politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » US midterms early voting is reaching presidential election lev

https://twitter.com/RochelleRitchie/status/1055867631461416962

JosiasJessop said:

An off-topic ramble, if I may:

Sometimes we need to be more thankful. Despite some setbacks in life, I've been lucky and very fortunate. Whilst I have engineered some of that luck, chance has played a massive role.

Yet occasionally I find myself worried, wishing things could be better for us, and generally discontented with my/our lot. "My goodness, is my son writing well enough for four years of age?" or "Are we saving enough?"

In the last couple of days I've met up with some other parents of children the little un's age. One has five kids, the youngest with a severe disability, and a partner on a low-paying job. Another has one child, and a partner on low-paying shift work. The third has one son, who is moderate-to-severe autistic and has been found not to be compatible with his mainstream school (or words to that effect).

It has had a rather sobering effect in helping me remember that I'm bloody lucky, and many people aren't in such a position, often through no fault of their own.

Yet despite this, the mothers (and kids) all outwardly seem happy. Yet I know other people with much more good fortune who are miserable blighters.

What's really frightening is that we might be one random incident or illness away from similar misfortune ...

I think I just needed reminding.

Happiness is a remarkable phenomenon. Essentially, human brains appear to have a default happiness setting - while short-term windfalls and setbacks might induce blips to this, humans quickly adjust to their new circumstances and their levels of happiness revert to the long-term mean. Studies have been done into twins who have simultaneously had good/bad news (one won the lottery while another lost a leg etc); six months after the fortune/misfortune, they revert to very similar levels of happiness.
You can never sate your dopamine receptors - all you do is prime them to want more.

Anyway, yes, I agree - we are most of us bloody lucky. I know I certainly am. I have a pleasant middle class existence in one of the most firtunate countries in the world in a time of peace and plenty. I am healthy, my family is healthy. There is a lot of drama in the world, and I am part of none of it.

"The stiff challenge facing Nick Clegg at Facebook

Running communications for the social network is probably the worst job in corporate world"

https://www.ft.com/content/0b9b6a30-d90a-11e8-a854-33d6f82e62f8

(Available via a Google search to non-subscribers)

Roger said:

Tommy Robinson invited to lunch at the House of Lords. Is there no limit to how far they've allowed their standards to slip?

https://news.sky.com/story/loathsome-tommy-robinson-slammed-after-dining-in-parliament-11534373

I know, imagine, Peter Hain is a Lord.

The Daily Mail is calling Sayoc the Magabomber

geoffw said:

Cyclefree said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cyclefree said:

MattW said:

Is this a problem? *innocent face*

(Lordy he looks like a more decrepit version of Piers Morgan)

https://twitter.com/legalcheek/status/1055810322211180546

Oh dearie me!

Possible conflict of interest? Yes
Possible breach of confidentiality? Yes
Hain being a twit and not doing even the most cursory check. Yes
Firm having to do an investigation to check that there was no leak from either it or client. Yes
Firm having to consider how to deal with reputational issue. Yes
Firm having to deal with letters of outrage from Green’s solicitors. Yes
Hain having to deal with ballsaching letters from Green’s solicitors. Yes

PB lawyers enjoying the merriment. Most definitely yes!

The icing on the cake would be for someone else to reveal the names of those Parliamentarians against whom allegations of bullying and harassment have been made and to find that Hain is one of them.

(Dear God: I have tried to be good so pretty please, please..... !)

Wealthy businessman's privilege v. Parliamentary privilege?

What interest was Hain serving? The matter was before the courts. There was going to be a full hearing. The interim injunction might well have been lifted. There are other people involved: the complainants, 2 of whom did not want the matter revealed and who now risk their names coming out in public against their wishes. And Green, unpleasant as he appears to be, denies the allegations and has not been charged, let alone been found guilty of anything.

Hainis being simultaneously self-serving, pompous and incompetent. And he has severely embarrassed the law firm he has been advising. Plus if his source was from there - or anyone else involved in the legal process - he has likely got them into a heap of trouble. They can’t be certain they won’t be found out and he won’t be able to help them.

All of that. Plus this
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/peter-hain-has-fundamentally-undermined-the-rule-of-law/

oh, the rule of law argument when it gets embarrassing, and a great rule of law when your opponents are embarrassed,. Yep. sounds familiar.

Recidivist said:

OldKingCole said:

Jonathan said:

Cyclefree said:

MattW said:

Is this a problem? *innocent face*

(Lordy he looks like a more decrepit version of Piers Morgan)

https://twitter.com/legalcheek/status/1055810322211180546

Oh dearie me!

