politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Maybe I’m reading GE2017 wrongly but this must be the worst be
Comments
-
-
Mr. Rich, indeed, was hoping it'd be fewer (I have a pittance on them at 1.66 to get under 10% of the votes).0
-
That 1.66 is quite safe, I'll assure you.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Rich, indeed, was hoping it'd be fewer (I have a pittance on them at 1.66 to get under 10% of the votes).
0 -
I was hoping they'd stand everywhere and beat natural laws total of lost depositsMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Rich, indeed, was hoping it'd be fewer (I have a pittance on them at 1.66 to get under 10% of the votes).
0 -
I think I wolf whistled at one of these ladies in Covent Garden... turns out she was a terrorist!
https://twitter.com/bbcdomc/status/8626615168390512650 -
Mr. Pulpstar, I suspect so too, but still.
One is a cautious gambler.0 -
i work in leeds now. but only a 40 mile round trip to my bit of rural north yorkshire.TheScreamingEagles said:
I worked in Leeds for six years.PaulM said:
Don't talk to me about sophisticationFreggles said:TSE klaxon
They are opening a Popworld bar in Leeds.
I've BEEN to Leeds
No offence
I much preferred to live over sixty miles away in rural North Yorkshire, when the days I could do a 130 mile round trip to work each day.
Mr Dancer is correct I think. York is far nicer.0 -
Ladbrokes/Coral have their own exchange (betdaq). Not sure if they use it to manage sportsbook liabilities.Omnium said:
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that all UK bookmakers will use Betfair when it suits them. PP and Betfair are now one and the same in case you didn't know.TheScreamingEagles said:
Pass, that's a question for the bookies.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Question, does PP - or any other bookie but for obvious reasons they are the most likely - actually trade on BF as well?TheScreamingEagles said:
I've been doing my best to get the Corbynites onto Betfair.Pulpstar said:
They need to get onto Betfair.TheScreamingEagles said:
Really stupid, especially when other bookies are offering better odds.Scrapheap_as_was said:this tipster perhaps?
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/862689855398187008
Unfortunately - in my experience - it's frustratingly illiquid most of the time.
One of the obstacles which would make bookies wary of laying off politics liabilities on exchanges is small rulebook differences - eg, is NI included? does a majority inc the speaker? etc etc.0 -
which 3?isam said:I think I wolf whistled at one of these ladies in Covent Garden... turns out she was a terrorist!
https://twitter.com/bbcdomc/status/8626615168390512650 -
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/05/11/jack-monroe-pulls-out-of-general-election-campaign-after-death-threats/
National Health Action candidate for Southend West withdraws.0 -
Hmmm, I feel i should have laid off my UKIP most seats 500/1 back when it was 50/1 when I had the chance.0
-
Next week Guido will be complaining about the Tories' 1930s manifesto: grammar schools, fox hunting and Europe isolated by fog in the Channel.Prodicus said:Ex Guido: 'Labour in chaos as its 1970s manifesto leaks.'
0 -
hey there were 5 women there a minute ago!paulyork64 said:
which 3?isam said:I think I wolf whistled at one of these ladies in Covent Garden... turns out she was a terrorist!
https://twitter.com/bbcdomc/status/8626615168390512650 -
Is the one on the left a snooker referee?isam said:I think I wolf whistled at one of these ladies in Covent Garden... turns out she was a terrorist!
https://twitter.com/bbcdomc/status/8626615168390512650 -
I think this is a hard GE to bet on really. There have been some obvious misprices early on, and I hope that I've made a few good bets because of that. However trying to create a bet I really like is pretty tough. I backed Tories most seats at 1.13 down to 1.05, but (quite wrongly) it becomes tough to really commit to such a bet.
I find myself with a portfolio of bets that generally require a Tory victory, and that's all good. I also have a substantial interest in the LDs not making any gains, but also Twickenham is a big bet for me. Quite why anyone thinks Vince should be 66% chance to win escapes me. I also have a substantial interest in the LDs doing poorly. The things that I should be able to really position myself on - Corbyn being a fruitcake for example I can't.
