politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » House majority betting moves sharply to the Democrats after 3

MaxPB said:

grabcocque said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/henry_briscoe1/status/1022376606961152005

https://twitter.com/VeeCee30/status/1022363447202332674

It's not illegal, is it?

Yes, it's totally illegal to ask others to fund your fine.

He's not asking for that, he's asking for money fund a legal challenge to overturn the fine, AIUI.

Well done, you have a better understanding of what he is doing than Carole Cadwalladr. I'm surprised this tweet is still up.
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1022170864907964418

Croydon seems to be the hottest place so far, which was already 33 degrees at 12pm:

https://www.google.com/search?ei=M7NZW9vaCKLHgAb7h43IBQ&q=current+weather+croydon

Tissue_Price said:

MaxPB said:

grabcocque said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/henry_briscoe1/status/1022376606961152005

https://twitter.com/VeeCee30/status/1022363447202332674

It's not illegal, is it?

Yes, it's totally illegal to ask others to fund your fine.

He's not asking for that, he's asking for money fund a legal challenge to overturn the fine, AIUI.

Well done, you have a better understanding of what he is doing than Carole Cadwalladr. I'm surprised this tweet is still up.
twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1022170864907964418

Oh dear. Is she going to have to post yet another retraction?

Scott_P said:

RobD said:

It's not illegal, is it?

It doesn't look good for a politician to use taxpayers money defending someone found guilty of electoral fraud...

So teachers, nurses and other public sector workers shouldn't challenge a legal decision that has gone against them?

MaxPB said:

So teachers, nurses and other public sector workers shouldn't challenge a legal decision that has gone against them?

MPs using taxpayer money to support someone found guilty of electoral fraud.

Your whataboutery does not alter that reality.

So Leavers have decided that the Electoral Commission is biased (a view based so far as one can see on nothing other than noisy but disingenuous twaddle) and would prefer to crowdfund appeals against its determinations rather than support its neutrality.

At some point, post-Brexit, those same Leavers will want the country to unite behind institutions. Which institutions do they think that the country should be uniting behind?

AlastairMeeks said:

So Leavers have decided that the Electoral Commission is biased (a view based so far as one can see on nothing other than noisy but disingenuous twaddle) and would prefer to crowdfund appeals against its determinations rather than support its neutrality.

At some point, post-Brexit, those same Leavers will want the country to unite behind institutions. Which institutions do they think that the country should be uniting behind?

Breitbart

AlastairMeeks said:

So Leavers have decided that the Electoral Commission is biased (a view based so far as one can see on nothing other than noisy but disingenuous twaddle) and would prefer to crowdfund appeals against its determinations rather than support its neutrality.

At some point, post-Brexit, those same Leavers will want the country to unite behind institutions. Which institutions do they think that the country should be uniting behind?

I don't think the EC is biased. But, people are still entitled to appeal its decisions.

Scott_P said:

MaxPB said:

So teachers, nurses and other public sector workers shouldn't challenge a legal decision that has gone against them?

MPs using taxpayer money to support someone found guilty of electoral fraud.

Your whataboutery does not alter that reality.

Lol, as always you can't string together any original thought. I bet you thought you were being really clever when you quoted those idiotic twatters moaning about MPs doing something illegal, now that you know they aren't suddenly it's about them being public sector employees. Stick to copying people from twatter, though I don't think you know how to do that very well either.

AlastairMeeks said:

So Leavers have decided that the Electoral Commission is biased (a view based so far as one can see on nothing other than noisy but disingenuous twaddle) and would prefer to crowdfund appeals against its determinations rather than support its neutrality.

At some point, post-Brexit, those same Leavers will want the country to unite behind institutions. Which institutions do they think that the country should be uniting behind?

So you're saying that people shouldn't have the ability to appeal a decision?

MaxPB said:

AlastairMeeks said:

So Leavers have decided that the Electoral Commission is biased (a view based so far as one can see on nothing other than noisy but disingenuous twaddle) and would prefer to crowdfund appeals against its determinations rather than support its neutrality.

At some point, post-Brexit, those same Leavers will want the country to unite behind institutions. Which institutions do they think that the country should be uniting behind?

So you're saying that people shouldn't have the ability to appeal a decision?

