politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If UKIP gets its act together in Wythenshawe and Sale East

SouthamObserver said:

The slave trade for sure. Feudal agriculture at the top level too. It spawned the birth of the banking system after all.

So the absence of free labour, whose presence has been held to be an integral feature of capitalism by the likes of both Marx and Abraham Lincoln, is compatible with capitalism? You render the term meaningless by using with total imprecision.

Life_ina_market_town said:

TheWatcher said:

So, the judgement of a panel of independent jurors isn't good enough, as they gave the 'wrong answer'.

Interested parties have the right to challenge the determination or finding of a coronial inquisition by way of judicial review. Juries do not have the final say.

How limited or broad is the scope of what they can challenge? Can they basically say that they didn't like the outcome and want another go, or do they have to firstly prove that there was something wrong with the process e.g. that the conclusion was outside the reasonable range of options given the evidence presented?

edmundintokyo said:

MikeSmithson said:

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".

This is the eternal, unanswerable conundrum about the LibDem role in the coalition. On one interpretation they've done the country a great service by stopping all kinds of crazy things that the Tories like to talk about but the government isn't actually doing. On the other interpretation the Tories were never going to do those things in the first place, because they're crazy.

Mike is right to an extent. Whether or not the Cons would have done crazy things the LDs can at least _say_ they have prevented certain policies from being enacted and that is a very powerful tool come GE2015.

For me the big disconnect is that any LDs should think they are anything other than the junior member of a coalition government and that any Cons should think they are anything other than the senior member of a coalition government.

Or maybe neither group understands the dynamics and realities of a coalition government.

Life_ina_market_town said:

TheWatcher said:

So, the judgement of a panel of independent jurors isn't good enough, as they gave the 'wrong answer'.

Interested parties have the right to challenge the determination or finding of a coronial inquisition by way of judicial review. Juries do not have the final say.

Only if there is an error or law, or fact.

No forensic evidence of Duggan being found on the weapon surprised me slightly when I read it today...

edmundintokyo said:

TOPPING said:

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.

Mining is a slightly dodgy metaphor in this case, although it was probably quite helpful in the early days in attracting the goldbug types. rcs1000's hardware is a transaction processing machine, and you get fees for processing transactions. (That's not strictly true, but it's closer than the mining idea.)

All you should have to know in this case is that it's a piece of fast-depreciating computing equipment, which the buyer(?) has presumably been using productively during the time in which they've had it in their possession. Because it depreciates fast, it'll be worth a lot less if and when rcs1000 gets it back.

EiT has summed it up perfectly.

Pulpstar said:

Quincel said:

isam said:

Quincel said:

isam said:

On topic I'd say beware of people who build up UKIP expectations only so they can call it a failure when they don't win

Or influence bookie prices

No! More of these people! UKIP odds on favourite please, Labour pushed way out.

What price do you think the main parties should be? Or what % of 100?

UKIP are unpredictable enough to make it a tough call, but I'd predict something along the lines of:

Labour 55%
UKIP 20%
Tories 13%
LDs 7%
Random Others 5%

But I wouldn't rule out the Tory and LD vote holding up a bit better than that, LDs around 10% and the Tories not losing much from their current 20%ish. UKIP might get some voters from each party, but I reckon the Tories in the Trafford area are pretty loyal, the LDs in the area are heading to Labour not to UKIP and the Labour voters are pretty tribal. I wouldn't rule out UKIP not even coming second, and would be astonished if they made it a close race.

As for odds, I've never had work in the industry but my rough guess would be:

Lab: 1/6
UKIP: 4/1
Tories: 10/1 (maybe a bit longer)
LDs: 25/1 (or longer)

You've worked in oddsetting, what do you think?

I don't think the conservatives and Lib Dems and others have 5% chance... combined.

True, pricing up the no-hopers isn't a strength of mine.

Pulpstar said:

Quincel said:

isam said:

Quincel said:

isam said:

On topic I'd say beware of people who build up UKIP expectations only so they can call it a failure when they don't win

Or influence bookie prices

No! More of these people! UKIP odds on favourite please, Labour pushed way out.

What price do you think the main parties should be? Or what % of 100?

UKIP are unpredictable enough to make it a tough call, but I'd predict something along the lines of:

Labour 55%
UKIP 20%
Tories 13%
LDs 7%
Random Others 5%

But I wouldn't rule out the Tory and LD vote holding up a bit better than that, LDs around 10% and the Tories not losing much from their current 20%ish. UKIP might get some voters from each party, but I reckon the Tories in the Trafford area are pretty loyal, the LDs in the area are heading to Labour not to UKIP and the Labour voters are pretty tribal. I wouldn't rule out UKIP not even coming second, and would be astonished if they made it a close race.

As for odds, I've never had work in the industry but my rough guess would be:

Lab: 1/6
UKIP: 4/1
Tories: 10/1 (maybe a bit longer)
LDs: 25/1 (or longer)

You've worked in oddsetting, what do you think?