0 -
Perhaps we could rent Devil's Island from the French?isam said:I think I wolf whistled at one of these ladies in Covent Garden... turns out she was a terrorist!
https://twitter.com/bbcdomc/status/862661516839051265
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Island0 -
I stand to make £361.47 if UKIP get most seats. I'm not expecting to collect on this part of the bet.0
-
Are the police allowed to take photographs of their faces in the normal way?isam said:I think I wolf whistled at one of these ladies in Covent Garden... turns out she was a terrorist!
https://twitter.com/bbcdomc/status/862661516839051265
(Good evening, everybody)0 -
Don't all PPCs get death threats? I'm not condoning them - anyone making them should be brought to justice - but I think I remember talking to a Green Party candidate and saying that, although they've always been there, after Jo Cox and Andrew Pennington, people tend to take them a bit more seriously.Pulpstar said:http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/05/11/jack-monroe-pulls-out-of-general-election-campaign-after-death-threats/
National Health Action candidate for Southend West withdraws.0 -
"Ms Boular and Ms Dich wore Islamic dress, including full-face veils, which were partially lifted to show their eyes at the request of chief magistrate Emma Arbuthnot.AnneJGP said:
Are the police allowed to take photographs of their faces in the normal way?isam said:I think I wolf whistled at one of these ladies in Covent Garden... turns out she was a terrorist!
https://twitter.com/bbcdomc/status/862661516839051265
(Good evening, everybody)
Ms Bargouthi wore Islamic dress, but her face was visible"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-398858450 -
Yes I know, and you're quite right as to the minefield of interpretation.Pong said:
Ladbrokes/Coral have their own exchange (betdaq). Not sure if they use it to manage sportsbook liabilities.Omnium said:
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that all UK bookmakers will use Betfair when it suits them. PP and Betfair are now one and the same in case you didn't know.TheScreamingEagles said:
Pass, that's a question for the bookies.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Question, does PP - or any other bookie but for obvious reasons they are the most likely - actually trade on BF as well?TheScreamingEagles said:
I've been doing my best to get the Corbynites onto Betfair.Pulpstar said:
They need to get onto Betfair.TheScreamingEagles said:
Really stupid, especially when other bookies are offering better odds.Scrapheap_as_was said:this tipster perhaps?
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/862689855398187008
Unfortunately - in my experience - it's frustratingly illiquid most of the time.
One of the obstacles which would make bookies wary of laying off politics liabilities on exchanges is small rulebook differences - eg, is NI included? does a majority inc the speaker? etc etc.
Ladbrokes have certainly transacted on Betfair though. I suspect they'd be a top-20 customer, but I have no evidence to support that.0 -
YesAnneJGP said:
Are the police allowed to take photographs of their faces in the normal way?isam said:I think I wolf whistled at one of these ladies in Covent Garden... turns out she was a terrorist!
https://twitter.com/bbcdomc/status/862661516839051265
(Good evening, everybody)0 -
"Awwright lurve?!! Yeeeeaaahhh, git yer eyes out!!"isam said:I think I wolf whistled at one of these ladies in Covent Garden... turns out she was a terrorist!
https://twitter.com/bbcdomc/status/862661516839051265
Like that?0 -
Mr. Dancer may well be correct, but I will say up front, on the whole I like Leeds. It has some shitty bits, but doesn't everywhere, it has a vibrant night-life that wild horses couldn't get me to indulge in (I try and make sure I am tucked up in beddy-byes by 21:30) and it, as far as I can tell, has a crap selection of curry houses. But it has some spiffing architecture, some lovely pubs, and an attitude that I find wholly refreshing. If, God forbid, I was forced to live in a city then Leeds would be a contender for first place - above London.paulyork64 said:
i work in leeds now. but only a 40 mile round trip to my bit of rural north yorkshire.TheScreamingEagles said:
I worked in Leeds for six years.PaulM said:
Don't talk to me about sophisticationFreggles said:TSE klaxon
They are opening a Popworld bar in Leeds.
