Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Javid goes on the offensive at cabinet over cannabis for medic

SystemSystem Posts: 12,598
edited June 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Javid goes on the offensive at cabinet over cannabis for medical use

Sajid Javid repeatedly tried to raise the Billy Caldwell case at Cabinet this morning. But Theresa May blocked him, saying it wasn’t on the agenda https://t.co/CDya3Gnh1J

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,235
    First, like England?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Second, but only because I'm stoned.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    "Cheap medicine brings clear benefits with known and limited side-effects."

    No brainer, surely.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,998
    Hey, I was first. We need VAR.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/Torcuil/status/1008709954507862016
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    Anorak said:

    "Cheap medicine brings clear benefits with known and limited side-effects."

    No brainer, surely.

    Yes, I think that's one of them.

    But seriously, it is incredible that this has taken so long. It's almost as if we had had a Home Secretary who was simply not willing to address the evidence on this because it might be politically controversial for, say, most of the last 7 years.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    FPT
    TOPPING said:

    Blimey David we've been through this a thousand times. That move, together with the other, liquidity-based measures he took, signalled to the market that he was ready to act should that be necessary. The 0.25% itself was neither here nor there but sent an important signal to the market.

    It was by no means wholly popular, even within the Bank, but enough sensible economists understand and approve of the move, likening it to an insurance premium that was not called upon, but which it was important to have.

    DavidL said:
    And I'm afraid it is still rubbish. We have an independent central bank. Any scenario which did not involve them taking remedial steps to protect our economy from a perceived threat was completely dishonest, as well as wrong. The forecast of an immediate recession was a lie. A plain and simple lie told to con people into voting remain.

    There were plenty of lies on the other side too but it is frankly pretty ridiculous that this excuse is used to explain away how dishonest project fear was.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,862
    Javid is angling, and more competently than Gavin Williamson when he tried it.

    Bet accordingly.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    tlg86 said:

    Hey, I was first. We need VAR.

    Have to say that Paddypower have another hit with their VAR adverts. Not sure about betting with them but they are funny.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,235
    FPT:
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1008688962486132737

    I'd be more concerned about our own guillotine clauses.

    For example if a country doesn't contribute 2% of GDP to defence spending.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,329
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/Torcuil/status/1008709954507862016

    Love it - surely Mogg play real tennis or hunt the pauper.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,751
    Javid playing a blinder. Shut up and take my vote!
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,754
    Casino_Royale said:

    Javid is angling, and more competently than Gavin Williamson when he tried it.

    Bet accordingly.

    He's unsackable for the moment. So a good time to stoke a few disagreements with TM.

    I wonder though whether these moves will really appeal to the Tory party faithful, who may be less keen on his positions on immigration, drugs, and not blaming millennials for housing prices.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    Welcome to the handover of eras. Goodbye to the one where England go out on penalties, hello to the era of England being robbed by inexplicable VAR decisions.....

    You just know its going to happen!
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,736
    Nemtynakht said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/Torcuil/status/1008709954507862016

    Love it - surely Mogg play real tennis or hunt the pauper.
    There was a recent poll showing that more than half the population have "little or no interest" in football.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,348
    It is not on the Agenda seems weak.
    Is there no AOB on the agenda?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    rkrkrk said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Javid is angling, and more competently than Gavin Williamson when he tried it.

    Bet accordingly.

    He's unsackable for the moment. So a good time to stoke a few disagreements with TM.

    I wonder though whether these moves will really appeal to the Tory party faithful, who may be less keen on his positions on immigration, drugs, and not blaming millennials for housing prices.
    I doubt many have an issue with medicinal use like this (not talking self-medicating hurt my leg kind of thing here!)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    rkrkrk said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Javid is angling, and more competently than Gavin Williamson when he tried it.

    Bet accordingly.

    He's unsackable for the moment. So a good time to stoke a few disagreements with TM.

    I wonder though whether these moves will really appeal to the Tory party faithful, who may be less keen on his positions on immigration, drugs, and not blaming millennials for housing prices.
    Apparently 73% support medicinal use.

    Right now, he is making the work of his 2 predecessors as Home Sec look less than glorious. Can't imagine why Theresa doesn't like that.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    NickPalmer said:

    Nemtynakht said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/Torcuil/status/1008709954507862016

    Love it - surely Mogg play real tennis or hunt the pauper.
    There was a recent poll showing that more than half the population have "little or no interest" in football.
    30 million to tune in to Mogg then.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    https://twitter.com/eulondonrep/status/1008688732143325184?s=21
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,754
    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Javid is angling, and more competently than Gavin Williamson when he tried it.

    Bet accordingly.

    He's unsackable for the moment. So a good time to stoke a few disagreements with TM.

    I wonder though whether these moves will really appeal to the Tory party faithful, who may be less keen on his positions on immigration, drugs, and not blaming millennials for housing prices.
    Apparently 73% support medicinal use.

    Right now, he is making the work of his 2 predecessors as Home Sec look less than glorious. Can't imagine why Theresa doesn't like that.
    73% of Tory voters. But of Tory party members?
    I'd be interested in any evidence, my expectation would be that it would be less than half.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Javid is angling, and more competently than Gavin Williamson when he tried it.

    Bet accordingly.

    He's unsackable for the moment. So a good time to stoke a few disagreements with TM.

    I wonder though whether these moves will really appeal to the Tory party faithful, who may be less keen on his positions on immigration, drugs, and not blaming millennials for housing prices.
    Apparently 73% support medicinal use.

    Right now, he is making the work of his 2 predecessors as Home Sec look less than glorious. Can't imagine why Theresa doesn't like that.
    2 predecessors ?

    That almost suggests that Charles Clarke, John Reid, Jacqui Smith and Alan Johnson were towering figures...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    Pulpstar said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Nemtynakht said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/Torcuil/status/1008709954507862016

    Love it - surely Mogg play real tennis or hunt the pauper.
    There was a recent poll showing that more than half the population have "little or no interest" in football.
    30 million to tune in to Mogg then.
    Or perhaps this is the Speaker's way of driving up the football audience ?
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Theresa May - making people's lives miserable
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    Yorkshire looking a player or five short in the One Day Cup...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,197
    edited June 2018
    It is more interesting that this clash has been leaked....one asks oneself, who, why...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    MikeSmithson said:

    Theresa May - making people's lives miserable

    That was her last election slogan, surely ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Javid is angling, and more competently than Gavin Williamson when he tried it.

