Undefined discussion subject.
Comments
-
Wot? I've sneaked another one!?!0
-
It seems people are slower to notice a new thread than Corbyn is with his "filing"0
-
Third like the Tories0
-
You will trigger the Jezziah....0
-
FPT:
By the way, when finding that quote, did you happen to read the next few paragraphs? The ones which end:Stereotomy said:
So Burns can't reach views about cruelty, but fortunately you can:TOPPING said:And they were wrong, as per the Burns report.
"Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."TOPPING said:It's not cruel, Big G.
"we came to the view that the experience of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds seriously compromised the welfare of the fox and probably falls short of the standards we would expect for humane killing."
?0 -
I wonder whether he is losing his faith in his false prophet yet? he is the Corbyn version of HYUFD, total devotion to his hero. Quite touching reallyNigelb said:You will trigger the Jezziah....
0 -
What's Pete Townshend got to do with it?0
-
As others have said, it is instinctively evident and highly likely that being chased about the countryside by a pack of hungry hounds is unlikely to be good for an animal’s welfare. Proving it scientifically is obviously difficult, but the report’s conclusion doesn’t provide any evidence for the assertion that hunting is not cruel.Stereotomy said:FPT:
By the way, when finding that quote, did you happen to read the next few paragraphs? The ones which end:Stereotomy said:
So Burns can't reach views about cruelty, but fortunately you can:TOPPING said:And they were wrong, as per the Burns report.
"Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."TOPPING said:It's not cruel, Big G.
"we came to the view that the experience of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds seriously compromised the welfare of the fox and probably falls short of the standards we would expect for humane killing."
?0 -
Rival messiahs.Nigel_Foremain said:
I wonder whether he is losing his faith in his false prophet yet? he is the Corbyn version of HYUFD, total devotion to his hero. Quite touching reallyNigelb said:You will trigger the Jezziah....
The rest of us might prefer evidence-based policies, aka what works.0 -
This was in response to Liz Truss's crap about sugar tax and the poor.
https://twitter.com/cj_dinenage/status/1146704467301154817
https://twitter.com/cj_dinenage/status/1146717201862397952
The whole Boris camp just don't want to operate in a world of facts and reality. It is all about posing nonsense as populist and ignoring the truth.
How many poor mums want their kids to be overweight? They are just as likely to be glad the government is doing something as any other parent.1 -
-
Excellent cartoon.
Although perhaps the in tray should be overflowing as well, as stuff comes in everyday from the anti-semite wing of what used to be the Labour party.
Here's today's example:
https://twitter.com/adamlangleben/status/11465434638628003840 -
And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.OldKingCole said:StuartDickson said:On-topic:
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38%
LD 30%
Grn 11%
Bxp 10%
Con 9%
oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!0 -
Mr. Animal (FPT), no, I don't do marches.0
-
Marf is savage0
-
any Brexit plan that includes "this will force the EU to" should be filed with all the other delusions in the bin.Scott_P said:0 -
haha yes it seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. No doubt abou that. Then again, foxes are pests and you can kill them in any number of ways legally, which also, sadly for Charlie, compromises his welfare.Stereotomy said:FPT:
By the way, when finding that quote, did you happen to read the next few paragraphs? The ones which end:Stereotomy said:
So Burns can't reach views about cruelty, but fortunately you can:TOPPING said:And they were wrong, as per the Burns report.
"Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."TOPPING said:It's not cruel, Big G.
"we came to the view that the experience of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds seriously compromised the welfare of the fox and probably falls short of the standards we would expect for humane killing."
?
And yes I can reach a view - it is not cruel and it is not not cruel.0 -
I don't really know or care why labour is polling so badly but I think it's a good thing apart from the fact that they were my GE anti-separatist vote.
RE:William Hill closing 700 shops
Makes me think of Mikes book and his advice for making a bet.
Step 1 - Go to a bookies0 -
FPT for viewcode
Just in case there was any misunderstanding of my views causing you to be briefly sad, I was rhetorically joking. I don't think the EU actually views MEPs like Widdecombe as anything more the eccentric oddities and I certainly don't think they will renegotiate the WDA to get rid of her.viewcode said:
Why do you think the EU want to see the back of her? As I've frequently pointed out. The European Parliament had had far worse, as you would expect from an institution that had actual fascists and communists in it. It's only people who get their news from right-wing Anglosphere sources who think this is a big deal...oh. Oh, I see. Ah. Ok. (is briefly sad).Philip_Thompson said:
If the EU wants to see the back of MEPs like Widdecombe there's a very simple solution. Renegotiate the WDA in the time available so it can pass Parliament.Scott_P said:
They might do so to avoid no deal, but that is the only circumstance in which they would and at this point it may be too late even for that.0 -
Just as you show total devotion to Jean-Claude Juncker.Nigel_Foremain said:
I wonder whether he is losing his faith in his false prophet yet? he is the Corbyn version of HYUFD, total devotion to his hero. Quite touching reallyNigelb said:You will trigger the Jezziah....
0 -
-
Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.StuartDickson said:
And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.OldKingCole said:StuartDickson said:On-topic:
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38%
LD 30%
Grn 11%
Bxp 10%
Con 9%
oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
0 -
Sent against the background of the lynching in portland of the photo journalist by the leftist mob. All the throwing milkshakes is fun has resulted in a guy getting a brain injury.rottenborough said:Excellent cartoon.
Although perhaps the in tray should be overflowing as well, as stuff comes in everyday from the anti-semite wing of what used to be the Labour party.
Here's today's example:
/twitter.com/adamlangleben/status/11465434638628003840 -
FPT also viewcode
There is nothing wrong with gambling in the sense that we mean it on this site. Predicting an outcome (whether in sport or politics) or even more generally playing games etcviewcode said:
I need to take this opportunity to disagree with you vehemently. I have noted before a distressing coterie of people on PB who disdain gambling and wish it done as far away from them as possible. Like it or lump it, gambling is legal in the UK and as John Stuart Mill once noted, anything that is legal is legal to discuss and note the advantages thereof. Betting shops provide employment and site occupancy that our high streets can ill-afford to lose, and the increasing tendency of governments to ban things to appeal to the prejudices of the electorate is worrying.TheWhiteRabbit said:"Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.
