politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This March looks like being the first since GE2017 when the po
Comments
-
What a surprise!TheScreamingEagles said:
It does. We did find out that not all unis are equal though.tlg86 said:
The civil service does it, and I must admit, I think the bias can work both ways.TheScreamingEagles said:
My old firm introduced that a few years ago.tlg86 said:
But Oxford's a dump!TheScreamingEagles said:Lammy’s got a point.
This is truly shameful.
https://twitter.com/davidlammy/status/978904227966746630?s=21
Seriously, many organisations ask applicants to not put the name of their university on their application.
It was to stop a perceived red brick bias.0 -
I thought that was going to say "calling for an investigation to the messed up pit stop."Morris_Dancer said:F1: rivals, perhaps even grumpier now Haas look like being the 4th best team, calling for an investigation:
https://twitter.com/Motorsport/status/9789139487948513290 -
Oxford calls it law most of the time, sometimes with jurisprudence in brackets.TheWhiteRabbit said:
There's no law degree at Oxford, must also have been jurisprudenceTheScreamingEagles said:This explains everything.
David Gauke read law at St Edmund Hall.
Must be up there with Blair reading Jurisprudence and not being aware he needed primary legislation to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ71KuCwhd0
0 -
Cheers.TheWhiteRabbit said:
https://public.tableau.com/views/UoO_UG_Admissions2/AcceptanceRate?:embed=y&:display_count=yes&:showTabs=y&:showVizHome=noTheScreamingEagles said:
Do you have a source for that?TheWhiteRabbit said:Independent Schools
7% of Students
15% of all A level entries
30% of all A grade
33% of all AAA candidates
41% of Oxford offers.
Problems at all points in the pipeline...
I'm doing a thread on education and that will useful for said thread.
The first three lines are from rolling over some of the boxes with red text on the left (quoting the Harris report), the final is calculated from offers made to UK domiciles.0 -
The Oxford jurisprudence course is not an LLB but still counts as a qualifying law course and graduates can go straight on to do the Legal Practice Course or Bar Proessional Training Course after graduationTheWhiteRabbit said:
There's no law degree at Oxford, must also have been jurisprudenceTheScreamingEagles said:This explains everything.
David Gauke read law at St Edmund Hall.
Must be up there with Blair reading Jurisprudence and not being aware he needed primary legislation to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/law-jurisprudence?wssl=10 -
Looks like Bad Vlad's damaged Jezza!0
-
David Gauke seems to think there is.TheWhiteRabbit said:
There's no law degree at Oxford, must also have been jurisprudenceTheScreamingEagles said:This explains everything.
David Gauke read law at St Edmund Hall.
Must be up there with Blair reading Jurisprudence and not being aware he needed primary legislation to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor.
David was born in 1971 and was educated at Northgate High School, a state comprehensive in Ipswich, and read law at St Edmund Hall, Oxford University.
http://www.davidgauke.com/about0 -
It's says Jurisprudence on the Bod card.DecrepitJohnL said:
Oxford calls it law most of the time, sometimes with jurisprudence in brackets.TheWhiteRabbit said:
There's no law degree at Oxford, must also have been jurisprudenceTheScreamingEagles said:This explains everything.
David Gauke read law at St Edmund Hall.
Must be up there with Blair reading Jurisprudence and not being aware he needed primary legislation to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ71KuCwhd00 -
Why should Oxford dumb down just to rectify the faults of the school system?DecrepitJohnL said:
Oxford could change its admissions requirements but yes, the pipeline needs addressing. Making Oxbridge post-graduate only would also be sensible but I'm not holding my breath. In the short term, it should be possible to weight offers by poverty or any other factor.HYUFD said:
Oxford can only take those who meet its admission criteria ie a minimum of AAA at A Level now in most cases and usually with some A* added too.TheScreamingEagles said:Lammy’s got a point.
This is truly shameful.
https://twitter.com/davidlammy/status/978904227966746630?s=21
Almost 3/4 of those from the poorest homes have less than 2 A Levels, let alone 3 A grades
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/apr/20/poor-students-lack-alevels
Making it just post graduate would just see it dominated by postgraduates with 1sts from Russell Group universities so I doubt would make much difference0 -
Maybe that's the problem. While he was busy reading Law, the rest of the class were reading jurisprudence.TheScreamingEagles said:
David Gauke seems to think there is.TheWhiteRabbit said:
There's no law degree at Oxford, must also have been jurisprudenceTheScreamingEagles said:This explains everything.
David Gauke read law at St Edmund Hall.
Must be up there with Blair reading Jurisprudence and not being aware he needed primary legislation to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor.
David was born in 1971 and was educated at Northgate High School, a state comprehensive in Ipswich, and read law at St Edmund Hall, Oxford University.
http://www.davidgauke.com/about0 -
Useful explainer/clarifier on CA/Trump/Brexit:
To be crystal clear, I’m not arguing that Cambridge Analytica and Kogan were innocent. At the very least, it is clear they were doing things that were contrary to Facebook’s data sharing policies. And similarly Facebook seems to have been altogether too cavalier with permitting developers to access its users’ private data.
What I am arguing is that Cambridge Analytica are not the puppet masters they are being widely portrayed as. If anything they are much more akin to Donald Trump; making widely exaggerated claims about their abilities and getting lots of attention as a result.
https://god-knows-what.com/2018/03/27/why-almost-everything-reported-about-the-cambridge-analytica-facebook-hacking-controversy-is-wrong/0 -
Changing the entrance requirements back to what they used to be would not be dumbing down -- that would be making the course or exams easier. Not that rectifying faults in schools is necessarily to be condemned.HYUFD said:
Why should Oxford dumb down just to rectify the faults of the school system?DecrepitJohnL said:
Oxford could change its admissions requirements but yes, the pipeline needs addressing. Making Oxbridge post-graduate only would also be sensible but I'm not holding my breath. In the short term, it should be possible to weight offers by poverty or any other factor.HYUFD said:
Oxford can only take those who meet its admission criteria ie a minimum of AAA at A Level now in most cases and usually with some A* added too.TheScreamingEagles said:Lammy’s got a point.
This is truly shameful.
https://twitter.com/davidlammy/status/978904227966746630?s=21
Almost 3/4 of those from the poorest homes have less than 2 A Levels, let alone 3 A grades
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/apr/20/poor-students-lack-alevels
Making it just post graduate would just see it dominated by postgraduates with 1sts from Russell Group universities so I doubt would make much difference0 -
Compreghensive win for Corbyn at last PMQs before Easter - good to see substantive questions and some genuine interaction between the leaders.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/mar/28/pmqs-may-corbyn-britons-could-lose-right-to-urgent-medical-treatment-in-eu-after-brexit-peers-warn-politics-live0 -
Mr. 86, cross-threaded wheel nuts x 2, alas.