Possible conflict of interest? Yes
Possible breach of confidentiality? Yes
Hain being a twit and not doing even the most cursory check. Yes
Firm having to do an investigation to check that there was no leak from either it or client. Yes
Firm having to consider how to deal with reputational issue. Yes
Firm having to deal with letters of outrage from Green’s solicitors. Yes
Hain having to deal with ballsaching letters from Green’s solicitors. Yes

PB lawyers enjoying the merriment. Most definitely yes!

The icing on the cake would be for someone else to reveal the names of those Parliamentarians against whom allegations of bullying and harassment have been made and to find that Hain is one of them.

(Dear God: I have tried to be good so pretty please, please..... !)

The sooner we replace lawyers with an app the better.

Some years ago there was a ‘joke’ in pharmaceutical circles that the rats in drug testing were to be replaced with lawyers.
Reasons.
There were more of them
There were always lots more coming along
The girls who who looked after the experimental subjects wouldn’t find them as cuddly.

And there are some things that a rat just won't do.

I knew there was something else. Thanks.

Q. Why did the lawyer cross the road?

A. Sorry, I can't tell you for legal reasons!

( I thank you!)

Tim_B said:

The Daily Mail is calling Sayoc the Magabomber

I know the law on contempt of court is different in the US, but I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea that a suspect must be guilty before the courts have done their thing. If they’ve been caught red handed I’m likely to be less principled.

tlg86 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Tim_B said:

The Daily Mail is calling Sayoc the Magabomber

I know the law on contempt of court is different in the US, but I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea that a suspect must be guilty before the courts have done their thing. If they’ve been caught red handed I’m likely to be less principled.

It's the general eagerness with which the US authorities comment on ongoing cases that I find strange. I much prefer the caution with which our authorities, media, and (for the most part!) politicians apply to legal cases.

Just doing a "Tommy Robinson" by assuming guilt.

MyBurningEars said:

Cookie said:

JosiasJessop said:

Yet despite this, the mothers (and kids) all outwardly seem happy. Yet I know other people with much more good fortune who are miserable blighters.

Happiness is a remarkable phenomenon. Essentially, human brains appear to have a default happiness setting - while short-term windfalls and setbacks might induce blips to this, humans quickly adjust to their new circumstances and their levels of happiness revert to the long-term mean. Studies have been done into twins who have simultaneously had good/bad news (one won the lottery while another lost a leg etc); six months after the fortune/misfortune, they revert to very similar levels of happiness.
You can never sate your dopamine receptors - all you do is prime them to want more.

Anyway, yes, I agree - we are most of us bloody lucky. I know I certainly am. I have a pleasant middle class existence in one of the most firtunate countries in the world in a time of peace and plenty. I am healthy, my family is healthy. There is a lot of drama in the world, and I am part of none of it.

The classic study you're referring to is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/690806 but is a little more nuanced about the happiness of the paraplegic group. It does make the important point that we tend to overestimate the size and duration of the happiness effects from life-events. (Here's a PDF for those who want to read the full thing.)

A more recent study that covers a variety of life-events and their interest in happiness is https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/36/6/1244/819019 (full-text available free!). (Danny Dorling warning claxon for those who are not fans of his work, but suspect few would disagree with the importance of interpersonal relationship that the study found evidence for.)

An interesting snippet from the Ballas and Dorling paper - illness of a parent has an even more negative effect on a person's happiness, than them becoming ill themselves. (Though over the course of a lifetime, the cumulative effect of "own illness" is greater since it happens more often.) The worst three things for a person's happiness are a relationship break-up, the death of a parent, or parental illness.

The three best things for a person's short-term happiness: start a new relationship, get a job, and buy a house (are the Tories listening to this?). These are closely followed by having kids. A little further back are having grandkids and doing some education. To quote the authors, in contrast, events such as ‘going on holiday’ or ‘buying a pet’ do not seem to have any significant consistent impact on happiness.

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Tim_B said:

The Daily Mail is calling Sayoc the Magabomber

I know the law on contempt of court is different in the US, but I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea that a suspect must be guilty before the courts have done their thing. If they’ve been caught red handed I’m likely to be less principled.

It's the general eagerness with which the US authorities comment on ongoing cases that I find strange. I much prefer the caution with which our authorities, media, and (for the most part!) politicians apply to legal cases.

Just doing a "Tommy Robinson" by assuming guilt.

Did Robinson do that? I've never actually seen the footage, but I thought it was simply the reporting of the trial that he got into trouble for.

In the Canterbury case the judge said

"You made it abundantly clear that your mission was to film the defendants, who you referred to by their religion, as ‘Muslim child rapists’ and ‘Muslim paedophiles’"

Sounds like not respecting innocent til proven guilty to me:

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/far-right-activist-spared-jail-126340/

Incidentally, has TR ever tried to help either the victims of paedos or tried to gather evidence against those at large? All I have ever seen is him disrupting the trials of those that the law has caught up with already.

You could argue making a scene like that raises awareness of the issue.