I don't think the Conservatives and Lib Dems and others have 5% chance... combined.

I'd agree. 100/1 and 500/1 would probably be more realistic. 50/1 Others on the off-chance that some independent makes a splash. Otherwise, 10/1 UKIP and 1/8 Labour are probably ballpark.

Sean_F said:

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.

I certainly see no good reason for UKIP to run against withdrawalist MPs in marginal seats, like Robert Halfon.

Robert Halfon voted against a referendum in 2011.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8847123/EU-referendum-how-the-MPs-voted.html

SouthamObserver said:

If you restrict people's rights to strike, to join a union or to organise one does that mean they are no longer "free"?

Free labour refers to the ability of individuals to enter freely into contracts of employment, unlike a system of slavery or villeinage, where individuals are obliged to render labour services. A system of free labour may or may not coexist with limitations on conspiracies or combinations in restraint of trade such as a union or a syndicate.

Sean_F said:

antifrank said:

Labour have an interesting question of timing for this by-election. Do they go early? Do they seek to time it with the EU elections to spread UKIP too thinly (but risk UKIP benefiting from the halo effect of those elections in this constituency)?

Early is probably best, on this occasion.

I think early is always best. Get your postal votes returned ASAP, and don't let your opponent generate momentum.

Ahem, Bradford West, held 6 weeks before the local elections.

Quincel said:

isam said:

Quincel said:

isam said:

On topic I'd say beware of people who build up UKIP expectations only so they can call it a failure when they don't win

Or influence bookie prices

No! More of these people! UKIP odds on favourite please, Labour pushed way out.

What price do you think the main parties should be? Or what % of 100?

UKIP are unpredictable enough to make it a tough call, but I'd predict something along the lines of:

Labour 55%
UKIP 20%
Tories 13%
LDs 7%
Random Others 5%

But I wouldn't rule out the Tory and LD vote holding up a bit better than that, LDs around 10% and the Tories not losing much from their current 20%ish. UKIP might get some voters from each party, but I reckon the Tories in the Trafford area are pretty loyal, the LDs in the area are heading to Labour not to UKIP and the Labour voters are pretty tribal. I wouldn't rule out UKIP not even coming second, and would be astonished if they made it a close race.

As for odds, I've never had work in the industry but my rough guess would be:

Lab: 1/6
UKIP: 4/1
Tories: 10/1 (maybe a bit longer)
LDs: 25/1 (or longer)

You've worked in oddsetting, what do you think?

I thought in terms of chance of winning

80% Lab
10% UKIP
6% Cons
4% Lib Dem

Which I guess would be

1/5 Lab
7/1 UKIP
12/1 Cons
20/1 LD

But no more than a guess and I don't know the area at all

isam said:

Quincel said:

isam said:

Quincel said:

isam said:

On topic I'd say beware of people who build up UKIP expectations only so they can call it a failure when they don't win

Or influence bookie prices

No! More of these people! UKIP odds on favourite please, Labour pushed way out.

What price do you think the main parties should be? Or what % of 100?

UKIP are unpredictable enough to make it a tough call, but I'd predict something along the lines of:

Labour 55%
UKIP 20%
Tories 13%
LDs 7%
Random Others 5%

But I wouldn't rule out the Tory and LD vote holding up a bit better than that, LDs around 10% and the Tories not losing much from their current 20%ish. UKIP might get some voters from each party, but I reckon the Tories in the Trafford area are pretty loyal, the LDs in the area are heading to Labour not to UKIP and the Labour voters are pretty tribal. I wouldn't rule out UKIP not even coming second, and would be astonished if they made it a close race.

As for odds, I've never had work in the industry but my rough guess would be:

Lab: 1/6
UKIP: 4/1
Tories: 10/1 (maybe a bit longer)
LDs: 25/1 (or longer)

You've worked in oddsetting, what do you think?

I thought in terms of chance of winning

80% Lab
10% UKIP
6% Cons
4% Lib Dem

Which I guess would be

1/5 Lab
7/1 UKIP
12/1 Cons
20/1 LD

But no more than a guess and I don't know the area at all

Aren't you opening yourself up to a semi-arb on Lab-UKIP (small though it may be)? Broadly speaking we seem to be of one mind though, don't get me wrong.

Morris_Dancer said:

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.

I don't think you can. A majority-winning second-term Cameron would be much stronger than the current Cameron, and even now most Tory MPs probably don't actually support BOO, so if and when the "renegotiation" fails to deliver much, the referendum will be something the "in but grumpy" Tory parliamentary majority lose either way: Either they get a vote to leave or they get a positive vote to stay in and stop moaning about everything. It would be like having a general election where the Tories weren't allowed to stand, and only the LibDems and UKIP were on the ballot paper.