If Haas were doing something dodgy they would've just had one car pull over in a place like Grosjean did rather than ****ing up both stops and getting 0 points when they might've gotten 20 odd.0 -
Fair questions - fair answers so score drawNickPalmer said:Compreghensive win for Corbyn at last PMQs before Easter - good to see substantive questions and some genuine interaction between the leaders.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/mar/28/pmqs-may-corbyn-britons-could-lose-right-to-urgent-medical-treatment-in-eu-after-brexit-peers-warn-politics-live0 -
Changing entrance requirements back to what they used to be would require an entrance exam and classics. Of course if we had a few more grammar schools again we might also see an increase in the number of state school pupils at Oxford again tooDecrepitJohnL said:
Changing the entrance requirements back to what they used to be would not be dumbing down -- that would be making the course or exams easier. Not that rectifying faults in schools is necessarily to be condemned.HYUFD said:
Why should Oxford dumb down just to rectify the faults of the school system?DecrepitJohnL said:
Oxford could change its admissions requirements but yes, the pipeline needs addressing. Making Oxbridge post-graduate only would also be sensible but I'm not holding my breath. In the short term, it should be possible to weight offers by poverty or any other factor.HYUFD said:
Oxford can only take those who meet its admission criteria ie a minimum of AAA at A Level now in most cases and usually with some A* added too.TheScreamingEagles said:Lammy’s got a point.
This is truly shameful.
https://twitter.com/davidlammy/status/978904227966746630?s=21
Almost 3/4 of those from the poorest homes have less than 2 A Levels, let alone 3 A grades
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/apr/20/poor-students-lack-alevels
Making it just post graduate would just see it dominated by postgraduates with 1sts from Russell Group universities so I doubt would make much difference0 -
Having done exactly that I am aware of the possibility.HYUFD said:
The Oxford jurisprudence course is not an LLB but still counts as a qualifying law course and graduates can go straight on to do the Legal Practice Course or Bar Proessional Training Course after graduationTheWhiteRabbit said:
There's no law degree at Oxford, must also have been jurisprudenceTheScreamingEagles said:This explains everything.
David Gauke read law at St Edmund Hall.
Must be up there with Blair reading Jurisprudence and not being aware he needed primary legislation to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/law-jurisprudence?wssl=1
And you can be damn sure that when I was on University Challenge I said "law". But that is just shorthand, and indeed useful shorthand, given only one-ninth of my grade was determined by an exam (and coursework) in actual jurisprudence.
0 -
An alternative view:NickPalmer said:Compreghensive win for Corbyn at last PMQs before Easter - good to see substantive questions and some genuine interaction between the leaders.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/mar/28/pmqs-may-corbyn-britons-could-lose-right-to-urgent-medical-treatment-in-eu-after-brexit-peers-warn-politics-live
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/9789588030592983040 -
Google did that and discovered not only that what it thought were America's top universities weren't, but also that many of its best people did not have degrees.TheScreamingEagles said:
It does. We did find out that not all unis are equal though.tlg86 said:
The civil service does it, and I must admit, I think the bias can work both ways.TheScreamingEagles said:
My old firm introduced that a few years ago.tlg86 said:
But Oxford's a dump!TheScreamingEagles said:Lammy’s got a point.
This is truly shameful.
https://twitter.com/davidlammy/status/978904227966746630?s=21
Seriously, many organisations ask applicants to not put the name of their university on their application.
It was to stop a perceived red brick bias.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/09/technology/google-people-laszlo-bock/index.html0 -
Meanwhile, out in the wider party:NickPalmer said:Compreghensive win for Corbyn at last PMQs before Easter - good to see substantive questions and some genuine interaction between the leaders.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/mar/28/pmqs-may-corbyn-britons-could-lose-right-to-urgent-medical-treatment-in-eu-after-brexit-peers-warn-politics-live
"Former Labour minister David Lammy is being threatened with deselection by his local party after attending a rally against anti-Semitism."
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/david-lammy-threatened-with-deselection-after-attending-labour-antisemitism-protest-a3800991.html0 -
What exactly does he think Jeremy Corbyn should have asked the Prime Minister about Labour anti-semitism?CarlottaVance said:
An alternative view:NickPalmer said:Compreghensive win for Corbyn at last PMQs before Easter - good to see substantive questions and some genuine interaction between the leaders.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/mar/28/pmqs-may-corbyn-britons-could-lose-right-to-urgent-medical-treatment-in-eu-after-brexit-peers-warn-politics-live
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/9789588030592983040 -
My other half (And a large chunk of my friends network) went to ManchesterTheWhiteRabbit said:
Having done exactly that I am aware of the possibility.HYUFD said:
The Oxford jurisprudence course is not an LLB but still counts as a qualifying law course and graduates can go straight on to do the Legal Practice Course or Bar Proessional Training Course after graduationTheWhiteRabbit said:
There's no law degree at Oxford, must also have been jurisprudenceTheScreamingEagles said:This explains everything.
David Gauke read law at St Edmund Hall.
Must be up there with Blair reading Jurisprudence and not being aware he needed primary legislation to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/law-jurisprudence?wssl=1
And you can be damn sure that when I was on University Challenge I said "law". But that is just shorthand, and indeed useful shorthand, given only one-ninth of my grade was determined by an exam (and coursework) in actual jurisprudence.
0 -
Mr. Eagles, hmm. Isn't Macron pro-EU, whereas Five Star wants a referendum on Italy leaving the eurozone?0
-
The predicted / after grade offer problem is as old as time.HYUFD said:
Changing entrance requirements back to what they used to be would require an entrance exam and classics. Of course if we had a few more grammar schools again we might also see an increase in the number of state school pupils at Oxford again tooDecrepitJohnL said:
Changing the entrance requirements back to what they used to be would not be dumbing down -- that would be making the course or exams easier. Not that rectifying faults in schools is necessarily to be condemned.HYUFD said:
Why should Oxford dumb down just to rectify the faults of the school system?DecrepitJohnL said:
Oxford could change its admissions requirements but yes, the pipeline needs addressing. Making Oxbridge post-graduate only would also be sensible but I'm not holding my breath. In the short term, it should be possible to weight offers by poverty or any other factor.HYUFD said:
Oxford can only take those who meet its admission criteria ie a minimum of AAA at A Level now in most cases and usually with some A* added too.TheScreamingEagles said:Lammy’s got a point.
This is truly shameful.
https://twitter.com/davidlammy/status/978904227966746630?s=21
Almost 3/4 of those from the poorest homes have less than 2 A Levels, let alone 3 A grades
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/apr/20/poor-students-lack-alevels
Making it just post graduate would just see it dominated by postgraduates with 1sts from Russell Group universities so I doubt would make much difference
I remember the looks on the more middle class Oxbridge applicants in my sixth form Maths class when I pulled straight A's out of nowhere (before starred A's were really a mainstream thing) with the classic male few months of cram revision, and after being too far away in my predicted grades, and correctly so, to even contemplate an application.
Mrs Rata had a very different problem. She transferred into a Grammar Sixth Form in Kent to improve her Oxford chances, only to find her predicted grades held down as she was a comp kid and not one of 'their girls' whose capabilities they 'knew'. The application failed as a result, and it still rankles with her to this day.
0 -
What does the Prime Minister intend to do about the shadowy organisations that pull the strings from behind the scenes to run society the Labour Party ?DecrepitJohnL said:
What exactly does he think Jeremy Corbyn should have asked the Prime Minister about Labour anti-semitism?CarlottaVance said:
An alternative view:NickPalmer said:Compreghensive win for Corbyn at last PMQs before Easter - good to see substantive questions and some genuine interaction between the leaders.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/mar/28/pmqs-may-corbyn-britons-could-lose-right-to-urgent-medical-treatment-in-eu-after-brexit-peers-warn-politics-live
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/978958803059298304 0 -
Well so did Le Pen and she u-turned.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, hmm. Isn't Macron pro-EU, whereas Five Star wants a referendum on Italy leaving the eurozone?
