politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If UKIP gets its act together in Wythenshawe and Sale East
The result from Wythenshawe & Sale E at GE2010
Looks like a LAB hold on reduced turnout but could UKUP do something? pic.twitter.com/Sfkud1U3my
Comments
-
First!0
-
FPT (sorry)
they paid 71 million in interest on the debt last year. how much does their income fall if they don't make the champions league?peter_from_putney said:"I don't think the Glazers have the luxury of giving Moyes time. (not too much, anyway)"
Are you seriously suggesting that instead they can afford to pay off virtually his full six year contract said to be worth around £5 million per annum?0 -
It doesn't seem like UKIP have much on the ground there either that would allow them to creep up under the radar like Galloway. If they can create a media buzz they may be able to squeeze Con, but that risks energising the left to turn out in response.0
-
Mike Smithson
You have made a courageous, principled and judicious intervention in the tim/SeanT spat and should be congratulated. Especially as it involves a risk to the site of losing two longstanding and prominent posters which, in their own inimitable ways, have made major contributions to the special attraction and culture of PB.
I hope you are rewarded by both posters swallowing their prides and returning to the site duly chastened.
I once had an much loved and eccentric Italian as a boss. Whenever anyone claimed that an individual had an irreplaceable value, he would intervene by claiming that "the graveyards of Italy are full of indispensable bankers".
Let's all hope this is not a battle fought to the death.0 -
In the optimal kind of Labour seat for Ukip (based on proportions of C2 vs DE, ethnicity, private vs public etc) i'd guess the maximum Ukip potential to be 1/2 the LibLabCon vote on 2010 numbers or 1/3 Lab, 1/2 Con on post 2010 numbers. Very rough obviously plus you'd need to know where on a 1 to 10 scale a seat was in terms of being optimal.
However going by that very rough and totally unscientific rule then even if this seat was optimal - personally no idea on that - it would be a close Labour win but just possible it might cause a bit of fun.0 -
FPT
Were all those ethnic militias that sprang up during the riots protecting their area from the police or the gangs (that don't officially exist)?Topping said:
If you read the several studies of the riots the over-riding theme that emerges is the huge resentment that had built up over many many years of police behaviour to black youth.
For sure the Duggan shooting was the catalyst but there was a seething resentment which found expression in the riots and looting and the fact that for those nights, and until the Met got their act together, there was an opportunity to claim the streets. It was about power.
Ultimately that's what's going to sink the PC narrative. Guardianistas are quite happy to ignore what happens to wwc people but when the majority of victims of the gang culture (that doesn't officially exist) are non-wwc (which they already are in inner London) then the guardianista's PC circuits will frazzle and catch fire.
##
"If you read the several studies of the riots the over-riding theme that emerges is the huge resentment that had built up over many many years of police behaviour to black youth."
Hypothetical situation:
Say you had a gang culture which didn't officially exist because of PC where the gang members carried knives and guns all the time as a matter of course. There'd be bodies dropping all over the place as people got killed over little arguments.
In that situation senior plod couldn't do anything about the gang culture itself without getting their career trashed by the BBC and political class - because according to the BBC and political class that gang culture doesn't exist. However at the same time if there were bodies dropping everywhere that would trash senior plod's career also.
Catch 22.
Solution: massive amounts of stop and search to push the gang members into only carrying weapons 10% of the time and not 100%. This does nothing to the gang culture itself - in fact it makes it worse through annoying non gang members - and it does nothing to reduce the *amount* of violence but what it does do is massively reduce the *lethality* of the violence so there's less bodies. So everything on the ground gets worse year on year but the political class' big lie survives intact.
Personally i think plod should stop doing stop and search completely and let the body count go through the roof. Harsh on the extra victims in the short-term but if it forces the BBC and political class to tell the truth then there'd be less victims in the long-term.
0 -
Can't see it happening. In a seat like this they need defections from Labour who have knowledge of the seat. They're not doing well enough just to rely on riding a wave of protest0
-
OT but interesting statistic
"Demographic trends also appear to have contributed, too. Britons from a Muslim background are less likely to drink for religious and cultural reasons, and Muslims aged under 16 now make up 8% of the population of England and Wales - up from 5% in 2001."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-256529910 -
FPT
I wonder if "substantial reasons for such an injunction to be granted" will turn out to mean "can afford expensive lawyers."JohnLoony said:
There is no such proposal. There is a proposal to allow injunctions to be applied for if there is substantial nuisance, and to require substantial reasons for such an injunction to be granted.Morris_Dancer said:Making it a criminal offence to engage in, or threaten to engage in, acts which are deemed a nuisance or annoying is just crazy. MPs should be ashamed of themselves for so indefensibly (and stupidly) trying to curtail freedom of speech.
0 -
FPT
Private / public compromise. Privately the gang culture exists but publically it doesn't.Sunil_Prasannan said:Re. Duggan. If the Jury concluded he was unarmed when he was shot, how could they conclude his shooting was lawful?
0 -
The Judge conducting the inquest told the jury that a policeman could lawfully kill someone in such circumstances if he honestly believed, and had good reason for that belief, that his own life was in danger, or the lives of other people.. Or some form of words like that.MrJones said:FPT
Private / public compromise. Privately the gang culture exists but publically it doesn't.Sunil_Prasannan said:Re. Duggan. If the Jury concluded he was unarmed when he was shot, how could they conclude his shooting was lawful?
0 -
The victims of gun crime in London are overwhelmingly black, and Duggan was the first of several hundred arrests where the suspect was shot.:
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/History-of-Trident/1400014986671/1400014986671
Failure of communities to regulate their own youths means that the police have to get involved.
Split second decisions by armed police officers attending a scene are never going to be 100% right, but arrests of suspects thought to be carrying weapons are never going to be easy.
Gangsters are not helping their communities, they are oppressing them.MrJones said:FPT
Topping said:
If you read the several studies of the riots the over-riding theme that emerges is the huge resentment that had built up over many many years of police behaviour to black youth.
Were all those ethnic militias that sprang up during the riots protecting their area from the police or the gangs (that don't officially exist)?
Ultimately that's what's going to sink the PC narrative. Guardianistas are quite happy to ignore what happens to wwc people but when the majority of victims of the gang culture (that doesn't officially exist) are non-wwc (which they already are in inner London) then the guardianista's PC circuits will frazzle and catch fire.
##
"If you read the several studies of the riots the over-riding theme that emerges is the huge resentment that had built up over many many years of police behaviour to black youth."
Hypothetical situation:
Say you had a gang culture which didn't officially exist because of PC where the gang members carried knives and guns all the time as a matter of course. There'd be bodies dropping all over the place as people got killed over little arguments.
In that situation senior plod couldn't do anything about the gang culture itself without getting their career trashed by the BBC and political class - because according to the BBC and political class that gang culture doesn't exist. However at the same time if there were bodies dropping everywhere that would trash senior plod's career also.
Catch 22.
Solution: massive amounts of stop and search to push the gang members into only carrying weapons 10% of the time and not 100%. This does nothing to the gang culture itself - in fact it makes it worse through annoying non gang members - and it does nothing to reduce the *amount* of violence but what it does do is massively reduce the *lethality* of the violence so there's less bodies. So everything on the ground gets worse year on year but the political class' big lie survives intact.
Personally i think plod should stop doing stop and search completely and let the body count go through the roof. Harsh on the extra victims in the short-term but if it forces the BBC and political class to tell the truth then there'd be less victims in the long-term.0 -
It’s low vote outcomes in heartland seats like Wythenshawe and Sale East which are a main reason why the electoral system seems biased to the red team
Put the stress on the "seems" - in safe seats Tories vote because it's the solidaristic thing to do. In safe Labour seats their supporters don't because they take the instrumental approach. The irony of course is that each party upholds the opposite behaviour as one of its principles.
Anyway, you'll all be getting my first guest article to-morrow (assuming OGH's tutorial on the software here has worked) so those of you who don't want it can start the bribery exercise now...0 -
I doubt very much UKIP are going to come second,let alone win this seat.
The question is who is killing off Labour MP`s.0 -
Don Foster steps down, will be an interesting test for LDs in Bath. Wouldn't think that Labour have a chance to win, UKIP in Bath - not sure if they have done well in areas with many students. Test for the Tories to run against a newbie, if they can't take this one off the LDs would the knives be out for Cameron? But if Labour won, then Ed M would be looking at new curtains in Downing St.
Re By Election - I had wondered when I saw that Paul Goggins had had a stroke that he would be stepping down. Am sorry that his family now have a funeral to arrange.0 -
Might we have to form a PB rota to search below London bridges, let's hope not.AveryLP said:Mike Smithson
You have made a courageous, principled and judicious intervention in the tim/SeanT spat and should be congratulated. Especially as it involves a risk to the site of losing two longstanding and prominent posters which, in their own inimitable ways, have made major contributions to the special attraction and culture of PB.