Not if they voted Leave. They're the UK's untermensch as remainers delight in telling us every day.

CarlottaVance said:

I'm not sure 'pouring petrol on fires' is the happiest of metaphors under the circumstances...

https://twitter.com/WikiGuido/status/1022386520538443776

Primo Levi's Tears.

Scott_P said:

MaxPB said:

Lol, as always you can't string together any original thought.

And you can't read.

Neither Tweet claimed it was illegal. Neither did I.

Twat x 2

So they are reporting them to the standards commissioner for what, then?

AlastairMeeks said:

So Leavers have decided that the Electoral Commission is biased (a view based so far as one can see on nothing other than noisy but disingenuous twaddle) and would prefer to crowdfund appeals against its determinations rather than support its neutrality.

At some point, post-Brexit, those same Leavers will want the country to unite behind institutions. Which institutions do they think that the country should be uniting behind?

People can crowdfund for anything pretty much these days. Some leavers have no doubt donated, most leavers won't know or care who Darren Grimes is.

grabcocque said:

France is being mischievous there.

The price the EU27 will extract for suspending article 50 will be high. Germany has already said it would expect a "significant" change in British attitudes, whatever that means.

German as the new national language?

AlastairMeeks said:

So Leavers have decided that the Electoral Commission is biased (a view based so far as one can see on nothing other than noisy but disingenuous twaddle) and would prefer to crowdfund appeals against its determinations rather than support its neutrality.

At some point, post-Brexit, those same Leavers will want the country to unite behind institutions. Which institutions do they think that the country should be uniting behind?

Alistair

I'm genuinely surprised at this post from you, especially as you are a lawyer. Are you saying people should be found guilty and heavily fined by a body that's not a court, without right of review?

I would have thought personally that while the Electoral Commission should be allowed to fine political parties, it certainly should not declare individuals guilty of a crime, fine them and only then refer the matter to the police having hopelessly prejudiced any chance of a proper investigation and a fair trial. Whether he's guilty or not, and whatever his political views, that absolutely stinks.

I would add, I certainly don't have confidence in the Electoral Commission and I never have done because they are a quango of civil servants, and I do not rate such organisations. If they are even half as useless as OFSTED, they are totally unfit for any purpose whatsoever.

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rottenborough said:

Sean_F said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm not sure 'pouring petrol on fires' is the happiest of metaphors under the circumstances...

https://twitter.com/WikiGuido/status/1022386520538443776

The Jews, having forfeited the confidence of the Labour Party, can only win it back by redoubled efforts.

Isn't it a standard neo-nazi trope that the jews bought the holocaust on themselves?

No.

In Neo Nazi world the holocaust never happened.

With the important proviso that if it had they would have deserved it.

You can literally see photos of US Holocaust deniers wearing t shirts with Zyklon B logos. These guys just want to have their cake and eat it.

Paul Johnson wrote a rather blackly funny article about an article in an Egyptian newspaper that managed to argue that the holocaust never happened, but if it did happen, it was a good thing, and that it was carried out by Zionists in collaboration with the Nazis.

grabcocque said:

France is being mischievous there.

The price the EU27 will extract for suspending article 50 will be high. Germany has already said it would expect a "significant" change in British attitudes, whatever that means.

Why don't we be mischievous and just revoke Article 50. Then let anyone who disagrees argue before the ECJ that we can't. It'll take years and make everyone look ridiculous.

I know, the referendum, Parliament, ERG, Labour, blah, blah.....

But honestly: is it any less sensible than all the other daft suggestions that have been floating around?

AlastairMeeks said:

MaxPB said:

AlastairMeeks said:

So Leavers have decided that the Electoral Commission is biased (a view based so far as one can see on nothing other than noisy but disingenuous twaddle) and would prefer to crowdfund appeals against its determinations rather than support its neutrality.

At some point, post-Brexit, those same Leavers will want the country to unite behind institutions. Which institutions do they think that the country should be uniting behind?

So you're saying that people shouldn't have the ability to appeal a decision?

Ah, the village idiot fails to read again.

The crowdfunder is based around the Electoral Commission being biased. Guido reports that bias as fact. MPs and the serried ranks of Leavers have been donating on that basis.

Now, try engaging with the point I made. If you are able.