0 -
Both ALDE I believe.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
How's he going to do it? Is he going to:TGOHF said:
Beginning to wonder if Team Corbo will begin to realise what a threat Khan is to their dear leader.CarlottaVance said:
We do not doubt the strength and sincerity of the Mayor’s concerns on behalf of the victims in particular and Londoners in general. However, in our judgment none of these matters confers standing on the Mayor to bring this claim.Richard_Nabavi said:Interestingly, the court has ruled that the Mayor of London did not have standing to bring a claim:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/dsd-nbv-v-parole-board-and-ors-summary.pdf
Back in yer box.....
He's an ambitious chap and will be looking at a bigger job than Mayor soon.
1. stand down from the mayoralty in 2020;
2. try to double-hat for two years;
3. provoke the biggest by-election ever by resigning to further his own ambition?
Devolved politics can provide a good platform from which to create a profile but it also puts one hell of a barrier between an individual and the overall leadership, and will also do so until parties change their rules to allow non-MPs to stand - which is obviously against the interests of any current leader, so unlikely to happen apart from at the very tail-end of a leadership where someone already on the way out wishes to broaden the field.0 -
Mr. Eagles, yes, but Five Star might yet have a role in Italian governance, whereas Le Pen lost.0
-
If your grades were better thsn predicted you can still take a gap year and apply to Oxford after A LevelsPro_Rata said:
The predicted / after grade offer problem is as old as time.HYUFD said:
Changing entrance requirements back to what they used to be would require an entrance exam and classics. Of course if we had a few more grammar schools again we might also see an increase in the number of state school pupils at Oxford again tooDecrepitJohnL said:
Changing the entrance requirements back to what they used to be would not be dumbing down -- that would be making the course or exams easier. Not that rectifying faults in schools is necessarily to be condemned.HYUFD said:
Why should Oxford dumb down just to rectify the faults of the school system?DecrepitJohnL said:
Oxford could change its admissions requirements but yes, the pipeline needs addressing. Making Oxbridge post-graduate only would also be sensible but I'm not holding my breath. In the short term, it should be possible to weight offers by poverty or any other factor.HYUFD said:
Oxford can only take those who meet its admission criteria ie a minimum of AAA at A Level now in most cases and usually with some A* added too.TheScreamingEagles said:Lammy’s got a point.
This is truly shameful.
https://twitter.com/davidlammy/status/978904227966746630?s=21
Almost 3/4 of those from the poorest homes have less than 2 A Levels, let alone 3 A grades
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/apr/20/poor-students-lack-alevels
Making it just post graduate would just see it dominated by postgraduates with 1sts from Russell Group universities so I doubt would make much difference
I remember the looks on the more middle class Oxbridge applicants in my sixth form Maths class when I pulled straight A's out of nowhere (before starred A's were really a mainstream thing) with the classic male few months of cram revision, and after being too far away in my predicted grades, and correctly so, to even contemplate an application.
Mrs Rata had a very different problem. She transferred into a Grammar Sixth Form in Kent to improve her Oxford chances, only to find her predicted grades held down as she was a comp kid and not one of 'their girls' whose capabilities they 'knew'. The application failed as a result, and it still rankles with her to this day.0 -
Mr. Herdson, if Jarvis is an MP for an area covered by the new mayoralty then his seat will be in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire. Labour would have to work mightily to lose it.
Anyway, I must be off.0 -
Not being allowed to put your university on a job application is moronic, levelling-down, socialist madness.
Why on Earth is the civil service allowed to get away with it when we have a Tory government?0 -
You have a good memory Mr PulpstarPulpstar said:
My other half (And a large chunk of my friends network) went to ManchesterTheWhiteRabbit said:
Having done exactly that I am aware of the possibility.HYUFD said:
The Oxford jurisprudence course is not an LLB but still counts as a qualifying law course and graduates can go straight on to do the Legal Practice Course or Bar Proessional Training Course after graduationTheWhiteRabbit said:
There's no law degree at Oxford, must also have been jurisprudenceTheScreamingEagles said:This explains everything.
David Gauke read law at St Edmund Hall.
Must be up there with Blair reading Jurisprudence and not being aware he needed primary legislation to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/law-jurisprudence?wssl=1
And you can be damn sure that when I was on University Challenge I said "law". But that is just shorthand, and indeed useful shorthand, given only one-ninth of my grade was determined by an exam (and coursework) in actual jurisprudence.0 -
Indeed. I was happy with my choices, and carried on regardless.HYUFD said:
If your grades were better thsn predicted you can still take a gap year and apply to Oxford after A LevelsPro_Rata said:
The predicted / after grade offer problem is as old as time.HYUFD said:
Changing entrance requirements back to what they used to be would require an entrance exam and classics. Of course if we had a few more grammar schools again we might also see an increase in the number of state school pupils at Oxford again tooDecrepitJohnL said:
Changing the entrance requirements back to what they used to be would not be dumbing down -- that would be making the course or exams easier. Not that rectifying faults in schools is necessarily to be condemned.HYUFD said:
Why should Oxford dumb down just to rectify the faults of the school system?DecrepitJohnL said:
Oxford could change its admissions requirements but yes, the pipeline needs addressing. Making Oxbridge post-graduate only would also be sensible but I'm not holding my breath. In the short term, it should be possible to weight offers by poverty or any other factor.HYUFD said:
Oxford can only take those who meet its admission criteria ie a minimum of AAA at A Level now in most cases and usually with some A* added too.TheScreamingEagles said:Lammy’s got a point.
This is truly shameful.
https://twitter.com/davidlammy/status/978904227966746630?s=21
Almost 3/4 of those from the poorest homes have less than 2 A Levels, let alone 3 A grades
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/apr/20/poor-students-lack-alevels
Making it just post graduate would just see it dominated by postgraduates with 1sts from Russell Group universities so I doubt would make much difference
I remember the looks on the more middle class Oxbridge applicants in my sixth form Maths class when I pulled straight A's out of nowhere (before starred A's were really a mainstream thing) with the classic male few months of cram revision, and after being too far away in my predicted grades, and correctly so, to even contemplate an application.
Mrs Rata had a very different problem. She transferred into a Grammar Sixth Form in Kent to improve her Oxford chances, only to find her predicted grades held down as she was a comp kid and not one of 'their girls' whose capabilities they 'knew'. The application failed as a result, and it still rankles with her to this day.
The question would be what to arrange in a gap year at such a late stage. In this respect too, I think privilege might afford better options to an 18 year old finding themselves in that position.
