politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At 100/1 or longer Osborne, DMiliband & TBlair for next LD lea

The old phrase - made his excuses and left springs to mind.

"Education Minister Nadhim Zahawi was present, but that he left early because he felt "it was a bizarre and uncomfortable event".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42801178

Was surprised by story last night, and even more surprised by the impact this morning.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/status/956115456401772544

There's a genuine debate to be had about whether we go for a Brexit that is pointless but limits the damage or a Brexit that is destructive but meaningful. That's a more useful discussion at this stage than attempts at second referendums or denial about the choices to be made.

https://twitter.com/jonwalker121/status/956124527171461120

Richard_Tyndall said:

Mortimer said:

dr_spyn said:

That FT story has escalated quickly.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/956120804428779520

Twitter mob wins, a good cause loses. Very sad.

Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.

Fucking morons.

It does seem like a stupid decision. It's not like taking money that has been obtained unethically.

Mr. Sandpit, quite. Reminds me of a hospital last year that refused funds raised charitably by men dressing up as female nurses.

Great. You held onto your moral high ground. Less money for life-saving medical treatment, but at least some pretentious prick feels good about themselves.

FF43 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/status/956115456401772544

There's a genuine debate to be had about whether we go for a Brexit that is pointless but limits the damage or a Brexit that is destructive but meaningful. That's a more useful discussion at this stage than attempts at second referendums or denial about the choices to be made.

Those are not the only twp alternatives no matter how desperately you wish it to be so.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, quite. Reminds me of a hospital last year that refused funds raised charitably by men dressing up as female nurses.

Great. You held onto your moral high ground. Less money for life-saving medical treatment, but at least some pretentious prick feels good about themselves.

If a wunch of bankers want to behave like idiots for the night but end up with a massive cheque for a worthwhile charity, let them bloody get on with it and say thank you for the donation.
SJW Twittermob wins again.

Stark_Dawning said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Mortimer said:

dr_spyn said:

That FT story has escalated quickly.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/956120804428779520

Twitter mob wins, a good cause loses. Very sad.

Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.

Fucking morons.

Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.

Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.

Having money, or raising money for charity, does not give you the right to grope or sexually harass women.

I thought that would be the case if you are a taxi driver or a banker ...

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/956099257148243970

I'm really, really hoping that at some point Sarah V. has done a 'blame the parents' diatribe at some point.

JosiasJessop said:

Having money, or raising money for charity, does not give you the right to grope or sexually harass women.

I thought that would be the case if you are a taxi driver or a banker ...

Is it like a modern day papal indulgence? Donations to charity on a sliding scale depending on the severity of the sexual abuse.

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/956099257148243970

I'm really, really hoping that at some point Sarah V. has done a 'blame the parents' diatribe at some point.

Pictures that make me weep for today's young women:

SARAH VINE on how British society is in the grip of an out of control binge-drinking culture

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4080750/amp/Pictures-make-weep-today-s-young-women-SARAH-VINE-British-society-grip-binge-drinking-culture.html

archer101au said:

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/956118277788504071

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/956118684648525824

Looks like the Tory Brexit extremists have finally twigged what's going on.

Yes, we know what is going on. A betrayal of the democratic vote to leave the EU. An agreement to pay 40bn in return for nothing. An agreement that we must have our trade rules set by the EU in return for a substandard trade agreement.

May will not be PM by October.

Interesting thread on the different camps in the Tory party at the moment:
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/956097734150447104

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/pa/status/956118593191727105

That's a shame. Hopefully not all previous donations.

Stark_Dawning said:

Sean_F said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Mortimer said:

dr_spyn said:

That FT story has escalated quickly.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/956120804428779520

Twitter mob wins, a good cause loses. Very sad.

Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.

Fucking morons.

Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.

The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.

Serious question. If a group of paedophiles got together and donated money should GOS accept it? I'm testing the limits of your consequentialism here.

It would depend whether the purpose of the event in question was to promote acceptance of sex between adults and children. I would imagine that would conflict with the charitable objects of the hospital.

