Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This Survation poll on Farage, taken this morning, seems ou

SystemSystem Posts: 12,598
edited April 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This Survation poll on Farage, taken this morning, seems out of line with the latest Euro voting numbers

The poll, for HuffPost is another example of how Survation can get right on top of issues by putting together, carriying out the fieldwork, and producing a report on the findings all within a single day. They’ve become the most agile pollster.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Perhaps Farage is a drag on the Farage party ticket ?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,718
    edited April 2014
    Shame about Paxo. He's about the only reason for watching Newsnight. Emily Maitlis is a lightweight and K Wark sets my teeth on edge. Neither of them know how to ask a question.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,270
    21% Nationwide would vote UKIP if Farage was standing?
    With 30% Don't knows?
    Including areas where UKIP have no chance at all?

    That reads like a Batman ending!

    But I'll take those numbers all day long
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,532
    Seems that people like UKIP in the abstract.

    In reality? Not so much...
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    FPT

    The Marchessini donations to Ukip were made last year, and the Guardian 28 Jan. says that
    "A Ukip spokeswoman said the party no longer had anything to do with Marchessini. She said when Ukip "publicly opposed the crazy female trouser-wearing comments made by Marchessini last year he made it absolutely abundantly clear that he is no longer associated with the party at all".

    "Even back then he was adamant that his thoughts were strictly his own. His only connection to Ukip is the fact he is an EU withdrawalist," the spokeswoman said."

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/28/ukip-donor-telegraph-advert-sodomy-crime-libby-purves

    So C4 News really are scraping the barrel by resurrecting an old story about an ex-donor as if it were news.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    It's not exactly Marine Le Pen territory, is it?

    the poll shows that if [Hollande] were to find himself in a second-round face-off with Ms Le Pen, he would win by just 54 per cent to 46 per cent.

    http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2014/04/springtime-in-paris-fails-to-dispel-clouds-over-hollande/
  • isamisam Posts: 42,270
    The way this UKIP donors talking about homosexual relationships making me think of giving it a go!

    Proper nutter
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,830
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    It's not exactly Marine Le Pen territory, is it?

    the poll shows that if [Hollande] were to find himself in a second-round face-off with Ms Le Pen, he would win by just 54 per cent to 46 per cent.

    http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2014/04/springtime-in-paris-fails-to-dispel-clouds-over-hollande/

    Other polled match-ups:
    Kermit vs Hollande (78:22)
    Attila the Hun vs Hollande (62:38)
    Saddam Hussein vs Hollande (71:29)
    SeanT vs Hollande (12:78)
    Hitler vs Hollande (48:52)

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Ishmael_X said:

    FPT

    The Marchessini donations to Ukip were made last year, and the Guardian 28 Jan. says that
    "A Ukip spokeswoman said the party no longer had anything to do with Marchessini. She said when Ukip "publicly opposed the crazy female trouser-wearing comments made by Marchessini last year he made it absolutely abundantly clear that he is no longer associated with the party at all".

    "Even back then he was adamant that his thoughts were strictly his own. His only connection to Ukip is the fact he is an EU withdrawalist," the spokeswoman said."

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/28/ukip-donor-telegraph-advert-sodomy-crime-libby-purves

    So C4 News really are scraping the barrel by resurrecting an old story about an ex-donor as if it were news.

    They didn't hate him enough to give him back his diamonds.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    rcs1000 said:


    Other polled match-ups:
    Kermit vs Hollande (78:22)
    Attila the Hun vs Hollande (62:38)
    Saddam Hussein vs Hollande (71:29)
    SeanT vs Hollande (12:78)
    Hitler vs Hollande (48:52)

    Fair point!
  • BlueberryBlueberry Posts: 408
    What are the figures for Cam, Clegg, Mil, Boris, Barroso, Peston, Fry, Rooney, White Dee, Posh Spice etc.?

