg said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
    Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.
  • HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 1,185
    Ishmael_Z said:

    HaroldO said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    calum said:

    The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264

    This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?

    Well yes. Who isn't?
    Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?

    I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.

    There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
    Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
    If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.
    What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?
    That is an excellent point. In the stereotype case this is aimed at (woman with 17 children, all called Wayne or Waynetta, by 17 fathers) why would she not claim abusive relationship and lack of consent, and how could her claim be disproved?
    Having read the form, you need two other signatures one of which has to be a healthcare professional or a social worker. If I read it rightly/
    Just one other signature, from someone you have spoken to at the time *or subsequently* about the coercion etc. It really isn't very difficult to see widespread exploitation of the exception.
    Ok. I've always hated government forms, when my partner was filling in hers for her permanent residency in the UK she had to go through pages and pages. Thank fuck she didn't ask for any help, in fact she ended up teaching the Home Office people how to fill it in.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,256
    Re Melanchon

    If he did reach the run-off and even more so win wouldn't that be an enormous boost to Corbyn and his supporters..

    I really couldn't see Corbyn giving up with an example like that to emulate.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    another_richard said:

    Looking at the subsets of today's YouGov.

    The Conservatives lead Labour in :

    2/2 Genders
    3/4 Ages
    2/2 Social Grades
    5/5 Regions

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x4597y9nuj/TimesResults_170406_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

    The single subset which Labour is ahead on has just 39% on the 10/10 certainty to vote scale.

    Only two genders? :o

    Off to the reeducation camp with you....
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025