I've BEEN to Leeds
No offence
I much preferred to live over sixty miles away in rural North Yorkshire, when the days I could do a 130 mile round trip to work each day.
Mr Dancer is correct I think. York is far nicer.0 -
Faces should be visible in court.0
-
Thank you.TheScreamingEagles said:
YesAnneJGP said:
Are the police allowed to take photographs of their faces in the normal way?isam said:I think I wolf whistled at one of these ladies in Covent Garden... turns out she was a terrorist!
https://twitter.com/bbcdomc/status/862661516839051265
(Good evening, everybody)
(and to @isam)0 -
Agreed.Morris_Dancer said:Faces should be visible in court.
0 -
It's at the discretion of Hizzoner.Morris_Dancer said:Faces should be visible in court.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/23/judge-refuses-muslim-to-wear-burqa-court0 -
There are 13 candidates in Maidenhead, 10 in Islington North, 4 in Westmoreland & Lonsdale, 4 in Buckingham.0
-
Yes, however I stand by what I said. I have some knowledge of this area.Pulpstar said:
A good bookie shouldn't need to , in the long run they're giving away profit if the odds are being made correctly.Omnium said:
Ladbrokes have certainly transacted on Betfair though. I suspect they'd be a top-20 customer, but I have no evidence to support that.0 -
Don't panic. Pop means fizzy lemonade in these parts.Freggles said:TSE klaxon
They are opening a Popworld bar in Leeds.
0 -
Aren't all losing bets as terrible as each other in the only really valid sense?
I've had plenty of bets I thought were very canny, but which didn't win, and the money is exactly as lost as with my dumb bets.0 -
Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.0 -
Mr. Loony, only four in Farron's seat, and one's a fish finger?
If his majority is small, it may be the fish finger that saves him.0 -
Where do you get your information about candidates?JohnLoony said:There are 13 candidates in Maidenhead, 10 in Islington North, 4 in Westmoreland & Lonsdale, 4 in Buckingham.
0 -
Indeed, I got confused between majority and plurality while on the phone.Pulpstar said:
It'll still be mathematically possible even if UKIP run around 80 candidates, providing there are enough independents/NHA/Yorkshire First etc etc.Sandpit said:Surely if it becomes clear that UKIP aren't fielding enough candidates to win a majority, then it's actually impossible for that outcome and the bookie should refund? (But not in this specific case, as the bet was made before nominations closed)
UKIP Majority is impossible without 326 nominations, whereas the largest party could conceivably be anyone.0 -
Don;t think so:SirNorfolkPassmore said:Aren't all losing bets as terrible as each other in the only really valid sense?
I've had plenty of bets I thought were very canny, but which didn't win, and the money is exactly as lost as with my dumb bets.
If you can back 2 horses at 5-4 in a two horse race then one of the bets will definitely lose but you'll end up ahead.
If you back two horses at 4-5 then one bet will also definitely lose but you'll end up behind.
Is this bet value is always the question.0 -
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.0 -
'Die you bitch" is not a death threat, but I'm pretty sure it's probably an offence. A friend of mine got herself in a sticky mess on twitter after saying something she shouldn't. She got an email from someone saying he was going to rape her.bookseller said:
Don't all PPCs get death threats? I'm not condoning them - anyone making them should be brought to justice - but I think I remember talking to a Green Party candidate and saying that, although they've always been there, after Jo Cox and Andrew Pennington, people tend to take them a bit more seriously.Pulpstar said:http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/05/11/jack-monroe-pulls-out-of-general-election-campaign-after-death-threats/
National Health Action candidate for Southend West withdraws.