I've said before that the public sector should have purged the remainers from day one, yet your lot still hold all the major offices, you hold all the major public bodies and are in charge of all aspects of brexit and it's surrounding processes. If people are suspicious of your motives, it should come as no surprise.

As an aside, what happens if the courts do find the EC have acted improperly?

grabcocque said:

Grimes is very unlikely to prevail on appeal. But if he uses any left over money to pay his fine then he'd definitely be doing something illegal.

Is it really illegal to pay someone else's fine? I would have thought that might be common amongst couples?

I'll put down David Hopps as 'undecided' on the question of whether Adil Rashid should play Tests:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/24197540/adil-rashid-recall-expedient-unprincipled-unfaithful

Cyclefree said:

grabcocque said:

France is being mischievous there.

The price the EU27 will extract for suspending article 50 will be high. Germany has already said it would expect a "significant" change in British attitudes, whatever that means.

Why don't we be mischievous and just revoke Article 50. Then let anyone who disagrees argue before the ECJ that we can't. It'll take years and make everyone look ridiculous.

I know, the referendum, Parliament, ERG, Labour, blah, blah.....

But honestly: is it any less sensible than all the other daft suggestions that have been floating around?

Unless and until the ECJ ruled that the revocation was effective, I'd have thought we'd be treated as non-members.

Cyclefree said:

grabcocque said:

France is being mischievous there.

The price the EU27 will extract for suspending article 50 will be high. Germany has already said it would expect a "significant" change in British attitudes, whatever that means.

Why don't we be mischievous and just revoke Article 50. Then let anyone who disagrees argue before the ECJ that we can't. It'll take years and make everyone look ridiculous.

I know, the referendum, Parliament, ERG, Labour, blah, blah.....

But honestly: is it any less sensible than all the other daft suggestions that have been floating around?

Is there much leeway for yet more ridiculousness to be piled on?

RobD said:

grabcocque said:

Grimes is very unlikely to prevail on appeal. But if he uses any left over money to pay his fine then he'd definitely be doing something illegal.

Is it really illegal to pay someone else's fine? I would have thought that might be common amongst couples?

Unless there's fraud involved, or perverting the course of justice, I don't see how it can be illegal to pay someone else's fine.

So taking penalty points for someone else and paying the fine is definitely illegal, but I wouldn't have thought that it was illegal as a general principle.

@AlastairMeeks Can you point me to the MPs that have donated ?
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/darrengrimes/

Searching for evidence of donations (I do note Priti Patel has pledged 'support') on twitter is tricky as Elon Musk's girlfriend is also called Grimes and has made the news for standing by her man over his GOP donations.
You seem to be exaggerating the scale of support for Grimes though - he's probably known by about 3% if that of the population.

Dura_Ace said:

MaxPB said:

I've said before that the public sector should have purged the remainers from day one,

SeanT cover band.

Gary Bushell might be interested in giving them a listen.

Dura_Ace said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm not sure 'pouring petrol on fires' is the happiest of metaphors under the circumstances...

https://twitter.com/WikiGuido/status/1022386520538443776

Primo Levi's Tears.

Bragg is an example of the sort of self-righteous individual who thinks that because he is Labour he must therefore be on the right side and not racist, regardless of the evidence. No wonder he thinks that it is the voters who must prove that they are worthy of Labour's support and not the other way around.

His attitude is no different to that satirised by Brecht: "The regime should dismiss the people and appoint another one."

The blunt truth is that Jews are not wanted by Labour. Goodbye and good riddance is their attitude. If that makes them racist - and it does - who cares? Not enough of them to make any sort of difference electorally and other voters mostly don't care or (some of them) approve.

It is morally reprehensible. But when your leader has been spending all his political career hanging out with, supporting and being friends with morally reprehensible people, so what? He has remade the party in his image. Some us warned that this was likely to happen. We take no satisfaction in being proved right.

It is immensely sad and shaming that in Britain in 2018 a minority community which has contributed so much to British life in the centuries it has been here and which has, throughout its existence, been persecuted and threatened and harmed in unimaginably cruel ways, should feel that a government led by the official opposition would lead to an "existential threat to Jewish life in this country" with so little concern from those normally so quick to pounce on any evidence of racism directed at anyone else.