If it was simply a group of paedophiles making a donation to the charity, (eg as a way of atoning for their past actions) then I would see no problem.

AlastairMeeks said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Mortimer said:

dr_spyn said:

That FT story has escalated quickly.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/956120804428779520

Twitter mob wins, a good cause loses. Very sad.

Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.

Fucking morons.

Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.

Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.

That's the odd thing. I can see why they want to return this year's donation (for exactly that reason). But why previous years?

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/status/956115456401772544

There's a genuine debate to be had about whether we go for a Brexit that is pointless but limits the damage or a Brexit that is destructive but meaningful. That's a more useful discussion at this stage than attempts at second referendums or denial about the choices to be made.

Those are not the only twp alternatives no matter how desperately you wish it to be so.

I don't particularly wish it to be so. I do recognise Brexiteers won't put the fundamental choice in quite those terms. The problem is that they are not collectively prepared to make any choices with consequences. To be fair neither are Remainers.

Making choices is the whole point of sovereignty.

Indeed. But the choices you are trying to use to constrain are options are not grounded in reality. As such your comment was based on a false dichotomy.

A bit like this one ?

Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.

Fucking morons....

Only a little more polite.

Sean_F said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Mortimer said:

dr_spyn said:

That FT story has escalated quickly.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/956120804428779520

Twitter mob wins, a good cause loses. Very sad.

Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.

Fucking morons.

Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.

The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.

It's not just about that dinner, it's about rejecting the misogynist culture it typifies.Quite right too. If nobody ever takes a stand nothing ever changes.

Ishmael_Z said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Sean_F said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Mortimer said:

dr_spyn said:

That FT story has escalated quickly.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/956120804428779520

Twitter mob wins, a good cause loses. Very sad.

Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.

Fucking morons.

Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.

The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.

Serious question. If a group of paedophiles got together and donated money should GOS accept it? I'm testing the limits of your consequentialism here.

The waitresses or whatever you call them were responding to an advertisement requiring them to be tall, thin and pretty and wear black underwear. Until we hear that anything happened which caused anyone to go to the police I am comfortable with the assumption that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and don't need their decisions second guessed by a lot of patronizing elderly white men.

'they knew what they were letting themselves in for'.

Victim blaming at its most magnificent. Let's be clear: the people in the wrong here are not the women paid to be there, but with the men who felt the women were objects to be felt up, and the organisers who seem to have encouraged it.

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

The waitresses or whatever you call them were responding to an advertisement requiring them to be tall, thin and pretty and wear black underwear. Until we hear that anything happened which caused anyone to go to the police I am comfortable with the assumption that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and don't need their decisions second guessed by a lot of patronizing elderly white men.

https://twitter.com/sophierunning/status/956074053902708737

The only warning within the job description was black "sexy" underwear. Personally it sounds like something from the 1970's...

Scott_P said:

Sean_F said:

If it was simply a group of paedophiles making a donation to the charity, (eg as a way of atoning for their past actions) then I would see no problem.

https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/956129152205230082

But, is there any reason to believe that the money was obtained illegally or unethically?

David_Evershed said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Great stuff ...
https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/955905430588461057

One advantage of an NHS is that one government department should be able to talk to the other and clear these things quickly and simply. Mrs Rudd’s department is looking increasingly disfunctional and tail-chasing.

Surely this is a feature, not a bug?

If net immigration target for Non-EU migrants is to be met, then surely it is a good thing, particularly if it forces up salaries for indiginous British staff. If it is good for plasterers, then surely it is good for psychiatrists too?

Now I know you’re trolling. Any sensible immigration system allows for those with key shortage skills to be fast tracked. I’m sure you’d agree that healthcare professionals at any salary come into this category!

Actually according to the quote they don't. Certain specialities of medics do but these specific ones don't.

Which is why the Home Office need a kick up the arse! If the NHS need staff then immigration rules need to reflect that, not the other way around.

85% of the world is outside of the EU but are discriminated against on immigration by the UK when compared with EU countries.

Actually it's 93%

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Mortimer said:

dr_spyn said:

That FT story has escalated quickly.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/956120804428779520

Twitter mob wins, a good cause loses. Very sad.

Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.

Fucking morons.

Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.

Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.

Indeed. But that's a slightly different argument. GOH would be making a calculation that they would be financially worse off if they kept the money. They would not be making a primarily moral argument.

Still, if one refuses money which is somehow "morally" tainted, how far will this principle extend? JM Barrie, for instance, might not have passed muster in today's censorious world.

Will Oxford colleges receiving money from Saudi Arabia return this and refuse to receive any more in future? That country's abuse of women is many times worse than anything alleged to have happened at this event, for instance.

I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?

And - sorry for being boringly legalistic here - might we want to remember that an allegation is simply that. People accused of abuse are innocent until proven guilty. Elsewhere in the papers there are stories of men accused of pretty vile abuse - rape - who turned out to be innocent and who have had their lives and reputations ruined. We might want to bear that in mind before running to condemn on the basis of a story in a newspaper. GOH might also want to remember that before making an irrevocable decision.

Or we can just decide everything on the basis of who manages to whip up the most publicity - and to hell with facts and due process.

Post of the thread.

archer101au said:

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/956118277788504071

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/956118684648525824

Looks like the Tory Brexit extremists have finally twigged what's going on.

Yes, we know what is going on. A betrayal of the democratic vote to leave the EU. An agreement to pay 40bn in return for nothing. An agreement that we must have our trade rules set by the EU in return for a substandard trade agreement.

May will not be PM by October.

Chill.

We're leaving the EU - it's what you wanted and voted for, right?

Did I miss the appendix on the back of the ballot paper?

Richard_Tyndall said:

David_Evershed said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Great stuff ...
https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/955905430588461057

One advantage of an NHS is that one government department should be able to talk to the other and clear these things quickly and simply. Mrs Rudd’s department is looking increasingly disfunctional and tail-chasing.

Surely this is a feature, not a bug?

If net immigration target for Non-EU migrants is to be met, then surely it is a good thing, particularly if it forces up salaries for indiginous British staff. If it is good for plasterers, then surely it is good for psychiatrists too?

Now I know you’re trolling. Any sensible immigration system allows for those with key shortage skills to be fast tracked. I’m sure you’d agree that healthcare professionals at any salary come into this category!

Actually according to the quote they don't. Certain specialities of medics do but these specific ones don't.

Which is why the Home Office need a kick up the arse! If the NHS need staff then immigration rules need to reflect that, not the other way around.

85% of the world is outside of the EU but are discriminated against on immigration by the UK when compared with EU countries.

Actually it's 93%

And how much of the world is outside Lincolnshire?

archer101au said:

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/956118277788504071

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/956118684648525824

Looks like the Tory Brexit extremists have finally twigged what's going on.

Yes, we know what is going on. A betrayal of the democratic vote to leave the EU. An agreement to pay 40bn in return for nothing. An agreement that we must have our trade rules set by the EU in return for a substandard trade agreement.

May will not be PM by October.

Yes she will (on the balance of probabilities).

1. Any leadership election is inherently unpredictable - there is no guarantee for Brexit Ultras that the MPs wouldn't put Rudd vs Hunt to the membership. Brexit is only a determining factor for a small number of MPs; certainly not enough to ensure that the final two contains at least one Leaver (FWIW, I think it probably would, but is not assured).

2. No new PM will face different circumstances in terms of the EU position. The factors that have propelled towards a soft Brexit would have to be faced by anyone else.

3. Taking two months out of negotiations for a leadership election will look ridiculous in both the country and Europe, and would undoubtedly be used by critics as a reason as to why Britain ended up with a bad deal (or no deal).

4. A leadership election now would split the Conservatives down the middle in an unprecedentledly bitter way. The reason there isn't that division is because the issue hasn't been forced and probably won't be. With no Conservative majority in parliament, there's no guarantee that the DUP would stick by the new PM - or at least, not without a new deal.

5. She will almost certainly be gone by 2022; probably next year, in my opinion. Many MPs will agree with the critique of May but will also buy the not-now argument. They will not want a VoNC at all, as no outcome is helpful (if May loses, it's the arguments above; if she wins comfortably, it makes it harder to remove her before 2022; if she wins narrowly, she is exposed as a lame duck).