0 -
BUT if you bet your life savings on a good value loser, you will still have lost it.Pulpstar said:
Don;t think so:SirNorfolkPassmore said:Aren't all losing bets as terrible as each other in the only really valid sense?
I've had plenty of bets I thought were very canny, but which didn't win, and the money is exactly as lost as with my dumb bets.
If you can back 2 horses at 5-4 in a two horse race then one of the bets will definitely lose but you'll end up ahead.
If you back two horses at 4-5 then one bet will also definitely lose but you'll end up behind.
Is this bet value is always the question.0 -
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.TheScreamingEagles said:
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.0 -
I gain £3560 so I'm looking for a bet effort for Nuttal and crew.AlastairMeeks said:I stand to make £361.47 if UKIP get most seats. I'm not expecting to collect on this part of the bet.
0 -
i'll look up moreMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
armouries is definitely on my list for when my grandson is a little older.0 -
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.RobD said:
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.TheScreamingEagles said:
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.0 -
What inference, though? That you are disguising your face in order to make it more difficult to know if you are lying?TheScreamingEagles said:
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.RobD said:
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.TheScreamingEagles said:
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.0 -
Mr. Eagles, in court, a defendant's reaction may give away their innocence or guilt. If they've covered their face, they've covered their reaction.
In a free society, all defendants should be treated equally.0 -
I'm puzzled as to why Welsh Labour should be amongst the most vociferous opponents of Corbyn's suicide note. If anywhere in the UK was going to support renationalisation and a redistributive agenda I'd have thought Wales would have been near the top.0
-
Oddly enough when I did jury service, one of the witnesses identified the perpetrator in a GBH case from the dock. Given that they had not previously been able to pick them out of a line up, the defence objected and the judge declared a mistrial.RobD said:
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.TheScreamingEagles said:
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.0 -
Doing the Len Ganley stance....chestnut said:
Is the one on the left a snooker referee?isam said:I think I wolf whistled at one of these ladies in Covent Garden... turns out she was a terrorist!
https://twitter.com/bbcdomc/status/8626615168390512650 -
That'd be unwise.TheWhiteRabbit said:
BUT if you bet your life savings on a good value loser, you will still have lost it.Pulpstar said:
Don;t think so:SirNorfolkPassmore said:Aren't all losing bets as terrible as each other in the only really valid sense?
I've had plenty of bets I thought were very canny, but which didn't win, and the money is exactly as lost as with my dumb bets.
If you can back 2 horses at 5-4 in a two horse race then one of the bets will definitely lose but you'll end up ahead.
If you back two horses at 4-5 then one bet will also definitely lose but you'll end up behind.
Is this bet value is always the question.
I think there were some serious Kelly criterion calculations that could be done around Macron though.0 -
That, and some people will conclude that you've got something to hide, and there are of course some people who don't like the burka and the niqab in the UK, myself included.TheWhiteRabbit said:
What inference, though? That you are disguising your face in order to make it more difficult to know if you are lying?TheScreamingEagles said:
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.RobD said:
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.TheScreamingEagles said:
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
As a dedicated follower of fashion, I also look down on people, who wear dental floss thin ties, or the front part of the tie is shorter than the back part.
And don't even get me started on people who wear trainers with suits.0 -
You say that and you are a lawyer? Stunning. The oral, personal nature of the court system has just passed you by has it?TheScreamingEagles said:
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.0 -
See my post directly below yours.HurstLlama said:
You say that and you are a lawyer? Stunning. The oral, personal nature of the court system has just passed you by has it?TheScreamingEagles said:
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.0 -
What if members of the jury are wearing a burqa/niqab? Are they allowed to?TheScreamingEagles said:
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.RobD said:
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.TheScreamingEagles said:
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.0 -
Yes, it seems harder than 2015 so far and only 4 weeks are left.Omnium said:I think this is a hard GE to bet on really. There have been some obvious misprices early on, and I hope that I've made a few good bets because of that. However trying to create a bet I really like is pretty tough. I backed Tories most seats at 1.13 down to 1.05, but (quite wrongly) it becomes tough to really commit to such a bet.