I hope you are rewarded by both posters swallowing their prides and returning to the site duly chastened.
I once had an much loved and eccentric Italian as a boss. Whenever anyone claimed that an individual had an irreplaceable value, he would intervene by claiming that "the graveyards of Italy are full of indispensable bankers".
Let's all hope this is not a battle fought to the death.
0 -
I cannot see UKIP winning here, and with FPTP coming second is just another term for losing.
It would be interesting though to test whether the kippers claim that they speak for the neglected wwc are true. Is there any data on the demographics of the seat.
Realistically if the kippers win less than 15% (bearing in mind a likely very low turnout) they will have failed. This is one of Labours rotten boroughs where a donkey could get elected with a red rosette.0 -
We don't even know when the by-election will be yet, of course, but does anyone have any idea of the odds on the Kippers coming second?0
-
It looks as though the bottom end of the groceries market is in turmoil. Tescos sales down 2.4% like-for-like, and Morrisons 5.6%.
It would be interesting to see how much Aldi and Lidl have increased by ...
IMHO neither Tescos or Morrisons give a very good 'experience' to their customers. But at least Mozzers (*) tries. Tescos feels as though it's given up.
(*) We have a Morrisons in our village, and an 80-year old posh woman I know always make me laugh when she calls it 'Mozzers'. "I'm just off to Mozzers".0 -
I think that graveyards are full of bankers, whether Italian or otherwise, who thought themselves indispensable.AveryLP said:Mike Smithson
I once had an much loved and eccentric Italian as a boss. Whenever anyone claimed that an individual had an irreplaceable value, he would intervene by claiming that "the graveyards of Italy are full of indispensable bankers".
Let's all hope this is not a battle fought to the death.
A subtle but crucial difference, IMO.
0 -
As someone who lives in the constituency a view locally...
Wythenshawe is an over spill council estate from the 1960s, the largest council estate in Europe when built.
Sale east is the Trafford side of the authority boundary and is home to several very close Labour/Tory fights in the council elections. From memory Sale Moor was actually a tie a couple of years ago.
The Sale East part of this consistency therefore has a very well organised local Labour party, covering about one third of the constituency.
As a resident of Priory in Sale East I'm less familiar with the local organisation further east over the local authority boundary in Manchester.
Sale is very much commuter belt with Metrolink trams passing through area taking workers into Manchester and is relatively prosperous (for the area).
Wythenshawe, which makes up about two thirds of the constituency, is one of the poorer parts of Manchester.
Two things of note.
After over a decade of lots of local lobbying Metrolink is currently being extended to Wythenshawe.
There are signs all over the place reminding the locals that something they've been demanding for years is being delivered with help from the European union.
HS2 will have a stop at Manchester airport, the airport is in the constituency, stop is not, it's right on the boarder with Altrincham and Sale West.
Unlike the London elite there is strong support for HS2 the area, very strong. Places like Wythenshawe holding out hope of an improved future following such investment in region.
In my opinion, just my opinion, UKIP may come second, but they'll be miles behind Labour.
0 -
Tescos has given up, I reckon. It started to rebuild its branch near me about four years ago and the builders' crane is still on-site...0
-
foxinsoxuk said:
The victims of gun crime in London are overwhelmingly black, and Duggan was the first of several hundred arrests where the suspect was shot.:
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/History-of-Trident/1400014986671/1400014986671
Failure of communities to regulate their own youths means that the police have to get involved.
Split second decisions by armed police officers attending a scene are never going to be 100% right, but arrests of suspects thought to be carrying weapons are never going to be easy.
Gangsters are not helping their communities, they are oppressing them.
Even worse is when some members of those communities make gangsters, like Duggan, into martyrs.MrJones said:FPT
Topping said:
I
Ultimately that's what's going to sink the PC narrative. Guardianistas are quite happy to ignore what happens to wwc people but when the majority of victims of the gang culture (that doesn't officially exist) are non-wwc (which they already are in inner London) then the guardianista's PC circuits will frazzle and catch fire.
##
"If you read the several studies of the riots the over-riding theme that emerges is the huge resentment that had built up over many many years of police behaviour to black youth."
Hypothetical situation:
Say you had a gang culture which didn't officially exist because of PC where the gang members carried knives and guns all the time as a matter of course. There'd be bodies dropping all over the place as people got killed over little arguments.
In that situation senior plod couldn't do anything about the gang culture itself without getting their career trashed by the BBC and political class - because according to the BBC and political class that gang culture doesn't exist. However at the same time if there were bodies dropping everywhere that would trash senior plod's career also.
Catch 22.
Solution: massive amounts of stop and search to push the gang members into only carrying weapons 10% of the time and not 100%. This does nothing to the gang culture itself - in fact it makes it worse through annoying non gang members - and it does nothing to reduce the *amount* of violence but what it does do is massively reduce the *lethality* of the violence so there's less bodies. So everything on the ground gets worse year on year but the political class' big lie survives intact.
Personally i think plod should stop doing stop and search completely and let the body count go through the roof. Harsh on the extra victims in the short-term but if it forces the BBC and political class to tell the truth then there'd be less victims in the long-term.0 -
So Tottenham did not burn last night. A few - from very different parts of the political spectrum and for very different reasons - will have woken up this morning hoping otherwise. Bad luck boys and girls.
On topic - a UKIP win in Wythenshawe would be good for democracy and, if the right lessons were learned, very good for Labour - complacency is a dangerous, corrosive force. As Mike says, for UKIP the challenge is to start gaining MPs.0 -
No. They concluded there was no way the police could know that he had thrown away the gun, and therefore the killing were legal.MrJones said:FPT
Private / public compromise. Privately the gang culture exists but publically it doesn't.Sunil_Prasannan said:Re. Duggan. If the Jury concluded he was unarmed when he was shot, how could they conclude his shooting was lawful?
0 -
Forgot to say.
Lib dems are being wiped out across this part of the world, their vote going to Labour.
Expect significant lib dem to Labour switching.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Welcome to the site, Mr. Kurt.
I'd say HS2 probably has more support in Yorkshire than the south as well, although it does vary quite a bit (Leeds probably very pro, other places less so). The suspicion here is that investment on transport has been promised various times before (notably with the tram system) and has been pulled at a late stage.
I saw a smidgen of the Sky paper review last night, and the lady reviewer referred to the disproportionately high number of young black men who get stopped by police. Young men have always been the most violent demographic. On the black aspect, though, I wonder if that's compared to a national average, a local average or the criminal average.0 -
Mr. Observer, I wonder if UKIP fail to get an MP next time it'll be a bit like rugby (Six Nations in a few weeks, incidentally) where a team that is in the opposition 22 for a long time but fail to score get demoralised and the defending team grow in confidence. If UKIP can't get an MP now, in a situation almost perfect for them (eurozone crisis, Con-Lib Coalition, pro-EU Labour Opposition) then when can they?0
-
0
-
Turnout is the Labour threat in Wythenshawe.
This kind of seat has tragically low turnout because those of a non-lefty persuasion 'know' Labour will win - and so even the Labour vote is low. But there were 35,000 electors who didn't vote at all. UKIP will anyway hoover up some LibLabCon votes - but not enough to win. However, if they can energise the army of 'DidNotVoters' then it could be really edge of the seat stuff.0 -
Wythenshawe - I think Mike makes the best case he can for UKIP to be in with a chance - I can't help thinking that it looks like a stretch.
But perhaps the most persuasive point is the idea that the constituency is more open than it might seem because it's been "taken for granted".
If UKIP really wanted it, what should they do? Immediately jump on it and swamp it with activists and leaflets?
Surely they should go full out, or not really try too hard - Getting 2nd in this particular constituency at this particular time wouldn't seem (to me) that big a deal.0 -
BTW, seeing Avery's post below, is there some new development in the tim/SeanT saga?0
-
I am looking forward to collecting on my UKIP-to-win betsPatrick said:Turnout is the Labour threat in Wythenshawe.
This kind of seat has tragically low turnout because those of a non-lefty persuasion 'know' Labour will win - and so even the Labour vote is low. But there were 35,000 electors who didn't vote at all. UKIP will anyway hoover up some LibLabCon votes - but not enough to win. However, if they can energise the army of 'DidNotVoters' then it could be really edge of the seat stuff.0 -
Or possibly the Kingston, Jamaica or Montego Bay average.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
I saw a smidgen of the Sky paper review last night, and the lady reviewer referred to the disproportionately high number of young black men who get stopped by police. Young men have always been the most violent demographic. On the black aspect, though, I wonder if that's compared to a national average, a local average or the criminal average.0 -
I don't think UKIP will win any MPs, whether in this seat or elsewhere, and if that continues, their only lasting contribution to British politics will be to split the right, much like the SDP did in the 1980's.