    Without comparators the poll's a bit meaningless no? And besides, what's you MP ever done for you? Not a lot I doubt. It's no wonder most people didn't know/couldn't be arsed with the question.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,532
    Richard_Nabavi said:


    http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2014/04/springtime-in-paris-fails-to-dispel-clouds-over-hollande/

    The French really have a pollster called Ifop?

    Don't tell Pork....

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,362
    isam said:

    The way this UKIP donors talking about homosexual relationships making me think of giving it a go!

    Proper nutter

    Don't get any ideas for tomorrow night!
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    There is no discrepancy if one reads “I would vote for Nigel Farage if he was standing in my constituency” as meaning "standing for Westminster" - which it presumably does. This should worry Ukip, or at least modify its ecstasy over the Euro polls.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    I thought all publicity was good publicity for Ukip ??
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,830
    Marchessini is as mad as a box of frogs.

    He wrote a well argued letter against the Euro about five years ago. He then bought advertising space and got it printed in a French newspaper.

    In English.

    I can think of no better way of getting oneself ignored than publishing a letter in France, in English.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,270
    edited April 2014
    Bloody Hell Channel 4 News are even making Neil Hamilton look good

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    isam said:

    The way this UKIP donors talking about homosexual relationships making me think of giving it a go!

    Er, donating or the other?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,830
    isam said:

    Bloody Hell Channel 4 News are even making Neil Hamilton look good

    I've always been a bit of a Neil Hamilton fan, myself. I feel he was unfairly singled out in the who cash-for-questions thing. And him and his wife had to go through hell (see the court case a few years ago).
  • isamisam Posts: 42,270
    SimonStClare said:

    isam said:

    The way this UKIP donors talking about homosexual relationships making me think of giving it a go!

    Er, donating or the other?
    I've already donated!

    The interview with Hamilton is comedy gold.. going round in circles like a one armed swimmer!
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    For the past couple of weeks the MSM, the Lab/Lib/Con party and PB have all been frothing with the doings of UKIP.
    KEEP IT UP! Continue this way and on May 22nd UKIP may well have an absolute majority.
    ------------
    On a private note, I had a wonderful meal with my family at the Wolsey, Piccadilly, on my reaching 80.
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    This would appear to be the my enemies enemy is my friend election
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    isam said:

    SimonStClare said:

    isam said:

    The way this UKIP donors talking about homosexual relationships making me think of giving it a go!

    Er, donating or the other?
    [snip]

    The interview with Hamilton is comedy gold.. going round in circles like a one armed swimmer!
    Good job you're not an MP, it's comments like that, that sink a politicians career - ; )
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,484
    So what were the Westminster Comres VI results for UKIP in their latest poll?

    Because my reading of this is that if they were anything less than 21% then Farage is actually improving UKIP's standing in the polls not reducing it (and of course I say that as someone who does not like him as leader)
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    I see Bercow isn't even bothering to try and look impartial anymore. His behaviour was a disgrace to the Speaker's chair. Timer he was deposed.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,270
    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    The way this UKIP donors talking about homosexual relationships making me think of giving it a go!

    Proper nutter

    Don't get any ideas for tomorrow night!

    Isnt it Friday??

    Youre not doing a UKIP stitch up a la the other UKI candidate on the ballot paper and Mike's wrong date palaver are you?

    Getting me to turn up a day early then erecting façade of another pub called "Dirty Ducks" next door but one just in case?
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    Isn't 21% quite a long above Ukip's current GE polling?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Looks like Ukraine is crumbling:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10799592/Kiev-has-lost-control-of-eastern-heartland-says-Ukraines-acting-leader.html
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    MikeK said:

    For the past couple of weeks the MSM, the Lab/Lib/Con party and PB have all been frothing with the doings of UKIP.
    KEEP IT UP! Continue this way and on May 22nd UKIP may well have an absolute majority.
    ------------
    On a private note, I had a wonderful meal with my family at the Wolsey, Piccadilly, on my reaching 80.

    Happy birthday
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    TGOHF said:

    I thought all publicity was good publicity for Ukip ??