The obvious weasel is to say, "Those mean Europeans won't negotiate properly the way I said they would, so instead of in/out let's have a mandate referendum so we can show them how grumpy we are". The voters vote for "grumpy" which is the mainstream Tory position, he goes back and starts the negotiations again and the can gets kicked down the road for another five years.

BTW, if you don't think he's planning something like this, you have to ask why he's hooking the whole thing around an EU treaty that everybody knows isn't going to be done by 2017.

Quincel said:

isam said:

Quincel said:

isam said:

Quincel said:

isam said:

On topic I'd say beware of people who build up UKIP expectations only so they can call it a failure when they don't win

Or influence bookie prices

No! More of these people! UKIP odds on favourite please, Labour pushed way out.

What price do you think the main parties should be? Or what % of 100?

UKIP are unpredictable enough to make it a tough call, but I'd predict something along the lines of:

Labour 55%
UKIP 20%
Tories 13%
LDs 7%
Random Others 5%

But I wouldn't rule out the Tory and LD vote holding up a bit better than that, LDs around 10% and the Tories not losing much from their current 20%ish. UKIP might get some voters from each party, but I reckon the Tories in the Trafford area are pretty loyal, the LDs in the area are heading to Labour not to UKIP and the Labour voters are pretty tribal. I wouldn't rule out UKIP not even coming second, and would be astonished if they made it a close race.

As for odds, I've never had work in the industry but my rough guess would be:

Lab: 1/6
UKIP: 4/1
Tories: 10/1 (maybe a bit longer)
LDs: 25/1 (or longer)

You've worked in oddsetting, what do you think?

I thought in terms of chance of winning

80% Lab
10% UKIP
6% Cons
4% Lib Dem

Which I guess would be

1/5 Lab
7/1 UKIP
12/1 Cons
20/1 LD

But no more than a guess and I don't know the area at all

Aren't you opening yourself up to a semi-arb on Lab-UKIP (small though it may be)? Broadly speaking we seem to be of one mind though, don't get me wrong.

Yeah I thought about that, I don't think I would want to back "anyone other than Labour / UKIP" at 25/1....

1/7 Labour
11/2 UKIP
20s Cons
50s LDs

is probably better

No need to be too competitive!

isam said:

Quincel said:

isam said:

Quincel said:

isam said:

Quincel said:

isam said:

On topic I'd say beware of people who build up UKIP expectations only so they can call it a failure when they don't win

Or influence bookie prices

No! More of these people! UKIP odds on favourite please, Labour pushed way out.

What price do you think the main parties should be? Or what % of 100?

UKIP are unpredictable enough to make it a tough call, but I'd predict something along the lines of:

Labour 55%
UKIP 20%
Tories 13%
LDs 7%
Random Others 5%

But I wouldn't rule out the Tory and LD vote holding up a bit better than that, LDs around 10% and the Tories not losing much from their current 20%ish. UKIP might get some voters from each party, but I reckon the Tories in the Trafford area are pretty loyal, the LDs in the area are heading to Labour not to UKIP and the Labour voters are pretty tribal. I wouldn't rule out UKIP not even coming second, and would be astonished if they made it a close race.

As for odds, I've never had work in the industry but my rough guess would be:

Lab: 1/6
UKIP: 4/1
Tories: 10/1 (maybe a bit longer)
LDs: 25/1 (or longer)

You've worked in oddsetting, what do you think?

I thought in terms of chance of winning

80% Lab
10% UKIP
6% Cons
4% Lib Dem

Which I guess would be

1/5 Lab
7/1 UKIP
12/1 Cons
20/1 LD

But no more than a guess and I don't know the area at all

Aren't you opening yourself up to a semi-arb on Lab-UKIP (small though it may be)? Broadly speaking we seem to be of one mind though, don't get me wrong.

Yeah I thought about that, I don't think I would want to back "anyone other than Labour / UKIP" at 25/1....

1/7 Labour
11/2 UKIP
20s Cons
50s LDs

is probably better

No need to be too competitive!

It'd be funny if Shadsy opened with those prices

Btw Any more takers for the 2-1 on UKIP ? I'll happily offer that with a liability of £100/profit of £50 to a regular. 1000 ?

Life_ina_market_town said:

SouthamObserver said:

If you restrict people's rights to strike, to join a union or to organise one does that mean they are no longer "free"?

Free labour refers to the ability of individuals to enter freely into contracts of employment, unlike a system of slavery or villeinage, where individuals are obliged to render labour services. A system of free labour may or may not coexist with limitations on conspiracies or combinations in restraint of trade such as a union or a syndicate.

Your definition of free labour is certainly one. I doubt that it is universally accepted.

Those involved in the harvest, sale and purchase of slaves rendered their labour freely. The goods they traded were not free, of course; but, then, neither are oranges, cars or sheep. Feudalism is a little more complicated than slaves working the land.