Whether they will succeed in changing the Tory party into something more like them, I don't know, but if they do they will make it more rather than less electable. I find UKIP deeply unappealing almost regardless of whether I hear Farage saying anything I agree with or not.0 -
"If UKIP really wanted it, what should they do?"Fat_Steve said:Wythenshawe - I think Mike makes the best case he can for UKIP to be in with a chance - I can't help thinking that it looks like a stretch.
But perhaps the most persuasive point is the idea that the constituency is more open than it might seem because it's been "taken for granted".
If UKIP really wanted it, what should they do? Immediately jump on it and swamp it with activists and leaflets?
Surely they should go full out, or not really try too hard - Getting 2nd in this particular constituency at this particular time wouldn't seem (to me) that big a deal.
They'd want to check local demographics first before they did anything e.g. the C2 vs DE split.
0 -
Mr. Abroad, it's a serious point. If an area has 80% black people you'd expect circa 80% of people stopped to be black. Similarly, it's not very PC to talk about race in relation to crime, but if a disproportionately high percentage of criminals come from minorities then a roughly corresponding percentage of them being stopped is not merely acceptable but sensible.
However, if the proportion of young black men being stopped is far and above any relevant measure then that needs to be made clear, and stopped. Saying 'disproportionate' doesn't offer enough information to make a judgement for the reasons I've outlined.0 -
Gangs tend to be sustained by drug money. A lot of white people from all kinds of backgrounds - rely on them for their highs. If SeanT had not been banned he could tell us a lot more about this, but once crime becomes lucrative it becomes violent. There are many people in London and elsewhere with very different coloured faces and very different political views who have some responsibility for the gang sub-culture's emergence and spread. Anyone on here that likes a line, a spliff or anything else - you do; as does anyone who may have indulged in the past.0
-
In practice yes as the poorer people get the more nurse-clingy they get. The proportion of potential support might be exactly the same but the actual support would be lower because of nurse-clinging. That's not to say ignore it just weight time and effort c. 2/3 vs 1/3.Fat_Steve said:@MrJones
"They'd want to check local demographics first before they did anything e.g. the C2 vs DE split."
Thanks. You think the C2s are more of a promising target for UKIP ?0 -
As a guess, I'd say that the Wythenshawe side of the seat is vastly D,E with some C2.
The Sale side vastly C1 with some B and C2.0 -
SeanT was refered to the PB Panel after OGH conceded he'd missed SeanT's two footed tackle on "tim" and failed to give him a red card.Patrick said:BTW, seeing Avery's post below, is there some new development in the tim/SeanT saga?
Duly considered SeanT was banned for several matches and warned about his future conduct in the Thai ladies league.
Meanwhile it was thought "tim" might out himself as a West Ham supporter but it appears he might only be gay and the Hammers rumour was just a disreputable allegation spread by those who score at least five goals against them in 90 minutes.
0 -
Stop and search is mostly used in highly populated urban areas, with high levels of crime. As you might imagine, such areas aren't demographically representative of the UK as a whole.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Abroad, it's a serious point. If an area has 80% black people you'd expect circa 80% of people stopped to be black. Similarly, it's not very PC to talk about race in relation to crime, but if a disproportionately high percentage of criminals come from minorities then a roughly corresponding percentage of them being stopped is not merely acceptable but sensible.
However, if the proportion of young black men being stopped is far and above any relevant measure then that needs to be made clear, and stopped. Saying 'disproportionate' doesn't offer enough information to make a judgement for the reasons I've outlined.
0 -
Street gangs and drug gangs are different things - although they overlap. Street gangs are about a small percentage of young men between the ages of around 14 to 24 who like to join gangs and throw their weight around. There's nothing unusual about it. It's normal. What's not normal is pretending it doesn't exist.SouthamObserver said:Gangs tend to be sustained by drug money. A lot of white people from all kinds of backgrounds - rely on them for their highs. If SeanT had not been banned he could tell us a lot more about this, but once crime becomes lucrative it becomes violent. There are many people in London and elsewhere with very different coloured faces and very different political views who have some responsibility for the gang sub-culture's emergence and spread. Anyone on here that likes a line, a spliff or anything else - you do; as does anyone who may have indulged in the past.
(That's not to say there's not a feedback loop with the drug gang aspect but street gang cultures can exist independently of that e.g. Teddy Boys etc.)
edit: another example would be the Glasgow gang culture which has been going for 100+ years and nothing to do with drugs the majority of that time.
0 -
SeanT is banned? Will PB survive? Dearyme.0
-
The answer, of course, is to repeal the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and other legislation whose effect is to give organised crime a monopoly in the distribution of goods for which there is a demand. The authoritarians in Parliament will not countenance such a move, however.SouthamObserver said:Gangs tend to be sustained by drug money. A lot of white people from all kinds of backgrounds - rely on them for their highs. If SeanT had not been banned he could tell us a lot more about this, but once crime becomes lucrative it becomes violent. There are many people in London and elsewhere with very different coloured faces and very different political views who have some responsibility for the gang sub-culture's emergence and spread. Anyone on here that likes a line, a spliff or anything else - you do; as does anyone who may have indulged in the past.
0 -
Do they have any ambition to keep building a vote or council base in either that area or areas around it? Do they wish to keep developing and refining their campaign machine for by-elections? Do they want to fight for votes even where they are not favoured to win? It's entirely up to them.Fat_Steve said:Wythenshawe - I think Mike makes the best case he can for UKIP to be in with a chance - I can't help thinking that it looks like a stretch.
But perhaps the most persuasive point is the idea that the constituency is more open than it might seem because it's been "taken for granted".
If UKIP really wanted it, what should they do? Immediately jump on it and swamp it with activists and leaflets?
Surely they should go full out, or not really try too hard - Getting 2nd in this particular constituency at this particular time wouldn't seem (to me) that big a deal.
"The purples can’t go on getting good 2nd places – they need MPs"
Not quite. They need to continue momentum and publicity. An MP is a fast track to that since not even the most wide eyed kipper thinks they are going to sweep the commons with a huge number of MPs. That's not where they are and even getting an MP is no guarantee of a big GE voteshare as Galloway and the Greens know. They should still be worried because getting to 2015 without an MP will absolutely be used against the kippers by the likes of Crosby. So yes, they would dearly love and probably need a by-election victory before 2015 to really scare the crap out of the tories and labour. But given that they will still be scaring them plenty at the EU elections it's doubtful whether they are, or even can, count on getting an MP.0 -
Racial disparities in the use of powers to stop and search are of far less importance than the concession of such powers to the police in the first place. Stop and search on the street without a warrant should only be lawful in the same circumstances as a search of a person's home without a warrant.Sean_F said:Stop and search is mostly used in highly populated urban areas, with high levels of crime. As you might imagine, such areas aren't demographically representative of the UK as a whole.
0 -
UKIP do not need to win seats to fulfil their objective, they need to prevent the Conservatives from winning seats, especially Conservatives not wholly committed to leaving the EU.0
-
First, absolutey agree with this.Life_ina_market_town said:
The answer, of course, is to repeal the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and other legislation whose effect is to give organised crime a monopoly in the distribution of goods for which there is a demand. The authoritarians in Parliament will not countenance such a move, however.SouthamObserver said:Gangs tend to be sustained by drug money. A lot of white people from all kinds of backgrounds - rely on them for their highs. If SeanT had not been banned he could tell us a lot more about this, but once crime becomes lucrative it becomes violent. There are many people in London and elsewhere with very different coloured faces and very different political views who have some responsibility for the gang sub-culture's emergence and spread. Anyone on here that likes a line, a spliff or anything else - you do; as does anyone who may have indulged in the past.
Secondly, and replying to your comment last night, about the law (rightly, IMO) not distinguishing whether the person who looted a can of coke had a "legitimate" grievance or not...that was not my point.
My point was that it is important to understand the motives of the rioters/looters in order to be able to address the underlying issues.
How the law treats the manifestation of that grievance is one thing. The cause of that grievance is another.0 -
Morris Dancer [8.37] Sean F [8.44] I'm not sure we're all that far apart. I was simply trying to make the point that London's Afro-Caribbean community is as entitled as anyone else to make comparisons in its own favour - after all, we all do it. If I have a criticism of them, it is that they support the continued criminality of recreational drugs since this keeps legitimate business out of the supply chain. Indeed the strongest argument I know for retaining the schedules of the Act as they are now is that decriminalisation would lead to kidnapping as a money-spinner instead. I have absolutely no idea whether this is plausible or not.0
-
Yes, we can be thankful for that,. Though it wasn't looking good last night, given that ITV had sent Rageh Omaar up to North London.SouthamObserver said:So Tottenham did not burn last night. A few - from very different parts of the political spectrum and for very different reasons - will have woken up this morning hoping otherwise. Bad luck boys and girls.