It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.
The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.
Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."
I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.
However that is not how FOBT betting worked. FOBT gambling had no elements of skill like in predicting politics or sports and were an entirely nefarious and dangerous addiction. They are right to be banned.
If betting shops can survive from actual bets then good for them. If however they're really FOBT shops masquerading as betting shops then I have no sympathy.0 -
I never pay much attention to the "Why do you worry about X when you should be worrying about Y?" line. One can worry about several things without feeling any special need to sequence them.Scott_P said:0 -
What's Tina Turna got to do with it?Stark_Dawning said:What's Pete Townshend got to do with it?
0 -
Or indeed not worry about several things and only worry about certain things. What a shame for rats and mice, for example, that there aren't a bunch of people in red coats chasing after them.NickPalmer said:
I never pay much attention to the "Why do you worry about X when you should be worrying about Y?" line. One can worry about several things without feeling any special need to sequence them.Scott_P said:0 -
In this day and age why would anybody go to a betting shop to place a bet when i can do it from home without having to worry about cash etc0
-
He’s not standing in twickenham he’s staying where he is with the blessing of the previous lib dem ppcHYUFD said:
Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.StuartDickson said:
And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.OldKingCole said:StuartDickson said:On-topic:
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38%
LD 30%
Grn 11%
Bxp 10%
Con 9%
oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely0 -
Within the last week we have had Corbyn with a historic low of 75% dissatisfaction for a Labour leader with Ipsos-Mori and Labour with a historic low of 18% support and fourth place in GE opinion polling with YouGov. The same two companies which most accurately reported the Labour vote share in the recent Euro elections.Nigelb said:You will trigger the Jezziah....
He must be taking a siesta to cope with the mental contortions of trying to explain all that away.0 -
It's all for effect though isn't it? Problem gambling isn't being addressed by pushing machine players online where they can play for up to 500x a spin. pay via credit card and there is no human interaction.Philip_Thompson said:FPT also viewcode
There is nothing wrong with gambling in the sense that we mean it on this site. Predicting an outcome (whether in sport or politics) or even more generally playing games etcviewcode said:
I need to take this opportunity to disagree with you vehemently. I have noted before a distressing coterie of people on PB who disdain gambling and wish it done as far away from them as possible. Like it or lump it, gambling is legal in the UK and as John Stuart Mill once noted, anything that is legal is legal to discuss and note the advantages thereof. Betting shops provide employment and site occupancy that our high streets can ill-afford to lose, and the increasing tendency of governments to ban things to appeal to the prejudices of the electorate is worrying.TheWhiteRabbit said:"Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.
It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.
The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.
Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."
I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.
However that is not how FOBT betting worked. FOBT gambling had no elements of skill like in predicting politics or sports and were an entirely nefarious and dangerous addiction. They are right to be banned.
If betting shops can survive from actual bets then good for them. If however they're really FOBT shops masquerading as betting shops then I have no sympathy.
It's clearly unfair on bricks and mortar business, regardless of any rights or wrongs.
As a disclaimer I've worked for an independent bookmakers for many years and broadly welcomed the stake reduction (albeit considering it slightly draconian).0 -
No, they are wearing white coats.TOPPING said:
Or indeed not worry about several things and only worry about certain things. What a shame for rats and mice, for example, that there aren't a bunch of people in red coats chasing after them.NickPalmer said:
I never pay much attention to the "Why do you worry about X when you should be worrying about Y?" line. One can worry about several things without feeling any special need to sequence them.Scott_P said:0 -
The famously publicity shy Paddy Power take more stakes in shop than they do online.FrancisUrquhart said:In this day and age why would anybody go to a betting shop to place a bet when i can do it from home without having to worry about cash etc
Many is the times I've dashed to the Paddy Power shop in Piccadilly Gardens to place a larger bet than the 37p I was allowed online.0 -
Two wrongs don't make a right and there is no magic fix for every problem, but that doesn't mean there can't be solutions that help some.midwinter said:
It's all for effect though isn't it? Problem gambling isn't being addressed by pushing machine players online where they can play for up to 500x a spin. pay via credit card and there is no human interaction.Philip_Thompson said:FPT also viewcode
There is nothing wrong with gambling in the sense that we mean it on this site. Predicting an outcome (whether in sport or politics) or even more generally playing games etcviewcode said:
I need to take this opportunity to disagree with you vehemently. I have noted before a distressing coterie of people on PB who disdain gambling and wish it done as far away from them as possible. Like it or lump it, gambling is legal in the UK and as John Stuart Mill once noted, anything that is legal is legal to discuss and note the advantages thereof. Betting shops provide employment and site occupancy that our high streets can ill-afford to lose, and the increasing tendency of governments to ban things to appeal to the prejudices of the electorate is worrying.TheWhiteRabbit said:"Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.
It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.
The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.
Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."
I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.
However that is not how FOBT betting worked. FOBT gambling had no elements of skill like in predicting politics or sports and were an entirely nefarious and dangerous addiction. They are right to be banned.
If betting shops can survive from actual bets then good for them. If however they're really FOBT shops masquerading as betting shops then I have no sympathy.
It's clearly unfair on bricks and mortar business, regardless of any rights or wrongs.
As a disclaimer I've worked for an independent bookmakers for many years and broadly welcomed the stake reduction (albeit considering it slightly draconian).
I know people who are problem gamblers who can't get a credit card as their credit file is shot to pieces, who work getting paid cash and then take their cash straight to the bookies. This might help them.0 -
@isam is very good on this topic.midwinter said:
It's all for effect though isn't it? Problem gambling isn't being addressed by pushing machine players online where they can play for up to 500x a spin. pay via credit card and there is no human interaction.Philip_Thompson said:FPT also viewcode
There is nothing wrong with gambling in the sense that we mean it on this site. Predicting an outcome (whether in sport or politics) or even more generally playing games etcviewcode said:
I need to take this opportunity to disagree with you vehemently. I have noted before a distressing coterie of people on PB who disdain gambling and wish it done as far away from them as possible. Like it or lump it, gambling is legal in the UK and as John Stuart Mill once noted, anything that is legal is legal to discuss and note the advantages thereof. Betting shops provide employment and site occupancy that our high streets can ill-afford to lose, and the increasing tendency of governments to ban things to appeal to the prejudices of the electorate is worrying.TheWhiteRabbit said:"Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.