There is absolutely no doubt that capitalism has evolved and is now much more regulated than it was. That is a good thing.

edmundintokyo said:

BTW, if you don't think he's planning something like this, you have to ask why he's hooking the whole thing around an EU treaty that everybody knows isn't going to be done by 2017.

Presumably he is going to say:

"I have had discussions with M Barroso, M Hollande, S Rajoy, S Letti and Mrs Merkel. All are agreed that in the new EU treaty that is expected to be ratified in the near future will contain the following changes:

* membership of the EHCR will no longer be a requirement for the membership of the EU
* a loosening of the rules concerning EU regulation of working processes
* an opt-out for Britain from the CAP, that will save this country £5bn per year
* more direct control of the EU budget by the parliament
and some-such

We think this is a good deal for Britain. One that safeguards the trading relationship between this country and its biggest trade partners, and one that rebalances the power between Brussels and parliament. I have no hesitation in recommending that the British people vote for continued membership of the EU under these terms."

isam said:

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

Yeah I thought about that, I don't think I would want to back "anyone other than Labour / UKIP" at 25/1....

1/7 Labour
11/2 UKIP
20s Cons
50s LDs

is probably better

No need to be too competitive!

What size will you take on UKIP?

Not much at all! Its just a guess up... a score for fun?

£20?

isam said:

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

Yeah I thought about that, I don't think I would want to back "anyone other than Labour / UKIP" at 25/1....

1/7 Labour
11/2 UKIP
20s Cons
50s LDs

is probably better

No need to be too competitive!

What size will you take on UKIP?

Not much at all! Its just a guess up... a score for fun?

What do you think about Ballon D'Or ?

Ronaldo at 1.1/1.12.

I've backed Messi - Any hope for the bet still ?

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

Yeah I thought about that, I don't think I would want to back "anyone other than Labour / UKIP" at 25/1....

1/7 Labour
11/2 UKIP
20s Cons
50s LDs

is probably better

No need to be too competitive!

What size will you take on UKIP?

Not much at all! Its just a guess up... a score for fun?

What do you think about Ballon D'Or ?

Ronaldo at 1.1/1.12.

I've backed Messi - Any hope for the bet still ?

He got two last night didn't he?!

I don't know mate, it wasn't me that suggested that bet on the website...

Im responsible for the losing first goalscorer and hat trick bets!

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

BTW, if you don't think he's planning something like this, you have to ask why he's hooking the whole thing around an EU treaty that everybody knows isn't going to be done by 2017.

Presumably he is going to say:

"I have had discussions with M Barroso, M Hollande, S Rajoy, S Letti and Mrs Merkel. All are agreed that in the new EU treaty that is expected to be ratified in the near future will contain the following changes:

* membership of the EHCR will no longer be a requirement for the membership of the EU
* a loosening of the rules concerning EU regulation of working processes
* an opt-out for Britain from the CAP, that will save this country £5bn per year
* more direct control of the EU budget by the parliament
and some-such

We think this is a good deal for Britain. One that safeguards the trading relationship between this country and its biggest trade partners, and one that rebalances the power between Brussels and parliament. I have no hesitation in recommending that the British people vote for continued membership of the EU under these terms."

o_O EHCR, working, control over EU budget and CAP opt out ?!

Do you really think the EU will give that lot ?

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

BTW, if you don't think he's planning something like this, you have to ask why he's hooking the whole thing around an EU treaty that everybody knows isn't going to be done by 2017.

Presumably he is going to say:

"I have had discussions with M Barroso, M Hollande, S Rajoy, S Letti and Mrs Merkel. All are agreed that in the new EU treaty that is expected to be ratified in the near future will contain the following changes:

* membership of the EHCR will no longer be a requirement for the membership of the EU
* a loosening of the rules concerning EU regulation of working processes
* an opt-out for Britain from the CAP, that will save this country £5bn per year
* more direct control of the EU budget by the parliament
and some-such

We think this is a good deal for Britain. One that safeguards the trading relationship between this country and its biggest trade partners, and one that rebalances the power between Brussels and parliament. I have no hesitation in recommending that the British people vote for continued membership of the EU under these terms."

Could be that, I suppose. The other member states say whatever Cameron wants them to say, Britain has the vote then eventually they type up a treaty which promptly gets vetoed by Malta or Luxembourg, and everybody says, "Well, it's very hard to get things done when member states insist on vetoing things that everybody else wants..."

@Pulpstar, looks like it is

West Brom set to name Schaaf as boss

http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/272155.html

EDIT: Bah an old story

rcs1000 said:

AveryLP said:

rcs1000 said:

AveryLP said:

SouthamObserver said:

AveryLP said:

rcs1000 said:

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?

Robert

I am sure you know this already, but large corporations only react to the following:

1. Legal threats (decisions move to the legal department)
2. Adverse PR (probably still only in the inked press - decisions move to PR department).
3. Competition (doesn't apply here - eBay don't have any).