    Bet accordingly.

    He's unsackable for the moment. So a good time to stoke a few disagreements with TM.

    I wonder though whether these moves will really appeal to the Tory party faithful, who may be less keen on his positions on immigration, drugs, and not blaming millennials for housing prices.
    Apparently 73% support medicinal use.

    Right now, he is making the work of his 2 predecessors as Home Sec look less than glorious. Can't imagine why Theresa doesn't like that.
    2 predecessors ?

    That almost suggests that Charles Clarke, John Reid, Jacqui Smith and Alan Johnson were towering figures...
    That was not my suggestion, or my thoughts, funnily enough. But May survived in the HO by doing as little controversial as possible and distancing herself from problems. It worked, she is PM, but it did not make her a good Home Secretary.

    Interesting this story has been leaked though. He's not exactly being subtle about this.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,364
    I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    Is there anything that she isn't tin eared about?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    MikeSmithson said:

    Theresa May - making people's lives miserable

    That really should be on the side of a bus, Mike.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Javid is angling, and more competently than Gavin Williamson when he tried it.

    Bet accordingly.

    He's unsackable for the moment. So a good time to stoke a few disagreements with TM.

    I wonder though whether these moves will really appeal to the Tory party faithful, who may be less keen on his positions on immigration, drugs, and not blaming millennials for housing prices.
    Apparently 73% support medicinal use.

    Right now, he is making the work of his 2 predecessors as Home Sec look less than glorious. Can't imagine why Theresa doesn't like that.
    2 predecessors ?

    That almost suggests that Charles Clarke, John Reid, Jacqui Smith and Alan Johnson were towering figures...
    That was not my suggestion, or my thoughts, funnily enough. But May survived in the HO by doing as little controversial as possible and distancing herself from problems. It worked, she is PM, but it did not make her a good Home Secretary.

    Interesting this story has been leaked though. He's not exactly being subtle about this.
    Dislodging limpets requires skills other than subtlety.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. Pubgoer, probably cricket.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,197
    JosiasJessop said:

    I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.

    The NHS ended up pissing loads of money down the drain funding homepathy on the back of similar things.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    JosiasJessop said:

    I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.

    There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,329
    DavidL said:

    FPT
    TOPPING said:

    Blimey David we've been through this a thousand times. That move, together with the other, liquidity-based measures he took, signalled to the market that he was ready to act should that be necessary. The 0.25% itself was neither here nor there but sent an important signal to the market.

    It was by no means wholly popular, even within the Bank, but enough sensible economists understand and approve of the move, likening it to an insurance premium that was not called upon, but which it was important to have.

    DavidL said:
    And I'm afraid it is still rubbish. We have an independent central bank. Any scenario which did not involve them taking remedial steps to protect our economy from a perceived threat was completely dishonest, as well as wrong. The forecast of an immediate recession was a lie. A plain and simple lie told to con people into voting remain.

    There were plenty of lies on the other side too but it is frankly pretty ridiculous that this excuse is used to explain away how dishonest project fear was.

    +1. I said this at the time when I realised what it meant. I mean this is not solving climate change by using techology not invented yet, it is a fully expected measure from the BoE.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    DavidL said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.

    There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
    You don’t need to legalise it fully for that, just make the derived medication available by prescription.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Nemtynakht said:

    Love it - surely Mogg play real tennis or hunt the pauper.

    The Wall Game, surely?
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,578
    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.

    There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
    You don’t need to legalise it fully for that, just make the derived medication available by prescription.
    Of course if you did legalise, license and tax, that would go a long way to paying for all this NHS money the Tories are now committed to finding.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.

    There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
    You don’t need to legalise it fully for that, just make the derived medication available by prescription.
    No you don't. We manage to prescribe industrial quantities of morphine after all. But I do think that it is past time that we looked again at the legalisation of drugs. The Portuguese experience is stark: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html

    Scotland has the worst record for drug deaths in the EU and Dundee, I am ashamed to say, is the worst in Scotland. The winnowing of my children's generation by drug deaths is an incredible indictment of our current, failed policies. It's time to change.

    But I don't think Javid is going to stick his neck out that far. At least, not yet.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    An alternative point of view:

    "It isn’t Christopher Chope who’s mad – it’s his haters
    Brendan O’Neill

    The anti-Chope mania confirms the political class has lost the plot."

    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/it-isnt-christopher-chope-whos-mad-its-his-haters/21505
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    edited June 2018
    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.

    There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
    You don’t need to legalise it fully for that, just make the derived medication available by prescription.
    No you don't. We manage to prescribe industrial quantities of morphine after all. But I do think that it is past time that we looked again at the legalisation of drugs. The Portuguese experience is stark: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html

    Scotland has the worst record for drug deaths in the EU and Dundee, I am ashamed to say, is the worst in Scotland. The winnowing of my children's generation by drug deaths is an incredible indictment of our current, failed policies. It's time to change.

    But I don't think Javid is going to stick his neck out that far. At least, not yet.
    A bit cheeky of the Independent there. The article went on to say no causal link was found, it even seemed to suggest that it was down to people using “the real thing” rather than designer drugs.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    It's not a tax, it's a Brexit Dividend.

    https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1008683701708906498

    Tezza Trump...
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    AndyJS said:

    An alternative point of view:

    "It isn’t Christopher Chope who’s mad – it’s his haters
    Brendan O’Neill

    The anti-Chope mania confirms the political class has lost the plot."

    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/it-isnt-christopher-chope-whos-mad-its-his-haters/21505

    I'm guessing Brendan's other choice of article was, "Why Theresa May should have pledged to cut NHS spending by £20bn"
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited June 2018
    Duplicate
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    Scott_P said:

    It's not a tax, it's a Brexit Dividend.

    https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1008683701708906498

    Tezza Trump...

    Aren’t they called detention centres? They aren’t free range...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1008720419203973121
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    The budget is going to be such fun this year.

    "I am announcing, from midnight tonight, a 5p Brexit dividend increase on cigarettes and tobacco..."
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.