MikeSmithson said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I reckon if Norman Lamb was leading the Lib Dems they’d be doing a lot better.

I doubt it, most leftwingers are sticking with Corbyn and Tory voters are strongly pro Leave now

Incorrect. 34% of current CON voters in latest Opinium poll said they'd vote Remain in a new Brexit referendum

Which given 42% of Tory voters voted Remain in the actual referendum is a fall of almost 10%.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

Other polls now have over 70% of Tory voters backing Leave.

Plus under FPTP in most seats at parliamentary level the battle is Tory v Labour so the LDs get squeezed which is why they still want PR

You are the one make ridiculous assertions. If you want to make a declaration on what a group of voters think on PB you need to source it. All your posts sound like wishful thinking

I have sourced it, as Philip Thompson said 66% minimum Tories backing Leave is pretty overwhelming and as I pointed out almost 10% higher than June 2016

On topic: Hah !
Off topic: Sad to see Tessa Jowell battling against the big C, but she will put her energy, enthusiasm and intellect toward getting a better outcome for fellow brain cancer sufferers, which can only be a positive. Not to write her off prematurely, but she will definitely will be a big loss to politics.

Dura_Ace said:

Sean_F said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Mortimer said:

dr_spyn said:

That FT story has escalated quickly.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/956120804428779520

Twitter mob wins, a good cause loses. Very sad.

Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.

Fucking morons.

Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.

The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.

It's not just about that dinner, it's about rejecting the misogynist culture it typifies.Quite right too. If nobody ever takes a stand nothing ever changes.

So - no money will be accepted from individuals and organisations coming from a misogynist culture. No money from any individual/organisation associated with Saudi Arabia or, indeed, anywhere in the Islamic world. No money from China for instance - look at their attitude to female babies: utterly horrific. What about India - and the well attested stories of rape and harassment of women in public?

How about closer to home? Italy, for instance: look at Italian TV and the culture it fosters.

Just to be clear: telling applicants for a job what underwear they should wear is gross and an indication that the "job" is a pretty sleazy one. I would not want my daughter doing such a job and I would not want my sons going to an event advertised in such a way. Boorishness is wrong. Abuse even more so.

I am amazed, though, that this organisation even thought it acceptable to behave in such a way. It is so reminiscent of old-style behaviour which was much more common in the past. Did no-one see the obvious problems with what they were proposing?

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Mortimer said:

dr_spyn said:

That FT story has escalated quickly.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/956120804428779520

Twitter mob wins, a good cause loses. Very sad.

Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.

Fucking morons.

Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.

Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.

Indeed. But that's a slightly different argument. GOH would be making a calculation that they would be financially worse off if they kept the money. They would not be making a primarily moral argument.

Still, if one refuses money which is somehow "morally" tainted, how far will this principle extend? JM Barrie, for instance, might not have passed muster in today's censorious world.

Will Oxford colleges receiving money from Saudi Arabia return this and refuse to receive any more in future? That country's abuse of women is many times worse than anything alleged to have happened at this event, for instance.

I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?

And - sorry for being boringly legalistic here - might we want to remember that an allegation is simply that. People accused of abuse are innocent until proven guilty. Elsewhere in the papers there are stories of men accused of pretty vile abuse - rape - who turned out to be innocent and who have had their lives and reputations ruined. We might want to bear that in mind before running to condemn on the basis of a story in a newspaper. GOH might also want to remember that before making an irrevocable decision.

Or we can just decide everything on the basis of who manages to whip up the most publicity - and to hell with facts and due process.

Come to think of it, quite a lot of Exeter University wouldn't have got built, without donations from various Gulf States.

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Mortimer said:

dr_spyn said:

That FT story has escalated quickly.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/956120804428779520

Twitter mob wins, a good cause loses. Very sad.

Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.

Fucking morons.

Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.

Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.

Indeed. But that's a slightly different argument. GOH would be making a calculation that they would be financially worse off if they kept the money. They would not be making a primarily moral argument.