It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.
The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.
Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."
I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.
However that is not how FOBT betting worked. FOBT gambling had no elements of skill like in predicting politics or sports and were an entirely nefarious and dangerous addiction. They are right to be banned.
If betting shops can survive from actual bets then good for them. If however they're really FOBT shops masquerading as betting shops then I have no sympathy.
It's clearly unfair on bricks and mortar business, regardless of any rights or wrongs.
As a disclaimer I've worked for an independent bookmakers for many years and broadly welcomed the stake reduction (albeit considering it slightly draconian).
I have seen people in betting shops throw chairs through the front of the machines and at the counter and generally it can be a pretty desperate atmosphere in a shop when, usually, a series of people who can't afford it spunk their money away one after the other in a matter of an hour or so.
But as with you, and @viewcode, I am troubled by the banning but on balance, and contrary to my free market principles I think that it is probably right in the end.0 -
From their perspective, this isn't a particularly compelling argument for keeping them open.TheScreamingEagles said:
The famously publicity shy Paddy Power take more stakes in shop than they do online.FrancisUrquhart said:In this day and age why would anybody go to a betting shop to place a bet when i can do it from home without having to worry about cash etc
Many is the times I've dashed to the Paddy Power shop in Piccadilly Gardens to place a larger bet than the 37p I was allowed online.0 -
Not certain about that, Twickenham was an option and no PPC has been selected there yet.nichomar said:
He’s not standing in twickenham he’s staying where he is with the blessing of the previous lib dem ppcHYUFD said:
Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.StuartDickson said:
And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.OldKingCole said:StuartDickson said:On-topic:
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38%
LD 30%
Grn 11%
Bxp 10%
Con 9%
oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/chuka-umunna-tipped-to-run-as-candidate-in-sir-vince-cables-twickenham-seat-after-switch-to-lib-dems-a4167536.html
Though of course Lambeth containing Streatham did vote LD in the European Parliament elections if he stays where he is0 -
ha good point!eristdoof said:
No, they are wearing white coats.TOPPING said:
Or indeed not worry about several things and only worry about certain things. What a shame for rats and mice, for example, that there aren't a bunch of people in red coats chasing after them.NickPalmer said:
I never pay much attention to the "Why do you worry about X when you should be worrying about Y?" line. One can worry about several things without feeling any special need to sequence them.Scott_P said:0 -
FOBT are a tax on the stupid. Bad but not nearly as bad as regressive taxes on the poor like the sugar tax, beer/tobacoo, licence fee.Philip_Thompson said:FPT also viewcode
There is nothing wrong with gambling in the sense that we mean it on this site. Predicting an outcome (whether in sport or politics) or even more generally playing games etcviewcode said:
I need to take this opportunity to disagree with you vehemently. I have noted before a distressing coterie of people on PB who disdain gambling and wish it done as far away from them as possible. Like it or lump it, gambling is legal in the UK and as John Stuart Mill once noted, anything that is legal is legal to discuss and note the advantages thereof. Betting shops provide employment and site occupancy that our high streets can ill-afford to lose, and the increasing tendency of governments to ban things to appeal to the prejudices of the electorate is worrying.TheWhiteRabbit said:"Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.
It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.
The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.
Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."
I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.
However that is not how FOBT betting worked. FOBT gambling had no elements of skill like in predicting politics or sports and were an entirely nefarious and dangerous addiction. They are right to be banned.
If betting shops can survive from actual bets then good for them. If however they're really FOBT shops masquerading as betting shops then I have no sympathy.0 -
That's how I'm thinking. A lot of these machines are playing the sort of game and stakes that should rightfully belong in a casino not a high street and casinos have much higher security and regulations they must follow.TOPPING said:@isam is very good on this topic.
I have seen people in betting shops throw chairs through the front of the machines and at the counter and generally it can be a pretty desperate atmosphere in a shop when, usually, a series of people who can't afford it spunk their money away one after the other in a matter of an hour or so.
But as with you, and @viewcode, I am troubled by the banning but on balance, and contrary to my free market principles I think that it is probably right in the end.
With FOBT we ended up with a totally insecure and unregulated mini casino on every high street. With problematic consequences.0 -
It does depend what X and Y is though. I'm in favour of the UK becoming a republic, but I also think there are so many thing higher up the "to-do" list.NickPalmer said:
I never pay much attention to the "Why do you worry about X when you should be worrying about Y?" line. One can worry about several things without feeling any special need to sequence them.
I'm not going to spend more than a few minutes discussing it in a bar, and I certainly do not think it should be a major policy of one of the main UK parties in the near future.
0 -
Don't know whether you'd seen this, MD, but it ought to give you food for though in predicting the next few races:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Animal (FPT), no, I don't do marches.
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/reports/f1/2019-austrian-grand-prix-race-report
Looks as though Red Bull might have to take another engine soon, Verstappen having caned it in pursuit of victory - but that tactic is exactly what I've though they should have done since the start of the season.0 -
At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/11467641589747916800 -
Swinson, as newly elected LD leader in a strongly No constituency, is not going to be losing her seat to the SNP.HYUFD said:
Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.StuartDickson said:
And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.OldKingCole said:StuartDickson said:On-topic:
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38%
LD 30%
Grn 11%
Bxp 10%
Con 9%
oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely0 -
OT Reporters finally getting around to asking Kamala Harris whether she actually supports the thing she was going after Biden for not supporting way back when, apparently it's a no.
https://apnews.com/586b1e81cb684654b0cf689b9074c1cb0 -
No sympathy for him.williamglenn said:At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1146764158974791680
When David Cameron and others said in 2016 that Brexit might lead to No Deal, Scottish independence, a hard border in Ireland, and maybe even Irish unity, Fox said those were “hysterical prophecies of doom.”
