politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At 100/1 or longer Osborne, DMiliband & TBlair for next LD lea
Options
Comments
-
Yes of course it is yukky and stupid, and I'd like to see the guest list on the grounds that I wouldn't want anyone twattish enough to have been there, managing money for me. But it isn't anything more than that.TOPPING said:
I think you and I are very similar in that we instinctively look for the contrarian view, especially when social media/twatter is involved, but sometimes that means that we forget to step back and look at the context and the bigger picture.
This is one of those occasions where one must, IMO, step back.
I was at a conference a couple of years ago and the "entertainment" was a bunch of very (very) scantily-clad South American dancers doing their thing. 90% of the audience was male, and 99% of those just felt uncomfortable, embarrassed, and that the whole thing was inappropriate. Most left almost immediately. And that was just a "native" dance troupe, not some girls who had been briefed to dress sexily.0 -
I prefer "drunk driver's fallacy" - as in why aren't you out catching rapists, officer, instead of breathalysing me?El_Capitano said:
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.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.0 -
The most important part of the EU trade negotiations is that we do nothing to impair our potential membership of this agreement:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-01-23/tpp-members-complete-text-seek-to-sign-by-march-singapore-says0 -
I don't expect Corbyn to lead the Lib Dems either.stevef said:
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, ...................................Freggles said:QTWTAIN.
Osborne: architect of austerity, disser of the disabled.
DMiliband: 'extraordinary rendition'
TBlair: Iraq0 -
Damn. Beaten to the punchline.0
-
Mr Herdson,
I take little notice of charity-giving as an indicator of probity. It's all irrelevant. Remember that Smashie and Niceie piss-take of DJs by Harry Enfield?
The advert was silly and showed enough on its own. The FT saw an open goal and took advantage. What did the F'T 'discover' that we didn't already know? They sent a reporter suitably dressed to 'find' something they expected to see. The story will no doubt be embellished where possible. If it stands up in court .... well, we'll never know, will we?
Virtue-signalling and a boost in readership? A win-win.
Or the plucky press uncovering evil goings-on and facing the risk of imprisonment?
0 -
Nicely put. I'll remember that one.Ishmael_Z said:
I prefer "drunk driver's fallacy" - as in why aren't you out catching rapists, officer, instead of breathalysing me?El_Capitano said:
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.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.0 -
Today's PMQ's - just a non event0
-
Also some people genuinely don't have the money to pick and choose the jobs they do. Such is the nature of the gig economy.Pulpstar said:
Hmm - "Gentlemen's evenings" rules were look/don't touch last time I checked..Cyclefree said:
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.Sean_F said:
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.Cyclefree said:
Thanks. I wasn't there. Allegations are allegations. They are not proven facts.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/ft/status/956061888294588416Cyclefree said:I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?
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.
Likewise, was everyone behaving badly at this event, most of them, or a relatively small number?
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.
And the ads didn't require sexy underwear. Just matching black underwear so it didn't show through the dress. That is not a sign you are going to be groped by pervs. Can we stop the victim blaming yet?0 -
-
Despicable. No wonder people support Corbyn. Tories are making a tremendous mistake if they try to defend or be apologists for this stuff.it turns people against the whole capitalist system.Scott_P said:0 -
Surely it is the Prime Minister who answers questions at PMQs?Scott_P said:0 -
-
David Meller gone0
-
It's a UQ after PMQs.DecrepitJohnL said:Surely it is the Prime Minister who answers questions at PMQs?
He was there was PMQs, then ran away before the UQ0 -
Meanwhile, in Germany: https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/9561348884948500480
-
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFDMorris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in Germany: https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/956134888494850048
0 -
No it doesnt turn people against the capitalist system -really it doesnt. There is very little support for communism in this country.david_herdson said:0 -
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.Sean_F said:
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFDMorris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in Germany: https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/956134888494850048
0 -
Japanese Twitter has been discussing this, Britain has the Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific so apparently it's all good.Elliot said:The most important part of the EU trade negotiations is that we do nothing to impair our potential membership of this agreement:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-01-23/tpp-members-complete-text-seek-to-sign-by-march-singapore-says0 -
According to PB's brainless trust, immigration from mainly-Muslim countries should be banned because of the cultural problems in those countries.