    Double standards are always good but only if you point them out.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    FPT @‌OblitusSumMe

    ... When it comes to the next election, I'm sure Cameron will find a lot of things to brag about to the voters in terms of what he has achieved, and no doubt he will be quite proud of increasing the international aid budget. But I remember the number of times before the election that he said that the deficit would be the number one priority and, well, he's blown that.

    Sustainable economic recovery has been the number one priority of Cameron's government and that is what is being delivered.

    Within this priority, deficit reduction remains up there with growth, employment and low interest rates as key elements of the overall strategy.

    And the government is succeeding on deficit reduction probably more than they are prepared to openly disclose before the 2015 General Election.

    Did you know, for example, that the Debt Management Office actually borrowed £21.2 billion more in 2013-14 than it needed to finance the same year's central government's net cash requirement? And this after sales of gilts and t-bills sales were reduced by over £10 bn during the course of the year? This effectively meant the government's financing requirement dropped by over £30 bn from that planned in April 2012 to the outturn at the end of the year.

    The £21.2 bn surplus borrowing has been brought forward to the 2014-15 fiscal year, reducing the amount needed to be raised in new debt.

    But this bonus is well disguised.

    Total financing in 2013-14 was £158.4 bn including £51.5 bn of 'rolled over debt' (e.g. financing to repay gilt stocks which mature during the year). This meant £106.9 bn was new borrowing. Financing was by Gilt Sales (£153.4 bn) and T-Bills etc. (£5.0 bn). NS&I contributions were £3.4 bn against planned net zero sales (netted off before the above figures).

    In 2014-15 the 'rolled over debt' rises to £62.2 bn and the overall financing requirement drops to £175.4 bn. Using the same logic as above new borrowing would be £113.2 bn, up from £106.9 bn last year but including £6.5 bn for Network Rail not previously incorporated. So on a like-for-like basis new borrowing drops by a mere £0.2 bn.

    Now reduce the 2014-15 new borrowing figure by the £21.2 bn cash surplus from 2013-14 and the new borrowing requirement falls to £92.0 bn. Further reduce it by £13 bn net increase from NS&I (up £10 bn in a year!) and the DMO's actual new borrowing remit falls to £79.0 bn, and total borrowing remit to £141.2 (new borrowing + rolled over debt). Financing is now £127.2 bn in Gilt Sales and £14.0 in net T-Bills etc, a 17.08% fall in actual wholesale market borrowing from the previous year.

    [to be continued...]
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    @OblitusSumMe

    St George and the DMO debt

    [...continued]

    A careful analysis will show that George and Danny are having their cake and eating it.

    The current arrangements allow government spending to remain stable while actual wholesale borrowing drops by 17%.

    Retail borrowing through NS&I increases by £10 bn. Retail borrowing costs the taxpayer slightly less than wholesale borrowing. The fact that the government is relying on an increase in net borrowing through the NS&I this year confirms its expectations that the growing recovery will lead to increased household savings.

    None of the above figures include proceeds from asset sales such as the disposal of the government's remaining 25% stake in the Lloyds Bank Group worth £13.4 bn at today's market prices. Nor does it include other additional income from the banking sector for example the payment of a dividend by the RBoS group or accelerated bank loan repayments. All of this would suggest that 2014-15 will generate a similar or larger cash surplus than 2013-14.

    All pre-election options are therefore open to George and Danny from outright electoral bribes through to further substantial decreases in actual borrowing (i.e. real deficit reduction).

    Lucky and skillful boy is our George.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,830
    Re Farage:

    I think Farage would outpoll most (if not all UKIP candidates). He is by far the best known member of his party, and by far the most articulate. So, I would guess that 21% "who would vote for Farage if he was the UKIP candidate in my constituency" translates to a 16% or so national vote share.

    More positively, it points to the fact that Farage *should* win when in South Thurrock or Thanet or wherever he eventually chooses to stand. (As an aside, he should choose now: because that will give him a 12 month campaign.)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,940
    AveryLP said:

    @OblitusSumMe

    St George and the DMO debt

    [...continued]

    A careful analysis will show that George and Danny are having their cake and eating it.