This is your shit show Liam, own it.0 -
It's possible (probably highly probably) that the Lib Dems will be the only none SNP scottish MPs in the next election..Tissue_Price said:
Swinson, as newly elected LD leader in a strongly No constituency, is not going to be losing her seat to the SNP.HYUFD said:
Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.StuartDickson said:
And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.OldKingCole said:StuartDickson said:On-topic:
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38%
LD 30%
Grn 11%
Bxp 10%
Con 9%
oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely0 -
Okay, I thought my quote would be short enough that you'd be able to read all of it, but let me try again:TOPPING said:
haha yes it seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. No doubt abou that. Then again, foxes are pests and you can kill them in any number of ways legally, which also, sadly for Charlie, compromises his welfare.
"and probably falls short of the standards we would expect for humane killing"
Now we've descended into total nonsense. Do you really not understand the difference between "I don't know whether or not X is cruel" vs "X is simultaneously not cruel and not not cruel"?TOPPING said:And yes I can reach a view - it is not cruel and it is not not cruel.
0 -
I agree with you both, as I said I don't disagree with the reduction.Philip_Thompson said:
That's how I'm thinking. A lot of these machines are playing the sort of game and stakes that should rightfully belong in a casino not a high street and casinos have much higher security and regulations they must follow.TOPPING said:@isam is very good on this topic.
I have seen people in betting shops throw chairs through the front of the machines and at the counter and generally it can be a pretty desperate atmosphere in a shop when, usually, a series of people who can't afford it spunk their money away one after the other in a matter of an hour or so.
But as with you, and @viewcode, I am troubled by the banning but on balance, and contrary to my free market principles I think that it is probably right in the end.
With FOBT we ended up with a totally insecure and unregulated mini casino on every high street. With problematic consequences.
It does seem however that pols are adopting an out of sight, out of mind attitude to internet casino play, which can be equally damaging (a mini casino in your front room).
Restricting customers online wouldn't be hard to do and would be both fair and solve the problem.0 -
-
Great exchange.williamglenn said:At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1146764158974791680
More than that, it's downright foxy.0 -
Jeremy Corbyn = Ole Gunnar SolskjærScott_P said:0 -
I doubt it, Edinburgh South will be solid for Labour and personal vote for Murray even if other Labour seats fall and Dumfrieshire, Clydesdale and Tweedale and Roxburgh and Berwickshire will be pretty rock solid Tory as well as maybe Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine and Dumfries and Galloway even if other Tory seats fall.eek said:
It's possible (probably highly probably) that the Lib Dems will be the only none SNP scottish MPs in the next election..Tissue_Price said:
Swinson, as newly elected LD leader in a strongly No constituency, is not going to be losing her seat to the SNP.HYUFD said:
Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.StuartDickson said:
And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.OldKingCole said:StuartDickson said:On-topic:
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38%
LD 30%
Grn 11%
Bxp 10%
Con 9%
oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
Only Orkney and Shetland is a rock solid LD Scotiish seat0 -
It is not even the case that jobs are going to be lost. The money wasted on FOBT addictions will be spent elsewhere and create jobs in the retail supply chain. Such is the speed that money can be thrown away on FOBTs that it would be hard pressed to find a less labour intensive way of spending the cash than repeatedly blowing £100 in seconds on an automated machine, so it's reasonable to conclude that jobs will be created by this.TheWhiteRabbit said:"Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.
It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.
The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.
Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."
I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.0 -
Andrew Lilico was taught by a Greek slave-teacher?
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/11467539474970624010 -
That depends, many Tory Leave voters in the seat will vote Tory or Brexit Party this time rather than tactically vote for a diehard Remainer like Swinson again even if she is pro UnionTissue_Price said:
Swinson, as newly elected LD leader in a strongly No constituency, is not going to be losing her seat to the SNP.HYUFD said:
Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.StuartDickson said:
And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.OldKingCole said:StuartDickson said:On-topic:
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38%
LD 30%
Grn 11%
Bxp 10%
Con 9%
oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely0 -
There are already restrictions - if you don't have any available balance on your debit card you can't deposit.midwinter said:
I agree with you both, as I said I don't disagree with the reduction.Philip_Thompson said:
That's how I'm thinking. A lot of these machines are playing the sort of game and stakes that should rightfully belong in a casino not a high street and casinos have much higher security and regulations they must follow.TOPPING said:@isam is very good on this topic.
I have seen people in betting shops throw chairs through the front of the machines and at the counter and generally it can be a pretty desperate atmosphere in a shop when, usually, a series of people who can't afford it spunk their money away one after the other in a matter of an hour or so.
But as with you, and @viewcode, I am troubled by the banning but on balance, and contrary to my free market principles I think that it is probably right in the end.
With FOBT we ended up with a totally insecure and unregulated mini casino on every high street. With problematic consequences.
It does seem however that pols are adopting an out of sight, out of mind attitude to internet casino play, which can be equally damaging (a mini casino in your front room).
Restricting customers online wouldn't be hard to do and would be both fair and solve the problem.0 -
Mr. B, cheers for that. Red Bull are pretty experienced and savvy, though. They'll arrange it to take engine penalties all at one place and get some new engines for more competitive tracks down the line.
Mr. Eagles, he does have a point on slavery, though. You've got Barbary pirates, Arabian slavery, intra-African slavery, Greco-Roman slavery, Viking and Saxon slavery. Apparently Napoleon reintroduced it in France.
And, to be fair, Greek slave-teachers were highly valued.