    There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
    You don’t need to legalise it fully for that, just make the derived medication available by prescription.
    No you don't. We manage to prescribe industrial quantities of morphine after all. But I do think that it is past time that we looked again at the legalisation of drugs. The Portuguese experience is stark: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html

    Scotland has the worst record for drug deaths in the EU and Dundee, I am ashamed to say, is the worst in Scotland. The winnowing of my children's generation by drug deaths is an incredible indictment of our current, failed policies. It's time to change.

    But I don't think Javid is going to stick his neck out that far. At least, not yet.
    A bit cheeky of the Independent there. The article went on to say no causal link was found, it even seemed to suggest that it was down to people using “the real thing” rather than designer drugs.
    This might be a better source of hard facts: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/countries/drug-reports/2017/portugal_en
    Or this: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-straight
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1008720419203973121

    Paul Johnson, director of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, pointed out that the divorce bill and the government’s commitment to replace EU funding “already uses up all of our EU contributions in 2022.”

    In other words, we’ve already spent our pot of savings from membership fees.

    In the long term, there will be a saving of some kind from membership fees that we no longer have to pay. But we don’t know whether a future Brexit deal will involve contributions to the EU budget.

    Look how begrudgingly they concede the point there might be savings after 2022. And if it’s a £10bn/ annum contribution, I’ll eat my hat.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,348
    AndyJS said:

    An alternative point of view:

    "It isn’t Christopher Chope who’s mad – it’s his haters
    Brendan O’Neill

    The anti-Chope mania confirms the political class has lost the plot."

    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/it-isnt-christopher-chope-whos-mad-its-his-haters/21505

    Does he simply disagree with everything?

    "Nice day, Brendan."
    "No it f--ing isn't."
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,940
    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1008720419203973121

    Paul Johnson, director of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, pointed out that the divorce bill and the government’s commitment to replace EU funding “already uses up all of our EU contributions in 2022.”

    In other words, we’ve already spent our pot of savings from membership fees.

    In the long term, there will be a saving of some kind from membership fees that we no longer have to pay. But we don’t know whether a future Brexit deal will involve contributions to the EU budget.

    Look how begrudgingly they concede the point there might be savings after 2022. And if it’s a £10bn/ annum contribution, I’ll eat my hat.
    they're still sulking that wages are going up
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.

    There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
    You don’t need to legalise it fully for that, just make the derived medication available by prescription.
    No you don't. We manage to prescribe industrial quantities of morphine after all. But I do think that it is past time that we looked again at the legalisation of drugs. The Portuguese experience is stark: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html

    Scotland has the worst record for drug deaths in the EU and Dundee, I am ashamed to say, is the worst in Scotland. The winnowing of my children's generation by drug deaths is an incredible indictment of our current, failed policies. It's time to change.

    But I don't think Javid is going to stick his neck out that far. At least, not yet.
    A bit cheeky of the Independent there. The article went on to say no causal link was found, it even seemed to suggest that it was down to people using “the real thing” rather than designer drugs.
    This might be a better source of hard facts: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/countries/drug-reports/2017/portugal_en
    Or this: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-straight
    Thanks. Things sounded pretty dire in Portugal beforehand, although it looks as though this was part of a broader push to lower harmful drug usage. I don’t think legalisation is a magic bullet in that regard.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    What the actual F is the whole #FBPE on tw@tter about.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,984
    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    An alternative point of view:

    "It isn’t Christopher Chope who’s mad – it’s his haters
    Brendan O’Neill

    The anti-Chope mania confirms the political class has lost the plot."

    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/it-isnt-christopher-chope-whos-mad-its-his-haters/21505

    Does he simply disagree with everything?

    "Nice day, Brendan."
    "No it f--ing isn't."
    He's a provocateur - he's paid to provoke people and he well knows it's people on the Left who rise to his kind of clickbait and respond with the kind of language he then feeds on as an example of the "intolerant Left". He's not the only one who does that and one or two on here quite like to retweet or quote articles from similar on both sides of the political fence.

    O'Neill has a right to express his opinion but he's not worth responding to - he has nothing to say and the more people ignore them the more outlandish he is forced to come in order to try and attract some attention.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    An alternative point of view:

    "It isn’t Christopher Chope who’s mad – it’s his haters
    Brendan O’Neill

    The anti-Chope mania confirms the political class has lost the plot."

    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/it-isnt-christopher-chope-whos-mad-its-his-haters/21505

    Does he simply disagree with everything?

    "Nice day, Brendan."
    "No it f--ing isn't."
    Indeed, unless it was a horrible day, rainy and cold.

    Then O'Neill would celebrate it as one of the most pleasant days since records began.

    He makes for hilarious reading.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Pulpstar said:

    What the actual F is the whole #FBPE on tw@tter about.


    Fuck Brexit, Pro-Europe ?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    edited June 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    What the actual F is the whole #FBPE on tw@tter about.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/17/fbpe-what-is-pro-eu-hashtag-spreading-across-social-media

    Sad. :D

    lol, bloody splitters:

    Some Corbynites have instead conglomerated around a different hashtag – #PCPEU – standing for pro-Corbyn, pro-EU.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,135
    edited June 2018
    Nemtynakht said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT
    TOPPING said:

    Blimey David we've been through this a thousand times. That move, together with the other, liquidity-based measures he took, signalled to the market that he was ready to act should that be necessary. The 0.25% itself was neither here nor there but sent an important signal to the market.

    It was by no means wholly popular, even within the Bank, but enough sensible economists understand and approve of the move, likening it to an insurance premium that was not called upon, but which it was important to have.

    DavidL said:
    And I'm afraid it is still rubbish. We have an independent central bank. Any scenario which did not involve them taking remedial steps to protect our economy from a perceived threat was completely dishonest, as well as wrong. The forecast of an immediate recession was a lie. A plain and simple lie told to con people into voting remain.

    There were plenty of lies on the other side too but it is frankly pretty ridiculous that this excuse is used to explain away how dishonest project fear was.

    +1. I said this at the time when I realised what it meant. I mean this is not solving climate change by using techology not invented yet, it is a fully expected measure from the BoE.
    Nah. You and David simply jumped to conclusions from misreading articles like this one.