I look forward to the same people calling for immigration by bankers and people working in finance to be banned because of the cultural problems in those industries ...0 -
Like many a eurocrat, he is used to overplaying a weak hand.John_M said:
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.Sean_F said:
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFDMorris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in Germany: https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/956134888494850048
This one might find him out.0 -
Schulz is losing power within the SPD. Without Andrea Nahles the vote on a coalition would probably have been lost already. This was a great defence of pragmatic coalition politics.John_M said:I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP3r_ncqCSc0 -
I think the FDP will grow from 10 too.Sean_F said:
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFDMorris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in Germany: https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/956134888494850048
0 -
The FDP will have no good answer to the question of why they didn't go into government and why a Jamaica coalition would have been worse for their target voters.Pulpstar said:
I think the FDP will grow from 10 too.Sean_F said:
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFDMorris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in Germany: https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/956134888494850048
0 -
The parliamentary debate seems to be a women-only event.0
-
Socialists will be making a tremendous mistake if they get on their high horse trying to make holier than thou claims of Tories defending or being apologists for this stuff.Elliot said:
Despicable. No wonder people support Corbyn. Tories are making a tremendous mistake if they try to defend or be apologists for this stuff.it turns people against the whole capitalist system.Scott_P said:
Would you like a side bet that there wasn't a member of the Labour Party present?0 -
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/956152542387490816
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/956152641108762631
Not sure these are 100% compatible...0 -
Why not?Scott_P said:https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/956152542387490816
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/956152641108762631
Not sure these are 100% compatible...0 -
Any democracy needs an opposition. If the SPD don't then AfD will.Sean_F said:
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFDMorris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in Germany: https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/956134888494850048
0 -
Nature abhors a vacuum. They could gain a couple of percent, though I don't think morewilliamglenn said:
The FDP will have no good answer to the question of why they didn't go into government and why a Jamaica coalition would have been worse for their target voters.Pulpstar said:
I think the FDP will grow from 10 too.Sean_F said:
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFDMorris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in Germany: https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/956134888494850048
0 -
Are they abusing men?Richard_Nabavi said:The parliamentary debate seems to be a women-only event.
0 -
Only Tory men.Charles said:
Are they abusing men?Richard_Nabavi said:The parliamentary debate seems to be a women-only event.
0 -
I still think a Spring election is a likely outcome. If the vote to even go into talks about coalition was only won by about 56-44, what will happen in the vote on the actual deal that the parties strike about a program for government, ministries and so on? There has to be a strong chance that it'll be voted down (which would be the worst of all worlds for the SPD as it'll annoy everyone while delivering nothing).Mortimer said:
Like many a eurocrat, he is used to overplaying a weak hand.John_M said:
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.Sean_F said:
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFDMorris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in Germany: https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/956134888494850048
This one might find him out.
That said, the right long-term solution for them is to get out of government but how someone else forms a viable administration while the SPD recovers, I don't know.0 -
The Jamaica Coalition would have been a societas leonina, as far as the FDP were concerned. They were to get nothing, while defending policies they didn't agree with.williamglenn said:
The FDP will have no good answer to the question of why they didn't go into government and why a Jamaica coalition would have been worse for their target voters.Pulpstar said:
I think the FDP will grow from 10 too.Sean_F said:
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFDMorris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in Germany: https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/956134888494850048
0 -
On current numbers, even allowing for some quite big shifts, it's hard to see how another election will resolve things. The same combinations of parties which would have already been tried will still be the only viable ones, in all likelihood.david_herdson said:
I still think a Spring election is a likely outcome. If the vote to even go into talks about coalition was only won by about 56-44, what will happen in the vote on the actual deal that the parties strike about a program for government, ministries and so on? There has to be a strong chance that it'll be voted down (which would be the worst of all worlds for the SPD as it'll annoy everyone while delivering nothing).Mortimer said:
Like many a eurocrat, he is used to overplaying a weak hand.John_M said:
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.Sean_F said:
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFDMorris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in Germany: https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/956134888494850048
This one might find him out.
That said, the right long-term solution for them is to get out of government but how someone else forms a viable administration while the SPD recovers, I don't know.0 -
That’s ok then. They were asking for it.Richard_Nabavi said:
Only Tory men.Charles said:
Are they abusing men?Richard_Nabavi said:The parliamentary debate seems to be a women-only event.
0 -
I hope no-one discovers that David Walliams took a fee for hosting the event.Richard_Nabavi said:
Only Tory men.Charles said:
Are they abusing men?Richard_Nabavi said:The parliamentary debate seems to be a women-only event.
That will be long-term Labour-supporting David Walliams.
Here's a pic of him with his side-kick:
https://twitter.com/davidwalliams/status/8651688769334558720 -
And who cares if a few kids die as long as GOSH can tick all the right PC boxes.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/956129152205230082Sean_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.