Try to find a firm of solicitors which specialises in consumer law and have experience in battling with eBay. A letter before litigation may be enough to do the trick. Get it right and eBay may take the hit.

Get a major newspaper blogger to take up your cause (umm, scrap that...). Apart from the implied reason, "Bitcoin miners" mean nothing to the average reader therefore your cause will be deemed unnewsworthy.

Probably best solution is to take a walk and deep breath in the nearest park and write it off to experience, It doesn't take many solicitor's letters to rack up a £1,500 bill!

I'd have thought that Slaughter and May (no & please!) would be handily placed first of all to get eBay to take the issue very seriously and then to negotiate a settlement that involved their costs being covered.

When you start relying on recovering solicitors' costs to justify action, you've already lost.

Yes, I think I would run through the £1,000 I was likely to win in about 20 minutes with Slaughter & May

Robert

I really don't want to encourage you into litigation, but I had a thought.

What about writing to eBay asking them to identify your counterparty so that you can serve a writ directly?

I don't know whether this makes any sense in law but, if you can convince eBay you are serious, you may be able to tap into their 'dispute resolution fund'.

I have asked that in email. I have also asked for their address.

They have given me neither

Ebay will not give you those details without a solicitor's letter asking for them . Unless you are prepared to expend some money on this you may as well give up now . This is clearly a case where Ebay do not understand the nature of the goods under dispute and there is no incentive for them to further their own knowledge without the threat of a solicitor's involvement .

If you're not already laying Chris Christie, these front pages should give you an idea

Amanda Wills ‏@AmandaWills 3m

Ouch. RT @Mashable Chris Christie Woke Up to This Today

http://on.mash.to/1cEMqYZ

pic.twitter.com/dqlU3CWd7F

MarkSenior said:

rcs1000 said:

AveryLP said:

rcs1000 said:

AveryLP said:

SouthamObserver said:

AveryLP said:

rcs1000 said:

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?

Robert

I am sure you know this already, but large corporations only react to the following:

1. Legal threats (decisions move to the legal department)
2. Adverse PR (probably still only in the inked press - decisions move to PR department).
3. Competition (doesn't apply here - eBay don't have any).

Try to find a firm of solicitors which specialises in consumer law and have experience in battling with eBay. A letter before litigation may be enough to do the trick. Get it right and eBay may take the hit.

Get a major newspaper blogger to take up your cause (umm, scrap that...). Apart from the implied reason, "Bitcoin miners" mean nothing to the average reader therefore your cause will be deemed unnewsworthy.

Probably best solution is to take a walk and deep breath in the nearest park and write it off to experience, It doesn't take many solicitor's letters to rack up a £1,500 bill!

I'd have thought that Slaughter and May (no & please!) would be handily placed first of all to get eBay to take the issue very seriously and then to negotiate a settlement that involved their costs being covered.

When you start relying on recovering solicitors' costs to justify action, you've already lost.

Yes, I think I would run through the £1,000 I was likely to win in about 20 minutes with Slaughter & May

Robert

I really don't want to encourage you into litigation, but I had a thought.

What about writing to eBay asking them to identify your counterparty so that you can serve a writ directly?

I don't know whether this makes any sense in law but, if you can convince eBay you are serious, you may be able to tap into their 'dispute resolution fund'.

I have asked that in email. I have also asked for their address.

They have given me neither

Ebay will not give you those details without a solicitor's letter asking for them . Unless you are prepared to expend some money on this you may as well give up now . This is clearly a case where Ebay do not understand the nature of the goods under dispute and there is no incentive for them to further their own knowledge without the threat of a solicitor's involvement .

I can't get eBay's address to send them a solicitor's letter

@Life In A Market Town

I read with interest your idea of abolishing the police power of stop and search and replacing it with the same powers to search without warrant that apply to property. Regrettably I don't believe your idea will solve the underlying problem.

The police have the power to search without warrant the premises of a person under arrest. Additionally the police and their forerunners have had since time immemorial the power to search an arrested person.

Now, as you know, when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) was introduced in laid down restrictions on when the power could be exercised and one of those restrictions was that the degree of reasonable suspicion necessary to exercise the power must be the same as needed to make an arrest.

PACE also introduced a new idea of de-arresting on the street without first having to take the prisoner to a police station and account for his arrest in the first place.

So if the power to stop and search was removed all that would happen is that the person could be arrested, then searched, then, if nothing was found, de-arrested. In effect nothing would change, except that the number of arrests would go up, though the number of arrested persons arriving at police stations probably would not.

If the police are misusing their powers of stop and search, then there is already a remedy in law for those aggrieved, yet one reads of few such cases.

All that said, this is an issue that has been bubbling away for more than thirty years (alleged misuse of stop and search was one of the causes of the Brixton Riots in the early 80s) and none of the attempts to alleviate the problem have been successful. So perhaps it is time just to abolish the power of pre-arrest search altogether. After all prior to the introduction of PACE the power only existed in the Metropolitan Police District and one or two other places (Birmingham I think was one) - the police in the rest of the country seemed to manage without it. However, if that were to happen they ability of the police to de-arrest on the street would have to be removed too.