And that's before we get to 'I can't believe it's not slavery' with indentured servants, serfdom, the Chinese and Irish labourers in the nascent USA etc.0 -
The Tories are still pretty well placed in some seats, mostly the original SNP seats. Banff & Buchan was 61% Leave, and Moray was 50-50.eek said:
It's possible (probably highly probably) that the Lib Dems will be the only none SNP scottish MPs in the next election..Tissue_Price said:
Swinson, as newly elected LD leader in a strongly No constituency, is not going to be losing her seat to the SNP.HYUFD said:
Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.StuartDickson said:
And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.OldKingCole said:StuartDickson said:On-topic:
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38%
LD 30%
Grn 11%
Bxp 10%
Con 9%
oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely0 -
Yes you can. You can use a credit card or deposit cash over the counter to use on the internet....TGOHF said:
There are already restrictions - if you don't have any available balance on your debit card you can't deposit.midwinter said:
I agree with you both, as I said I don't disagree with the reduction.Philip_Thompson said:
That's how I'm thinking. A lot of these machines are playing the sort of game and stakes that should rightfully belong in a casino not a high street and casinos have much higher security and regulations they must follow.TOPPING said:@isam is very good on this topic.
I have seen people in betting shops throw chairs through the front of the machines and at the counter and generally it can be a pretty desperate atmosphere in a shop when, usually, a series of people who can't afford it spunk their money away one after the other in a matter of an hour or so.
But as with you, and @viewcode, I am troubled by the banning but on balance, and contrary to my free market principles I think that it is probably right in the end.
With FOBT we ended up with a totally insecure and unregulated mini casino on every high street. With problematic consequences.
It does seem however that pols are adopting an out of sight, out of mind attitude to internet casino play, which can be equally damaging (a mini casino in your front room).
Restricting customers online wouldn't be hard to do and would be both fair and solve the problem.0 -
The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?0
-
I think you're missing the bigger picture here.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. B, cheers for that. Red Bull are pretty experienced and savvy, though. They'll arrange it to take engine penalties all at one place and get some new engines for more competitive tracks down the line.
Mr. Eagles, he does have a point on slavery, though. You've got Barbary pirates, Arabian slavery, intra-African slavery, Greco-Roman slavery, Viking and Saxon slavery. Apparently Napoleon reintroduced it in France.
And, to be fair, Greek slave-teachers were highly valued.
And that's before we get to 'I can't believe it's not slavery' with indentured servants, serfdom, the Chinese and Irish labourers in the nascent USA etc.0 -
The social damage these FOBT machines can do is considerable. If you look at it from a societal perspective, the impact on mental health, family breakdown, violence etc...Philip_Thompson said:
That's how I'm thinking. A lot of these machines are playing the sort of game and stakes that should rightfully belong in a casino not a high street and casinos have much higher security and regulations they must follow.TOPPING said:@isam is very good on this topic.
I have seen people in betting shops throw chairs through the front of the machines and at the counter and generally it can be a pretty desperate atmosphere in a shop when, usually, a series of people who can't afford it spunk their money away one after the other in a matter of an hour or so.
But as with you, and @viewcode, I am troubled by the banning but on balance, and contrary to my free market principles I think that it is probably right in the end.
With FOBT we ended up with a totally insecure and unregulated mini casino on every high street. With problematic consequences.
It's something like 1.7bn/year going from people who largely can't afford it to these companies.
0 -
"Probably", eh! Is that like Heineken?Stereotomy said:
Okay, I thought my quote would be short enough that you'd be able to read all of it, but let me try again:TOPPING said:
haha yes it seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. No doubt abou that. Then again, foxes are pests and you can kill them in any number of ways legally, which also, sadly for Charlie, compromises his welfare.
"and probably falls short of the standards we would expect for humane killing"
Now we've descended into total nonsense. Do you really not understand the difference between "I don't know whether or not X is cruel" vs "X is simultaneously not cruel and not not cruel"?TOPPING said:And yes I can reach a view - it is not cruel and it is not not cruel.
Thing is, and I'm guessing here, had the Report examined other methods of control (shooting, snaring, trapping) they would probably (!) have come to the same conclusion. Foxes, and rats and mice and moles and mink are pests and can be controlled. You take your pick of which method (for example there was a BBC documentary on Sealyhams ratting the other day - how sweet those cute little dogs are).
Foxhunting is not cruel. Because if it was, the Burns Report would have said it was. The Report failed to do that.0 -
I shall be voting tonight.MarqueeMark said:The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?
0 -
I think the Brexit/Scottish independence link is overplayed.TheScreamingEagles said:
No sympathy for him.williamglenn said:At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1146764158974791680
When David Cameron and others said in 2016 that Brexit might lead to No Deal, Scottish independence, a hard border in Ireland, and maybe even Irish unity, Fox said those were “hysterical prophecies of doom.”
This is your shit show Liam, own it.
For whatever reason SNP poll consistently 40pc and this wasn't going to change simply cus of a lost referendum.
With a separatist majority in Holyrood, indyref2 was always going to be on the cards whatever the Brexit vote.0 -
another vote for Boris then....TheScreamingEagles said:
I shall be voting tonight.MarqueeMark said:The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?
0 -
Mr. Eagles, possibly.
The race/slavery debate can be a bit nutty, though. I remember watching a debate (Stephen Fry was against the motion that... PC had gone mad, or suchlike) and the chap on the other side was of the view that it was wrong he was seen as a 'black man' rather than an individual, but then indicated he wanted white people to pay more tax.
It was about 2 hours long, whole thing was on Youtube.0 -
I'm being flippant here - but our productivity is going to down too right ?Wulfrun_Phil said:
It is not even the case that jobs are going to be lost. The money wasted on FOBT addictions will be spent elsewhere and create jobs in the retail supply chain. Such is the speed that money can be thrown away on FOBTs that it would be hard pressed to find a less labour intensive way of spending the cash than repeatedly blowing £100 in seconds on an automated machine, so it's reasonable to conclude that jobs will be created by this.TheWhiteRabbit said:"Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.
It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.
The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.
Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."
I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.0 -
@TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.eek said:
another vote for Boris then....TheScreamingEagles said:
I shall be voting tonight.MarqueeMark said:The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?
0 -
Yes, the SNP are still polling less than they did in 2015 even with Brexit looming.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I think the Brexit/Scottish independence link is overplayed.TheScreamingEagles said:
No sympathy for him.williamglenn said:At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1146764158974791680
When David Cameron and others said in 2016 that Brexit might lead to No Deal, Scottish independence, a hard border in Ireland, and maybe even Irish unity, Fox said those were “hysterical prophecies of doom.”