0 -
Swingback from FDP to CDU/CSU combined with a splintering of the SPD vote leaves you with a majority CDU/CSU/Green coalition.Richard_Nabavi said:
On current numbers, even allowing for some quite big shifts, it's hard to see how another election will resolve things. The same combinations of parties which would have already been tried will still be the only viable ones, in all likelihood.david_herdson said:
I still think a Spring election is a likely outcome. If the vote to even go into talks about coalition was only won by about 56-44, what will happen in the vote on the actual deal that the parties strike about a program for government, ministries and so on? There has to be a strong chance that it'll be voted down (which would be the worst of all worlds for the SPD as it'll annoy everyone while delivering nothing).Mortimer said:
Like many a eurocrat, he is used to overplaying a weak hand.John_M said:
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.Sean_F said:
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFDMorris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in Germany: https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/956134888494850048
This one might find him out.
That said, the right long-term solution for them is to get out of government but how someone else forms a viable administration while the SPD recovers, I don't know.0 -
Yes, I suppose that might work but it's a stretch.williamglenn said:Swingback from FDP to CDU/CSU combined with a splintering of the SPD vote leaves you with a majority CDU/CSU/Green coalition.
0 -
Germany and functioning democratic government don't seem to be on speaking terms at the moment. Which is always a worrying phrase.Richard_Nabavi said:
On current numbers, even allowing for some quite big shifts, it's hard to see how another election will resolve things. The same combinations of parties which would have already been tried will still be the only viable ones, in all likelihood.david_herdson said:
I still think a Spring election is a likely outcome. If the vote to even go into talks about coalition was only won by about 56-44, what will happen in the vote on the actual deal that the parties strike about a program for government, ministries and so on? There has to be a strong chance that it'll be voted down (which would be the worst of all worlds for the SPD as it'll annoy everyone while delivering nothing).Mortimer said:
Like many a eurocrat, he is used to overplaying a weak hand.John_M said:
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.Sean_F said:
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFDMorris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in Germany: https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/956134888494850048
This one might find him out.
That said, the right long-term solution for them is to get out of government but how someone else forms a viable administration while the SPD recovers, I don't know.0 -
They have this wonderful system called 'PR', so much better than ours, or so we are told.MarqueeMark said:Germany and functioning democratic government don't seem to be on speaking terms at the moment. Which is always a worrying phrase.
0 -
If mainstream parties do not provide a route to express opposition and a change in direction, other parties will provide it. The Spd are fools.0
-
-
It is better. Our system has led to other fractures.Richard_Nabavi said:
They have this wonderful system called 'PR', so much better than ours, or so we are told.MarqueeMark said:Germany and functioning democratic government don't seem to be on speaking terms at the moment. Which is always a worrying phrase.
0 -
PR, you say? We don't hear enough about that on pb.com.....Richard_Nabavi said:
They have this wonderful system called 'PR', so much better than ours, or so we are told.MarqueeMark said:Germany and functioning democratic government don't seem to be on speaking terms at the moment. Which is always a worrying phrase.
0 -
Do you mean they should not enter coalition? But what then?Jonathan said:If mainstream parties do not provide a route to express opposition and a change in direction, other parties will provide it. The Spd are fools.
0 -
The undercover FT reporter herself was on WATO and said that: most of the waitresses loved it - good money, free booze, good fun, several job offers(!) - and many come back year after year to do it. Small minority were surprised and upset. In her opinion, all absolutely fine except that it should be made clearer on the application form that the danger of being groped was non-zero. Otherwise, no worries.Richard_Tyndall said:
And who cares if a few kids die as long as GOSH can tick all the right PC boxes.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/956129152205230082Sean_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.
But I am sure she is a quisling, uncle Tom, traitor to her sex.0 -
No but if it damages GOSH's brand then I can see why they did it.Ishmael_Z said:
Yes of course it is yukky and stupid, and I'd like to see the guest list on the grounds that I wouldn't want anyone twattish enough to have been there, managing money for me. But it isn't anything more than that.TOPPING said:
I think you and I are very similar in that we instinctively look for the contrarian view, especially when social media/twatter is involved, but sometimes that means that we forget to step back and look at the context and the bigger picture.
This is one of those occasions where one must, IMO, step back.