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564

    You saw, because you wanted to see, and because it is more exhilarating to think you have a "gotcha" moment, the forecast as referring to what would happen immediately after the vote, whereas the article actually makes clear, and the forecasts upon which it is based certainly do so, that the consequences would arrive once the UK had left the EU. Not by July 1st following the vote in June 2016.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,348
    stodge said:

    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    An alternative point of view:

    "It isn’t Christopher Chope who’s mad – it’s his haters
    Brendan O’Neill

    The anti-Chope mania confirms the political class has lost the plot."

    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/it-isnt-christopher-chope-whos-mad-its-his-haters/21505

    Does he simply disagree with everything?

    "Nice day, Brendan."
    "No it f--ing isn't."
    He's a provocateur - he's paid to provoke people and he well knows it's people on the Left who rise to his kind of clickbait and respond with the kind of language he then feeds on as an example of the "intolerant Left". He's not the only one who does that and one or two on here quite like to retweet or quote articles from similar on both sides of the political fence.

    O'Neill has a right to express his opinion but he's not worth responding to - he has nothing to say and the more people ignore them the more outlandish he is forced to come in order to try and attract some attention.
    Mirrors my thoughts. Which is a pity, as he can argue intelligently and write well. For a free-thinker and free speech advocate though, he seems remarkably contemptuous of opinions which contradict his own.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Pity Jacob Rees' poor staff who have to work at this event, trying to sneakily watch the football on their phones while he drones on in aggravated Etonian.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,197
    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What the actual F is the whole #FBPE on tw@tter about.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/17/fbpe-what-is-pro-eu-hashtag-spreading-across-social-media

    Sad. :D

    lol, bloody splitters:

    Some Corbynites have instead conglomerated around a different hashtag – #PCPEU – standing for pro-Corbyn, pro-EU.
    “a pro-EU version of the #ff ‘follow back Friday’ trend on Twitter – an easy way to highlight who else may be of interest to you”.

    Who says twitter is full of people talking to each other in a bubble...
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,705
    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.

    There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
    You don’t need to legalise it fully for that, just make the derived medication available by prescription.
    No you don't. We manage to prescribe industrial quantities of morphine after all. But I do think that it is past time that we looked again at the legalisation of drugs. The Portuguese experience is stark: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html

    Scotland has the worst record for drug deaths in the EU and Dundee, I am ashamed to say, is the worst in Scotland. The winnowing of my children's generation by drug deaths is an incredible indictment of our current, failed policies. It's time to change.

    But I don't think Javid is going to stick his neck out that far. At least, not yet.
    A bit cheeky of the Independent there. The article went on to say no causal link was found, it even seemed to suggest that it was down to people using “the real thing” rather than designer drugs.
    This might be a better source of hard facts: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/countries/drug-reports/2017/portugal_en
    Or this: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-straight
    Thanks. Things sounded pretty dire in Portugal beforehand, although it looks as though this was part of a broader push to lower harmful drug usage. I don’t think legalisation is a magic bullet in that regard.
    And criminalisation of drugs is a magic bullet?

    I find it hard to identify any positive results from criminalisation of recreational (for want of a better word) drugs.

    I told my MP to get of her posterior, make herself unpopular (she already is) and agitate for decriminalisation.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    TOPPING said:

    Nemtynakht said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT
    TOPPING said:

    Blimey David we've been through this a thousand times. That move, together with the other, liquidity-based measures he took, signalled to the market that he was ready to act should that be necessary. The 0.25% itself was neither here nor there but sent an important signal to the market.

    It was by no means wholly popular, even within the Bank, but enough sensible economists understand and approve of the move, likening it to an insurance premium that was not called upon, but which it was important to have.

    DavidL said:
    And I'm afraid it is still rubbish. We have an independent central bank. Any scenario which did not involve them taking remedial steps to protect our economy from a perceived threat was completely dishonest, as well as wrong. The forecast of an immediate recession was a lie. A plain and simple lie told to con people into voting remain.

    There were plenty of lies on the other side too but it is frankly pretty ridiculous that this excuse is used to explain away how dishonest project fear was.

    +1. I said this at the time when I realised what it meant. I mean this is not solving climate change by using techology not invented yet, it is a fully expected measure from the BoE.
    Nah. You and David simply jumped to conclusions from misreading articles like this one.

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564

    You saw, because you wanted to see, and because it is more exhilarating to think you have a "gotcha" moment, the forecast as referring to what would happen immediately after the vote, whereas the article actually makes clear, and the forecasts upon which it is based certainly do so, that the consequences would arrive once the UK had left the EU. Not by July 1st following the vote in June 2016.
    The document itself actually says it is focussed on what happens immediately after the vote.

    This paper focuses on the immediate economic impact of a vote to leave and the two years that follow.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf

    The title is also a bit of a giveaway.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,940
    TOPPING said:

    Nemtynakht said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT
    TOPPING said:

    Blimey David we've been through this a thousand times. That move, together with the other, liquidity-based measures he took, signalled to the market that he was ready to act should that be necessary. The 0.25% itself was neither here nor there but sent an important signal to the market.

    It was by no means wholly popular, even within the Bank, but enough sensible economists understand and approve of the move, likening it to an insurance premium that was not called upon, but which it was important to have.

    DavidL said:
    And I'm afraid it is still rubbish. We have an independent central bank. Any scenario which did not involve them taking remedial steps to protect our economy from a perceived threat was completely dishonest, as well as wrong. The forecast of an immediate recession was a lie. A plain and simple lie told to con people into voting remain.

    There were plenty of lies on the other side too but it is frankly pretty ridiculous that this excuse is used to explain away how dishonest project fear was.

    +1. I said this at the time when I realised what it meant. I mean this is not solving climate change by using techology not invented yet, it is a fully expected measure from the BoE.
    Nah. You and David simply jumped to conclusions from misreading articles like this one.

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564

    You saw, because you wanted to see, and because it is more exhilarating to think you have a "gotcha" moment, the forecast as referring to what would happen immediately after the vote, whereas the article actually makes clear, and the forecasts upon which it is based certainly do so, that the consequences would arrive once the UK had left the EU. Not by July 1st following the vote in June 2016.
    so basically youre saying Remainers like Osborne told lies.

    we agree on something
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    philiph said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.