I find myself with a portfolio of bets that generally require a Tory victory, and that's all good. I also have a substantial interest in the LDs not making any gains, but also Twickenham is a big bet for me. Quite why anyone thinks Vince should be 66% chance to win escapes me. I also have a substantial interest in the LDs doing poorly. The things that I should be able to really position myself on - Corbyn being a fruitcake for example I can't.
Some have been very good value, like Lib.Dems <27 seats @ 1.83, i.e. before the mid-band plunged to 15.5.
I still have a short list - actually, quite a long list - of constituency odds to assess & maybe bet on. Mostly the kind where quoted odds are 1.2-1.3 but I think they're really 1.02-1.05, or the odds are 2.0 and should be 1.4 ... that kind of thing. I think anything much longer has gone. I tend to agree on Twickenham.
Against that, so far there've been no Fallon attacks for 'these disgraceful proposals for unilateral disarmament'. There were more attacks on Foot in 1983 than there've been on Corbyn.0 -
However, it would be difficult for a judge wearing a long horsehair wig to keep a straight face while telling someone off for being inappropriately dressed.Morris_Dancer said:Faces should be visible in court.
0 -
Absolutely, but people in a court still shouldn't be permitted to be conceal their identity and/or hide their emotions from the jury.TheScreamingEagles said:
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.0 -
We just need to learn a way of dealing with people in disguise. Personally I think it's 'sorry, go away, and come back when I can see your face', but it's up to all of us to decide as we see fit. I think that allowing people to discriminate as they see fit is a clear corollary of this. If you want to say 'no stupid people with tall hair admitted' then that's your choice.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
I can tell you now that if you tip up for an interview for a job in my company and that you wear a big black sack then it won't be a positive. I will (because I am human) judge you for this a little, but the questions that follow are the most important. I would bet very heavily that there is no woman alive that is happy being wrapped up in the way that Islam does things and can at the same time answer a pretty basic question well.
I make no judgement as to who might be wrong in these things - but someone is.0 -
It is at the discretion of Hizzoner.TudorRose said:
What if members of the jury are wearing a burqa/niqab? Are they allowed to?TheScreamingEagles said:
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.RobD said:
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.TheScreamingEagles said:
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Some are fine with it, some say no.0 -
They might be afraid that the nationalised entities would be controlled from London. But also remember that renationalisation might bring the future of Port Talbot steelworks into question again.TudorRose said:I'm puzzled as to why Welsh Labour should be amongst the most vociferous opponents of Corbyn's suicide note. If anywhere in the UK was going to support renationalisation and a redistributive agenda I'd have thought Wales would have been near the top.
0 -
Interesting seating arrangement for Barnier's speech today.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/barnier-says-brexit-will-come-at-a-cost-but-we-are-where-we-are-1.30796120 -
Rigid as a Teddy Bear...MarqueeMark said:
Doing the Len Ganley stance....chestnut said:
Is the one on the left a snooker referee?isam said:I think I wolf whistled at one of these ladies in Covent Garden... turns out she was a terrorist!
https://twitter.com/bbcdomc/status/8626615168390512650 -
UKIP arent standing in aberconwy or clwyd west which are cast iron Con Holds anyway. or arfon. but they are standing in Ynys Mon which is much closer.0
-
If a jury member does wear the full face covering, is there a check on entering the court that it's the same person it was before?TheScreamingEagles said:
It is at the discretion of Hizzoner.TudorRose said:
What if members of the jury are wearing a burqa/niqab? Are they allowed to?TheScreamingEagles said:
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.RobD said:
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.TheScreamingEagles said:
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Some are fine with it, some say no.0 -
I believe so.AnneJGP said:
If a jury member does wear the full face covering, is there a check on entering the court that it's the same person it was before?TheScreamingEagles said:
It is at the discretion of Hizzoner.TudorRose said:
What if members of the jury are wearing a burqa/niqab? Are they allowed to?TheScreamingEagles said:
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.RobD said:
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.TheScreamingEagles said:
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Some are fine with it, some say no.0 -
Whats the sauce for all this info ?paulyork64 said:UKIP arent standing in aberconwy or clwyd west which are cast iron Con Holds anyway. or arfon. but they are standing in Ynys Mon which is much closer.