I was at a conference a couple of years ago and the "entertainment" was a bunch of very (very) scantily-clad South American dancers doing their thing. 90% of the audience was male, and 99% of those just felt uncomfortable, embarrassed, and that the whole thing was inappropriate. Most left almost immediately. And that was just a "native" dance troupe, not some girls who had been briefed to dress sexily.0 -
One is a group of thugs who will use sickening violence to achieve their aims.Scott_P said:
The others are fascists.0 -
Last year they raised £2.1 million but spent £2.2 million - the spending was all classified as charitable activities.Scott_P said:
http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0®id=10173100 -
-
I'm no expert, but doesn't the 'spending' include the donations paid over to charities. I.E. their spending is the money they donate....calum said:
Last year they raised £2.1 million but spent £2.2 million - the spending was all classified as charitable activities.Scott_P said:
http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0®id=1017310
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?0 -
Neununddreißig Millionen sechshundertfünfundfünfzigtausendzweihundertzwanzig !MarqueeMark said:
Germany and functioning democratic government don't seem to be on speaking terms at the moment. Which is always a worrying phrase.Richard_Nabavi said:
On current numbers, even allowing for some quite big shifts, it's hard to see how another election will resolve things. The same combinations of parties which would have already been tried will still be the only viable ones, in all likelihood.david_herdson said:
I still think a Spring election is a likely outcome. If the vote to even go into talks about coalition was only won by about 56-44, what will happen in the vote on the actual deal that the parties strike about a program for government, ministries and so on? There has to be a strong chance that it'll be voted down (which would be the worst of all worlds for the SPD as it'll annoy everyone while delivering nothing).Mortimer said:
Like many a eurocrat, he is used to overplaying a weak hand.John_M said:
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.Sean_F said:
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFDMorris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in Germany: https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/956134888494850048
This one might find him out.
That said, the right long-term solution for them is to get out of government but how someone else forms a viable administration while the SPD recovers, I don't know.0 -
Me too.david_herdson said:
I still think a Spring election is a likely outcome. If the vote to even go into talks about coalition was only won by about 56-44, what will happen in the vote on the actual deal that the parties strike about a program for government, ministries and so on? There has to be a strong chance that it'll be voted down (which would be the worst of all worlds for the SPD as it'll annoy everyone while delivering nothing).Mortimer said:
Like many a eurocrat, he is used to overplaying a weak hand.John_M said:
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.Sean_F said:
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFDMorris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in Germany: https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/956134888494850048
This one might find him out.
That said, the right long-term solution for them is to get out of government but how someone else forms a viable administration while the SPD recovers, I don't know.
I was roundly ridiculed amongst politically inclined Europeans when I suggested this a few months back. Will be nice to be vindicated.0 -
Not at all!Scott_P said:
If the fundraiser was raising money for GOSH then it's entirely plausible that the Foreign Secretary approved a lunch dinner for GOSH without being involved in knowing who the middle men were.
Indeed it's entirely possible his diary secretary would have a set number of charitable lunches set aside and he doesn't get involved at all in organising them.0 -
I actually prepare charity accounts as part of my work.Mortimer said:
I'm no expert, but doesn't the 'spending' include the donations paid over to charities. I.E. their spending is the money they donate....calum said:
Last year they raised £2.1 million but spent £2.2 million - the spending was all classified as charitable activities.Scott_P said:
http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0®id=1017310
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?
You can see £2,05m of income, and about £1.5m or so of onward charitable donations.0 -
If they take the poisoned cheque, they will lose the equivalent from other donors. They should be asking the underlying donor for the cash, which I suppose they now will.Richard_Tyndall said:
And who cares if a few kids die as long as GOSH can tick all the right PC boxes.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/956129152205230082Sean_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.
0 -
Al Murray - 'faaaaaamily'Scott_P said:0 -
Looking at it in 2016 they received 462k in donations, 1.6m in annual event income for a total of just over £2m.Mortimer said:
I'm no expert, but doesn't the 'spending' include the donations paid over to charities. I.E. their spending is the money they donate....calum said:
Last year they raised £2.1 million but spent £2.2 million - the spending was all classified as charitable activities.Scott_P said:
http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0®id=1017310
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?
They paid out or promised to pay out £1.6m.
They spent nearly 600k on organising their event(s)
http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends10/0001017310_AC_20161031_E_C.PDF
0 -
The £1.6 million was donated to over 50 charities - the event cost was £600k - here's the accounts for 2016.Mortimer said:
I'm no expert, but doesn't the 'spending' include the donations paid over to charities. I.E. their spending is the money they donate....calum said:
Last year they raised £2.1 million but spent £2.2 million - the spending was all classified as charitable activities.Scott_P said:
http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0®id=1017310
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?
http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends10/0001017310_AC_20161031_E_C.PDF0 -
They are just like Oxfam.
Raise loads of money and piss a lot of it away.0 -
Indeed. There was an effective net £1.6m of donations from £2.05m, so kind of a net 'wastage' of £600k. You could argue if people should have donated the money directly then it would be more efficent and charities would have received more, but then people don't tend to work that way.TheScreamingEagles said:
Looking at it in 2016 they received 462k in donations, 1.6m in annual event income for a total of just over £2m.Mortimer said:
I'm no expert, but doesn't the 'spending' include the donations paid over to charities. I.E. their spending is the money they donate....calum said:
Last year they raised £2.1 million but spent £2.2 million - the spending was all classified as charitable activities.Scott_P said:
http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0®id=1017310
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?