This is your shit show Liam, own it.
For whatever reason SNP poll consistently 40pc and this wasn't going to change simply cus of a lost referendum.
With a separatist majority in Holyrood, indyref2 was always going to be on the cards whatever the Brexit vote.
Curtice has shown 51% of Scottish Remainers now back Yes but 64% of Scottish Leavers would still vote No making it about 50% 50% overall.
It has made more of a difference in Northern Ireland especially if there is a hard border with the Republic of Ireland but there of course the executive is suspended and the DUP are still the largest party0 -
Yup.eek said:
another vote for Boris then....TheScreamingEagles said:
I shall be voting tonight.MarqueeMark said:The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?
He’s the only one of the two that could revoke Article 50.
He will not want to be known as the PM who destroyed the economy through no deal.0 -
I can see a dip in the water table and reservoirs as the Conservative membership cleanses itself after voting for the next PM, whoever they vote for, frankly. What a crap choice.0
-
HmmmmmmmmmmmmTissue_Price said:
Swinson, as newly elected LD leader in a strongly No constituency, is not going to be losing her seat to the SNP.HYUFD said:
Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.StuartDickson said:
And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.OldKingCole said:StuartDickson said:On-topic:
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38%
LD 30%
Grn 11%
Bxp 10%
Con 9%
oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely0 -
I’m split betweenTOPPING said:
@TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.eek said:
another vote for Boris then....TheScreamingEagles said:
I shall be voting tonight.MarqueeMark said:The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?
1) Voting for Hunt
2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’0 -
Marcus Fysh isn’t the sharpest chisel in the box.kinabalu said:
Great exchange.williamglenn said:At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1146764158974791680
More than that, it's downright foxy.0 -
Whats wrong with the traditional cock and balls drawing?TheScreamingEagles said:
I’m split betweenTOPPING said:
@TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.eek said:
another vote for Boris then....TheScreamingEagles said:
I shall be voting tonight.MarqueeMark said:The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?
1) Voting for Hunt
2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’0 -
rkrkrk said:
The social damage these FOBT machines can do is considerable. If you look at it from a societal perspective, the impact on mental health, family breakdown, violence etc...
It's something like 1.7bn/year going from people who largely can't afford it to these companies.
I tends towards the free market side of things normally, but have to agree. These are basically casinos, which historically are pretty tightly regulated.
Perhaps William Hill could go back to being a bookmaker? My account was limited to 50p or something years ago, for the sheer impudence of betting a single value price.
0 -
Though it does tip the scales and will almost certainly mean all EU residents likely to vote YES rather than NO this time.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I think the Brexit/Scottish independence link is overplayed.TheScreamingEagles said:
No sympathy for him.williamglenn said:At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1146764158974791680
When David Cameron and others said in 2016 that Brexit might lead to No Deal, Scottish independence, a hard border in Ireland, and maybe even Irish unity, Fox said those were “hysterical prophecies of doom.”
This is your shit show Liam, own it.
For whatever reason SNP poll consistently 40pc and this wasn't going to change simply cus of a lost referendum.
With a separatist majority in Holyrood, indyref2 was always going to be on the cards whatever the Brexit vote.
Last vote was won by people born outside Scotland voting No.0 -
Do 2, it could be mistakenly counted as a Boris voteTheScreamingEagles said:
I’m split betweenTOPPING said:
@TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.eek said:
another vote for Boris then....TheScreamingEagles said:
I shall be voting tonight.MarqueeMark said:The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?
1) Voting for Hunt
2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’0 -
Might be considered a clear preference for Boris.FrancisUrquhart said:
Whats wrong with the traditional cock and balls drawing?TheScreamingEagles said:
I’m split betweenTOPPING said:
@TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.eek said:
another vote for Boris then....TheScreamingEagles said:
I shall be voting tonight.MarqueeMark said:The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?
1) Voting for Hunt
2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’0 -
It is exquisite. Hunt might actually have enough integrity to carry out his no deal threat but we know that instinctively he doesn't want no deal. Boris probably does want no deal (at least is prepared to do it more than Hunt) but probably won't have the cajones to go through with it.TheScreamingEagles said:
I’m split betweenTOPPING said:
@TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.eek said:
another vote for Boris then....TheScreamingEagles said:
I shall be voting tonight.MarqueeMark said:The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?
1) Voting for Hunt
2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’
Where's Aesop when we need him?0 -
5) voting my book.... Remind us of the odds you got on Hunt? (Though I'd be wanting better than that right now...)TheScreamingEagles said:
I’m split betweenTOPPING said:
@TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.eek said:
another vote for Boris then....TheScreamingEagles said:
I shall be voting tonight.MarqueeMark said:The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?
1) Voting for Hunt
2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’0 -
I think you're exaggerating and ramping Yesmalcolmg said:
Though it does tip the scales and will almost certainly mean all EU residents likely to vote YES rather than NO this time.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I think the Brexit/Scottish independence link is overplayed.TheScreamingEagles said:
No sympathy for him.williamglenn said:At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1146764158974791680
When David Cameron and others said in 2016 that Brexit might lead to No Deal, Scottish independence, a hard border in Ireland, and maybe even Irish unity, Fox said those were “hysterical prophecies of doom.”
This is your shit show Liam, own it.
For whatever reason SNP poll consistently 40pc and this wasn't going to change simply cus of a lost referendum.
With a separatist majority in Holyrood, indyref2 was always going to be on the cards whatever the Brexit vote.
Last vote was won by people born outside Scotland voting No.0 -
Unless we are re-engineering the language, being chewed to death by a pack of hounds is a cruel way to go. It is cruel. A better defence would be that other feasible killing methods are also cruel. I wouldn't know. I live in Hampstead.TOPPING said:haha yes it seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. No doubt abou that. Then again, foxes are pests and you can kill them in any number of ways legally, which also, sadly for Charlie, compromises his welfare.
And yes I can reach a view - it is not cruel and it is not not cruel.