0 -
Plenty of things. From travel to voluntary work, even just working in Tescos for a few months would you get you some useful experience in a workplace and raise some cashPro_Rata said:
Indeed. I was happy with my choices, and carried on regardless.HYUFD said:
If your grades were better thsn predicted you can still take a gap year and apply to Oxford after A LevelsPro_Rata said:
The predicted / after grade offer problem is as old as time.HYUFD said:
Changing entrance requirements back to what they used to be would require an entrance exam and classics. Of course if we had a few more grammar schools again we might also see an increase in the number of state school pupils at Oxford again tooDecrepitJohnL said:
Changing the entrance requirements back to what they used to be would not be dumbing down -- that would be making the course or exams easier. Not that rectifying faults in schools is necessarily to be condemned.HYUFD said:
Why should Oxford dumb down just to rectify the faults of the school system?DecrepitJohnL said:
Oxford could change its admissions requirements but yes, the pipeline needs addressing. Making Oxbridge post-graduate only would also be sensible but I'm not holding my breath. In the short term, it should be possible to weight offers by poverty or any other factor.HYUFD said:
Oxford can only take those who meet its admission criteria ie a minimum of AAA at A Level now in most cases and usually with some A* added too.TheScreamingEagles said:Lammy’s got a point.
This is truly shameful.
https://twitter.com/davidlammy/status/978904227966746630?s=21
Almost 3/4 of those from the poorest homes have less than 2 A Levels, let alone 3 A grades
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/apr/20/poor-students-lack-alevels
Making it just post graduate would just see it dominated by postgraduates with 1sts from Russell Group universities so I doubt would make much difference
I remember the looks on the more middle class Oxbridge applicants in my sixth form Maths class when I pulled straight A's out of nowhere (before starred A's
The question would be what to arrange in a gap year at such a late stage. In this respect too, I think privilege might afford better options to an 18 year old finding themselves in that position.0 -
From memory Sheffield Hallam university was an impressive outlier of getting people onto the civil service fast stream.tlg86 said:
The civil service does it, and I must admit, I think the bias can work both ways.TheScreamingEagles said:
My old firm introduced that a few years ago.tlg86 said:
But Oxford's a dump!TheScreamingEagles said:Lammy’s got a point.
This is truly shameful.
https://twitter.com/davidlammy/status/978904227966746630?s=21
Seriously, many organisations ask applicants to not put the name of their university on their application.
It was to stop a perceived red brick bias.0 -
That's a very good article, a bucket of cold water on the hysterics.CarlottaVance said:Useful explainer/clarifier on CA/Trump/Brexit:
To be crystal clear, I’m not arguing that Cambridge Analytica and Kogan were innocent. At the very least, it is clear they were doing things that were contrary to Facebook’s data sharing policies. And similarly Facebook seems to have been altogether too cavalier with permitting developers to access its users’ private data.
What I am arguing is that Cambridge Analytica are not the puppet masters they are being widely portrayed as. If anything they are much more akin to Donald Trump; making widely exaggerated claims about their abilities and getting lots of attention as a result.
https://god-knows-what.com/2018/03/27/why-almost-everything-reported-about-the-cambridge-analytica-facebook-hacking-controversy-is-wrong/0 -
It is to stop a narrow out of touch elite from running(ruining) the country.RoyalBlue said:Not being allowed to put your university on a job application is moronic, levelling-down, socialist madness.
Why on Earth is the civil service allowed to get away with it when we have a Tory government?
That's the sort of thing that caused Brexit I believe.
The elite didn't carry the demos for the EU integration project.0 -
Looks like your Missus ain't getting that new sofa.Pulpstar said:
Yes but David Gauke staying on won't pay for the new sofa the misses is eyeing up will itRichard_Nabavi said:
I hope this doesn't wreck David Gauke's career, because I think he's a talented minister. But that juxtaposition doesn't look good.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/9789618468027965440 -
I should have also mentioned (credit to MD for reminding me, via the Jarvis/SYorks Mayor issue), that Labour's policy is that mayors can't serve as MPs, so if Khan wanted to return to Westminster, then as long as the current policy is in place, he'd have to either stand down in 2020, which would leave him out of the fray for two years, or else resign mid-term.david_herdson said:
How's he going to do it? Is he going to:TGOHF said:
Beginning to wonder if Team Corbo will begin to realise what a threat Khan is to their dear leader.CarlottaVance said:
We do not doubt the strength and sincerity of the Mayor’s concerns on behalf of the victims in particular and Londoners in general. However, in our judgment none of these matters confers standing on the Mayor to bring this claim.Richard_Nabavi said:Interestingly, the court has ruled that the Mayor of London did not have standing to bring a claim:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/dsd-nbv-v-parole-board-and-ors-summary.pdf
Back in yer box.....
He's an ambitious chap and will be looking at a bigger job than Mayor soon.
1. stand down from the mayoralty in 2020;
2. try to double-hat for two years;
3. provoke the biggest by-election ever by resigning to further his own ambition?
Devolved politics can provide a good platform from which to create a profile but it also puts one hell of a barrier between an individual and the overall leadership, and will also do so until parties change their rules to allow non-MPs to stand - which is obviously against the interests of any current leader, so unlikely to happen apart from at the very tail-end of a leadership where someone already on the way out wishes to broaden the field.0 -
That he's getting his friends to brief on his behalf suggests he's not long for this world.TheScreamingEagles said:
Looks like your Missus ain't getting that new sofa.Pulpstar said:
Yes but David Gauke staying on won't pay for the new sofa the misses is eyeing up will itRichard_Nabavi said:
I hope this doesn't wreck David Gauke's career, because I think he's a talented minister. But that juxtaposition doesn't look good.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/9789618468027965440 -
Never believe anything before it's been officially deniedTheScreamingEagles said:
Looks like your Missus ain't getting that new sofa.Pulpstar said:
Yes but David Gauke staying on won't pay for the new sofa the misses is eyeing up will itRichard_Nabavi said:
I hope this doesn't wreck David Gauke's career, because I think he's a talented minister. But that juxtaposition doesn't look good.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/9789618468027965440 -
Swing back.0
-
Yes but these days there should be no need. Just wait till the results are known before making offers. A computer could do the job in seconds. No need for interviews but if anyone can prove they are valid predictors of success, then skype to the rescue!HYUFD said:
If your grades were better thsn predicted you can still take a gap year and apply to Oxford after A LevelsPro_Rata said:
The predicted / after grade offer problem is as old as time.HYUFD said:
Changing entrance requirements back to what they used to be would require an entrance exam and classics. Of course if we had a few more grammar schools again we might also see an increase in the number of state school pupils at Oxford again tooDecrepitJohnL said:
Changing the entrance requirements back to what they used to be would not be dumbing down -- that would be making the course or exams easier. Not that rectifying faults in schools is necessarily to be condemned.HYUFD said:
Why should Oxford dumb down just to rectify the faults of the school system?DecrepitJohnL said:
Oxford could change its admissions requirements but yes, the pipeline needs addressing. Making Oxbridge post-graduate only would also be sensible but I'm not holding my breath. In the short term, it should be possible to weight offers by poverty or any other factor.HYUFD said:
Oxford can only take those who meet its admission criteria ie a minimum of AAA at A Level now in most cases and usually with some A* added too.TheScreamingEagles said:Lammy’s got a point.