Foxy said:

RobD said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Tim_B said:

The Daily Mail is calling Sayoc the Magabomber

I know the law on contempt of court is different in the US, but I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea that a suspect must be guilty before the courts have done their thing. If they’ve been caught red handed I’m likely to be less principled.

It's the general eagerness with which the US authorities comment on ongoing cases that I find strange. I much prefer the caution with which our authorities, media, and (for the most part!) politicians apply to legal cases.

Just doing a "Tommy Robinson" by assuming guilt.

Did Robinson do that? I've never actually seen the footage, but I thought it was simply the reporting of the trial that he got into trouble for.

In the Canterbury case the judge said

"You made it abundantly clear that your mission was to film the defendants, who you referred to by their religion, as ‘Muslim child rapists’ and ‘Muslim paedophiles’"

Sounds like not respecting innocent til proven guilty to me:

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/far-right-activist-spared-jail-126340/

Incidentally, has TR ever tried to help either the victims of paedos or tried to gather evidence against those at large? All I have ever seen is him disrupting the trials of those that the law has caught up with already.

You could argue making a scene like that raises awareness of the issue.

Not very convincing. He only seems interested in those already charged.

Where is his interest in either the victims or those that have not been caught?

Not very convincing? I think he was quite successful if his aim was to bring attention to the issue.

RobD said:

Foxy said:

RobD said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Tim_B said:

The Daily Mail is calling Sayoc the Magabomber

I know the law on contempt of court is different in the US, but I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea that a suspect must be guilty before the courts have done their thing. If they’ve been caught red handed I’m likely to be less principled.

It's the general eagerness with which the US authorities comment on ongoing cases that I find strange. I much prefer the caution with which our authorities, media, and (for the most part!) politicians apply to legal cases.

Just doing a "Tommy Robinson" by assuming guilt.

Did Robinson do that? I've never actually seen the footage, but I thought it was simply the reporting of the trial that he got into trouble for.

In the Canterbury case the judge said

"You made it abundantly clear that your mission was to film the defendants, who you referred to by their religion, as ‘Muslim child rapists’ and ‘Muslim paedophiles’"

Sounds like not respecting innocent til proven guilty to me:

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/far-right-activist-spared-jail-126340/

Incidentally, has TR ever tried to help either the victims of paedos or tried to gather evidence against those at large? All I have ever seen is him disrupting the trials of those that the law has caught up with already.

You could argue making a scene like that raises awareness of the issue.

Not very convincing. He only seems interested in those already charged.

Where is his interest in either the victims or those that have not been caught?

Not very convincing? I think he was quite successful if his aim was to bring attention to the issue.

If he just wanted to raise publicity (of an issue that has been extensively reported across all media, including an award winning TV dramatisation already) why not wait until after conviction? Why risk a mistrial due to his reporting, after repeated warnings?

Jonathan said:

RobD said:

Foxy said:

RobD said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Tim_B said:

.

It's the general eagerness with which the US authorities comment on ongoing cases that I find strange. I much prefer the caution with which our authorities, media, and (for the most part!) politicians apply to legal cases.

Just doing a "Tommy Robinson" by assuming guilt.

Did Robinson do that? I've never actually seen the footage, but I thought it was simply the reporting of the trial that he got into trouble for.

In the Canterbury case the judge said

"You made it abundantly clear that your mission was to film the defendants, who you referred to by their religion, as ‘Muslim child rapists’ and ‘Muslim paedophiles’"

Sounds like not respecting innocent til proven guilty to me:

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/far-right-activist-spared-jail-126340/

Incidentally, has TR ever tried to help either the victims of paedos or tried to gather evidence against those at large? All I have ever seen is him disrupting the trials of those that the law has caught up with already.

You could argue making a scene like that raises awareness of the issue.

Not very convincing. He only seems interested in those already charged.

Where is his interest in either the victims or those that have not been caught?

Not very convincing? I think he was quite successful if his aim was to bring attention to the issue.

It was Andrew Norfolk and the Times which drew attention to the issues. The Prosecutor, Nazir Afzal, has done more than Robinson ever will, to put the guilty men behind bars.
MPs like Ann Cryer and Sarah Champion have fought for these girls as have some of the local social workers and policewomen who tried to help but were ignored.

God knows if anyone is helping these girls now. I hope someone is. A far better use of public money than many others

Robinson is a petty fraudster who has used these cases to get himself notoriety and money from his supporters, here and abroad. Those rich supporters and politicians supporting him have more money than sense and should be ashamed of themselves. Purely coincidentally, he has just moved onto an expensive house in a gated community. Perhaps he is getting used to being behind bars, which is where he belongs.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/1055819124788678657

That's my first name. At last my moderate, insightful and sagacious contributions to this site receive the recognition they deserve.