But given that fox hunting is accepted these days to be 'the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible' (Churchill or Wilde, no doubt), it is safe to say it is never coming back. So I would drop it if I were you. You are expending a chunk of your blog political capital in the flaying of a dead horse (to continue the animal mistreatment theme). Much better to save this for the far more important matter of promoting the Withdrawal Agreement. It's just you and me now on that noble cause.0 -
Most people born outside Scotland living in Scotland are English.malcolmg said:
Though it does tip the scales and will almost certainly mean all EU residents likely to vote YES rather than NO this time.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I think the Brexit/Scottish independence link is overplayed.TheScreamingEagles said:
No sympathy for him.williamglenn said:At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1146764158974791680
When David Cameron and others said in 2016 that Brexit might lead to No Deal, Scottish independence, a hard border in Ireland, and maybe even Irish unity, Fox said those were “hysterical prophecies of doom.”
This is your shit show Liam, own it.
For whatever reason SNP poll consistently 40pc and this wasn't going to change simply cus of a lost referendum.
With a separatist majority in Holyrood, indyref2 was always going to be on the cards whatever the Brexit vote.
Last vote was won by people born outside Scotland voting No.
Then again diehard SNP backer Sir Sean Connery lives in the Bahamas while Yes backer Sir Andy Murray lives in Surrey and fellow Yes supporter Alan Cumming lives in New York.
In Quebec in 1995 most Francophones voted Yes but No still won 51% to 49% thanks to undecideds breaking their way despite trailing in most final polls0 -
There wont be another Sindy ref for 20 years.malcolmg said:
Though it does tip the scales and will almost certainly mean all EU residents likely to vote YES rather than NO this time.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I think the Brexit/Scottish independence link is overplayed.TheScreamingEagles said:
No sympathy for him.williamglenn said:At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1146764158974791680
When David Cameron and others said in 2016 that Brexit might lead to No Deal, Scottish independence, a hard border in Ireland, and maybe even Irish unity, Fox said those were “hysterical prophecies of doom.”
This is your shit show Liam, own it.
For whatever reason SNP poll consistently 40pc and this wasn't going to change simply cus of a lost referendum.
With a separatist majority in Holyrood, indyref2 was always going to be on the cards whatever the Brexit vote.
Last vote was won by people born outside Scotland voting No.
0 -
I tipped him at 100/1 and 66/1. My legendary modesty etcMarqueeMark said:
5) voting my book.... Remind us of the odds you got on Hunt? (Though I'd be wanting better than that right now...)TheScreamingEagles said:
I’m split betweenTOPPING said:
@TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.eek said:
another vote for Boris then....TheScreamingEagles said:
I shall be voting tonight.MarqueeMark said:The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?
1) Voting for Hunt
2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/04/jeremy-hunt-is-clearly-on-manoeuvres-and-hes-also-1001-to-be-next-tory-leader/
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/11/26/my-1001-tip-for-next-pm-is-setting-his-sights-on-number-10/
0 -
No, 4th place still qualifies for the Champions League. But they are in danger of losing the tactical voting boost necessary to qualify for the knockout stage.Scott_P said:
The Europa League is when you cease to be prompted for in the VI question.
0 -
No. He is well named.nichomar said:Marcus Fysh isn’t the sharpest chisel in the box.
I had one as a pet once. All it did was swim round and round and round in its bowl. Always in the same direction too. Never occurred to it to introduce a bit of variety and change direction.0 -
We need the wisdom of Solomon.TOPPING said:
It is exquisite. Hunt might actually have enough integrity to carry out his no deal threat but we know that instinctively he doesn't want no deal. Boris probably does want no deal (at least is prepared to do it more than Hunt) but probably won't have the cajones to go through with it.TheScreamingEagles said:
I’m split betweenTOPPING said:
@TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.eek said:
another vote for Boris then....TheScreamingEagles said:
I shall be voting tonight.MarqueeMark said:The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?
1) Voting for Hunt
2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’
Where's Aesop when we need him?0 -
Where's the fire? Why not wait two weeks? Something might turn up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I shall be voting tonight.MarqueeMark said:The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?
0 -
Whereas Hunt's rhyming slang would suggest you'd draw a.....TheScreamingEagles said:
Might be considered a clear preference for Boris.FrancisUrquhart said:
Whats wrong with the traditional cock and balls drawing?TheScreamingEagles said:
I’m split betweenTOPPING said:
@TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.eek said:
another vote for Boris then....TheScreamingEagles said:
I shall be voting tonight.MarqueeMark said:The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?
1) Voting for Hunt
2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’0 -
They could always try and gerrymander it even worse than last time and try and discount English votes. After all the English the only ones legally discriminated against in Scotland already with the shameful Student Fees schemeHYUFD said:
Most people born outside Scotland living in Scotland are English.malcolmg said:
Though it does tip the scales and will almost certainly mean all EU residents likely to vote YES rather than NO this time.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I think the Brexit/Scottish independence link is overplayed.TheScreamingEagles said:
No sympathy for him.williamglenn said:At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1146764158974791680
When David Cameron and others said in 2016 that Brexit might lead to No Deal, Scottish independence, a hard border in Ireland, and maybe even Irish unity, Fox said those were “hysterical prophecies of doom.”
This is your shit show Liam, own it.
For whatever reason SNP poll consistently 40pc and this wasn't going to change simply cus of a lost referendum.
With a separatist majority in Holyrood, indyref2 was always going to be on the cards whatever the Brexit vote.
Last vote was won by people born outside Scotland voting No.
Then again diehard SNP backer Sir Sean Connery lives in the Bahamas while Yes backer Sir Andy Murray lives in Surrey and fellow Yes supporter Alan Cumming lives in New York.
In Quebec in 1995 most Francophones voted Yes but No still won 51% to 49% thanks to undecideds breaking their way despite trailing in most final polls0 -
I’m on holiday later on this month.DecrepitJohnL said:
Where's the fire? Why not wait two weeks? Something might turn up.TheScreamingEagles said:
I shall be voting tonight.MarqueeMark said:The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?
I’ll be out of the country when the result is announced.