0 -
Would you agree that only one of the three women depicted in the drawing above is correctly dressed to appear on a courtroom in a criminal case?TheScreamingEagles said:
It is at the discretion of Hizzoner.TudorRose said:
What if members of the jury are wearing a burqa/niqab? Are they allowed to?TheScreamingEagles said:
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.RobD said:
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.TheScreamingEagles said:
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Some are fine with it, some say no.
Because as I understand it that is the rule here in the sandpit, for criminal (as opposed to family/sharia) cases.0 -
Some bets can look like certain winners at short odds, but they're actually not.
UKIP to win A seat I reckon is amongst those.0 -
Interesting, many thanks.TheScreamingEagles said:
I believe so.AnneJGP said:
If a jury member does wear the full face covering, is there a check on entering the court that it's the same person it was before?TheScreamingEagles said:
It is at the discretion of Hizzoner.TudorRose said:
What if members of the jury are wearing a burqa/niqab? Are they allowed to?TheScreamingEagles said:
My view is if you're going to be the defendant in a trial, and want to wear the burqa or a niqab, then you should expect the jury to draw a negative conclusion from that.RobD said:
Apart from when something such as identity is critical to the situation.TheScreamingEagles said:
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Some are fine with it, some say no.0 -
googling and finding local newspaper pages. ukip standing in all 3 sunderland seatsPulpstar said:
Whats the sauce for all this info ?paulyork64 said:UKIP arent standing in aberconwy or clwyd west which are cast iron Con Holds anyway. or arfon. but they are standing in Ynys Mon which is much closer.
0 -
@brtnelexben on twitter seems quite good for who is standing or not
https://twitter.com/brtnelexben/status/8627116734629437450 -
devon:
www.devonlive.com/devon-general-election-candidates-2017/story...detail/story.html0 -
no ukip in exeter0
-
Re Burkhas and the like, it's very simple: would a man be allowed to wear a balaclava in this circumstance? If he would, then it's fine. If not, then it isn't.0
-
excellent, thanksisam said:@brtnelexben on twitter seems quite good for who is standing or not
https://twitter.com/brtnelexben/status/8627116734629437450 -
Harris poll for the French parliamentary elections:
LREM 29%, +3 / 7 May
FN 20%, -2
LR-UDI 20%, -2
FI 14%, +1
PS-PRG 7%, -10 -
"sauce"...why, "HP" of course!Pulpstar said:
Whats the sauce for all this info ?paulyork64 said:UKIP arent standing in aberconwy or clwyd west which are cast iron Con Holds anyway. or arfon. but they are standing in Ynys Mon which is much closer.
(Now, where did I leave my coat?)0 -
Look on the local council website for the constituency you're interested in.AlastairMeeks said:
Where do you get your information about candidates?JohnLoony said:There are 13 candidates in Maidenhead, 10 in Islington North, 4 in Westmoreland & Lonsdale, 4 in Buckingham.
0 -
0
-
Deleted...beaten to it!Pulpstar said:
Whats the sauce for all this info ?paulyork64 said:UKIP arent standing in aberconwy or clwyd west which are cast iron Con Holds anyway. or arfon. but they are standing in Ynys Mon which is much closer.
0 -
UKIP aren't standing in...