On topic - a UKIP win in Wythenshawe would be good for democracy and, if the right lessons were learned, very good for Labour - complacency is a dangerous, corrosive force. As Mike says, for UKIP the challenge is to start gaining MPs.0 -
Mr. Stevens, how does have Miliband (more pro-EU than Cameron) or Clegg (more pro-EU than Miliband) winning more seats help the cause of leaving the EU?
UKIP are in danger of cutting off their nose to spite their face. Indulging in People's Front of Judea ideological purity when they stand a better chance both of winning seats *and* of leaving the EU by reaching an accommodation with the Conservatives is bloody daft.0 -
I do. They already have.Cyclefree said:Whether they will succeed in changing the Tory party into something more like them, I don't know
Michael Gove and Philip Hammond would vote for Britain to leave the EU
Unless the kippers crash way back down to 2010 levels of 3.1% they will keep doing so. There current direction of travel for tory euroscepticism certainly isn't for staying IN.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22500121
0 -
Hello PBers - advice needed,
I would like to sue an eBay buyer and/or eBay.
At the end of November last year, I sold a nearly new Butterfly Labs bitcoin miner on eBay for £1,650. The device had been lightly used, and had never been opened.
At the beginning of December, the buyer got back to me and said (roughly) that it looked like the device had been opened, and that he'd like a discount to £1,000 - and in return for which, he'd give me positive feedback.
I replied that it had not been opened, but that if he wanted to return it, I would of course issue a full refund. He said, no, don't worry.
On 24 December, he changed his mind and claimed the device had been opened, and asked for his money back. I said I was happy to swear an affidavit that he had not. I also pointed out that he had had the device for the best part of a month, and therefore had got £600 of value out of it, and it was worth very substantially less than I sold it to him. (The price of bitcoin had fallen, and he had- to be honest- overpaid for the device).
He opened a case with eBay. And eBay has awarded him the money back, and asked that he return the device to me in two weeks. By the time the device is returned to me, he will have mined over £1,000 of bitcoins, and my device (when returned) will be worth perhaps £300.
I feel like I've been completely legged over. I have no doubt that he never had any intention of keeping the device, and planned to use it for a month and the simply claim it was not as described.
I am spitting mad. I have emailed eBay, but they are not even willing to enter into a dialog. They simply keep repeating the mantra 'not as described', and all the time, the guy *still* has the miner, and is *still* making £30/day in bitcoins at my expense.
What can I do?
Thanks, Robert0 -
How would that be done ? (a genuine question)Life_ina_market_town said:
Racial disparities in the use of powers to stop and search are of far less importance than the concession of such powers to the police in the first place. Stop and search on the street without a warrant should only be lawful in the same circumstances as a search of a person's home without a warrant.Sean_F said:Stop and search is mostly used in highly populated urban areas, with high levels of crime. As you might imagine, such areas aren't demographically representative of the UK as a whole.
0 -
The interesting thing about this election is that UKIP is the ONLY party capable of making this competitive. Not bad for what was recently a fringe operation.
Should give all parties pause.0 -
Hopefully Tim and SeanT will be back soon after Sean's (rightful) temp? ban and Tim's self imposed exile. They make the sit more colourful. And can produce decent tips. Though TSE is doing well on that front at the moment
0 -
@Morris Dancer
UKIP does not trust Cameron to create the circumstances that will get the UK out of the EU, not least because Cameron has said his strategy is to do the exact opposite. In opposition, the Conservative Party, reduced to overwhelmingly anti EU MPs will come out in favour of withdrawal from the EU. Economically, forming the government in 2015 will be a poison chalice for Labour, or Lab/Lib. That opens up the opportunity for a clear withdrawalist win in 2020. It is how I would play it, if I were them (if fate had dealt so cruel a blow).0 -
Thanks to ManchesterKurt for delurking with the interesting local perspective. My understanding is that Labour is in better shape there than in average safe seats (Paul Goggins was not lazy, as some safe MPs frankly are), and the proximity of Manchester is relevant - there is a huge reservoir of Labour activists there. UKIP can realistically hope to come second but should beware of expectations that they might win. The Con/LibDem share will be interesting too. Non-Labour voters in the Manchester area have in many cases got used to voting LibDem, so the LibDems probably can't afford to just let it go and end up with something like 7%.
On stop and search, the problem is that it's too random. Nobody sensible objects to a suspicious character being stopped, but the experience of urban life is that if you're a young black male you get stopped all the time (as often as once a week) even if you're eminently respectable-looking and just going about your business. This also applies to a lesser extent to urban young male whites.
Being a young male is seen as somewhat suspicious in itself, so that you get mildly hassled and 'moved on' even if you're just standing and chatting, and that does build up resentment towards the police, since there isn't a lot you can do about being a young bloke, and at that age you're more inclined to dislike being pushed around anyway. In a small way, we've seen the same scenario with drivers: people who really liked the police went right off them when they had their first encounter with a speed camera. Being an urban copper is difficult, but it's important for politicians to understand the problems on both sides.
0 -
rcs1000 said:
Hello PBers - advice needed,
I would like to sue an eBay buyer and/or eBay.
At the end of November last year, I sold a nearly new Butterfly Labs bitcoin miner on eBay for £1,650. The device had been lightly used, and had never been opened.
At the beginning of December, the buyer got back to me and said (roughly) that it looked like the device had been opened, and that he'd like a discount to £1,000 - and in return for which, he'd give me positive feedback.
I replied that it had not been opened, but that if he wanted to return it, I would of course issue a full refund. He said, no, don't worry.
On 24 December, he changed his mind and claimed the device had been opened, and asked for his money back. I said I was happy to swear an affidavit that he had not. I also pointed out that he had had the device for the best part of a month, and therefore had got £600 of value out of it, and it was worth very substantially less than I sold it to him. (The price of bitcoin had fallen, and he had- to be honest- overpaid for the device).
He opened a case with eBay. And eBay has awarded him the money back, and asked that he return the device to me in two weeks. By the time the device is returned to me, he will have mined over £1,000 of bitcoins, and my device (when returned) will be worth perhaps £300.
I feel like I've been completely legged over. I have no doubt that he never had any intention of keeping the device, and planned to use it for a month and the simply claim it was not as described.
I am spitting mad. I have emailed eBay, but they are not even willing to enter into a dialog. They simply keep repeating the mantra 'not as described', and all the time, the guy *still* has the miner, and is *still* making £30/day in bitcoins at my expense.
What can I do?
Thanks, Robert
Whoosh ! That's the sound of this post going way over my head!
0 -
And your last sentence informs the whole of the rest of your post.Cyclefree said:I don't think UKIP will win any MPs, whether in this seat or elsewhere, and if that continues, their only lasting contribution to British politics will be to split the right, much like the SDP did in the 1980's.
Whether they will succeed in changing the Tory party into something more like them, I don't know, but if they do they will make it more rather than less electable. I find UKIP deeply unappealing almost regardless of whether I hear Farage saying anything I agree with or not.0 -
Cameron has clearly stated that there will be an In/Out referendum in the next parliament if the Conservatives win. Apart from a commitment to withdrawal without a referendum, what clearer circumstance could there be? Yes, he's said that he'll campaign for an In vote if he gets a satisfactory agreement but that does rely on getting an agreement and doesn't guarantee an In result even if he does.johnstevens said:@Morris Dancer
UKIP does not trust Cameron to create the circumstances that will get the UK out of the EU, not least because Cameron has said his strategy is to do the exact opposite. ...0 -
As a UKIP member myself, I don't see a Lab or Lib/Lab government as being good for the party. I think the Conservatives would shift right in Opposition, and hoover up most of UKIP's support. The very best thing for the party would be a continuation of this Coalition, or a Conservative minority government.johnstevens said:@Morris Dancer
UKIP does not trust Cameron to create the circumstances that will get the UK out of the EU, not least because Cameron has said his strategy is to do the exact opposite. In opposition, the Conservative Party, reduced to overwhelmingly anti EU MPs will come out in favour of withdrawal from the EU. Economically, forming the government in 2015 will be a poison chalice for Labour, or Lab/Lib. That opens up the opportunity for a clear withdrawalist win in 2020. It is how I would play it, if I were them (if fate had dealt so cruel a blow).0 -
Stop and search would be limited to cases where the police had obtained a warrant, or where a constable had a reasonable belief that its use was necessary to recapture a person unlawfully at large, to save life and limb, or prevent serious damage to property. This would be achieved by applying the conditions set out in section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to "stop and searches", rather than the conditions currently contained in Part I of that Act. It may well be the case that there are racial disparities in the searches of domestic residences. It is, however, much less of a grievance than disparities in the use of stop and search because the power is sufficiently circumscribed to prevent widespread abuse.Sean_F said:How would that be done ? (a genuine question)
0 -
A rider, if I may, to my previous comment [9.00] on the inquest verdict.