Nigelb said:

Tykejohnno said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disgracefully the England selectors have picked Adil Rashid in the squad for the first test.

A kick in the knackers for red ball cricketers.

And Yorkshire cricket,the man should be sacked by the club.

Why ?

For me a couple of reasons,first - a couple of years back when Yorkshire going for county championship in last march against Middlesex he wouldn't play because he needed a rest or was a family matter ,who knows.

And to this season he let Yorkshire down big time with he doesn't want to play county championship cricket,this is bloody Yorkshire county cricket club .

I have the feeling his heart isn't in the club any more.

The guy must remember that this great club will be here long time after he's gone from the game

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

So Leavers have decided that the Electoral Commission is biased (a view based so far as one can see on nothing other than noisy but disingenuous twaddle) and would prefer to crowdfund appeals against its determinations rather than support its neutrality.

At some point, post-Brexit, those same Leavers will want the country to unite behind institutions. Which institutions do they think that the country should be uniting behind?

Alistair

I'm genuinely surprised at this post from you, especially as you are a lawyer. Are you saying people should be found guilty and heavily fined by a body that's not a court, without right of review?

I have not said any such thing.

Well, you've said the basis for this appeal is that Leavers assume the EC is biased against them. The implication was therefore that you thought this action shouldn't be brought.

I'm saying whatever the facts of this case the EC's actions are morally indefensible, mind-blowingly stupid and conceivably illegal, and therefore they certainly should be reviewed by a court. The court may well uphold the verdict, but at least then there will have been something akin to normal legal process.

As I say, however, my contempt may be coloured by the extremely negative experience I have of such quangos, especially their arrogance, rudeness, incompetence and stupidity.

My original post was entirely about the choices that Leavers are making. They are choosing to undermine Britain's institutions rather than supporting them.

I have at no point suggested that they did not have the right to do so. I asked what institutions Leavers think the country should eventually be uniting behind? Right now they appear to want to destroy every civic institution in the country.

Sean_F said:

grabcocque said:

Sean_F said:

RobD said:

grabcocque said:

Grimes is very unlikely to prevail on appeal. But if he uses any left over money to pay his fine then he'd definitely be doing something illegal.

Is it really illegal to pay someone else's fine? I would have thought that might be common amongst couples?

Unless there's fraud involved, or perverting the course of justice, I don't see how it can be illegal to pay someone else's fine.

So taking penalty points for someone else and paying the fine is definitely illegal, but I wouldn't have thought that it was illegal as a general principle.

A fine is an order for the named person to make a payment. If somebody else makes that payment, then the order isn't considered satisfied. Or something like that.

Sure, but if you give the named person the money to pay the fine, and they pay it, then the order is satisfied.

Yeah, otherwise your employer could be held liable for paying your fine indirectly?

Tissue_Price said:

Vote Leave, and Darren Grimes, appear to be principally guilty of doing something clumsily that should have been done with much more finesse. I don't know that they deserve any great sympathy for that.

The total spent suggests that spending limits don't work very well on referendums.

That is often the difference between legality and illegality. Quite frequently, people could have done legally, with a bit more thought, what they did illegally.

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

RobD said:

grabcocque said:

Grimes is very unlikely to prevail on appeal. But if he uses any left over money to pay his fine then he'd definitely be doing something illegal.

Is it really illegal to pay someone else's fine? I would have thought that might be common amongst couples?

Unless there's fraud involved, or perverting the course of justice, I don't see how it can be illegal to pay someone else's fine.

So taking penalty points for someone else and paying the fine is definitely illegal, but I wouldn't have thought that it was illegal as a general principle.

One explanation I saw was that with crowd-funding, it wasn't provable as to who was paying the fine (I'm a bit surprised if this is true - surely it's possible to ensure that donors are identifiable?).

I could see the potential for fraud, if money that was supposed to be used to fund a legal challenge, was in fact used to pay the fine.

Cyclefree said:

grabcocque said:

Cyclefree said:

grabcocque said:

France is being mischievous there.

The price the EU27 will extract for suspending article 50 will be high. Germany has already said it would expect a "significant" change in British attitudes, whatever that means.

Why don't we be mischievous and just revoke Article 50. Then let anyone who disagrees argue before the ECJ that we can't. It'll take years and make everyone look ridiculous.