This is truly shameful.
https://twitter.com/davidlammy/status/978904227966746630?s=21
Almost 3/4 of those from the poorest homes have less than 2 A Levels, let alone 3 A grades
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/apr/20/poor-students-lack-alevels
Making it just post graduate would just see it dominated by postgraduates with 1sts from Russell Group universities so I doubt would make much difference
I remember the looks on the more middle class Oxbridge applicants in my sixth form Maths class when I pulled straight A's out of nowhere (before starred A's were really a mainstream thing) with the classic male few months of cram revision, and after being too far away in my predicted grades, and correctly so, to even contemplate an application.
Mrs Rata had a very different problem. She transferred into a Grammar Sixth Form in Kent to improve her Oxford chances, only to find her predicted grades held down as she was a comp kid and not one of 'their girls' whose capabilities they 'knew'. The application failed as a result, and it still rankles with her to this day.0 -
Hardwick's letter:
I had no role in the decision of the panel in the case
I will not pass the buck to those who work under me0 -
Labour would have to work mightily hard to lose it whatever. They tried their best with the PCC election but still managed to win (though Billings is a more impressive figure than Shaun Wright was).Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Herdson, if Jarvis is an MP for an area covered by the new mayoralty then his seat will be in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire. Labour would have to work mightily to lose it.
Anyway, I must be off.0 -
By (3) do you mean a by-election to the mayoralty in ~2021? I think that is by far the most likely option.david_herdson said:
How's he going to do it? Is he going to:TGOHF said:
Beginning to wonder if Team Corbo will begin to realise what a threat Khan is to their dear leader.CarlottaVance said:
We do not doubt the strength and sincerity of the Mayor’s concerns on behalf of the victims in particular and Londoners in general. However, in our judgment none of these matters confers standing on the Mayor to bring this claim.Richard_Nabavi said:Interestingly, the court has ruled that the Mayor of London did not have standing to bring a claim:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/dsd-nbv-v-parole-board-and-ors-summary.pdf
Back in yer box.....
He's an ambitious chap and will be looking at a bigger job than Mayor soon.
1. stand down from the mayoralty in 2020;
2. try to double-hat for two years;
3. provoke the biggest by-election ever by resigning to further his own ambition?
Devolved politics can provide a good platform from which to create a profile but it also puts one hell of a barrier between an individual and the overall leadership, and will also do so until parties change their rules to allow non-MPs to stand - which is obviously against the interests of any current leader, so unlikely to happen apart from at the very tail-end of a leadership where someone already on the way out wishes to broaden the field.
0 -
UKIP's campaign was also diabolical in that campaign.david_herdson said:
Labour would have to work mightily hard to lose it whatever. They tried their best with the PCC election but still managed to win (though Billings is a more impressive figure than Shaun Wright was).Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Herdson, if Jarvis is an MP for an area covered by the new mayoralty then his seat will be in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire. Labour would have to work mightily to lose it.
Anyway, I must be off.
Even the victims were asking them to stop.0 -
He is responsible for the systems and processes thoughPulpstar said:Hardwick's letter:
I had no role in the decision of the panel in the case
I will not pass the buck to those who work under me0 -
Yes, the bet looks toast - he even has the full confidence of the PMTheScreamingEagles said:
Looks like your Missus ain't getting that new sofa.Pulpstar said:
Yes but David Gauke staying on won't pay for the new sofa the misses is eyeing up will itRichard_Nabavi said:
I hope this doesn't wreck David Gauke's career, because I think he's a talented minister. But that juxtaposition doesn't look good.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/978961846802796544
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBen/status/9789669048146124800 -
Start researching sofas.Pulpstar said:Yes, the bet looks toast - he even has the full confidence of the PM
0 -
Assuming Gauke does go, who will/should be his replacement.
Given his experience it should be Dominic Raab, but given Mrs May is doing her best to sabotage the chances of the likes of Raab it won't be Raab.
It will mean we'd be on our sixth Justice Secretary in three years.
#JusticeIsTheNewHomeOffice0 -
Reservoir levels in the Severn Trent area pushing 96% capacity. This makes me happy.
https://www.stwater.co.uk/about-us/reservoir-levels/
Mrs May has had a very good few weeks. Mr Corbyn has not. I am immensely confident that Jeremy will never be Prime Minister. That is good news for the country and, I suspect, the Labour party. It would also be good if Mrs May could use her current strength to downgrade some of the talentless fools currently in the cabinet solely because of their positions on Brexit.0 -
I think I'm going to spend my winnings on some new trainers.Pulpstar said:
Yes, the bet looks toast - he even has the full confidence of the PMTheScreamingEagles said:
Looks like your Missus ain't getting that new sofa.Pulpstar said:
Yes but David Gauke staying on won't pay for the new sofa the misses is eyeing up will itRichard_Nabavi said:
I hope this doesn't wreck David Gauke's career, because I think he's a talented minister. But that juxtaposition doesn't look good.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/978961846802796544
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBen/status/9789669048146124800 -
I thought this was very revealing:Richard_Nabavi said:
That's a very good article, a bucket of cold water on the hysterics.CarlottaVance said:Useful explainer/clarifier on CA/Trump/Brexit:
To be crystal clear, I’m not arguing that Cambridge Analytica and Kogan were innocent. At the very least, it is clear they were doing things that were contrary to Facebook’s data sharing policies. And similarly Facebook seems to have been altogether too cavalier with permitting developers to access its users’ private data.
What I am arguing is that Cambridge Analytica are not the puppet masters they are being widely portrayed as. If anything they are much more akin to Donald Trump; making widely exaggerated claims about their abilities and getting lots of attention as a result.
https://god-knows-what.com/2018/03/27/why-almost-everything-reported-about-the-cambridge-analytica-facebook-hacking-controversy-is-wrong/
So given how prevalent Facebook data harvesting was and that there are many developers with more than 270,000 users to harvest from, why is Cambridge Analytica receiving so much media attention?
The answer to this seems to primarily how journalists, particularly Carole Cadwalladr at the Observer, have framed the story...... Carole Cadwalladr, who spent years on the story, has explained in various interviews that she approached the story not as an investigative journalist but as a features writer. This meant that she focused on delving into ‘the human side of the story’, or put another way- Chris Wylie. There are pros and cons to such an approach but the biggest drawback is how invested and reliant it made her and subsequent coverage in accepting Wylie’s narrative, which just so happens to paint him as a young mastermind at the center of global political conspiracies0 -
-
-
It'd be a by-election in mid-2020. Labour won't let mayors double-hat as MPs so if Khan returned to the Commons, then there'd need to be a (very expensive) mayoral by-election, probably in late June or early July.TheWhiteRabbit said:
By (3) do you mean a by-election to the mayoralty in ~2021? I think that is by far the most likely option.david_herdson said:
How's he going to do it? Is he going to:TGOHF said:
Beginning to wonder if Team Corbo will begin to realise what a threat Khan is to their dear leader.CarlottaVance said:
We do not doubt the strength and sincerity of the Mayor’s concerns on behalf of the victims in particular and Londoners in general. However, in our judgment none of these matters confers standing on the Mayor to bring this claim.Richard_Nabavi said:Interestingly, the court has ruled that the Mayor of London did not have standing to bring a claim:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/dsd-nbv-v-parole-board-and-ors-summary.pdf
Back in yer box.....
He's an ambitious chap and will be looking at a bigger job than Mayor soon.