What I am trying to say is that the family are entitled to protest even if they genuinely believe that the Jamaican police would have behaved in just the same way in the same circumstances - dear or dear, if no one were allowed to make exceptions in favour of themselves there wouldn't be much politics left.0 -
The point is that eBay doesn't understand what a Bitcoin miner is. You could think of it as a jerrycan full of petrol (i.e. or bitcoins). The buyer bought something from me, three quarters emptied the jerrycan, and are now returning it to me for a full refund.state_go_away said:rcs1000 said:Hello PBers - advice needed,
I would like to sue an eBay buyer and/or eBay.
At the end of November last year, I sold a nearly new Butterfly Labs bitcoin miner on eBay for £1,650. The device had been lightly used, and had never been opened.
At the beginning of December, the buyer got back to me and said (roughly) that it looked like the device had been opened, and that he'd like a discount to £1,000 - and in return for which, he'd give me positive feedback.
I replied that it had not been opened, but that if he wanted to return it, I would of course issue a full refund. He said, no, don't worry.
On 24 December, he changed his mind and claimed the device had been opened, and asked for his money back. I said I was happy to swear an affidavit that he had not. I also pointed out that he had had the device for the best part of a month, and therefore had got £600 of value out of it, and it was worth very substantially less than I sold it to him. (The price of bitcoin had fallen, and he had- to be honest- overpaid for the device).
He opened a case with eBay. And eBay has awarded him the money back, and asked that he return the device to me in two weeks. By the time the device is returned to me, he will have mined over £1,000 of bitcoins, and my device (when returned) will be worth perhaps £300.
I feel like I've been completely legged over. I have no doubt that he never had any intention of keeping the device, and planned to use it for a month and the simply claim it was not as described.
I am spitting mad. I have emailed eBay, but they are not even willing to enter into a dialog. They simply keep repeating the mantra 'not as described', and all the time, the guy *still* has the miner, and is *still* making £30/day in bitcoins at my expense.
What can I do?
Thanks, Robert
Whoosh ! That's the sound of this post going way over my head!
I am normally an incredibly relaxed guy, but I am currently spitting mad.0 -
Keep your £1650 and get someone else to trade on ebay for you.rcs1000 said:Hello PBers - advice needed,
I would like to sue an eBay buyer and/or eBay.
At the end of November last year, I sold a nearly new Butterfly Labs bitcoin miner on eBay for £1,650. The device had been lightly used, and had never been opened.
At the beginning of December, the buyer got back to me and said (roughly) that it looked like the device had been opened, and that he'd like a discount to £1,000 - and in return for which, he'd give me positive feedback.
I replied that it had not been opened, but that if he wanted to return it, I would of course issue a full refund. He said, no, don't worry.
On 24 December, he changed his mind and claimed the device had been opened, and asked for his money back. I said I was happy to swear an affidavit that he had not. I also pointed out that he had had the device for the best part of a month, and therefore had got £600 of value out of it, and it was worth very substantially less than I sold it to him. (The price of bitcoin had fallen, and he had- to be honest- overpaid for the device).
He opened a case with eBay. And eBay has awarded him the money back, and asked that he return the device to me in two weeks. By the time the device is returned to me, he will have mined over £1,000 of bitcoins, and my device (when returned) will be worth perhaps £300.
I feel like I've been completely legged over. I have no doubt that he never had any intention of keeping the device, and planned to use it for a month and the simply claim it was not as described.
I am spitting mad. I have emailed eBay, but they are not even willing to enter into a dialog. They simply keep repeating the mantra 'not as described', and all the time, the guy *still* has the miner, and is *still* making £30/day in bitcoins at my expense.
What can I do?
Thanks, Robert0 -
We are all talking about a by-election in Wythenshawe and Sale East, but has a date for the election ben announced? I haven't seen one, and I expect the Millipede to dither over the date.0
-
The government should try banning stop and search completely for a few years and see if the problem goes away.
0 -
Mr. 1000, so it's effectively cost you over £1,000?
Wish I could offer you some advice, but I haven't bought anything on eBay for ages. Hopefully one of the legal eagles will be able to help you out. It does sound like an indefensible case, given the e-mail exchange.0 -
For once (and given our respective views on the EU it is a rare occasion indeed) I agree with John.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Stevens, how does have Miliband (more pro-EU than Cameron) or Clegg (more pro-EU than Miliband) winning more seats help the cause of leaving the EU?
UKIP are in danger of cutting off their nose to spite their face. Indulging in People's Front of Judea ideological purity when they stand a better chance both of winning seats *and* of leaving the EU by reaching an accommodation with the Conservatives is bloody daft.
There are no degrees of leaving the EU. Either you do or you do not. From that perspective having a Labour leader who will not support leaving the EU is no different from having a Try leader who has said he will never take Britain out of the EU.
The best hope for UKIP is that the Tories lose and then elect a leader who is willing to countenance an EU exit. There is of course no guarantee that this would happen but it is still better odds than us leaving under Cameron.0 -
hi Robertrcs1000 said:Hello PBers - advice needed,
I would like to sue an eBay buyer and/or eBay.
At the end of November last year, I sold a nearly new Butterfly Labs bitcoin miner on eBay for £1,650. The device had been lightly used, and had never been opened.
At the beginning of December, the buyer got back to me and said (roughly) that it looked like the device had been opened, and that he'd like a discount to £1,000 - and in return for which, he'd give me positive feedback.
I replied that it had not been opened, but that if he wanted to return it, I would of course issue a full refund. He said, no, don't worry.
On 24 December, he changed his mind and claimed the device had been opened, and asked for his money back. I said I was happy to swear an affidavit that he had not. I also pointed out that he had had the device for the best part of a month, and therefore had got £600 of value out of it, and it was worth very substantially less than I sold it to him. (The price of bitcoin had fallen, and he had- to be honest- overpaid for the device).
He opened a case with eBay. And eBay has awarded him the money back, and asked that he return the device to me in two weeks. By the time the device is returned to me, he will have mined over £1,000 of bitcoins, and my device (when returned) will be worth perhaps £300.
I feel like I've been completely legged over. I have no doubt that he never had any intention of keeping the device, and planned to use it for a month and the simply claim it was not as described.
I am spitting mad. I have emailed eBay, but they are not even willing to enter into a dialog. They simply keep repeating the mantra 'not as described', and all the time, the guy *still* has the miner, and is *still* making £30/day in bitcoins at my expense.
What can I do?
Thanks, Robert
I'm sorry to hear of your problem. It will be of no help to you whatsoever to know that for me this is part and parcel of bitcoin. It is a new "currency" but without the safeguards of national currencies.
That money can be mined is itself a strange and new concept and my feeling is that it is a caveat emptor situation when such new concepts are concerned.
As to the opened/unopened issue, which is the heart of the matter, then I don't understand how the device could have been "lightly used" but "never been opened". If that is resolved then I think the rest falls into place albeit not necessarily in your favour.0 -
EBay has already taken the £1,650Alanbrooke said:
Keep your £1650 and get someone else to trade on ebay for you.rcs1000 said:Hello PBers - advice needed,
I would like to sue an eBay buyer and/or eBay.
At the end of November last year, I sold a nearly new Butterfly Labs bitcoin miner on eBay for £1,650. The device had been lightly used, and had never been opened.
At the beginning of December, the buyer got back to me and said (roughly) that it looked like the device had been opened, and that he'd like a discount to £1,000 - and in return for which, he'd give me positive feedback.
I replied that it had not been opened, but that if he wanted to return it, I would of course issue a full refund. He said, no, don't worry.
On 24 December, he changed his mind and claimed the device had been opened, and asked for his money back. I said I was happy to swear an affidavit that he had not. I also pointed out that he had had the device for the best part of a month, and therefore had got £600 of value out of it, and it was worth very substantially less than I sold it to him. (The price of bitcoin had fallen, and he had- to be honest- overpaid for the device).
He opened a case with eBay. And eBay has awarded him the money back, and asked that he return the device to me in two weeks. By the time the device is returned to me, he will have mined over £1,000 of bitcoins, and my device (when returned) will be worth perhaps £300.
I feel like I've been completely legged over. I have no doubt that he never had any intention of keeping the device, and planned to use it for a month and the simply claim it was not as described.
I am spitting mad. I have emailed eBay, but they are not even willing to enter into a dialog. They simply keep repeating the mantra 'not as described', and all the time, the guy *still* has the miner, and is *still* making £30/day in bitcoins at my expense.
What can I do?