Still, if one refuses money which is somehow "morally" tainted, how far will this principle extend? JM Barrie, for instance, might not have passed muster in today's censorious world.

Will Oxford colleges receiving money from Saudi Arabia return this and refuse to receive any more in future? That country's abuse of women is many times worse than anything alleged to have happened at this event, for instance.

I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?

And - sorry for being boringly legalistic here - might we want to remember that an allegation is simply that. People accused of abuse are innocent until proven guilty. Elsewhere in the papers there are stories of men accused of pretty vile abuse - rape - who turned out to be innocent and who have had their lives and reputations ruined. We might want to bear that in mind before running to condemn on the basis of a story in a newspaper. GOH might also want to remember that before making an irrevocable decision.

Or we can just decide everything on the basis of who manages to whip up the most publicity - and to hell with facts and due process.

It sounds like the kind of events that Deutsche put on in the 1990s and early 2000s. Very unpleasant. I went to one & never again.

I have some rather more recent stories from which are equally - if not more - gross. One for drinks rather than this forum.

I'm amazed that anyone at this club thought this even remotely a good idea. Morons.

TheJezziah said:

There is an enormous gaping gap in the centre and centre-left for someone to fill. When Labour last went wildly leftwards, the Alliance had heavyweight hitters to the extent that they briefly polled 50% and maintained 20%+ through most of the 1980s. It's a measure of their fall that in similar (not identical, I grant), circumstances, they can't even reach double-figures.
......................................

It is sort of the right assessment but from the wrong angle (in my occasionally incorrect opinion), the shift this time is politically in the opposite direction. The Conservatives are going right just as the country is beginning to go left, surely the opportunity lies more on the centre and centre right with the Blairites and Cameroons, who I think actually make up a far smaller percentage of the voting population than they are given credit for, they certainly have a large media presence.

On thinks like renationalising public utilities and more money for the NHS and taxing the rich the public is moving left, on raising their own taxes, immigration (as the Leave vote showed) and stopping crime the public is still pretty right

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Mortimer said:

dr_spyn said:

That FT story has escalated quickly.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/956120804428779520

Twitter mob wins, a good cause loses. Very sad.

Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.

Fucking morons.

Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.

Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.

Indeed. But that's a slightly different argument. GOH would be making a calculation that they would be financially worse off if they kept the money. They would not be making a primarily moral argument.

Still, if one refuses money which is somehow "morally" tainted, how far will this principle extend? JM Barrie, for instance, might not have passed muster in today's censorious world.

Will Oxford colleges receiving money from Saudi Arabia return this and refuse to receive any more in future? That country's abuse of women is many times worse than anything alleged to have happened at this event, for instance.

I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?

And - sorry for being boringly legalistic here - might we want to remember that an allegation is simply that. People accused of abuse are innocent until proven guilty. Elsewhere in the papers there are stories of men accused of pretty vile abuse - rape - who turned out to be innocent and who have had their lives and reputations ruined. We might want to bear that in mind before running to condemn on the basis of a story in a newspaper. GOH might also want to remember that before making an irrevocable decision.

Or we can just decide everything on the basis of who manages to whip up the most publicity - and to hell with facts and due process.

Come to think of it, quite a lot of Exeter University wouldn't have got built, without donations from various Gulf States.

Not to mention the LSE/Gaddafi affair...

I see its NHS Questions time again......and Mr Corbyn's correspondence.....

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Mortimer said:

dr_spyn said:

That FT story has escalated quickly.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/956120804428779520

Twitter mob wins, a good cause loses. Very sad.

Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.

Fucking morons.

Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.

Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.

Indeed. But that's a slightly different argument. GOH would be making a calculation that they would be financially worse off if they kept the money. They would not be making a primarily moral argument.

Still, if one refuses money which is somehow "morally" tainted, how far will this principle extend? JM Barrie, for instance, might not have passed muster in today's censorious world.

Will Oxford colleges receiving money from Saudi Arabia return this and refuse to receive any more in future? That country's abuse of women is many times worse than anything alleged to have happened at this event, for instance.