1. stand down from the mayoralty in 2020;
2. try to double-hat for two years;
3. provoke the biggest by-election ever by resigning to further his own ambition?
Devolved politics can provide a good platform from which to create a profile but it also puts one hell of a barrier between an individual and the overall leadership, and will also do so until parties change their rules to allow non-MPs to stand - which is obviously against the interests of any current leader, so unlikely to happen apart from at the very tail-end of a leadership where someone already on the way out wishes to broaden the field.0 -
The question should be asked whether the Justice Secretary should be a tip-top lawyer who can get it right first time or a lay Cabinet minister who can plausibly offload responsibility and blame onto officials. In the old language -- should the Justice Secretary be modelled on the Lord Chancellor or on the Home Secretary?TheScreamingEagles said:Assuming Gauke does go, who will/should be his replacement.
Given his experience it should be Dominic Raab, but given Mrs May is doing her best to sabotage the chances of the likes of Raab it won't be Raab.
It will mean we'd be on our sixth Justice Secretary in three years.
#JusticeIsTheNewHomeOffice0 -
This is the result of Blair’s constitutional vandalism.DecrepitJohnL said:
The question should be asked whether the Justice Secretary should be a tip-top lawyer who can get it right first time or a lay Cabinet minister who can plausibly offload responsibility and blame onto officials. In the old language -- should the Justice Secretary be modelled on the Lord Chancellor or on the Home Secretary?TheScreamingEagles said:Assuming Gauke does go, who will/should be his replacement.
Given his experience it should be Dominic Raab, but given Mrs May is doing her best to sabotage the chances of the likes of Raab it won't be Raab.
It will mean we'd be on our sixth Justice Secretary in three years.
#JusticeIsTheNewHomeOffice
The two best Justice Secretaries were Ken Clarke and Michael Gove.
One was an eminent QC the other was a journalist with a degree in English.0 -
Neatly gliding over the question of how much public money he spent on legal costs which he won't get back. That's the real significance of Para 11.Charles said:
I brought the claim...the court ruledPulpstar said:I doubt point 11. will worry Khan much, on the substantive question the parole board's decision has been quashed.
Neatly gliding over the question of standing0 -
Not sure I follow.david_herdson said:
It'd be a by-election in mid-2020. Labour won't let mayors double-hat as MPs so if Khan returned to the Commons, then there'd need to be a (very expensive) mayoral by-election, probably in late June or early July.TheWhiteRabbit said:
By (3) do you mean a by-election to the mayoralty in ~2021? I think that is by far the most likely option.david_herdson said:
How's he going to do it? Is he going to:TGOHF said:
Beginning to wonder if Team Corbo will begin to realise what a threat Khan is to their dear leader.CarlottaVance said:
We do not doubt the strength and sincerity of the Mayor’s concerns on behalf of the victims in particular and Londoners in general. However, in our judgment none of these matters confers standing on the Mayor to bring this claim.Richard_Nabavi said:Interestingly, the court has ruled that the Mayor of London did not have standing to bring a claim:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/dsd-nbv-v-parole-board-and-ors-summary.pdf
Back in yer box.....
He's an ambitious chap and will be looking at a bigger job than Mayor soon.
1. stand down from the mayoralty in 2020;
2. try to double-hat for two years;
3. provoke the biggest by-election ever by resigning to further his own ambition?
Devolved politics can provide a good platform from which to create a profile but it also puts one hell of a barrier between an individual and the overall leadership, and will also do so until parties change their rules to allow non-MPs to stand - which is obviously against the interests of any current leader, so unlikely to happen apart from at the very tail-end of a leadership where someone already on the way out wishes to broaden the field.
Khan's decision is whether to stand for the mayoralty again in 2020.
If the next GE election 2022, then the mayoral by-election would be in 2021 or potentially 2022 I would have thought.0 -
0
-
The Sun unimpressed by Corbyn?CarlottaVance said:Sun not impressed:
https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/978972628525506560
Colour me stunned.0 -
These are going to be the David Gauke trainers.
So come on David and do the decent thing and resign.
0 -
Airbus has slammed attempts by Brussels to freeze the UK out of the EU’s €10bn Galileo navigation project after Brexit, warning that British participation in European space programmes is critical to partnership on security and defence.
Tom Enders, Airbus chief executive, has urged the European Commission to rethink its proposal to exclude the UK from access to Galileo’s encrypted services or industrial participation after March 2019. He called on both sides to find a long-term solution to retain Britain’s participation in all space programmes.
“The UK’s continued participation in the EU Galileo programme will ensure security and defence ties are strengthened for the benefit of Europe as a whole, during a period of increasing threats to our security and geopolitical instability,” he said in a statement to the Financial Times.
https://www.ft.com/content/a3eb07ac-3278-11e8-ac48-10c6fdc22f03
0 -
Boris Johnson was, of course, simultaneously Mayor of London and MP for Uxbridge.0
-
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....TheScreamingEagles said:These are going to be the David Gauke trainers.
0 -
Sorry, you're right: I'm talking nonsense. I meant 2022, not 2020. For some reason, my mind had wiped all memory of the 2017GE (even though I clearly had some consciousness of it as were that the date of the next GE, it'd be easy for the London mayor to move to Westminster).TheWhiteRabbit said:
Not sure I follow.david_herdson said:
It'd be a by-election in mid-2020. Labour won't let mayors double-hat as MPs so if Khan returned to the Commons, then there'd need to be a (very expensive) mayoral by-election, probably in late June or early July.TheWhiteRabbit said:
By (3) do you mean a by-election to the mayoralty in ~2021? I think that is by far the most likely option.david_herdson said:
How's he going to do it? Is he going to:TGOHF said:
Beginning to wonder if Team Corbo will begin to realise what a threat Khan is to their dear leader.CarlottaVance said:
We do not doubt the strength and sincerity of the Mayor’s concerns on behalf of the victims in particular and Londoners in general. However, in our judgment none of these matters confers standing on the Mayor to bring this claim.Richard_Nabavi said:Interestingly, the court has ruled that the Mayor of London did not have standing to bring a claim:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/dsd-nbv-v-parole-board-and-ors-summary.pdf
Back in yer box.....
He's an ambitious chap and will be looking at a bigger job than Mayor soon.
1. stand down from the mayoralty in 2020;
2. try to double-hat for two years;
3. provoke the biggest by-election ever by resigning to further his own ambition?
Devolved politics can provide a good platform from which to create a profile but it also puts one hell of a barrier between an individual and the overall leadership, and will also do so until parties change their rules to allow non-MPs to stand - which is obviously against the interests of any current leader, so unlikely to happen apart from at the very tail-end of a leadership where someone already on the way out wishes to broaden the field.
Khan's decision is whether to stand for the mayoralty again in 2020.
If the next GE election 2022, then the mayoral by-election would be in 2021 or potentially 2022 I would have thought.0 -
That's true. It's party rules rather than legislation that'd be a problem for Khan (and is a problem for Jarvis).OldKingCole said:Boris Johnson was, of course, simultaneously Mayor of London and MP for Uxbridge.