Thanks, Robert
0 -
Bitcoins are so 2010. This is the up and comer now.rcs1000 said:
The point is that eBay doesn't understand what a Bitcoin miner is. You could think of it as a jerrycan full of petrol (i.e. or bitcoins). The buyer bought something from me, three quarters emptied the jerrycan, and are now returning it to me for a full refund.state_go_away said:rcs1000 said:Hello PBers - advice needed,
I would like to sue an eBay buyer and/or eBay.
At the end of November last year, I sold a nearly new Butterfly Labs bitcoin miner on eBay for £1,650. The device had been lightly used, and had never been opened.
At the beginning of December, the buyer got back to me and said (roughly) that it looked like the device had been opened, and that he'd like a discount to £1,000 - and in return for which, he'd give me positive feedback.
I replied that it had not been opened, but that if he wanted to return it, I would of course issue a full refund. He said, no, don't worry.
On 24 December, he changed his mind and claimed the device had been opened, and asked for his money back. I said I was happy to swear an affidavit that he had not. I also pointed out that he had had the device for the best part of a month, and therefore had got £600 of value out of it, and it was worth very substantially less than I sold it to him. (The price of bitcoin had fallen, and he had- to be honest- overpaid for the device).
He opened a case with eBay. And eBay has awarded him the money back, and asked that he return the device to me in two weeks. By the time the device is returned to me, he will have mined over £1,000 of bitcoins, and my device (when returned) will be worth perhaps £300.
I feel like I've been completely legged over. I have no doubt that he never had any intention of keeping the device, and planned to use it for a month and the simply claim it was not as described.
I am spitting mad. I have emailed eBay, but they are not even willing to enter into a dialog. They simply keep repeating the mantra 'not as described', and all the time, the guy *still* has the miner, and is *still* making £30/day in bitcoins at my expense.
What can I do?
Thanks, Robert
Whoosh ! That's the sound of this post going way over my head!
I am normally an incredibly relaxed guy, but I am currently spitting mad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogecoin
(An attempt to lighten the mood since I fear eBay will give you little solace.)
0 -
Q. Ebay have refunded his money but do they have your money ?rcs1000 said:
The point is that eBay doesn't understand what a Bitcoin miner is. You could think of it as a jerrycan full of petrol (i.e. or bitcoins). The buyer bought something from me, three quarters emptied the jerrycan, and are now returning it to me for a full refund.state_go_away said:rcs1000 said:Hello PBers - advice needed,
I would like to sue an eBay buyer and/or eBay.
At the end of November last year, I sold a nearly new Butterfly Labs bitcoin miner on eBay for £1,650. The device had been lightly used, and had never been opened.
At the beginning of December, the buyer got back to me and said (roughly) that it looked like the device had been opened, and that he'd like a discount to £1,000 - and in return for which, he'd give me positive feedback.
I replied that it had not been opened, but that if he wanted to return it, I would of course issue a full refund. He said, no, don't worry.
On 24 December, he changed his mind and claimed the device had been opened, and asked for his money back. I said I was happy to swear an affidavit that he had not. I also pointed out that he had had the device for the best part of a month, and therefore had got £600 of value out of it, and it was worth very substantially less than I sold it to him. (The price of bitcoin had fallen, and he had- to be honest- overpaid for the device).
He opened a case with eBay. And eBay has awarded him the money back, and asked that he return the device to me in two weeks. By the time the device is returned to me, he will have mined over £1,000 of bitcoins, and my device (when returned) will be worth perhaps £300.
I feel like I've been completely legged over. I have no doubt that he never had any intention of keeping the device, and planned to use it for a month and the simply claim it was not as described.
I am spitting mad. I have emailed eBay, but they are not even willing to enter into a dialog. They simply keep repeating the mantra 'not as described', and all the time, the guy *still* has the miner, and is *still* making £30/day in bitcoins at my expense.
What can I do?
Thanks, Robert
Whoosh ! That's the sound of this post going way over my head!
I am normally an incredibly relaxed guy, but I am currently spitting mad.0 -
Hodges ?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/politics/9111991/labours-immigration-nightmares/
"One former Labour adviser, deeply unimpressed by this ‘wholly strategic’ approach, believes his boss will not be able to keep up the pretence. ‘He will get found out in the end,’ he says. ‘The Labour party has got nothing to say on the big issues: it talks about cost of living to mask that. What question is Ed Miliband the answer to? I seriously don’t know."0 -
You explain it far more coherently than I do :-)johnstevens said:@Morris Dancer
UKIP does not trust Cameron to create the circumstances that will get the UK out of the EU, not least because Cameron has said his strategy is to do the exact opposite. In opposition, the Conservative Party, reduced to overwhelmingly anti EU MPs will come out in favour of withdrawal from the EU. Economically, forming the government in 2015 will be a poison chalice for Labour, or Lab/Lib. That opens up the opportunity for a clear withdrawalist win in 2020. It is how I would play it, if I were them (if fate had dealt so cruel a blow).0 -
Mr. Tyndall, you've rather neglected to mention that Cameron's committed to a referendum.
I grow tired of the 'We don't trust Cameron' line. Even if you don't trust him, you can trust his backbenchers to commit regicide if there's a manifesto promise for a referendum and he doesn't deliver. You've got one chap and his party saying there should be a referendum, which is what you want, and two chaps and their parties that are almost entirely (a few Labour backbenchers aside) committed to ever more EU integration.
Maintaining ideological purity and the luxury of opposition might make UKIP feel all rebellious and cool (no way we're dealing with The Establishment!) but if you actually want to effect a change then the best way to do that is to either cut a party-wide deal with the blues, or do so on a case-by-case basis so you don't end up costing sceptical MPs their seats.
I think some UKIP supporters have moved from wanting to leave as their primary motivation to wanting to kick the big three parties or promote UKIP itself.
Mr. Topping, whilst I don't know about the lightly used issue, it sounds like buying a box of chocolate for £10, eating three-quarters of them and then getting the full £10 refund.0 -
Or "no-brainer" McTernan, but likely Hodges.TGOHF said:Hodges ?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/politics/9111991/labours-immigration-nightmares/
"One former Labour adviser, deeply unimpressed by this ‘wholly strategic’ approach, believes his boss will not be able to keep up the pretence. ‘He will get found out in the end,’ he says. ‘The Labour party has got nothing to say on the big issues: it talks about cost of living to mask that. What question is Ed Miliband the answer to? I seriously don’t know."0 -
Not so - this from The Guardian on 23 May 2013:dugarbandier said:FPT (sorry)
they paid 71 million in interest on the debt last year. how much does their income fall if they don't make the champions league?peter_from_putney said:"I don't think the Glazers have the luxury of giving Moyes time. (not too much, anyway)"
Are you seriously suggesting that instead they can afford to pay off virtually his full six year contract said to be worth around £5 million per annum?
"United say the new loan would have an estimated starting interest rate of around 2.78% and that interest payments should come down from around £31m to £21m per year."
That's the small matter of £50 million less than the figure quoted by you!
Plus, what makes you think that replacing Moyes at a cost of almost £30 million would actually improve Man Utd's chances of qualifying for the Champions League? Such a move might actually reduce their chances.
0 -
@rcs1000
Instead of caveat emptor it has to be let the seller beware. An antiquarian bookshop owner that I know will only ship goods on receipt of the money, usually via Paypal. She got caught out like you and never received the goods back.
She found eBay just useless as they want to protect their reputation regarding buyers.
As you had a useful product, you should have adopted the same policy. I do not know all the T&Cs of eBay and do not know of any cases or case law regarding similar problems, but I guess that going to court could cost you more money than you have lost already. Is it possible to prove that the 'buyer' has used this device fraudulently - if so then that could be construed as theft by discovery or theft by intent and so would become a criminal matter but would the police be interested in such a difficult case. Is the 'buyer' UK based as if not in the UK, such action could be nigh hopeless. Lastly the 'buyer' could be a member of a criminal gang who has a track record in this line of business but who could be untraceable.0 -
When even James Delingpole suggests a Ukip-Con deal is better than Ed Miliband you know the Kipper resolve is waning.0
-
Sorry to hear of your problem Robert, the buyer is obviously an unscrupulous shyster - unfortunately, ebay do err on the side of the buyer whenever a dispute is raised. I’m afraid unless you are prepared to go through the hassle of the small claims court, you may have to bite the bullet on this one.rcs1000 said:
EBay has already taken the £1,650Alanbrooke said:
Keep your £1650 and get someone else to trade on ebay for you.rcs1000 said:Hello PBers - advice needed,
I would like to sue an eBay buyer and/or eBay.
At the end of November last year, I sold a nearly new Butterfly Labs bitcoin miner on eBay for £1,650. The device had been lightly used, and had never been opened.
At the beginning of December, the buyer got back to me and said (roughly) that it looked like the device had been opened, and that he'd like a discount to £1,000 - and in return for which, he'd give me positive feedback.
I replied that it had not been opened, but that if he wanted to return it, I would of course issue a full refund. He said, no, don't worry.