I know, the referendum, Parliament, ERG, Labour, blah, blah.....

But honestly: is it any less sensible than all the other daft suggestions that have been floating around?

The treaty of Lisbon is clear that it takes unanimous consent of the Council, there's no basis at all for thinking the UK government can unilaterally revoke Article 50.

I thought that one of the legal arguments the government lawyers wanted to use in the Final Miller case (but were forbidden from doing for political reasons) was that Article 50 was revocable.

Anyway, send the letter in. See what happens. It can't be any more stupid than stockpiling food, ration books etc and "Build your own Anderson shelter" leaflets being sent out to everyone, which seems to be the government's current policy.

I see it as akin to handing in your notice to your employer. If you change your mind, your employer might agree to keep you on, but he's entitled to take you at your word and hold you to the notice.

Cyclefree said:

grabcocque said:

Cyclefree said:

grabcocque said:

France is being mischievous there.

The price the EU27 will extract for suspending article 50 will be high. Germany has already said it would expect a "significant" change in British attitudes, whatever that means.

Why don't we be mischievous and just revoke Article 50. Then let anyone who disagrees argue before the ECJ that we can't. It'll take years and make everyone look ridiculous.

I know, the referendum, Parliament, ERG, Labour, blah, blah.....

But honestly: is it any less sensible than all the other daft suggestions that have been floating around?

The treaty of Lisbon is clear that it takes unanimous consent of the Council, there's no basis at all for thinking the UK government can unilaterally revoke Article 50.

I thought that one of the legal arguments the government lawyers wanted to use in the Final Miller case (but were forbidden from doing for political reasons) was that Article 50 was revocable.

Anyway, send the letter in. See what happens. It can't be any more stupid than stockpiling food, ration books etc and "Build your own Anderson shelter" leaflets being sent out to everyone, which seems to be the government's current policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IaeeSKpwSQ

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

So Leavers have decided that the Electoral Commission is biased (a view based so far as one can see on nothing other than noisy but disingenuous twaddle) and would prefer to crowdfund appeals against its determinations rather than support its neutrality.

At some point, post-Brexit, those same Leavers will want the country to unite behind institutions. Which institutions do they think that the country should be uniting behind?

Alistair

I'm genuinely surprised at this post from you, especially as you are a lawyer. Are you saying people should be found guilty and heavily fined by a body that's not a court, without right of review?

I have not said any such thing.

Well, you've said the basis for this appeal is that Leavers assume the EC is biased against them. The implication was therefore that you thought this action shouldn't be brought.

I'm saying whatever the facts of this case the EC's actions are morally indefensible, mind-blowingly stupid and conceivably illegal, and therefore they certainly should be reviewed by a court. The court may well uphold the verdict, but at least then there will have been something akin to normal legal process.

As I say, however, my contempt may be coloured by the extremely negative experience I have of such quangos, especially their arrogance, rudeness, incompetence and stupidity.

My original post was entirely about the choices that Leavers are making. They are choosing to undermine Britain's institutions rather than supporting them.

"My country right or wrong! My mother drunk or sober"

I've always thought both of those to be strange sayings. They imply, taken literally, that you are willing to be the national of a country only as long as it is wrong, and that one of your parents is biologically disconnected from you while in Juncker mode.

Originally of course it was 'this is my party, right or wrong, for I know one cannot be right against the party.' (Lev Bronstein.)

david_herdson said:

grabcocque said:

Cyclefree said:

grabcocque said:

France is being mischievous there.

The price the EU27 will extract for suspending article 50 will be high. Germany has already said it would expect a "significant" change in British attitudes, whatever that means.

Why don't we be mischievous and just revoke Article 50. Then let anyone who disagrees argue before the ECJ that we can't. It'll take years and make everyone look ridiculous.

I know, the referendum, Parliament, ERG, Labour, blah, blah.....

But honestly: is it any less sensible than all the other daft suggestions that have been floating around?

The treaty of Lisbon is clear that it takes unanimous consent of the Council, there's no basis at all for thinking the UK government can unilaterally revoke Article 50.

The treaty is clear that an extension to the exit period requires unanimity. It doesn't say anything explicit about revocation - although to my mind, the fact that it states the points at which a state that triggers A50 will then leave, under three scenarios, means that these are the only possibilities once the letter's been sent and hence there is no scope to revoke.