Fortunately nothing major happens when the editorial team take (foreign) holidays0 -
I have plenty of energy and blog political capital for all kinds of topics.kinabalu said:
Unless we are re-engineering the language, being chewed to death by a pack of hounds is a cruel way to go. It is cruel. A better defence would be that other feasible killing methods are also cruel. I wouldn't know. I live in Hampstead.TOPPING said:haha yes it seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. No doubt abou that. Then again, foxes are pests and you can kill them in any number of ways legally, which also, sadly for Charlie, compromises his welfare.
And yes I can reach a view - it is not cruel and it is not not cruel.
But given that fox hunting is accepted these days to be 'the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible' (Churchill or Wilde, no doubt), it is safe to say it is never coming back. So I would drop it if I were you. You are expending a chunk of your blog political capital in the flaying of a dead horse (to continue the animal mistreatment theme). Much better to save this for the far more important matter of promoting the Withdrawal Agreement. It's just you and me now on that noble cause.
As for your point about the chewing to death that is undoubtedly the compromise of the fox's welfare. But the thing is we are talking about a fox here, not your Auntie Nellie (with all best wishes to her). A fox is first a wild animal, and is also a pest and, hugely sadly, although perhaps with less publicity, many kinds of wild animal pests are killed in all sorts of ways that you might deem cruel if applied to Auntie N. Foxes are chased, and as a wild animal that is not an unordinary experience, and then killed (or "ripped apart" if you prefer). Just like mice are by your cat.
The Burns Report as you might imagine, given it was a report into foxhunting, spent some considerable time investigating all of this and could not conclude that the death, by other animals of this animal was cruel. Hence, no, it is not cruel.
Any other questions?0 -
I will believe people genuinely think fox hunting isn't cruel when they choose it as a method for euthenising their pets.TOPPING said:
I have plenty of energy and blog political capital for all kinds of topics.kinabalu said:
Unless we are re-engineering the language, being chewed to death by a pack of hounds is a cruel way to go. It is cruel. A better defence would be that other feasible killing methods are also cruel. I wouldn't know. I live in Hampstead.TOPPING said:haha yes it seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. No doubt abou that. Then again, foxes are pests and you can kill them in any number of ways legally, which also, sadly for Charlie, compromises his welfare.
And yes I can reach a view - it is not cruel and it is not not cruel.
But given that fox hunting is accepted these days to be 'the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible' (Churchill or Wilde, no doubt), it is safe to say it is never coming back. So I would drop it if I were you. You are expending a chunk of your blog political capital in the flaying of a dead horse (to continue the animal mistreatment theme). Much better to save this for the far more important matter of promoting the Withdrawal Agreement. It's just you and me now on that noble cause.
As for your point about the chewing to death that is undoubtedly the compromise of the fox's welfare. But the thing is we are talking about a fox here, not your Auntie Nellie (with all best wishes to her). A fox is first a wild animal, and is also a pest and, hugely sadly, although perhaps with less publicity, many kinds of wild animal pests are killed in all sorts of ways that you might deem cruel if applied to Auntie N. Foxes are chased, and as a wild animal that is not an unordinary experience, and then killed (or "ripped apart" if you prefer). Just like mice are by your cat.
The Burns Report as you might imagine, given it was a report into foxhunting, spent some considerable time investigating all of this and could not conclude that the death, by other animals of this animal was cruel. Hence, no, it is not cruel.
Any other questions?1 -
Boris wants a Canada style FTA with the EU as I believe does Hunt (hence he tried to recruit former Canadian PM Harper to his negotiating team) whereas May did not. Both voted for the Withdrawal Agreement, Hunt 3 times and Boris once.TOPPING said:
It is exquisite. Hunt might actually have enough integrity to carry out his no deal threat but we know that instinctively he doesn't want no deal. Boris probably does want no deal (at least is prepared to do it more than Hunt) but probably won't have the cajones to go through with it.TheScreamingEagles said:
I’m split betweenTOPPING said:
@TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.eek said:
another vote for Boris then....TheScreamingEagles said:
I shall be voting tonight.MarqueeMark said:The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?
1) Voting for Hunt
2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’
Where's Aesop when we need him?
However Boris is clear Leave Deal or No Deal by October 31st while Hunt has not committed absolutely to that though both want to try and remove the backstop (with a possibility Boris lets NI voters decide on the backstop by referendum if the EU will not renegotiate it and agree a technical solution to avoid a hard border straight away)-1 -
There is a difference between a domesticated animal and a wild animal.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I will believe people genuinely think fox hunting isn't cruel when they choose it as a method for euthenising their pets.TOPPING said:
I have plenty of energy and blog political capital for all kinds of topics.kinabalu said:
Unless we are re-engineering the language, being chewed to death by a pack of hounds is a cruel way to go. It is cruel. A better defence would be that other feasible killing methods are also cruel. I wouldn't know. I live in Hampstead.TOPPING said:haha yes it seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. No doubt abou that. Then again, foxes are pests and you can kill them in any number of ways legally, which also, sadly for Charlie, compromises his welfare.
And yes I can reach a view - it is not cruel and it is not not cruel.
But given that fox hunting is accepted these days to be 'the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible' (Churchill or Wilde, no doubt), it is safe to say it is never coming back. So I would drop it if I were you. You are expending a chunk of your blog political capital in the flaying of a dead horse (to continue the animal mistreatment theme). Much better to save this for the far more important matter of promoting the Withdrawal Agreement. It's just you and me now on that noble cause.
As for your point about the chewing to death that is undoubtedly the compromise of the fox's welfare. But the thing is we are talking about a fox here, not your Auntie Nellie (with all best wishes to her). A fox is first a wild animal, and is also a pest and, hugely sadly, although perhaps with less publicity, many kinds of wild animal pests are killed in all sorts of ways that you might deem cruel if applied to Auntie N. Foxes are chased, and as a wild animal that is not an unordinary experience, and then killed (or "ripped apart" if you prefer). Just like mice are by your cat.
The Burns Report as you might imagine, given it was a report into foxhunting, spent some considerable time investigating all of this and could not conclude that the death, by other animals of this animal was cruel. Hence, no, it is not cruel.
Any other questions?0