On 24 December, he changed his mind and claimed the device had been opened, and asked for his money back. I said I was happy to swear an affidavit that he had not. I also pointed out that he had had the device for the best part of a month, and therefore had got £600 of value out of it, and it was worth very substantially less than I sold it to him. (The price of bitcoin had fallen, and he had- to be honest- overpaid for the device).
He opened a case with eBay. And eBay has awarded him the money back, and asked that he return the device to me in two weeks. By the time the device is returned to me, he will have mined over £1,000 of bitcoins, and my device (when returned) will be worth perhaps £300.
I feel like I've been completely legged over. I have no doubt that he never had any intention of keeping the device, and planned to use it for a month and the simply claim it was not as described.
I am spitting mad. I have emailed eBay, but they are not even willing to enter into a dialog. They simply keep repeating the mantra 'not as described', and all the time, the guy *still* has the miner, and is *still* making £30/day in bitcoins at my expense.
What can I do?
Thanks, Robert0 -
I certainly see no good reason for UKIP to run against withdrawalist MPs in marginal seats, like Robert Halfon.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Tyndall, you've rather neglected to mention that Cameron's committed to a referendum.
I grow tired of the 'We don't trust Cameron' line. Even if you don't trust him, you can trust his backbenchers to commit regicide if there's a manifesto promise for a referendum and he doesn't deliver. You've got one chap and his party saying there should be a referendum, which is what you want, and two chaps and their parties that are almost entirely (a few Labour backbenchers aside) committed to ever more EU integration.
Maintaining ideological purity and the luxury of opposition might make UKIP feel all rebellious and cool (no way we're dealing with The Establishment!) but if you actually want to effect a change then the best way to do that is to either cut a party-wide deal with the blues, or do so on a case-by-case basis so you don't end up costing sceptical MPs their seats.
I think some UKIP supporters have moved from wanting to leave as their primary motivation to wanting to kick the big three parties or promote UKIP itself.
Mr. Topping, whilst I don't know about the lightly used issue, it sounds like buying a box of chocolate for £10, eating three-quarters of them and then getting the full £10 refund.
0 -
Once the item has been returned and you have the actual numbers on how much the bitcoin miner has been reduced, could you not put in a claim to ebay on the basis that this is 'damage' in so far as the item has not been returned to you in the state it was dispatched?rcs1000 said:Hello PBers - advice needed,
I would like to sue an eBay buyer and/or eBay.
At the end of November last year, I sold a nearly new Butterfly Labs bitcoin miner on eBay for £1,650. The device had been lightly used, and had never been opened.
At the beginning of December, the buyer got back to me and said (roughly) that it looked like the device had been opened, and that he'd like a discount to £1,000 - and in return for which, he'd give me positive feedback.
I replied that it had not been opened, but that if he wanted to return it, I would of course issue a full refund. He said, no, don't worry.
On 24 December, he changed his mind and claimed the device had been opened, and asked for his money back. I said I was happy to swear an affidavit that he had not. I also pointed out that he had had the device for the best part of a month, and therefore had got £600 of value out of it, and it was worth very substantially less than I sold it to him. (The price of bitcoin had fallen, and he had- to be honest- overpaid for the device).
He opened a case with eBay. And eBay has awarded him the money back, and asked that he return the device to me in two weeks. By the time the device is returned to me, he will have mined over £1,000 of bitcoins, and my device (when returned) will be worth perhaps £300.
I feel like I've been completely legged over. I have no doubt that he never had any intention of keeping the device, and planned to use it for a month and the simply claim it was not as described.
I am spitting mad. I have emailed eBay, but they are not even willing to enter into a dialog. They simply keep repeating the mantra 'not as described', and all the time, the guy *still* has the miner, and is *still* making £30/day in bitcoins at my expense.
What can I do?
Thanks, Robert
I also suspect an official letter from your lawyer stating your intent to start legal proceedings will jolt ebay as they have a history of doing whatever is the least hassle for themselves in terms of getting issues resolved and off their books. If this looks like it will not go away then I believe they will become more responsive.0 -
In my experience with ebay, the benefit of the doubt always goes with the buyer; this has helped me on one occasion but I've also been 'legged over' several times. As you say it's almost impossible to get any dialog with ebay.rcs1000 said:Hello PBers - advice needed,
I would like to sue an eBay buyer and/or eBay.
At the end of November last year, I sold a nearly new Butterfly Labs bitcoin miner on eBay for £1,650. The device had been lightly used, and had never been opened.
At the beginning of December, the buyer got back to me and said (roughly) that it looked like the device had been opened, and that he'd like a discount to £1,000 - and in return for which, he'd give me positive feedback.
I replied that it had not been opened, but that if he wanted to return it, I would of course issue a full refund. He said, no, don't worry.
On 24 December, he changed his mind and claimed the device had been opened, and asked for his money back. I said I was happy to swear an affidavit that he had not. I also pointed out that he had had the device for the best part of a month, and therefore had got £600 of value out of it, and it was worth very substantially less than I sold it to him. (The price of bitcoin had fallen, and he had- to be honest- overpaid for the device).
He opened a case with eBay. And eBay has awarded him the money back, and asked that he return the device to me in two weeks. By the time the device is returned to me, he will have mined over £1,000 of bitcoins, and my device (when returned) will be worth perhaps £300.
I feel like I've been completely legged over. I have no doubt that he never had any intention of keeping the device, and planned to use it for a month and the simply claim it was not as described.
I am spitting mad. I have emailed eBay, but they are not even willing to enter into a dialog. They simply keep repeating the mantra 'not as described', and all the time, the guy *still* has the miner, and is *still* making £30/day in bitcoins at my expense.
What can I do?
Thanks, Robert
It might be worth kicking up a fuss on the ebay discussion boards. After being ripped off by a bloke in Italy over some motorcycle forks and raging on the forum, that's the only time someone on ebay actually offered to speak to me directly (though I'd more or less given up the will to live by that point).
0 -
13 dreadful years of Labour didn't get even a referendum never mind an exit - but 5 more years will do the trick ?johnstevens said:@Morris Dancer
UKIP does not trust Cameron to create the circumstances that will get the UK out of the EU, not least because Cameron has said his strategy is to do the exact opposite. In opposition, the Conservative Party, reduced to overwhelmingly anti EU MPs will come out in favour of withdrawal from the EU. Economically, forming the government in 2015 will be a poison chalice for Labour, or Lab/Lib. That opens up the opportunity for a clear withdrawalist win in 2020. It is how I would play it, if I were them (if fate had dealt so cruel a blow).
Optimistic....0 -
Delingpole is not (to my knowledge) a UKIPer and certainly doesn't speak for the party.TGOHF said:When even James Delingpole suggests a Ukip-Con deal is better than Ed Miliband you know the Kipper resolve is waning.
0 -
That's just micawberism. Events will have a much bigger impact on what we look like in 2020 than kippers hoping Cameron will get shot. If he goes who'll replace him and will he\she be any better ? I really never get the UKIP "strategy" except that some kippers have it in for Cameron and see that as the endgame.Richard_Tyndall said:
You explain it far more coherently than I do :-)johnstevens said:@Morris Dancer
UKIP does not trust Cameron to create the circumstances that will get the UK out of the EU, not least because Cameron has said his strategy is to do the exact opposite. In opposition, the Conservative Party, reduced to overwhelmingly anti EU MPs will come out in favour of withdrawal from the EU. Economically, forming the government in 2015 will be a poison chalice for Labour, or Lab/Lib. That opens up the opportunity for a clear withdrawalist win in 2020. It is how I would play it, if I were them (if fate had dealt so cruel a blow).0 -
On topic, I agree with Mike that a UKIP win would totally change the media narrative but I don't entirely agree that UKIP needs to start winning MPs - it depends what the strategy behind it is.
If the notion is that UKIP should start focussing ruthlessly on a few constituencies and let the rest hang then that's the same blind strategic alley the Lib Dems have driven up and where's it got them? Six decades of intensive campaigning, five years in government delivering very little from their own manifesto and now back to single figures and fourth place in the polls, and staring down the barrel of their most losses at a general election in more than eighty years. The Lib Dems aspire to government yet write off more than 80% of constituencies; they seek an electoral coalition based on 'not being the others' but by definition can only enter government with one of the others, so then undermining their own voter base. Why should UKIP go down the same route?
It's true that UKIP won far fewer council seats in 2013 than the Lib Dems and their vote was far less efficiently distributed on that particular vote share. However, it's also true that in many of the seats they did win, they did so because of the national profile, not local work. Intensive local work is *not* the only route to a breakthrough.
The question is whether UKIP can advance from where they are now and that's where winning a seat would make a big difference. Looking like a credible party (in terms of whether they can win; let's leave policies aside for now), makes a big difference in attracting votes. A parliamentary win in February or March would significantly boost their chances further of winning the Euros in May (and winning more council seats too), and that's where the momentum then really matters.