That said, one theoretical possibility to reverse Brexit which hasn't been considered but which might have potential would be for Britain to sign an Accession Treaty, to take effect an instant after 11pm on 29 March, on exactly the same terms as applied before Brexit. Obviously, it wouldn't be politically viable to this government but that's not the point in question.

Wouldn't that require unanimity too?

I remember when it was confirmed Scotland would have to seek membership on leaving the UK that there was some doubt as to whether the Spanish would play ball due to concerns over Catalonia.

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

grabcocque said:

Cyclefree said:

grabcocque said:

France is being mischievous there.

The price the EU27 will extract for suspending article 50 will be high. Germany has already said it would expect a "significant" change in British attitudes, whatever that means.

Why don't we be mischievous and just revoke Article 50. Then let anyone who disagrees argue before the ECJ that we can't. It'll take years and make everyone look ridiculous.

I know, the referendum, Parliament, ERG, Labour, blah, blah.....

But honestly: is it any less sensible than all the other daft suggestions that have been floating around?

The treaty of Lisbon is clear that it takes unanimous consent of the Council, there's no basis at all for thinking the UK government can unilaterally revoke Article 50.

I thought that one of the legal arguments the government lawyers wanted to use in the Final Miller case (but were forbidden from doing for political reasons) was that Article 50 was revocable.

Anyway, send the letter in. See what happens. It can't be any more stupid than stockpiling food, ration books etc and "Build your own Anderson shelter" leaflets being sent out to everyone, which seems to be the government's current policy.

I see it as akin to handing in your notice to your employer. If you change your mind, your employer might agree to keep you on, but he's entitled to take you at your word and hold you to the notice.

Actually, I agree with you. Since the Art.50 letter was written by the UK and addressed to the EC [ whose masters are the EU27 countries ], then so long as all parties agree, anything is possible. Just like an employee changing his/her mind about resignation.

Look we are not going to revoke A50. If nothing else it would usher in Jezza in a heartbeat and Tezza knows this. I can imagine an 80% disapproval rating for such a move. Extension? 70% approval.

TOPPING said:

Look we are not going to revoke A50. If nothing else it would usher in Jezza in a heartbeat and Tezza knows this. I can imagine an 80% disapproval rating for such a move. Extension? 70% approval.

Mock me if you will, but I'd prefer to get JC now, than son-or-daughter-of-JC later. The Left have eaten the Labour party's brain and they're not letting go. I see Corbyn as ineffectual. His successors might not be.

AlastairMeeks said:

They have not sought funding on procedural flaws. They claim bias. They have chosen to undermine the institution, not just challenge the decision. They are continuing to undermine every aspect of civic society.

I think the clarity that the finest legal minds (And I mean that without irony or sarcasm) that the Court of Appeal might bring to this case will be helpful.
Whether he'll win or not I have no idea.

Yorkshire captains past clearly thrilled with the Rashid selection:
https://twitter.com/MichaelVaughan/status/1022240642787885057
https://twitter.com/DGoughie/status/1022439393150361600

TOPPING said:

Look we are not going to revoke A50.

German carmakers will give us a great deal

It will be the easiest deal in history

£350m a week for the NHS

we are not going to revoke A50.

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

My original post was entirely about the choices that Leavers are making. They are choosing to undermine Britain's institutions rather than supporting them.

I have at no point suggested that they did not have the right to do so. I asked what institutions Leavers think the country should eventually be uniting behind? Right now they appear to want to destroy every civic institution in the country.

I think in this case you're picking a bad horse to back, frankly. If the EC have fined the campaign group, that's one thing. If they've fined an individual I think there is a very real possibility they have exceeded their powers and potentially compromised a criminal investigation. In which case they don't deserve support but they do - in a democratic system - deserve a pounding.

One of the more important features of a democracy is the ability to criticise our institutions. For example, it is vital for the health of democracy that we are able to say loudly and clearly that OFSTED and OFQUAL are incompetent tenth-rate loons who don't give a flying fuck about the education of children and actively hinder it by their empire-building mentality and lack of expertise. It is also vital to the health of every teacher or we would all die of apoplexy from suppressed rage.