    There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
    You don’t need to legalise it fully for that, just make the derived medication available by prescription.
    No you don't. We manage to prescribe industrial quantities of morphine after all. But I do think that it is past time that we looked again at the legalisation of drugs. The Portuguese experience is stark: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html

    Scotland has the worst record for drug deaths in the EU and Dundee, I am ashamed to say, is the worst in Scotland. The winnowing of my children's generation by drug deaths is an incredible indictment of our current, failed policies. It's time to change.

    But I don't think Javid is going to stick his neck out that far. At least, not yet.
    A bit cheeky of the Independent there. The article went on to say no causal link was found, it even seemed to suggest that it was down to people using “the real thing” rather than designer drugs.
    This might be a better source of hard facts: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/countries/drug-reports/2017/portugal_en
    Or this: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-straight
    Thanks. Things sounded pretty dire in Portugal beforehand, although it looks as though this was part of a broader push to lower harmful drug usage. I don’t think legalisation is a magic bullet in that regard.
    And criminalisation of drugs is a magic bullet?

    I find it hard to identify any positive results from criminalisation of recreational (for want of a better word) drugs.

    I told my MP to get of her posterior, make herself unpopular (she already is) and agitate for decriminalisation.
    Criminalisation should be focused on the supplier. Disrupt the supply, and fewer people can use them.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    Help to Buy get sued.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/18/grenfell-style-cladding-drops-flat-value-nerisa-ahmed
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,386
    The medicine regulations are there for a reason.

    Aside from the named patient basis, you can't prescribe without the drugs being proven 'safe' at that dose given. To test an NDE fully, you need to check for both efficacy AND safety, and even during the use of the final drug, you check for safety problems.

    You have to find the no adverse effect level in animals and then multiply up to allow for differences between animals and allow yet another factor for differences between humans. Add in Idiosyncratic reactions which can occur and finally remember that all drugs are toxic. As Paracelsus said "The dose makes the poison."

    It costs drug companies millions to go through the hoops, and even then there is no absolute certainty. Rushing drugs through will result in deaths and compensation payments. Who will pay them?

    Watching MPs discuss this in Parliament reminds me of intelligent lettuces discussing relativity. Double blind tests are needed because of the powerful placebo effects. For treatment of life-threatening conditions, some toxicity is allowed but it needs to be quantitated.

    Emotion is no substitute.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,135
    edited June 2018
    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nemtynakht said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT
    TOPPING said:

    Blitect our econo fear was.

    +1. I said this at the time when I realised what it meant. I mean this is not solving climate change by using techology not invented yet, it is a fully expected measure from the BoE.
    Nah. You and David simply jumped to conclusions from misreading articles like this one.

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564

    You saw, because you wanted to see, and because it is more exhilarating to think you have a "gotcha" moment, the forecast as referring to what would happen immediately after the vote, whereas the article actually makes clear, and the forecasts upon which it is based certainly do so, that the consequences would arrive once the UK had left the EU. Not by July 1st following the vote in June 2016.
    The document itself actually says it is focussed on what happens immediately after the vote.

    This paper focuses on the immediate economic impact of a vote to leave and the two years that follow.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf

    The title is also a bit of a giveaway.
    Which is why Carney acted and said he was prepared to act further and hence mitigated several of the effects (not all - inflation and sterling being two obvious examples).

    Interestingly, most economists' central forecasts was a diminution in GDP vs trend/base case not leaving. What no one had forecast was the strength of the global economy which pulled up UK economic performance. In a further shoulda, woulda, coulda element, had global growth not been so strong then who knows, the UK might have suffered more of the forecast effects.

    What irritates me, however, is that those forecasts, and the assumptions which contributed to their production, were produced by the NIESR, and yet Edinburgh lawyer @DavidL, whoever the fuck @Nemtynakht is, together with many others, call the report "lies".

    I mean if people want a serious discussion about Brexit and its possible outcomes, who to engage with?
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,251
    stodge said:

    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    An alternative point of view:

    "It isn’t Christopher Chope who’s mad – it’s his haters
    Brendan O’Neill

    The anti-Chope mania confirms the political class has lost the plot."

    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/it-isnt-christopher-chope-whos-mad-its-his-haters/21505

    Does he simply disagree with everything?

    "Nice day, Brendan."
    "No it f--ing isn't."
    He's a provocateur - he's paid to provoke people
    20 years ago this was what we called a "troll", though the term has shifted meaning since then.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    Yorkshire in a spot of bother.

    Cometh the hour, cometh the Kohler-Cadmore ... ?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. D, the media love the IFS, but I've found it hard to take them seriously when they castigated Osborne for an early Budget due to a forecast decline in welfare spending. The predicted decline was due to projected falls in unemployment. Which, according to the IFS at the time, was not progressive.

    .....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,135
    Alanbrooke said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nemtynakht said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT
    TOPPING said:

    Blimey David we've been through this a thousand times. That move, together with the other, liquidity-based measures he took, signalled to the market that he was ready to act should that be necessary. The 0.25% itself was neither here nor there but sent an important signal to the market.

    It was by no means wholly popular, even within the Bank, but enough sensible economists understand and approve of the move, likening it to an insurance premium that was not called upon, but which it was important to have.

    DavidL said:
    And I'm afraid it is still rubbish. We have an independent central bank. Any scenario which did not involve them taking remedial steps to protect our economy from a perceived threat was completely dishonest, as well as wrong. The forecast of an immediate recession was a lie. A plain and simple lie told to con people into voting remain.

    There were plenty of lies on the other side too but it is frankly pretty ridiculous that this excuse is used to explain away how dishonest project fear was.

    +1. I said this at the time when I realised what it meant. I mean this is not solving climate change by using techology not invented yet, it is a fully expected measure from the BoE.
    Nah. You and David simply jumped to conclusions from misreading articles like this one.

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564

    You saw, because you wanted to see, and because it is more exhilarating to think you have a "gotcha" moment, the forecast as referring to what would happen immediately after the vote, whereas the article actually makes clear, and the forecasts upon which it is based certainly do so, that the consequences would arrive once the UK had left the EU. Not by July 1st following the vote in June 2016.
    so basically youre saying Remainers like Osborne told lies.

    we agree on something
    QED
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    RobD said:

    philiph said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.