They paid out or promised to pay out £1.6m.
They spent nearly 600k on organising their event(s)
http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends10/0001017310_AC_20161031_E_C.PDF0 -
I don't know who to be more angry at - the twitterati who forced GOSH to return the money, or the Presidents' Club for engaging in f*cking idiotic behaviour so as to put it all in jeopardy.Slackbladder said:
I actually prepare charity accounts as part of my work.Mortimer said:
I'm no expert, but doesn't the 'spending' include the donations paid over to charities. I.E. their spending is the money they donate....calum said:
Last year they raised £2.1 million but spent £2.2 million - the spending was all classified as charitable activities.Scott_P said:
http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0®id=1017310
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?
You can see £2,05m of income, and about £1.5m or so of onward charitable donations.
Plenty of charities on their donations list can't, I bet, afford to give the money back.0 -
Exactly. It would be interesting to look at the net 'return' on chartable activity of a lot of charities. IE their direct charitable work compared with their overall income.TheScreamingEagles said:They are just like Oxfam.
Raise loads of money and piss a lot of it away.0 -
Given the publicity I would imagine they could easily make up the shortfall by appealing for donations.TOPPING said:
I don't know who to be more angry at - the twitterati who forced GOSH to return the money, or the Presidents' Club for engaging in f*cking idiotic behaviour so as to put it all in jeopardy.Slackbladder said:
I actually prepare charity accounts as part of my work.Mortimer said:
I'm no expert, but doesn't the 'spending' include the donations paid over to charities. I.E. their spending is the money they donate....calum said:
Last year they raised £2.1 million but spent £2.2 million - the spending was all classified as charitable activities.Scott_P said:
http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0®id=1017310
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?
You can see £2,05m of income, and about £1.5m or so of onward charitable donations.
Plenty of charities on their donations list can't, I bet, afford to give the money back.0 -
It does. Looking at the numbers the event earned £1.6m at a cost of £600K - so a reasonable surplus. They also received donations of £400K (which I would assume are the items donated for auction on the night).Mortimer said:
I'm no expert, but doesn't the 'spending' include the donations paid over to charities. I.E. their spending is the money they donate....calum said:
Last year they raised £2.1 million but spent £2.2 million - the spending was all classified as charitable activities.Scott_P said:
http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0®id=1017310
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?
They then gave away £1.5m (some of which was a carry over from the previous year) to a long list of charities (but these donations are shown as expenditure)0 -
Agree on both. The behaviour is indefensible but to my mind so is returning the much needed money in an act of self destructive virtue signallingTOPPING said:
I don't know who to be more angry at - the twitterati who forced GOSH to return the money, or the Presidents' Club for engaging in f*cking idiotic behaviour so as to put it all in jeopardy.Slackbladder said:
I actually prepare charity accounts as part of my work.Mortimer said:
I'm no expert, but doesn't the 'spending' include the donations paid over to charities. I.E. their spending is the money they donate....calum said:
Last year they raised £2.1 million but spent £2.2 million - the spending was all classified as charitable activities.Scott_P said:
http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0®id=1017310
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?
You can see £2,05m of income, and about £1.5m or so of onward charitable donations.
Plenty of charities on their donations list can't, I bet, afford to give the money back.0 -
I once went to an event similar to the Presidents Ball, a client took me.
Fucking awful experience, even for people who aren’t good Muslim boys like me.
I made an effort.
I vowed never to go to one again.
0 -
No they would not. I simply don't believe people are either that dumb or that shallow.TheWhiteRabbit said:
If they take the poisoned cheque, they will lose the equivalent from other donors. They should be asking the underlying donor for the cash, which I suppose they now will.Richard_Tyndall said:
And who cares if a few kids die as long as GOSH can tick all the right PC boxes.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/956129152205230082Sean_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.
0 -
Don't tell me.. they main was pineapple pizza?TheScreamingEagles said:I once went to an event similar to the Presidents Ball, a client took me.
Fucking awful experience, even for people who aren’t good Muslim boys like me.
I made an effort.
I vowed never to go to one again.
0 -
Neither could the LibDems I think after a dodgy donor was found out.TOPPING said:
I don't know who to be more angry at - the twitterati who forced GOSH to return the money, or the Presidents' Club for engaging in f*cking idiotic behaviour so as to put it all in jeopardy.Slackbladder said:
I actually prepare charity accounts as part of my work.Mortimer said:
I'm no expert, but doesn't the 'spending' include the donations paid over to charities. I.E. their spending is the money they donate....calum said:
Last year they raised £2.1 million but spent £2.2 million - the spending was all classified as charitable activities.Scott_P said:
http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0®id=1017310
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?