    The current arrangements allow government spending to remain stable while actual wholesale borrowing drops by 17%.

    Retail borrowing through NS&I increases by £10 bn. Retail borrowing costs the taxpayer slightly less than wholesale borrowing. The fact that the government is relying on an increase in net borrowing through the NS&I this year confirms its expectations that the growing recovery will lead to increased household savings.

    None of the above figures include proceeds from asset sales such as the disposal of the government's remaining 25% stake in the Lloyds Bank Group worth £13.4 bn at today's market prices. Nor does it include other additional income from the banking sector for example the payment of a dividend by the RBoS group or accelerated bank loan repayments. All of this would suggest that 2014-15 will generate a similar or larger cash surplus than 2013-14.

    All pre-election options are therefore open to George and Danny from outright electoral bribes through to further substantial decreases in actual borrowing (i.e. real deficit reduction).

    Lucky and skillful boy is our George.

    guffaw.

    move him on to Foreign Secretary like a good chap. Maybe we might get someone useful to replace him.
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    AveryLP said:

    I would prefer the verdict of a properly-directed jury which has heard all the evidence, not only to that of the man on the street but, more importantly, to that of a Puisne Judge sitting alone... [I]sn't the 'right' to ignore judicial direction the reason why we have jury trials?

    Far from it. There is no authority at all for the proposition that juries should ignore judicial directions. If a jury feels free to ignore a direction forbidding the consideration of irrelevant matters such as previous newspaper reports, then why should it not be able to ignore a direction about the burden or standard of proof? That way lies capricious and arbitrary justice. A juror who intentionally fails to follow a direction is guilty of contempt of court, and, if possible, should be proceeded against as such. There is even an argument that a jury's failure to give reasons for its verdict renders the whole procedure incompatible with article 6 ECHR.

    The traditional justifications for jury trial were as a bulwark of local justice ('putting oneself for good or ill on the country') and avoiding having the facts determined by prosecution-minded judges. The Courts Act 1971 vitiated the first justification, and the second is of far less relevance today. The jury's function is not to attempt to preserve liberty by stepping outside of the law. For liberty outside the law is no liberty at all, but licence...
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Pound close to 1.7 dollars after fed time...

    Time to buy a few greenbacks?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    rcs1000 said:

    Re Farage:

    I think Farage would outpoll most (if not all UKIP candidates). He is by far the best known member of his party, and by far the most articulate. So, I would guess that 21% "who would vote for Farage if he was the UKIP candidate in my constituency" translates to a 16% or so national vote share.

    More positively, it points to the fact that Farage *should* win when in South Thurrock or Thanet or wherever he eventually chooses to stand. (As an aside, he should choose now: because that will give him a 12 month campaign.)

    He will after the May 22nd voting is over.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    I thought news programs in this country are supposed to be impartial? The current attack on UKIP is anything but. Advertising a former UKIP donor as a current UKIP donor is entirely unwarranted.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,908
    I
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    As for impartiality, where were the Channel 4 News pieces on the Tory member who was part of the BNP, or the Labour member guilty of defrauding the taxpayer?

    http://order-order.com/2014/04/30/suspended-council-candidate-doesnt-make-national-news/
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Addenda to DMO post

    Just noticed two silly errors which I am too late to correct by editing.

    Post 1, para 4, last line should read:

    This effectively meant the government's financing requirement dropped by over £30 bn from that planned in April 2012 2013 to the outturn at the end of the year.

    Post 1, para 8, first line should read:

    In 2014-15 the 'rolled over debt' rises to £62.2 bn and the overall financing requirement drops increases to £175.4 bn.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,484
    Life_ina_market_town said:

    AveryLP said:

    I would prefer the verdict of a properly-directed jury which has heard all the evidence, not only to that of the man on the street but, more importantly, to that of a Puisne Judge sitting alone... [I]sn't the 'right' to ignore judicial direction the reason why we have jury trials?