    There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
    You don’t need to legalise it fully for that, just make the derived medication available by prescription.
    No you don't. We manage to prescribe industrial quantities of morphine after all. But I do think that it is past time that we looked again at the legalisation of drugs. The Portuguese experience is stark: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html

    Scotland has the worst record for drug deaths in the EU and Dundee, I am ashamed to say, is the worst in Scotland. The winnowing of my children's generation by drug deaths is an incredible indictment of our current, failed policies. It's time to change.

    But I don't think Javid is going to stick his neck out that far. At least, not yet.
    A bit cheeky of the Independent there. The article went on to say no causal link was found, it even seemed to suggest that it was down to people using “the real thing” rather than designer drugs.
    This might be a better source of hard facts: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/countries/drug-reports/2017/portugal_en
    Or this: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-straight
    Thanks. Things sounded pretty dire in Portugal beforehand, although it looks as though this was part of a broader push to lower harmful drug usage. I don’t think legalisation is a magic bullet in that regard.
    And criminalisation of drugs is a magic bullet?

    I find it hard to identify any positive results from criminalisation of recreational (for want of a better word) drugs.

    I told my MP to get of her posterior, make herself unpopular (she already is) and agitate for decriminalisation.
    Criminalisation should be focused on the supplier. Disrupt the supply, and fewer people can use them.
    How one defines supplier is highly problematic. Criminalises otherwise completely law abiding citizens who offer joints or pills at a party.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    Anazina said:




    How one defines supplier is highly problematic. Criminalises otherwise completely law abiding citizens who offer joints or pills at a party.

    Highly problematic? The Portuguese say more than 10 days of personal usage is considered criminal, and that seems sensible.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,940
    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nemtynakht said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT
    TOPPING said:

    Blitect our econo fear was.

    +1. I said this at the time when I realised what it meant. I mean this is not solving climate change by using techology not invented yet, it is a fully expected measure from the BoE.
    Nah. You and David simply jumped to conclusions from misreading articles like this one.

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564

    You saw, because you wanted to see, and because it is more exhilarating to think you have a "gotcha" moment, the forecast as referring to what would happen immediately after the vote, whereas the article actually makes clear, and the forecasts upon which it is based certainly do so, that the consequences would arrive once the UK had left the EU. Not by July 1st following the vote in June 2016.
    The document itself actually says it is focussed on what happens immediately after the vote.

    This paper focuses on the immediate economic impact of a vote to leave and the two years that follow.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf

    The title is also a bit of a giveaway.
    Which is why Carney acted and said he was prepared to act further and hence mitigated several of the effects (not all - inflation and sterling being two obvious examples).

    Interestingly, most economists' central forecasts was a diminution in GDP vs trend/base case not leaving. What no one had forecast was the strength of the global economy which pulled up UK economic performance. In a further shoulda, woulda, coulda element, had global growth not been so strong then who knows, the UK might have suffered more of the forecast effects.

    What irritates me, however, is that those forecasts, and the assumptions which contributed to their production, were produced by the NIESR, and yet Edinburgh lawyer @DavidL, whoever the fuck @Nemtynakht is, together with many others, call the report "lies".

    I mean if people want a serious discussion about Brexit and its possible outcomes, who to engage with?
    all youre saying is there are so many variables in a forecast, its bollocks to base it on one factor

    another thing we agree on


  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    Nigelb said:

    Yorkshire in a spot of bother.

    Cometh the hour, cometh the Kohler-Cadmore ... ?

    Well that comment effectively doomed him, and likely Yorkshire's final prospects.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    edited June 2018
    RobD said:

    Anazina said:




    How one defines supplier is highly problematic. Criminalises otherwise completely law abiding citizens who offer joints or pills at a party.

    Highly problematic? The Portuguese say more than 10 days of personal usage is considered criminal, and that seems sensible.
    Eh? Don't understand how that relates to my reply, sorry.

    "10 days of personal use"? What does that mean?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,358
    Belgium look good, but Panama are no pushover so far.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/BrexitTory_/status/1008687819097804800
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,135
    Alanbrooke said:

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nemtynakht said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT
    TOPPING said:

    Blitect our econo fear was.

    +1. I said this at the time when I realised what it meant. I mean this is not solving climate change by using techology not invented yet, it is a fully expected measure from the BoE.
    Nah. You and David simply jumped to conclusions from misreading articles like this one.
    6.
    The document itself actually says it is focussed on what happens immediately after the vote.

    This paper focuses on the immediate economic impact of a vote to leave and the two years that follow.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf

    The title is also a bit of a giveaway.
    Which is why Carney acted and said he was prepared to act further and hence mitigated several of the effects (not all - inflation and sterling being two obvious examples).

    Interestingly, most economists' central forecasts was a diminution in GDP vs trend/base case not leaving. What no one had forecast was the strength of the global economy which pulled up UK economic performance. In a further shoulda, woulda, coulda element, had global growth not been so strong then who knows, the UK might have suffered more of the forecast effects.

    What irritates me, however, is that those forecasts, and the assumptions which contributed to their production, were produced by the NIESR, and yet Edinburgh lawyer @DavidL, whoever the fuck @Nemtynakht is, together with many others, call the report "lies".

    I mean if people want a serious discussion about Brexit and its possible outcomes, who to engage with?
    all youre saying is there are so many variables in a forecast, its bollocks to base it on one factor

    another thing we agree on


    Gah!!

    They are not basing it on one factor. They are basing it on a set of factors and assumptions which are all set out in the document or available if you ask them.

    Are you saying all forecasts are bunk? Well maybe they are. But every grown up institution, both public and private uses them (can't believe I'm actually writing this, but this is PB...) and they provide a vital planning tool for future decisions.

    That you and the others on here call them "lies" says more about you lot, let me assure you, than it does about the forecasts and those who use them.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,364
    DavidL said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.

    There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
    The devil of the law will be in the details.

    I have swung over time between legalisation and keeping it illegal. At the moment I am against legalisation, unless:

    *) The law is strict about the types of cannabis sold; selling stronger types, or other drugs, is stamped on. Cannabis can only be sold through licensed outlets.

    *) Driving or using machinery under the influence is strictly illegal, and results in jail time.

    *) Ditto smoking in front of children, or in public.

    *) Money gained from taxation is used to help users of cannabis and other drugs.