You can see £2,05m of income, and about £1.5m or so of onward charitable donations.
Plenty of charities on their donations list can't, I bet, afford to give the money back.
In other words, the attitude rewards rich charities who can afford to repay £30k or whatever at the drop of a hat.
The attitude to women sounds like that of Miss World 1970 which attracted feminist protests. Have we really reverted to the culture of 50 years ago, with a brief improvement in between?
One difference I suppose is that in 1970 the women who in 2017 felt obliged to take on this work would have been guaranteed virtually full employment, albeit I expect in menial jobs.0 -
There are 50-odd recipient charities on there. It is far from easy to get charitable donations from anyone at any time.williamglenn said:
Given the publicity I would imagine they could easily make up the shortfall by appealing for donations.TOPPING said:
I don't know who to be more angry at - the twitterati who forced GOSH to return the money, or the Presidents' Club for engaging in f*cking idiotic behaviour so as to put it all in jeopardy.Slackbladder said:
I actually prepare charity accounts as part of my work.Mortimer said:
I'm no expert, but doesn't the 'spending' include the donations paid over to charities. I.E. their spending is the money they donate....calum said:
Last year they raised £2.1 million but spent £2.2 million - the spending was all classified as charitable activities.Scott_P said:
http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0®id=1017310
Perhaps someone like @Charles know their way around a charity balance sheet?
You can see £2,05m of income, and about £1.5m or so of onward charitable donations.
Plenty of charities on their donations list can't, I bet, afford to give the money back.
If I were them I would send a mail (cost) to their donors and anyone on their lists explaining they received money from TPC and that in the light of recent disclosures, would not be doing so in future, unless demonstrable changes are made to the mode of event they run.
So somesuch...0 -
I agree. Though a second election producing a similar outcome to the first might prompt parties to sign up to something they currently regard as unacceptable.Richard_Nabavi said:
On current numbers, even allowing for some quite big shifts, it's hard to see how another election will resolve things. The same combinations of parties which would have already been tried will still be the only viable ones, in all likelihood.david_herdson said:
I still think a Spring election is a likely outcome. If the vote to even go into talks about coalition was only won by about 56-44, what will happen in the vote on the actual deal that the parties strike about a program for government, ministries and so on? There has to be a strong chance that it'll be voted down (which would be the worst of all worlds for the SPD as it'll annoy everyone while delivering nothing).Mortimer said:
Like many a eurocrat, he is used to overplaying a weak hand.John_M said:
I thought it interesting that the SPD's youth wing was trying to boost membership specifically so they can vote any coalition agreement down. All is not well in the House of Schulz.Sean_F said:
If they go into Coalition then you can swap those numbers for SPD and AFDMorris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in Germany: https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/956134888494850048
This one might find him out.
That said, the right long-term solution for them is to get out of government but how someone else forms a viable administration while the SPD recovers, I don't know.0 -
Interesting, in a very broad-brush way, it's comparable with Oxfam. Oxfam had income of £414m and charitable work of £322, so a efficency of 78%. The Presidents Ball had income of £2.052m and charitable work of £1,601m, which is an efficency of guess what, 78%....0
-
What is stupid is that people don't want to pay for the essential functions that allow charities to operateSlackbladder said:
Exactly. It would be interesting to look at the net 'return' on chartable activity of a lot of charities. IE their direct charitable work compared with their overall income.TheScreamingEagles said:They are just like Oxfam.
Raise loads of money and piss a lot of it away.
For instance with one of the programmes at my foundation where we are seeking external partners, instead of donating cash we chose to fund 100% of the administrative costs.
In real terms that is absolutely the same thing - but being able to tell donors that "100% of your donation will go to good causes" massively increases the likelihood that they will support the programme0 -
What I don't about get the President's Club thing is the mentality behind having "hostesses". If you want to spend time with an attractive young lady on a strictly transactional basis and don't want her to complain if your hands or any other bits end up where they probably shouldn't be, that's not exactly a difficult thing to arrange in London. I dare say you could even take her to the Dorchester if you really wanted to. Admittedly she probably wouldn't donate her fee to charity but I'm guessing that isn't a major issue in most cases. So why on earth are they doing it? Am I missing something here?0
-
-
Lord no.RobD said:
Don't tell me.. they main was pineapple pizza?TheScreamingEagles said:I once went to an event similar to the Presidents Ball, a client took me.
Fucking awful experience, even for people who aren’t good Muslim boys like me.
I made an effort.
I vowed never to go to one again.
You had chaps there talking about their wives like they were cars, ‘always trade in the old banger for a new/younger one every few years’
A group of traders were talking about roasting their female underlings.