In this case, the EC's verdict will be reviewed. If the facts of the case are as stated, it is likely the judge will find their comments justified. However, it will also lead to a further clarification of their powers which can only be in everyone's interests.

I think actually therefore whatever the motivation this is a useful case.

They have not sought funding on procedural flaws. They claim bias. They have chosen to undermine the institution, not just challenge the decision. They are continuing to undermine every aspect of civic society.

I doubt that the EC is biased (after all, they fined the Lib Dem Remain campaign), but what if Grimes can indeed prove bias?

A number of Commissioners have made their personal feelings about the referendum result clear. I don't think this amounts to bias, but, as in the case of the Speaker, it is certainly unwise.

AndyJS said:

Imran Khan declares victory.

Was his campaign within spending limits ?

Tykejohnno said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1022436185485000706

What a remainer wanting a second go, that not changing minds with many on the remain side.

To have the best chance of success, the campaign for Remain/Second Referendum should be led by prominent Leavers who have changed their mind.

At the moment - I don't think there any.

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

Yorkshire captains past clearly thrilled with the Rashid selection:
https://twitter.com/MichaelVaughan/status/1022240642787885057
https://twitter.com/DGoughie/status/1022439393150361600

I don’t think Vaughan was ever captain of Yorkshire.

I don't think he was ever club captain, but I'm pretty sure he captained them from time to time a la Root.

ydoethur said:

Tissue_Price said:

https://twitter.com/tickerscricket/status/1022448273276190720

Well, perhaps. But if you'll remember they did that a few years ago with Eoin Morgan who was picked on his strength as a white ball hitter, and was basically a failure.

Buttler is another such gamble, of course.

Fair enough, it's all on the selectors. Which is as it should be.

Tykejohnno said:

Nigelb said:

Tykejohnno said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Disgracefully the England selectors have picked Adil Rashid in the squad for the first test.

A kick in the knackers for red ball cricketers.

And Yorkshire cricket,the man should be sacked by the club.

Why ?

For me a couple of reasons,first - a couple of years back when Yorkshire going for county championship in last march against Middlesex he wouldn't play because he needed a rest or was a family matter ,who knows.

And to this season he let Yorkshire down big time with he doesn't want to play county championship cricket,this is bloody Yorkshire county cricket club .

I have the feeling his heart isn't in the club any more.

The guy must remember that this great club will be here long time after he's gone from the game

Bloody over inflated Yorkshire Egos

Dont you just love em.

ydoethur said:

david_herdson said:

grabcocque said:

Cyclefree said:

grabcocque said:

France is being mischievous there.

The price the EU27 will extract for suspending article 50 will be high. Germany has already said it would expect a "significant" change in British attitudes, whatever that means.

Why don't we be mischievous and just revoke Article 50. Then let anyone who disagrees argue before the ECJ that we can't. It'll take years and make everyone look ridiculous.

I know, the referendum, Parliament, ERG, Labour, blah, blah.....

But honestly: is it any less sensible than all the other daft suggestions that have been floating around?

The treaty of Lisbon is clear that it takes unanimous consent of the Council, there's no basis at all for thinking the UK government can unilaterally revoke Article 50.

The treaty is clear that an extension to the exit period requires unanimity. It doesn't say anything explicit about revocation - although to my mind, the fact that it states the points at which a state that triggers A50 will then leave, under three scenarios, means that these are the only possibilities once the letter's been sent and hence there is no scope to revoke.

That said, one theoretical possibility to reverse Brexit which hasn't been considered but which might have potential would be for Britain to sign an Accession Treaty, to take effect an instant after 11pm on 29 March, on exactly the same terms as applied before Brexit. Obviously, it wouldn't be politically viable to this government but that's not the point in question.

Wouldn't that require unanimity too?

I remember when it was confirmed Scotland would have to seek membership on leaving the UK that there was some doubt as to whether the Spanish would play ball due to concerns over Catalonia.

Yes, it would - and unlike an extension to A50, it'd also require ratification among the member states, so probably wouldn't be practical - though as a status quo treaty wouldn't require any changes to national law, it wouldn't be quite as cumbersome as an amending treaty (although i think that one consequence might be to temporarily bugger up MEP allocations - though as there'd be an election in May anyway, this might not matter).