0 -
I thought it was quite brave of David Gaulke not to judicially review this extremely unpopular decision. It was based on legal advice and the easy path was to go to court and be seen to be doing all that could be done. It gave respect to the separation of roles and the undesirability of the government seeking to undermine the independent Parole Board.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, David Gauke says in the statement he's just released:
I took expert legal advice from leading counsel on whether I should bring a challenge. The bar for judicial review is set high. I considered whether the decision was legally rational - in other words, a decision which no reasonable Parole Board could have made.
The advice I received was that such an argument was highly unlikely to succeed. And, indeed, this argument did not succeed. However, the victims succeeded in a different argument.
The court summary says:
We uphold the challenge by DSD and NBV, as we have slightly reformulated it, to the rationality of the decision of the Parole Board directing the release of Mr Radford on the basis that it should have undertaken further inquiry into the circumstances of his offending and, in particular, the extent to which the limited way in which he has described his offending may undermine his overall credibility and reliability. That is so even in relation to the offences of which he was convicted, let alone any other offending
Not that much of a different argument, if I've understood correctly.
I hope this doesn't wreck David Gauke's career, because I think he's a talented minister. But that juxtaposition doesn't look good.
It seems to me , even although he has proven to be wrong on this occasion these are admirable and desirable traits in a Justice Minister. I hope that May stands by him.0 -
Don't forget it's The Sun wot wins it.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Sun unimpressed by Corbyn?CarlottaVance said:Sun not impressed:
https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/978972628525506560
Colour me stunned.0 -
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.CarlottaVance said:
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....TheScreamingEagles said:These are going to be the David Gauke trainers.
0 -
Well they got the Tories a landslide last year.TOPPING said:
Don't forget it's The Sun wot wins it.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Sun unimpressed by Corbyn?CarlottaVance said:Sun not impressed:
https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/978972628525506560
Colour me stunned.0 -
Ken Clarke did, robustly, immediately after Burgon - who came across a bit half hearted, knowing that the 'something [that] must be done' would be entirely inappropriate....DavidL said:
I hope that May stands by him.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, David Gauke says in the statement he's just released:
I took expert legal advice from leading counsel on whether I should bring a challenge. The bar for judicial review is set high. I considered whether the decision was legally rational - in other words, a decision which no reasonable Parole Board could have made.
The advice I received was that such an argument was highly unlikely to succeed. And, indeed, this argument did not succeed. However, the victims succeeded in a different argument.
The court summary says:
We uphold the challenge by DSD and NBV, as we have slightly reformulated it, to the rationality of the decision of the Parole Board directing the release of Mr Radford on the basis that it should have undertaken further inquiry into the circumstances of his offending and, in particular, the extent to which the limited way in which he has described his offending may undermine his overall credibility and reliability. That is so even in relation to the offences of which he was convicted, let alone any other offending
Not that much of a different argument, if I've understood correctly.
I hope this doesn't wreck David Gauke's career, because I think he's a talented minister. But that juxtaposition doesn't look good.0 -
Anna Soubry also backing Gauke.
So Clarke, Grieve, and Soubry, the legal big hitters of the party are on board.0 -
Presumably you missed out on the 50-1?DavidL said:
I thought it was quite brave of David Gaulke not to judicially review this extremely unpopular decision. It was based on legal advice and the easy path was to go to court and be seen to be doing all that could be done. It gave respect to the separation of roles and the undesirability of the government seeking to undermine the independent Parole Board.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, David Gauke says in the statement he's just released:
I took expert legal advice from leading counsel on whether I should bring a challenge. The bar for judicial review is set high. I considered whether the decision was legally rational - in other words, a decision which no reasonable Parole Board could have made.
The advice I received was that such an argument was highly unlikely to succeed. And, indeed, this argument did not succeed. However, the victims succeeded in a different argument.
The court summary says:
We uphold the challenge by DSD and NBV, as we have slightly reformulated it, to the rationality of the decision of the Parole Board directing the release of Mr Radford on the basis that it should have undertaken further inquiry into the circumstances of his offending and, in particular, the extent to which the limited way in which he has described his offending may undermine his overall credibility and reliability. That is so even in relation to the offences of which he was convicted, let alone any other offending
Not that much of a different argument, if I've understood correctly.
I hope this doesn't wreck David Gauke's career, because I think he's a talented minister. But that juxtaposition doesn't look good.
It seems to me , even although he has proven to be wrong on this occasion these are admirable and desirable traits in a Justice Minister. I hope that May stands by him.0 -
To be fair both Gauke and the Parole Board Chairman were somewhere between a rock and a hard place. I can see why the Chairman felt it right to resign; not quite so sure why Gauke felt he had to come out swinging about it.0
-
TOPPING said:
Don't forget it's The Sun wot wins it.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Sun unimpressed by Corbyn?CarlottaVance said:Sun not impressed:
https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/978972628525506560
Colour me stunned.
It does sell eleven copies for every Guardian sold....0 -
What have Ken and Ed Davey said?TheScreamingEagles said:
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.CarlottaVance said:
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....TheScreamingEagles said:These are going to be the David Gauke trainers.
0 -
Gauke was right to follow the legal advice and that criminal justice shouldn’t be determined by media campaigns, no matter how popular.Richard_Nabavi said:
What have Ken and Ed Davey said?TheScreamingEagles said:
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.CarlottaVance said:
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....TheScreamingEagles said:These are going to be the David Gauke trainers.
0 -
Thanks.TheScreamingEagles said:
Gauke was right to follow the legal advice and that criminal justice shouldn’t be determined by media campaigns, no matter how popular.Richard_Nabavi said:
What have Ken and Ed Davey said?TheScreamingEagles said:
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.CarlottaVance said:
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....TheScreamingEagles said:These are going to be the David Gauke trainers.
0 -
In my opinion Mr Gauke has an excellent opportunity to come away from this episode with his dignity intact - and he should certainly acknowledge Msrs Clarke, Davey, Soubry point in his resignation letter.TheScreamingEagles said:
Gauke was right to follow the legal advice and that criminal justice shouldn’t be determined by media campaigns, no matter how popular.Richard_Nabavi said:
What have Ken and Ed Davey said?TheScreamingEagles said:
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.CarlottaVance said:
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....TheScreamingEagles said:These are going to be the David Gauke trainers.
0 -
And they are absolutely right. He sought legal advice and followed it. If the SoS for Justice can't rely on the legal advice from their own department, then we need new lawyers.Richard_Nabavi said:
Thanks.TheScreamingEagles said:
Gauke was right to follow the legal advice and that criminal justice shouldn’t be determined by media campaigns, no matter how popular.Richard_Nabavi said:
What have Ken and Ed Davey said?TheScreamingEagles said:
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.CarlottaVance said:
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....TheScreamingEagles said:These are going to be the David Gauke trainers.
0 -
"How to rig an election
In the digital age, democracy is becoming a delusion
Nic Cheeseman and Brian Klaas"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/how-to-rig-an-election/0 -
Maybe we do.oxfordsimon said:
And they are absolutely right. He sought legal advice and followed it. If the SoS for Justice can't rely on the legal advice from their own department, then we need new lawyers.Richard_Nabavi said:
Thanks.TheScreamingEagles said:
Gauke was right to follow the legal advice and that criminal justice shouldn’t be determined by media campaigns, no matter how popular.Richard_Nabavi said:
What have Ken and Ed Davey said?TheScreamingEagles said:
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.CarlottaVance said:
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....TheScreamingEagles said:These are going to be the David Gauke trainers.