And the good news keeps on coming, that will cheer up all PBers

Steven Moffat confirms plans for Sherlock series 4 and 5

http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/sherlock/28805/steven-moffat-confirms-plans-for-sherlock-series-4-and-5

TheScreamingEagles said:

And the good news keeps on coming, that will cheer up all PBers

Steven Moffat confirms plans for Sherlock series 4 and 5

http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/sherlock/28805/steven-moffat-confirms-plans-for-sherlock-series-4-and-5

FU*!@&$")CK THAT!

;-)

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

BTW, if you don't think he's planning something like this, you have to ask why he's hooking the whole thing around an EU treaty that everybody knows isn't going to be done by 2017.

Presumably he is going to say:

"I have had discussions with M Barroso, M Hollande, S Rajoy, S Letti and Mrs Merkel. All are agreed that in the new EU treaty that is expected to be ratified in the near future will contain the following changes:

* membership of the EHCR will no longer be a requirement for the membership of the EU
* a loosening of the rules concerning EU regulation of working processes
* an opt-out for Britain from the CAP, that will save this country £5bn per year
* more direct control of the EU budget by the parliament
and some-such

We think this is a good deal for Britain. One that safeguards the trading relationship between this country and its biggest trade partners, and one that rebalances the power between Brussels and parliament. I have no hesitation in recommending that the British people vote for continued membership of the EU under these terms."

o_O EHCR, working, control over EU budget and CAP opt out ?!

Do you really think the EU will give that lot ?

Remember: Cameron won't be negotiating with the EU, he'll actually be negotiating with Merkel. Ultimately, if she (and to a lesser extent Hollande, Letti, and Rajoy) agrees with Cameron, then it will probably happen. Barosso doesn't get a vote. Think of it like a private member's club: technically the club manager is important - but in actuality it's the other members that matter for decision making.

And also don't forget we'll be giving something up to Merkel and co - we'll give up the right to interfere with internal workings of the Eurozone. That's something the Eurozone members want from us.

I think the ECHR will happen because I don't think Merkel cares about it. It's an irrelevance to her.

Re working practices; I think there will be a (non-treaty) agreement not to enforce some of the regulations.

CAP probably won't happen. *Unless* the French are in severe economic stress and need bailing out. In which case their desire to be saved will over-rule their desire to buy off their farmers.

Budget and the parliament? I don't know.

It doesn't matter Who Cameron is negotiating with. When it actually comes to the treaty itself it would have to be agreed by all the member states individually and there is not a snowballs chance in hell that that would happen. So in the end he (and we) would have nothing to show for his negotiations.

We already know this is how it is going to go. Cameron's promises are worth nothing because he lacks the power to force the other EU states to agree.

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

And the good news keeps on coming, that will cheer up all PBers

Steven Moffat confirms plans for Sherlock series 4 and 5

http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/sherlock/28805/steven-moffat-confirms-plans-for-sherlock-series-4-and-5

FU*!@&$")CK THAT!

;-)

JJ. are you auditioning as Sherlock’s next ‘arch villain’? – we know you love it really…! : )

''Duggan family call for mass peaceful protest at Tottenham police station on Sat Jan 11th: surely the police will be on red alert for unrest''

Why on earth are we giving so much attention to a family that raised their child up to be an armed drug dealer, and flat out denied what was the obvious truth on television?

Aren';t there plenty of honest, law abiding families in Tottenham we should be listening to instead?

Slackbladder said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

And the good news keeps on coming, that will cheer up all PBers

Steven Moffat confirms plans for Sherlock series 4 and 5

http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/sherlock/28805/steven-moffat-confirms-plans-for-sherlock-series-4-and-5

Ready to be filmed in what...2017 at the current rate??

Rumour has it they will be filmed back to back in mid 2015, and to air in 2016 and 2017

"Cameron's promises are worth nothing because he lacks the power to force the other EU states to agree."

Actually, I think its worse than that. Cameron can't even get a negotiation going, the other countries are quite within their rights to say, "Not interested in talking about this, piss off" and at least one probably will, though perhaps in a more diplomatic way.

The only way Cameron can force the other countries to the negotiating table is to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. That is to say he would have to declare the UK's intention to leave the EU, but he can't do that because it would prejudge the referendum that is supposed to decide on whether what he has negotiated is acceptable. Furthermore, hasn't Cameron said whatever the results of any negotiations he would campaign for us to remain a member?

Frankly, Cameron seems to have tied himself in knots and come to a position where nobody, including our European friends, can believe a word he says.

What type of candidate will Labour go?

The "boring but local" track is often reliable....but here the constituency is split between 2 authorities. Who is local in Wythenshaw may not be local in Sale. I am thinking about the local candidate coming from the council as it often happens.