I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?

And - sorry for being boringly legalistic here - might we want to remember that an allegation is simply that. People accused of abuse are innocent until proven guilty. Elsewhere in the papers there are stories of men accused of pretty vile abuse - rape - who turned out to be innocent and who have had their lives and reputations ruined. We might want to bear that in mind before running to condemn on the basis of a story in a newspaper. GOH might also want to remember that before making an irrevocable decision.

Or we can just decide everything on the basis of who manages to whip up the most publicity - and to hell with facts and due process.

Post of the thread.

+1.

Pulpstar said:

On topic: Hah !
Off topic: Sad to see Tessa Jowell battling against the big C, but she will put her energy, enthusiasm and intellect toward getting a better outcome for fellow brain cancer sufferers, which can only be a positive. Not to write her off prematurely, but she will definitely will be a big loss to politics.

It was a very moving interview.

https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/956138058826600449

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

Cyclefree said:

I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?

https://twitter.com/ft/status/956061888294588416

Thanks. I wasn't there. Allegations are allegations. They are not proven facts.

In my experience of other stories (quite unlike this one, I hasten to add) the newspaper reporters have always been incorrect. Always. So I view all newspaper reports with a certain amount of scepticism.

Still, as said down thread, why anyone thought it a good idea to advertise for "hostesses" in the terms they did is astounding.

At large events people see different things. 31 years ago, I went to the Bracton Law Society Dinner, at Exeter University. There were about 400 people there and the guest was Sir Robin Day. It ended up on the World at One, due to the allegedly disgraceful behaviour of the students and other guests, mooning, flashing, pelting people with food and drink, abusing waiters etc. But, I saw none of it, and nor did Sir Robin Day, when he was interviewed.

Likewise, was everyone behaving badly at this event, most of them, or a relatively small number?

What is shocking about the President's Club shindig is that after the past year of all the allegations and cases of sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour, male members of the financial and political elite still think it's ok for themselves to behave in such a manner.

TwistedFireStopper said:

What is shocking about the President's Club shindig is that after the past year of all the allegations and cases of sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour, male members of the financial and political elite still think it's ok for themselves to behave in such a manner.

+1

Cyclefree said:

david_herdson said:

CD13 said:

An FT 'investigation'?

You mean they fancied a story on sexual harassment because it brings in readers. "I know, let's send a pretty reporter dressed in sheer underwear to that dinner. Someone's bound to have a leer."

Job done.

"What about the money raised?"

"Who cares."

Although that logic was one of the main reasons Savile never got done in his lifetime, wasn't it? 'You can't make a complaint about him - look at how much money he raises'.

The reason Savile never got done was because of the libel laws and because the approach to child witnesses and sexual abuse crimes was very different to today. There were a number of investigations into him but the authorities backed off.

He was certainly someone who used the charity card to throw people off the scent.

There were various reasons he got away with it in his lifetime. I agree that the general attitude of authorities to complainants was certainly one. However, his charity work provided a booster to that, giving him blind-eye protection (not to mention opening other doors that actively gave him opportunities to abuse).

Nigelb said:

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Mortimer said:

dr_spyn said:

That FT story has escalated quickly.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/956120804428779520

Twitter mob wins, a good cause loses. Very sad.

Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.

Fucking morons.

Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.

Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.

Indeed. But that's a slightly different argument. GOH would be making a calculation that they would be financially worse off if they kept the money. They would not be making a primarily moral argument.

Still, if one refuses money which is somehow "morally" tainted, how far will this principle extend? JM Barrie, for instance, might not have passed muster in today's censorious world.

Will Oxford colleges receiving money from Saudi Arabia return this and refuse to receive any more in future? That country's abuse of women is many times worse than anything alleged to have happened at this event, for instance.

I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?

And - sorry for being boringly legalistic here - might we want to remember that an allegation is simply that. People accused of abuse are innocent until proven guilty. Elsewhere in the papers there are stories of men accused of pretty vile abuse - rape - who turned out to be innocent and who have had their lives and reputations ruined. We might want to bear that in mind before running to condemn on the basis of a story in a newspaper. GOH might also want to remember that before making an irrevocable decision.