0 -
Are we certain that the High Court would have reached the same conclusion had the government pursued the matter?0
-
I’m looking at it long term. I could win £610 today.Pulpstar said:
In my opinion Mr Gauke has an excellent opportunity to come away from this episode with his dignity intact - and he should certainly acknowledge Msrs Clarke, Davey, Soubry point in his resignation letter.TheScreamingEagles said:
Gauke was right to follow the legal advice and that criminal justice shouldn’t be determined by media campaigns, no matter how popular.Richard_Nabavi said:
What have Ken and Ed Davey said?TheScreamingEagles said:
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.CarlottaVance said:
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....TheScreamingEagles said:These are going to be the David Gauke trainers.
Or I could win over £5k when David Gauke becomes PM after Theresa.
Think of the PBer who makes over 19k in the same scenario. £55 at 350/1 after I tipped him.
Gives me bragging rights forever.0 -
Or he could resign today, with plenty of time to make a comeback for when May stands down in 2024...TheScreamingEagles said:
I’m looking at it long term. I could win £610 today.Pulpstar said:
In my opinion Mr Gauke has an excellent opportunity to come away from this episode with his dignity intact - and he should certainly acknowledge Msrs Clarke, Davey, Soubry point in his resignation letter.TheScreamingEagles said:
Gauke was right to follow the legal advice and that criminal justice shouldn’t be determined by media campaigns, no matter how popular.Richard_Nabavi said:
What have Ken and Ed Davey said?TheScreamingEagles said:
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.CarlottaVance said:
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....TheScreamingEagles said:These are going to be the David Gauke trainers.
Or I could win over £5k when David Gauke becomes PM after Theresa.
Think of the PBer who makes over 19k in the same scenario. £55 at 350/1 after I tipped him.
Gives me bragging rights forever.0 -
This is what David Gauke said on that point:tlg86 said:Are we certain that the High Court would have reached the same conclusion had the government pursued the matter?
I also received advice on the failure of process argument [the argument that the Parole Board did not follow proper processes - an argument used in court by the victims and Khan] and was advised that this was not one that I as secretary of state would have been able to successfully advance. The victims were better placed to make this argument and this was the argument on which they have won their case...
..
Indeed, the judgment suggests that had I brought the case, the standing of the victims may have been compromised.
No sofa for Mrs Pulpstar, by the looks of it.0 -
What is your basis for demanding his resignation?Pulpstar said:
In my opinion Mr Gauke has an excellent opportunity to come away from this episode with his dignity intact - and he should certainly acknowledge Msrs Clarke, Davey, Soubry point in his resignation letter.TheScreamingEagles said:
Gauke was right to follow the legal advice and that criminal justice shouldn’t be determined by media campaigns, no matter how popular.Richard_Nabavi said:
What have Ken and Ed Davey said?TheScreamingEagles said:
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.CarlottaVance said:
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....TheScreamingEagles said:These are going to be the David Gauke trainers.
Quite rightly, the Parole Board is independent of government - no LC should ever seek to interfere in their decision making process
As LC, Gauke took legal advice and as a result did not pursue a Judicial Review.
What did he do to justify resignation?0 -
The sofa is arriving anyway, para 11 (relating to Khan) certainly looks like a "Get out of jail free" card should Gauke wish to play it that way (Which he seem to have done so).Richard_Nabavi said:
This is what David Gauke said on that point:tlg86 said:Are we certain that the High Court would have reached the same conclusion had the government pursued the matter?
I also received advice on the failure of process argument [the argument that the Parole Board did not follow proper processes - an argument used in court by the victims and Khan] and was advised that this was not one that I as secretary of state would have been able to successfully advance. The victims were better placed to make this argument and this was the argument on which they have won their case.
No sofa for Mrs Pulpstar, by the looks of it.
But the optics aren't great for the government whatever the status of our bets.0 -
60/1 from the Magic signoxfordsimon said:What is your basis for demanding his resignation?
0 -
I suspect that final judgement should be reserved until we see the replacement Chairman.oxfordsimon said:
What is your basis for demanding his resignation?Pulpstar said:
In my opinion Mr Gauke has an excellent opportunity to come away from this episode with his dignity intact - and he should certainly acknowledge Msrs Clarke, Davey, Soubry point in his resignation letter.TheScreamingEagles said:
Gauke was right to follow the legal advice and that criminal justice shouldn’t be determined by media campaigns, no matter how popular.Richard_Nabavi said:
What have Ken and Ed Davey said?TheScreamingEagles said:
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.CarlottaVance said:
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....TheScreamingEagles said:These are going to be the David Gauke trainers.
Quite rightly, the Parole Board is independent of government - no LC should ever seek to interfere in their decision making process
As LC, Gauke took legal advice and as a result did not pursue a Judicial Review.
What did he do to justify resignation?0 -
Gauke, resign or not, is a Westminster bubble debate which, on here anyway, many seem to have a financial interest in, which may or may not be impinging.Pulpstar said:
The sofa is arriving anyway, para 11 (relating to Khan) certainly looks like a "Get out of jail free" card should Gauke wish to play it that way (Which he seem to have done so).Richard_Nabavi said:
This is what David Gauke said on that point:tlg86 said:Are we certain that the High Court would have reached the same conclusion had the government pursued the matter?
I also received advice on the failure of process argument [the argument that the Parole Board did not follow proper processes - an argument used in court by the victims and Khan] and was advised that this was not one that I as secretary of state would have been able to successfully advance. The victims were better placed to make this argument and this was the argument on which they have won their case.
No sofa for Mrs Pulpstar, by the looks of it.
But the optics aren't great for the government whatever the status of our bets.0 -
ReggieCide said:
Gauke, resign or not, is a Westminster bubble debate which, on here anyway, many seem to have a financial interest in, which may or may not be impinging.oxfordsimon said:
What is your basis for demanding his resignation?
Quite rightly, the Parole Board is independent of government - no LC should ever seek to interfere in their decision making process
As LC, Gauke took legal advice and as a result did not pursue a Judicial Review.
What did he do to justify resignation?
The clue is in the website name : http://www.politicalbetting.com/
0 -
Afternoon all
I find it interesting how small the world really is - we have the Australian cricket team tampering with the ball and allegations of improper practice on both sides during the EU Referendum.
What links these two stories - simply, the question of what you or anyone will do to win whether it's a referendum, an election, a cricket match, a job or whatever.
What would you do to win ? Would you break the law, would you bend the law ?
It's human nature to want to succeed, to want to win, but is the "win at any cost" mentality any more than an excuse for darker aspects of human nature to come through ?
How much would you smear an opponent to win ? How much would you sabotage a rival to get a job, a contract, a profit ?
Ultimately, if sport and politics are not so far apart, the question isn't about breaking the law but getting caught. Smith, Warner and Bancroft got caught - was that their crime ? If we are to believe John Holder, cricket teams have been resorting to underhand tactics for years.
In politics, too, isn't the crime getting caught ? Aren't most elections tainted by all sides doing whatever it takes - voters were intimidated and bribed in the past, they arguably still are today, only the methods have changed.
Do the ends always justify the means ?0