Recent Labour by-election candidates

South Shields: local Cllr (actually from Jarrow rather than South Shields). She will never be Foreign Secretary but probably her style (and accent) much more "connectable" to average local voter than David Miliband's.

Rotherham: candidate without previous electoral experience and much party politics history. Works in the area but not lives there. Totaly unconnected to Rotherham political scene before.

Middlesbrough: senior local party activist

Croydon Central: council leader from neighbouring borough

Manchester Central: highflyer who fought next door seat in 2015. Born and raised in Manchester. So highflyer who knows where the seat is

Cardiff South: head of Oxfam Cymru, living in Cardiff, family friend of resigning MP

Feltham and Heston: former SpAd, grew up in the area

Bradford West: senior local cllr much loved by a faction running the CLP

Inverclyde: local council leader

Leicester South: former SpAd. I can't think of any link to the seat at the moment

Barnsley Central: former soldier who was unconnected to Barnsley

Oldham East: stood in Rochdale, Colne Valley, Kirklees. Worked in Wythenshawe, Knowsley and Rochdale. Smiled a lot. Unconnected to Oldham local politics.

I think Ukip need a convenient bye-election this year, but I suspect Wythenshawe isn't it. A good second is the best they can hope for,

If however, Mark Simmons was to walk in front of a Combine (and I wouldn't wish that on him perhaps instead, that he was elevated to the Lords), it would be very interesting.

HurstLlama said:

"Cameron's promises are worth nothing because he lacks the power to force the other EU states to agree."

Actually, I think its worse than that. Cameron can't even get a negotiation going, the other countries are quite within their rights to say, "Not interested in talking about this, piss off" and at least one probably will, though perhaps in a more diplomatic way.

The only way Cameron can force the other countries to the negotiating table is to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. That is to say he would have to declare the UK's intention to leave the EU, but he can't do that because it would prejudge the referendum that is supposed to decide on whether what he has negotiated is acceptable. Furthermore, hasn't Cameron said whatever the results of any negotiations he would campaign for us to remain a member?

Frankly, Cameron seems to have tied himself in knots and come to a position where nobody, including our European friends, can believe a word he says.

He could, I suppose, say that unless the other countries sit down and negotiate seriously, he will suspend all payments to the EU pro tem. But I don't believe he has the cojones to do that either.

DaemonBarber said:

TSE...

Take a look at this spoiler free review of Sherlock: His Last Vow. Looks good...

Cheers.

I think UKIP have a pretty good chance, given that so many of the public want to give the old parties a good kicking at the moment. They need to get a significant percentage of the remaining tories in the seat to vote tactically though; if they can do that, Labour could struggle.

For now though, it’s enough to write that His Last Vow is as good a finale as Sherlock’s ever had.

Considering how awesome the Reichenbach Fall was, that's made me squee

Life_ina_market_town said:

@HurstLlama
An interesting and well-informed response. Of course, I also strongly advocate a very serious limitation on powers of arrest. Certainly, section 24 of PACE, as amended by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 should be repealed, the powers under section 24A being sufficient. Save for their common law powers to deal with breaches of the peace, I think it unjustifiable that constables should be able to arrest without warrant for any offence no matter how trivial. The threshold for arrest should be raised from reasonable suspicion to a balance of probabilities test. There is also, as you suggest, a strong argument for forcing a constable to take an arrested person to a police station, both in order to prevent spurious arrests for the purposes of a search under section 32, and to deter the police in general from arresting people. The point is that the police have to much power, and it ought to be reduced.

Totally agree with you there, Mr. Town. I understand from reading these forums that you are a practising lawyer so maybe you can help with a question that has been bugging me for some years.

When the power of arrest was extended to any offence it was balanced (supposedly) by the introduction of the necessity test - i.e. to be lawful an arrest had to be necessary. However, from what I read, have been told by members of the police themselves and from a personal experience (I was stopped one evening and because they police computer wrongly said I wasn't insured to drive the car, I was and the certificate was in the house 200 yards away, the stupid girl wanted to arrest me and take me 12 miles to the police station) the police seem to either be ignorant of this provision or just ignore it as a matter of course. How do they get away with it?

rcs1000 said:

AveryLP said:

rcs1000 said:

AveryLP said:

SouthamObserver said:

AveryLP said:

rcs1000 said:

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?

Robert

I am sure you know this already, but large corporations only react to the following:

1. Legal threats (decisions move to the legal department)
2. Adverse PR (probably still only in the inked press - decisions move to PR department).
3. Competition (doesn't apply here - eBay don't have any).

Try to find a firm of solicitors which specialises in consumer law and have experience in battling with eBay. A letter before litigation may be enough to do the trick. Get it right and eBay may take the hit.

Get a major newspaper blogger to take up your cause (umm, scrap that...). Apart from the implied reason, "Bitcoin miners" mean nothing to the average reader therefore your cause will be deemed unnewsworthy.