Or we can just decide everything on the basis of who manages to whip up the most publicity - and to hell with facts and due process.

Come to think of it, quite a lot of Exeter University wouldn't have got built, without donations from various Gulf States.

Not to mention the LSE/Gaddafi affair...

Or these universities which have accepted money from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait: SOAS, Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, UCL, Exeter, Dundee and City University.

Misognynist cultures all. I await the Twitter storm.

QTWTAIN.

Osborne: architect of austerity, disser of the disabled.
DMiliband: 'extraordinary rendition'
TBlair: Iraq

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

Cyclefree said:

I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?

https://twitter.com/ft/status/956061888294588416

Thanks. I wasn't there. Allegations are allegations. They are not proven facts.

In my experience of other stories (quite unlike this one, I hasten to add) the newspaper reporters have always been incorrect. Always. So I view all newspaper reports with a certain amount of scepticism.

Still, as said down thread, why anyone thought it a good idea to advertise for "hostesses" in the terms they did is astounding.

At large events people see different things. 31 years ago, I went to the Bracton Law Society Dinner, at Exeter University. There were about 400 people there and the guest was Sir Robin Day. It ended up on the World at One, due to the allegedly disgraceful behaviour of the students and other guests, mooning, flashing, pelting people with food and drink, abusing waiters etc. But, I saw none of it, and nor did Sir Robin Day, when he was interviewed.

Likewise, was everyone behaving badly at this event, most of them, or a relatively small number?

Regardless of whether the bad behaviour was by a few people or not, I think that if you advertise for staff using "sexy underwear" in your ads, you are giving out a clear indication of the sort of event you are hosting. I am surprised - like @Twisted Fire Stopper - and appalled that anyone thought this a good idea.

Cyclefree said:

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

Cyclefree said:

I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?

https://twitter.com/ft/status/956061888294588416

Thanks. I wasn't there. Allegations are allegations. They are not proven facts.

In my experience of other stories (quite unlike this one, I hasten to add) the newspaper reporters have always been incorrect. Always. So I view all newspaper reports with a certain amount of scepticism.

Still, as said down thread, why anyone thought it a good idea to advertise for "hostesses" in the terms they did is astounding.

At large events people see different things. 31 years ago, I went to the Bracton Law Society Dinner, at Exeter University. There were about 400 people there and the guest was Sir Robin Day. It ended up on the World at One, due to the allegedly disgraceful behaviour of the students and other guests, mooning, flashing, pelting people with food and drink, abusing waiters etc. But, I saw none of it, and nor did Sir Robin Day, when he was interviewed.

Likewise, was everyone behaving badly at this event, most of them, or a relatively small number?

Regardless of whether the bad behaviour was by a few people or not, I think that if you advertise for staff using "sexy underwear" in your ads, you are giving out a clear indication of the sort of event you are hosting. I am surprised - like @Twisted Fire Stopper - and appalled that anyone thought this a good idea.

Hmm - "Gentlemen's evenings" rules were look/don't touch last time I checked..
So although the whole dress code for the hostesses may have permitted the "looking" (Excluding mirrors on shoes and that sort of stuff) aspect, the "touching" aspect sends it over the line to the pale

Well that is my view anyway.

Cyclefree said:

Or these universities which have accepted money from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait: SOAS, Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, UCL, Exeter, Dundee and City University.

Misognynist cultures all. I await the Twitter storm.

This is the relative privation fallacy. Just because Oxford and Cambridge do it doesn't (a) make it all right or (b) instantly render null and void any other criticism of accepting funds from the morally dubious.

Freggles said:

QTWTAIN.

Osborne: architect of austerity, disser of the disabled.
DMiliband: 'extraordinary rendition'
TBlair: Iraq

Corbyn : Militant, Scargill, Venezuela, opposing even just wars like Kosovo, IRA, failing to campaign for Remain after voting against every EU treaty, "our friends in Hamas", presiding over huge growth in anti-semitism, ...................................