Free (expensive) drinks is a recipe for turning people into twatbadgers.0 -
That's not where current polls are though. It might well be where they are come 2022 if there is another election this year resulting in another CDU/CSU-SPD coalition.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, I suppose that might work but it's a stretch.williamglenn said:Swingback from FDP to CDU/CSU combined with a splintering of the SPD vote leaves you with a majority CDU/CSU/Green coalition.
0 -
Likewise no one wants to contribute to cleaning products or vacuum cleaners for charities. Most see a sports trophy, or a hall with a suitably prominent plaque somewhere as being preferable. Whereas as I know you are aware, charities can't function without cleaning products or hoovers...Charles said:
What is stupid is that people don't want to pay for the essential functions that allow charities to operateSlackbladder said:
Exactly. It would be interesting to look at the net 'return' on chartable activity of a lot of charities. IE their direct charitable work compared with their overall income.TheScreamingEagles said:They are just like Oxfam.
Raise loads of money and piss a lot of it away.
For instance with one of the programmes at my foundation where we are seeking external partners, instead of donating cash we chose to fund 100% of the administrative costs.
In real terms that is absolutely the same thing - but being able to tell donors that "100% of your donation will go to good causes" massively increases the likelihood that they will support the programme0 -
Oxfam have more questionable values.TheScreamingEagles said:They are just like Oxfam.
Raise loads of money and piss a lot of it away.0 -
Hah! My Dad set up the foundation because he was a trustee of AMREF (www.flydoc.org) - it was very easy to raise money for a plane and very difficult to raise money for a secretary. But without the latter the former is pretty useless.TOPPING said:
Likewise no one wants to contribute to cleaning products or vacuum cleaners for charities. Most see a sports trophy, or a hall with a suitably prominent plaque somewhere as being preferable. Whereas as I know you are aware, charities can't function without cleaning products or hoovers...Charles said:
What is stupid is that people don't want to pay for the essential functions that allow charities to operateSlackbladder said:
Exactly. It would be interesting to look at the net 'return' on chartable activity of a lot of charities. IE their direct charitable work compared with their overall income.TheScreamingEagles said:They are just like Oxfam.
Raise loads of money and piss a lot of it away.
For instance with one of the programmes at my foundation where we are seeking external partners, instead of donating cash we chose to fund 100% of the administrative costs.
In real terms that is absolutely the same thing - but being able to tell donors that "100% of your donation will go to good causes" massively increases the likelihood that they will support the programme
We focused on "core funding" 30 years before it became fashionable.0 -
Very interesting.Slackbladder said:Interesting, in a very broad-brush way, it's comparable with Oxfam. Oxfam had income of £414m and charitable work of £322, so a efficency of 78%. The Presidents Ball had income of £2.052m and charitable work of £1,601m, which is an efficency of guess what, 78%....
Thanks.0 -
The funds weren't simply raised by "bad" people, people were actually abused in the commissioning of raising the funds.Richard_Tyndall said:
No they would not. I simply don't believe people are either that dumb or that shallow.TheWhiteRabbit said:
If they take the poisoned cheque, they will lose the equivalent from other donors. They should be asking the underlying donor for the cash, which I suppose they now will.Richard_Tyndall said:
And who cares if a few kids die as long as GOSH can tick all the right PC boxes.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/956129152205230082Sean_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.