    *) Encouraging the use of cannabis as a gateway drug, or selling to people under 18 (21?), results in jail time.

    Basically: let people use cannabis if they want, as long as they do not harm wider society. If these criteria are met and enforced, then legalise away.

    As for medicinal use: this is way out of any area of expertise I have. However I do wonder if some see this as a backdoor to legalisation for recreational use. If it is to be done, do it properly.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,197
    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/BrexitTory_/status/1008687819097804800

    Sir, sir, I know, Is it because the Supreme Leader he will ensure a different better type of Brexit.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,940
    TOPPING said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nemtynakht said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT
    TOPPING said:

    Blitect our econo fear was.

    +1. I said this at the time when I realised what it meant. I mean this is not solving climate change by using techology not invented yet, it is a fully expected measure from the BoE.
    Nah. You and David simply jumped to conclusions from misreading articles like this one.
    6.
    The document itself actually says it is focussed on what happens immediately after the vote.

    This paper focuses on the immediate economic impact of a vote to leave and the two years that follow.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf

    The title is also a bit of a giveaway.
    Which is why Carney acted and said he was prepared to act further and hence mitigated several of the effects (not all - inflation and sterling being two obvious examples).

    Interestingly, most economists' central forecasts was a diminution in GDP vs trend/base case not leaving. What no one had forecast was the strength of the global economy which pulled up UK economic performance. In a further shoulda, woulda, coulda element, had global growth not been so strong then who knows, the UK might have suffered more of the forecast effects.

    What irritates me, however, is that those forecasts, and the assumptions which contributed to their production, were produced by the NIESR, and yet Edinburgh lawyer @DavidL, whoever the fuck @Nemtynakht is, together with many others, call the report "lies".

    I mean if people want a serious discussion about Brexit and its possible outcomes, who to engage with?
    all youre saying is there are so many variables in a forecast, its bollocks to base it on one factor

    another thing we agree on


    Gah!!

    They are not basing it on one factor. They are basing it on a set of factors and assumptions which are all set out in the document or available if you ask them.

    Are you saying all forecasts are bunk? Well maybe they are. But every grown up institution, both public and private uses them (can't believe I'm actually writing this, but this is PB...) and they provide a vital planning tool for future decisions.

    That you and the others on here call them "lies" says more about you lot, let me assure you, than it does about the forecasts and those who use them.
    they are saying the impact of one factor outweighs all the others, a factor they cant define and therefore cant quantify. So it's bollocks. Bollocks from nice young men in sharp suits sure, but bollocks nonetheless.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,197
    edited June 2018
    JosiasJessop said:

    DavidL said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.

    There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
    The devil of the law will be in the details.

    I have swung over time between legalisation and keeping it illegal. At the moment I am against legalisation, unless:

    *) The law is strict about the types of cannabis sold; selling stronger types, or other drugs, is stamped on. Cannabis can only be sold through licensed outlets.

    *) Driving or using machinery under the influence is strictly illegal, and results in jail time.

    *) Ditto smoking in front of children, or in public.

    *) Money gained from taxation is used to help users of cannabis and other drugs.

    *) Encouraging the use of cannabis as a gateway drug, or selling to people under 18 (21?), results in jail time.

    Basically: let people use cannabis if they want, as long as they do not harm wider society. If these criteria are met and enforced, then legalise away.

    As for medicinal use: this is way out of any area of expertise I have. However I do wonder if some see this as a backdoor to legalisation for recreational use. If it is to be done, do it properly.
    One issue the US states who have legalized have had is they didn't consider edibles properly. As a result, regulations on manufacture is quite lack and are often consumed by the public like normal chocolate bars / bags of sweets.

    However, they take a while to have an effect and obviously even before you get the munchies hard not to keep stuffing your face with sweets.

    They have had some problems with people consuming very large qualities without really realizing.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    edited June 2018


    And criminalisation of drugs is a magic bullet?

    I find it hard to identify any positive results from criminalisation of recreational (for want of a better word) drugs.

    I told my MP to get of her posterior, make herself unpopular (she already is) and agitate for decriminalisation.

    ---------------------------------------------------

    What I find amazing about illegal drugs (and I'm 40 and relatively normal) is that I could go on the Whatsapp group with the rugby boys and get coke, flake, skunk weed, MDMA and ketamine DELIVERED to me from just one message, but when I try to get hold of prescription valium to fly (I don't like flying) it's easier to find rocking horse shit.

    It would be a lot harder to get hard drugs like crack or heroin (basically because hardly anybody does hard drugs) but recreational drugs are EVERYWHERE. Why the govt just doesn't legalise it all, make it safer and trawl in the taxes is beyond me.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,984
    dixiedean said:


    Mirrors my thoughts. Which is a pity, as he can argue intelligently and write well. For a free-thinker and free speech advocate though, he seems remarkably contemptuous of opinions which contradict his own.

    There's the thing - like many intelligent people, he has this arrogant superiority that stems from the belief his intelligence makes him right and if he can argue it from the position of intellectual strength, it must be right.

    For those less intellectually blessed there's always repeating the same argument over and over again in the hope everyone will agree because they are tired of you re-stating the same points.

    That never happens on here of course.

    There's also the endless recycling of in-jokes and clichés

    Oh wait...heart of stone, titters, pineapple on pizza, radiohead....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,135
    Alanbrooke said:

    TOPPING said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nemtynakht said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT
    TOPPING said:

    Blitect our econo fear was.

    +1. I said this at the time when I realised what it meant. I mean this is not solving climate change by using techology not invented yet, it is a fully expected measure from the BoE.
    Nah. You and David simply jumped to conclusions from misreading articles like this one.
    6.
    The document itself actually says it is focussed on what happens immediately after the vote.

    This paper focuses on the immediate economic impact of a vote to leave and the two years that follow.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf

    The title is also a bit of a giveaway.
    W

    I mean if people want a serious discussion about Brexit and its possible outcomes, who to engage with?
    all youre saying is there are so many variables in a forecast, its bollocks to base it on one factor

    another thing we agree on


    Gah!!

    They are not basing it on one factor. They are basing it on a set of factors and assumptions which are all set out in the document or available if you ask them.

    Are you saying all forecasts are bunk? Well maybe they are. But every grown up institution, both public and private uses them (can't believe I'm actually writing this, but this is PB...) and they provide a vital planning tool for future decisions.