Don Valley, Stoke North, Stoke Central, Doncaster Central, Brum Northfield, Birmingham Erdington. Batley and Spen, Wentworth and Deane
@election_data on twitter0 -
Foot vs Corbyn - I'd vote Foot without a second thought (apologies for the rhyme). Even as a Tory voter I regard Mr Foot in high esteem. He'd have demeaned himself and voted Corbyn now. Corbyn though is not of our world, he has no comprehension of what it means to work for a living, he has no idea about how our economy works.rural_voter said:
Yes, it seems harder than 2015 so far and only 4 weeks are left.Omnium said:I think this is a hard GE to bet on really. There have been some obvious misprices early on, and I hope that I've made a few good bets because of that. However trying to create a bet I really like is pretty tough. I backed Tories most seats at 1.13 down to 1.05, but (quite wrongly) it becomes tough to really commit to such a bet.
I find myself with a portfolio of bets that generally require a Tory victory, and that's all good. I also have a substantial interest in the LDs not making any gains, but also Twickenham is a big bet for me. Quite why anyone thinks Vince should be 66% chance to win escapes me. I also have a substantial interest in the LDs doing poorly. The things that I should be able to really position myself on - Corbyn being a fruitcake for example I can't.
Some have been very good value, like Lib.Dems <27 seats @ 1.83, i.e. before the mid-band plunged to 15.5.
I still have a short list - actually, quite a long list - of constituency odds to assess & maybe bet on. Mostly the kind where quoted odds are 1.2-1.3 but I think they're really 1.02-1.05, or the odds are 2.0 and should be 1.4 ... that kind of thing. I think anything much longer has gone. I tend to agree on Twickenham.
Against that, so far there've been no Fallon attacks for 'these disgraceful proposals for unilateral disarmament'. There were more attacks on Foot in 1983 than there've been on Corbyn. </p>0 -
0
-
I see the BBC is going big on Labour abolishing tuition fees but the really scary thing about this manifesto is it should be called the UNITE Manifesto.0
-
Today's manifesto 'launch' hasn't changed the odds over at Hill's one jot. The Tories are still a mind boggling 1/33 to achieve a majoirty, and 1/100 to get the most seats. Is there any precedent for these kinds of numbers?0
-
Talking head on SkyNews just said public ownership was good because it prevents money being wasted on shareholder payments....
I give up.0 -
Asking for a friend:TheScreamingEagles said:
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Isn't it the Will of Allah (SWT) that we are all born stark, raving naked?0 -
Isn’t Don Valley where Tissue_Price is standing for the blue team? Good news if so I suspect.isam said:UKIP aren't standing in...
Don Valley, Stoke North, Stoke Central, Doncaster Central, Brum Northfield, Birmingham Erdington. Batley and Spen, Wentworth and Deane
@election_data on twitter0 -
Good news for Aaron!isam said:UKIP aren't standing in...
Don Valley, Stoke North, Stoke Central, Doncaster Central, Brum Northfield, Birmingham Erdington. Batley and Spen, Wentworth and Deane
@election_data on twitter0 -
No Kippers in Wakefield or Luton North0
-
-
Are they giving up so easily?isam said:No Kippers in Wakefield or Luton North
0 -
Always difficult searching twitter for SouthWestTrains!!Sunil_Prasannan said:
Asking for a friend:TheScreamingEagles said:
Surely in a free, tolerant, and liberal society we shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot wear (unless it is likely to incite, such as wearing a t shirt saying 'Kill all muslims/jews' that sort of stuff.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, only in the most exceptional cases (ie if someone has terrible burns and has bandaging) should faces be permitted to be covered.
Mr. Llama, indeed, ground floors are often modern (and they buggered the entrance to the Victoria Quarter by replacing black iron and gold lettering with white steel and rubbish glass), but first floors and higher often look rather nice.
And the Royal Armouries is super, of course.
Isn't it the Will of Allah (SWT) that we are all born stark, raving naked?0 -
Gareth Snell, a latter day Oswald O'Brien?TheScreamingEagles said:Jesus my bet might be a WINNER
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/862720118161387523
Hard to believe the Tories would not have given him at the least a severe fright if they hadn't been distracted by Copeland.0