Probably best solution is to take a walk and deep breath in the nearest park and write it off to experience, It doesn't take many solicitor's letters to rack up a £1,500 bill!

I'd have thought that Slaughter and May (no & please!) would be handily placed first of all to get eBay to take the issue very seriously and then to negotiate a settlement that involved their costs being covered.

When you start relying on recovering solicitors' costs to justify action, you've already lost.

Yes, I think I would run through the £1,000 I was likely to win in about 20 minutes with Slaughter & May

Robert

I really don't want to encourage you into litigation, but I had a thought.

What about writing to eBay asking them to identify your counterparty so that you can serve a writ directly?

I don't know whether this makes any sense in law but, if you can convince eBay you are serious, you may be able to tap into their 'dispute resolution fund'.

I have asked that in email. I have also asked for their address.

They have given me neither

It sounds as if there's at least a prima facie case to be made against the buyer for fraud, if they are reaping some financial gain from opening a case against you on a false prospectus (and which they know to be false). If EBay is refusing to answer legitimate questions preventing that situation being resolved, would that make them a party to it (unwitting, no doubt but a party nonetheless)?

TheWatcher said:

AveryLP said:

MarkSenior said:

rcs1000 said:

MarkSenior said:

rcs1000 said:

AveryLP said:

rcs1000 said:

AveryLP said:

SouthamObserver said:

AveryLP said:

rcs1000 said:

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?

I'd have thought that Slaughter and May (no & please!) would be handily placed first of all to get eBay to take the issue very seriously and then to negotiate a settlement that involved their costs being covered.

When you start relying on recovering solicitors' costs to justify action, you've already lost.

Yes, I think I would run through the £1,000 I was likely to win in about 20 minutes with Slaughter & May

I have asked that in email. I have also asked for their address.

They have given me neither

Ebay will not give you those details without a solicitor's letter asking for them . Unless you are prepared to expend some money on this you may as well give up now . This is clearly a case where Ebay do not understand the nature of the goods under dispute and there is no incentive for them to further their own knowledge without the threat of a solicitor's involvement .

I can't get eBay's address to send them a solicitor's letter

Ebay address
Ebay Customer Support
PO Box 9473
Dublin 15
Rep. Ireland

Here is a 2006 blog comment which may help:

EBAY (UK) LIMITED
CARMELITE
50 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT
BLACKFRIARS
LONDON
EC4Y 0DX

company number is 03726028

There are 3 directors, 2 based in the USA and one here in jolly old england.

The Company Number may be helpful even if the Address for Notice may have changed.

I recollect that address as being the offices of a law firm, Taylor Joynson Garrett, who merged to become Taylor Wessing and moved to the north of Fleet Street. Perhaps they act/acted for eBay and provided registered office services?

My sources are very unreliable (see upthread post) but Robert may be able to get somewhere with the company number.

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

o_O EHCR, working, control over EU budget and CAP opt out ?!

Do you really think the EU will give that lot ?

Remember: Cameron won't be negotiating with the EU, he'll actually be negotiating with Merkel. Ultimately, if she (and to a lesser extent Hollande, Letti, and Rajoy) agrees with Cameron, then it will probably happen. Barosso doesn't get a vote. Think of it like a private member's club: technically the club manager is important - but in actuality it's the other members that matter for decision making.

And also don't forget we'll be giving something up to Merkel and co - we'll give up the right to interfere with internal workings of the Eurozone. That's something the Eurozone members want from us.

I think the ECHR will happen because I don't think Merkel cares about it. It's an irrelevance to her.

Re working practices; I think there will be a (non-treaty) agreement not to enforce some of the regulations.

CAP probably won't happen. *Unless* the French are in severe economic stress and need bailing out. In which case their desire to be saved will over-rule their desire to buy off their farmers.

Budget and the parliament? I don't know.

It doesn't matter Who Cameron is negotiating with. When it actually comes to the treaty itself it would have to be agreed by all the member states individually and there is not a snowballs chance in hell that that would happen. So in the end he (and we) would have nothing to show for his negotiations.

We already know this is how it is going to go. Cameron's promises are worth nothing because he lacks the power to force the other EU states to agree.

If that were to be demonstrated, nothing would do more for the Out case - but it would have to be demonstrated.

At the moment there are many who are ambivalent about EU membership. They were in favour of a free trade area, don't like how it's developed but are wary about leaving. They would support a reformed and loosened relationship and if Cameron got his deal, they would vote In. On the other hand, if it were shown that no such reform were possible, they would become firm Out-ers.

TGOHF said:

WBA manager market seems to have lost its fun.

I've been arb laying on betfair/trying to take value on Betfair. Though the fiver on Jones was an error.

Hopefully he'll go with Flores... but I doubt it.

I think Peace must be in with the bookies ! They must have made a fortune on this one...