    That you and the others on here call them "lies" says more about you lot, let me assure you, than it does about the forecasts and those who use them.
    they are saying the impact of one factor outweighs all the others, a factor they cant define and therefore cant quantify. So it's bollocks. Bollocks from nice young men in sharp suits sure, but bollocks nonetheless.
    Alan that is particularly asinine, especially from you. So you think they treated Brexit as "one factor"?

    Brexit has many elements (again in the can't quite fucking believe I'm writing this mode) each of which has different and varying impacts.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1008737042396827648
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/WilliamsJon/status/1008737418109911047
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    Anazina said:

    Pity Jacob Rees' poor staff who have to work at this event, trying to sneakily watch the football on their phones while he drones on in aggravated Etonian.

    They may yet have the better evening.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Alanbrooke said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1008720419203973121

    Paul Johnson, director of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, pointed out that the divorce bill and the government’s commitment to replace EU funding “already uses up all of our EU contributions in 2022.”

    In other words, we’ve already spent our pot of savings from membership fees.

    In the long term, there will be a saving of some kind from membership fees that we no longer have to pay. But we don’t know whether a future Brexit deal will involve contributions to the EU budget.

    Look how begrudgingly they concede the point there might be savings after 2022. And if it’s a £10bn/ annum contribution, I’ll eat my hat.
    they're still sulking that wages are going up
    And employment.....
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,940
    TOPPING said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    TOPPING said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nemtynakht said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT
    TOPPING said:

    Blitect our econo fear was.

    +1. I said this at the time when I realised what it meant. I mean this is not solving climate change by using techology not invented yet, it is a fully expected measure from the BoE.
    Nah. You and David simply jumped to conclusions from misreading articles like this one.
    6.
    The document itself actually says it is focussed on what happens immediately after the vote.

    This paper focuses on the immediate economic impact of a vote to leave and the two years that follow.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf

    The title is also a bit of a giveaway.
    W

    I mean if people want a serious discussion about Brexit and its possible outcomes, who to engage with?
    all youre saying is there are so many variables in a forecast, its bollocks to base it on one factor

    another thing we agree on


    Gah!!

    They are not basing it on one factorheless.
    Alan that is particularly asinine, especially from you. So you think they treated Brexit as "one factor"?

    Brexit has many elements (again in the can't quite fucking believe I'm writing this mode) each of which has different and varying impacts.
    no they jumbled a whole lot of factors few of which are based on anything they could know and called it a forecast.

    it is the role of the forecaster to permanently explain why his last guess wasn't correct but why his next one is.

    the point of a forecast imo isn't to give you an answer but to make you think about what is important and hence how youre going to handle it.

    and then there's Deus ex Machina the things the forecasters just cant quantify because they don't even think about them. Trump, Merkel losing her job, Jezza, the Yellowstone Caldera.
    shit happens and forecasts guarantee nothing.

    Yesterday Mrs Brooke was as happy as a pig in the proverbial as Junior was having a whale of a time Japan. He's in Osaka, now she's less happy.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    Jeremy Hunt is clearly telegraphing that the Brexit dividend is going to be a Brexit tax whammy. It’s a hospital pass for Hammond.

    https://twitter.com/channel4news/status/1008681783032983552?s=21
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,197
    All accounted for, the party spent £400,000 to entertain a 4,000-strong group of its most hardcore, mostly London-based supporters.

    Michael Foot rallied 40,000 of the Labour faithful, and even Neil Kinnock managed 10,000, both for considerably less than Labour Live’s £100-a-head cost, but the applause did not translate to votes in the elections that followed.

    https://www.theredroar.com/2018/06/the-true-cost-of-labour-live/
  • Torby_FennelTorby_Fennel Posts: 438
    NickPalmer said:



    There was a recent poll showing that more than half the population have "little or no interest" in football.

    Indeed so Nick... I'm one of those in the "no interest" column. So much so that I was completely baffled as to what was being considered strange about anyone delivering a lecture this evening (I thought it must be some in-joke about JRM that had gone over my head). It wasn't until your comment that the penny dropped with me that there must be a football game on tonight. That really is the honest truth... I genuinely had no idea.


  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,135
    Alanbrooke said:

    no they jumbled a whole lot of factors few of which are based on anything they could know and called it a forecast.

    it is the role of the forecaster to permanently explain why his last guess wasn't correct but why his next one is.

    the point of a forecast imo isn't to give you an answer but to make you think about what is important and hence how youre going to handle it.

    and then there's Deus ex Machina the things the forecasters just cant quantify because they don't even think about them. Trump, Merkel losing her job, Jezza, the Yellowstone Caldera.
    shit happens and forecasts guarantee nothing.

    Yesterday Mrs Brooke was as happy as a pig in the proverbial as Junior was having a whale of a time Japan. He's in Osaka, now she's less happy.

    The NIESR "jumbled a whole lot of factors...snipped uninformed garbage"

    I agree with your point about forecasts' usefulness but really, to dismiss them in the way you just spelled out is asinine squared.

    I very much hope your son is ok.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/WilliamsJon/status/1008737418109911047

    There won't be a Brexit deal until 48 hours before we are due to leave. It's the EU way.....
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    MarqueeMark said:

    Anazina said:

    Pity Jacob Rees' poor staff who have to work at this event, trying to sneakily watch the football on their phones while he drones on in aggravated Etonian.

    They may yet have the better evening.....
    True!
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    @Topping -

    Ignoring the short term impact and Carney's response, what the forecasts did I believe is this.

    Currently our whole economy is geared to functioning in the EU irrespective of whether that is good for long term growth rates or not. The interesting long term economic forecast would be what are the impacts of the changes we can now make, out of the EU, do to the growth rate.
    Every economic forecast is based on the BoE and Government will change nothing, leave it all geared to the EU and we leave it. This is silly, and it is no surprise that they forecast a slow down in the growth rate. They did factor in Tariffs and NTB's but based no thought on how to mitigate them or reduce their impacts.
    One group who did try to say things can change so we will model some potential changes was The Economists for Free Trade. Instead of being congratulated for at least understanding the main issue, all the "group think" stay in the EU mob tried to ridicule it.
    What a state the countries economic profession is in.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025