It's true that a UKIP national vote share at a general election of 15% would deliver at best a handful of seats due to their vote being fairly evenly distributed (cf the Lib Dems, who'd still have top-side of 40 on that score). However, increase that to 20%, 25% or 30% and the picture suddenly starts to look very different. Question is, can they go that far?0 -
Just to note that @Innocent_Abroad has joined the guest slot team
IA has been with the site almost from the start in 2004 and it was he who first coined the term "Our Genial Host" OGH.
He played a big part during PB's early days an I'm really pleased that he's accepted my invitation.0 -
I have not forgotten it at all. But the aim of this whole process is to leave the EU. That becomes all the simpler with one of the two main parties in support of BOO. The journey is not important. The destination is what counts.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Tyndall, you've rather neglected to mention that Cameron's committed to a referendum.
I grow tired of the 'We don't trust Cameron' line. Even if you don't trust him, you can trust his backbenchers to commit regicide if there's a manifesto promise for a referendum and he doesn't deliver. You've got one chap and his party saying there should be a referendum, which is what you want, and two chaps and their parties that are almost entirely (a few Labour backbenchers aside) committed to ever more EU integration.
Maintaining ideological purity and the luxury of opposition might make UKIP feel all rebellious and cool (no way we're dealing with The Establishment!) but if you actually want to effect a change then the best way to do that is to either cut a party-wide deal with the blues, or do so on a case-by-case basis so you don't end up costing sceptical MPs their seats.
I think some UKIP supporters have moved from wanting to leave as their primary motivation to wanting to kick the big three parties or promote UKIP itself.
Mr. Topping, whilst I don't know about the lightly used issue, it sounds like buying a box of chocolate for £10, eating three-quarters of them and then getting the full £10 refund.
0 -
You ask where coaltion has got the LDs. Well it's stopped a pile of moves by the nutty Tory right all of which are contained in Cameron "little black book".david_herdson said:On topic, I agree with Mike that a UKIP win would totally change the media narrative but I don't entirely agree that UKIP needs to start winning MPs - it depends what the strategy behind it is.
If the notion is that UKIP should start focussing ruthlessly on a few constituencies and let the rest hang then that's the same blind strategic alley the Lib Dems have driven up and where's it got them? Six decades of intensive campaigning, five years in government delivering very little from their own manifesto and now back to single figures and fourth place in the polls, and staring down the barrel of their most losses at a general election in more than eighty years. The Lib Dems aspire to government yet write off more than 80% of constituencies; they seek an electoral coalition based on 'not being the others' but by definition can only enter government with one of the others, so then undermining their own voter base. Why should UKIP go down the same route?
It's true that UKIP won far fewer council seats in 2013 than the Lib Dems and their vote was far less efficiently distributed on that particular vote share. However, it's also true that in many of the seats they did win, they did so because of the national profile, not local work. Intensive local work is *not* the only route to a breakthrough.
The question is whether UKIP can advance from where they are now and that's where winning a seat would make a big difference. Looking like a credible party (in terms of whether they can win; let's leave policies aside for now), makes a big difference in attracting votes. A parliamentary win in February or March would significantly boost their chances further of winning the Euros in May (and winning more council seats too), and that's where the momentum then really matters.
It's true that a UKIP national vote share at a general election of 15% would deliver at best a handful of seats due to their vote being fairly evenly distributed (cf the Lib Dems, who'd still have top-side of 40 on that score). However, increase that to 20%, 25% or 30% and the picture suddenly starts to look very different. Question is, can they go that far?
0 -
Thanks everyone. Can anyone recommend a solicitor for me to use? (The person I normally talk to is a partner at Slaughter & May, but I suspect that might be over-kill...)
Or would has any resident pb solicitor (Sean_F, LIAMT or any other) like to consider taking my case on?0 -
cultural hegemony ftwdavid_herdson said:On topic, I agree with Mike that a UKIP win would totally change the media narrative but I don't entirely agree that UKIP needs to start winning MPs - it depends what the strategy behind it is.
If the notion is that UKIP should start focussing ruthlessly on a few constituencies and let the rest hang then that's the same blind strategic alley the Lib Dems have driven up and where's it got them? Six decades of intensive campaigning, five years in government delivering very little from their own manifesto and now back to single figures and fourth place in the polls, and staring down the barrel of their most losses at a general election in more than eighty years. The Lib Dems aspire to government yet write off more than 80% of constituencies; they seek an electoral coalition based on 'not being the others' but by definition can only enter government with one of the others, so then undermining their own voter base. Why should UKIP go down the same route?
It's true that UKIP won far fewer council seats in 2013 than the Lib Dems and their vote was far less efficiently distributed on that particular vote share. However, it's also true that in many of the seats they did win, they did so because of the national profile, not local work. Intensive local work is *not* the only route to a breakthrough.
The question is whether UKIP can advance from where they are now and that's where winning a seat would make a big difference. Looking like a credible party (in terms of whether they can win; let's leave policies aside for now), makes a big difference in attracting votes. A parliamentary win in February or March would significantly boost their chances further of winning the Euros in May (and winning more council seats too), and that's where the momentum then really matters.
It's true that a UKIP national vote share at a general election of 15% would deliver at best a handful of seats due to their vote being fairly evenly distributed (cf the Lib Dems, who'd still have top-side of 40 on that score). However, increase that to 20%, 25% or 30% and the picture suddenly starts to look very different. Question is, can they go that far?0 -
ManchesterKurt said:
As someone who lives in the constituency a view locally...
HS2 will have a stop at Manchester airport, the airport is in the constituency, stop is not, it's right on the boarder with Altrincham and Sale West.
Unlike the London elite there is strong support for HS2 the area, very strong. Places like Wythenshawe holding out hope of an improved future following such investment in region.
In my opinion, just my opinion, UKIP may come second, but they'll be miles behind Labour.
I'm on the Wythenshawe side of this constituency, where the LD activity and support has collapsed since 2011 and I'd imagine they will go sub 10%. Most of their vote will go Labour or stay at home.
It will be interesting to see how the Tories do given their need to keep a hold of Trafford Council - I imagine they will put in a bit of effort on the Sale East side. The Cons are probably best playing up their support for HS2 and Airport City and hoping that's enough.
I can't see UKIP doing well here. There is some immigration but it is at a low level and mainly Eastern European - certainly I'm not aware of any tension. Other than that UKIP don't have any hooks to use and their opposition to HS2 will probably play badly.
0 -
David Herdson
I am no sort of apologist for UKIP strategy, but I believe their leadership is right to recognise that it will be difficult to secure an OUT vote in a referendum if two of the main parties in Parliament are united in favour of IN and the Conservative Party, though split, has a pro IN leadership. A NO vote will be much easier to secure if the governing party is united in its favour, having won an election against a background of severe economic crisis.0 -
Richard_Tyndall said:
I have not forgotten it at all. But the aim of this whole process is to leave the EU.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Tyndall, you've rather neglected to mention that Cameron's committed to a referendum.
I grow tired of the 'We don't trust Cameron' line. Even if you don't trust him, you can trust his backbenchers to commit regicide if there's a manifesto promise for a referendum and he doesn't deliver. You've got one chap and his party saying there should be a referendum, which is what you want, and two chaps and their parties that are almost entirely (a few Labour backbenchers aside) committed to ever more EU integration.
Maintaining ideological purity and the luxury of opposition might make UKIP feel all rebellious and cool (no way we're dealing with The Establishment!) but if you actually want to effect a change then the best way to do that is to either cut a party-wide deal with the blues, or do so on a case-by-case basis so you don't end up costing sceptical MPs their seats.
I think some UKIP supporters have moved from wanting to leave as their primary motivation to wanting to kick the big three parties or promote UKIP itself.
Mr. Topping, whilst I don't know about the lightly used issue, it sounds like buying a box of chocolate for £10, eating three-quarters of them and then getting the full £10 refund.
You leave the EU by winning the referendum Cameron has promised in 2017. Its that simple.
The UKIP plan seems to be to loose the opportunity to have a 2017 referendum in the hope that at some future point (2022, 2027...) there may be another referendum even though the euro crisis is probably the bast backdrop to have a referendum in.0 -
The politics might be one aspect but the bigger risk for OUT is they have spent so much time demanding a referendum they will be totally unprepared if they get one. See SNP and Indyref.johnstevens said:David Herdson
I am no sort of apologist for UKIP strategy, but I believe their leadership is right to recognise that it will be difficult to secure an OUT vote in a referendum if two of the main parties in Parliament are united in favour of IN and the Conservative Party, though split, has a pro IN leadership. A NO vote will be much easier to secure if the governing party is united in its favour, having won an election against a background of severe economic crisis.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