If someone auctioned lots of child pornography and then used the proceeds net of quarter of the funds going to an evening abusing the kids, should GOSH accept money from that?0 -
Charlie Wasshisname the plumber is putting himself forward as a new leader.He's a Brexiteer turned Remoaner who wants TMay out,apart from which he's a Tory.Wherever he stands he should be encouraged to do so to help split the Tory/Ukip vote.0
-
They could have been forced to apply by Esther McVeys DWP under threat of having benefits sanctioned for three years.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.Stark_Dawning said:
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.Sean_F said:
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.Stark_Dawning said:
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.Richard_Tyndall said:
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.Mortimer said:
Twitter mob wins, a good cause loses. Very sad.dr_spyn said:That FT story has escalated quickly.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/956120804428779520
Fucking morons.0 -
Of course when they actually were - as in Rotherham and Rochdale and many other towns - and the victims were very vulnerable young girls from poor backgrounds not adult women the media, the police and local councils covered it up or ignored the problem for years until they could ignore it no longer.AlastairMeeks said:
O Brien himself was all over the various cases involving politicians and tv stars - most of which came to nothing for years. He was much more reserved on Rotherham et al
No one excuses what happened at this event - but it is just a shame even worse examples of the treatment of under age girls in the UK and abroad do not seem to generate the same media outrage until of course they have no alternative to report it.0 -
One imagines the hostesses for this party were not hired from job centre referrals.old_labour said:
They could have been forced to apply by Esther McVeys DWP under threat of having benefits sanctioned for three years.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.Stark_Dawning said:
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.Sean_F said:
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.Stark_Dawning said:
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.Richard_Tyndall said:
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.Mortimer said:
Twitter mob wins, a good cause loses. Very sad.dr_spyn said:That FT story has escalated quickly.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/956120804428779520
Fucking morons.0 -
-
Though most events of this sort have a "look but don't touch" policy. Once people start getting groped, unless they've consented, that's abuse.MaxPB said:
One imagines the hostesses for this party were not hired from job centre referrals.old_labour said:
They could have been forced to apply by Esther McVeys DWP under threat of having benefits sanctioned for three years.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.Stark_Dawning said:
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.Sean_F said:
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.Stark_Dawning said:
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.Richard_Tyndall said:
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.Mortimer said:
Twitter mob wins, a good cause loses. Very sad.dr_spyn said:That FT story has escalated quickly.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/956120804428779520
Fucking morons.0 -
In light of the bahaviour, more likely that some of the 'gentlemen' arrived early.Scott_P said:0 -
I'm not saying otherwise, just pointing out that the agency were probably not recruiting from job centre referrals.Philip_Thompson said:
Though most events of this sort have a "look but don't touch" policy. Once people start getting groped, unless they've consented, that's abuse.MaxPB said:
One imagines the hostesses for this party were not hired from job centre referrals.old_labour said:
They could have been forced to apply by Esther McVeys DWP under threat of having benefits sanctioned for three years.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.Stark_Dawning said:
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.Sean_F said:
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.Stark_Dawning said:
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.Richard_Tyndall said:
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.Mortimer said:
Twitter mob wins, a good cause loses. Very sad.dr_spyn said:That FT story has escalated quickly.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/956120804428779520
Fucking morons.0 -
Well said.brendan16 said:
Of course when they actually were - as in Rotherham and Rochdale and many other towns - and the victims were very vulnerable young girls from poor backgrounds not adult women the media, the police and local councils covered it up or ignored the problem for years until they could ignore it no longer.AlastairMeeks said:
O Brien himself was all over the various cases involving politicians and tv stars - most of which came to nothing for years. He was much more reserved on Rotherham et al
No one excuses what happened at this event - but it is just a shame even worse examples of the treatment of under age girls in the UK and abroad do not seem to generate the same media outrage until of course they have no alternative to report it.
People don’t seem to understanding that there are degrees of wrongdoing, and that trying to equivocate a bawdy dinner with Rotherham or Jimmy Savile is ridiculous.0 -
I agree.El_Capitano said:
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.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.
I was merely pointing out that if challenging misognynist culture is a good thing - and I think it is - then we should do so wherever it rears its head and not just pick on one example which happens to be in the newspapers.0 -
Foreign secretary gives up his time to assist the fund raising efforts of a world renowned kids hospital who help sick kids from all over the UK and abroad - absolutely disgusting as you say! He was supporting GOSH not the Presidents club.Philip_Thompson said:
Not at all!Scott_P said:
If the fundraiser was raising money for GOSH then it's entirely plausible that the Foreign Secretary approved a lunch dinner for GOSH without being involved in knowing who the middle men were.
Indeed it's entirely possible his diary secretary would have a set number of charitable lunches set aside and he doesn't get involved at all in organising them.
How many of the terminally outraged twitterati give to charity - or do they just spend their hard earned money on being outraged? What has Mr Waterson handed over of his cash - perhaps he will let us know!0 -
I agree - they sell SeanT's books.david_herdson said:
Oxfam have more questionable values.TheScreamingEagles said:They are just like Oxfam.
Raise loads of money and piss a lot of it away.0 -
Even if no women were the victims of inappropriate behaviour, the mindset of any organisation and the people who attended it has to be questioned, given the past year of revelations about powerful men and their attitude to women.Sandpit said:
Well said.brendan16 said:
Of course when they actually were - as in Rotherham and Rochdale and many other towns - and the victims were very vulnerable young girls from poor backgrounds not adult women the media, the police and local councils covered it up or ignored the problem for years until they could ignore it no longer.AlastairMeeks said:
O Brien himself was all over the various cases involving politicians and tv stars - most of which came to nothing for years. He was much more reserved on Rotherham et al
No one excuses what happened at this event - but it is just a shame even worse examples of the treatment of under age girls in the UK and abroad do not seem to generate the same media outrage until of course they have no alternative to report it.
People don’t seem to understanding that there are degrees of wrongdoing, and that trying to equivocate a bawdy dinner with Rotherham or Jimmy Savile is ridiculous.0
This discussion has been closed.