    Far from it. There is no authority at all for the proposition that juries should ignore judicial directions. If a jury feels free to ignore a direction forbidding the consideration of irrelevant matters such as previous newspaper reports, then why should it not be able to ignore a direction about the burden or standard of proof? That way lies capricious and arbitrary justice. A juror who intentionally fails to follow a direction is guilty of contempt of court, and, if possible, should be proceeded against as such. There is even an argument that a jury's failure to give reasons for its verdict renders the whole procedure incompatible with article 6 ECHR.

    The traditional justifications for jury trial were as a bulwark of local justice ('putting oneself for good or ill on the country') and avoiding having the facts determined by prosecution-minded judges. The Courts Act 1971 vitiated the first justification, and the second is of far less relevance today. The jury's function is not to attempt to preserve liberty by stepping outside of the law. For liberty outside the law is no liberty at all, but licence...
    I know you lawyers might not like it but the right of a Jury to make a decision against direction is still firmly embedded in law where it has sat since 1670. It was most famously (in recent times) used in Clive Ponting case where the jury ignored the direction of the judge and found him not guilty.

    The job of the Judge is to direct on the points of law. If a jury wishes to ignore that and still find the defendant not guilty then it is their right to do so.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    I see the EU are continuing to be pathetic in their response to Russia aggression, despite us now having proof of Russian involvement:

    The list stopped short of following the US in naming key figures within Vladimir Putin's circle, or individual businessmen or institutions that might have a more serious economic impact on the Kremlin, underlining continuing European divisions over sanctions.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10797108/Ukraine-separatists-push-east-as-US-intercepts-Moscow-orders.html
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Life_ina_market_town said:

    AveryLP said:

    I would prefer the verdict of a properly-directed jury which has heard all the evidence, not only to that of the man on the street but, more importantly, to that of a Puisne Judge sitting alone... [I]sn't the 'right' to ignore judicial direction the reason why we have jury trials?

    Far from it. There is no authority at all for the proposition that juries should ignore judicial directions. If a jury feels free to ignore a direction forbidding the consideration of irrelevant matters such as previous newspaper reports, then why should it not be able to ignore a direction about the burden or standard of proof? That way lies capricious and arbitrary justice. A juror who intentionally fails to follow a direction is guilty of contempt of court, and, if possible, should be proceeded against as such. There is even an argument that a jury's failure to give reasons for its verdict renders the whole procedure incompatible with article 6 ECHR.

    The traditional justifications for jury trial were as a bulwark of local justice ('putting oneself for good or ill on the country') and avoiding having the facts determined by prosecution-minded judges. The Courts Act 1971 vitiated the first justification, and the second is of far less relevance today. The jury's function is not to attempt to preserve liberty by stepping outside of the law. For liberty outside the law is no liberty at all, but licence...
    Um...welll...yes, if you say so M'Lud.

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Life_ina_market_town said:

    AveryLP said:

    I would prefer the verdict of a properly-directed jury which has heard all the evidence, not only to that of the man on the street but, more importantly, to that of a Puisne Judge sitting alone... [I]sn't the 'right' to ignore judicial direction the reason why we have jury trials?

    Far from it. There is no authority at all for the proposition that juries should ignore judicial directions. If a jury feels free to ignore a direction forbidding the consideration of irrelevant matters such as previous newspaper reports, then why should it not be able to ignore a direction about the burden or standard of proof? That way lies capricious and arbitrary justice. A juror who intentionally fails to follow a direction is guilty of contempt of court, and, if possible, should be proceeded against as such. There is even an argument that a jury's failure to give reasons for its verdict renders the whole procedure incompatible with article 6 ECHR.

    The traditional justifications for jury trial were as a bulwark of local justice ('putting oneself for good or ill on the country') and avoiding having the facts determined by prosecution-minded judges. The Courts Act 1971 vitiated the first justification, and the second is of far less relevance today. The jury's function is not to attempt to preserve liberty by stepping outside of the law. For liberty outside the law is no liberty at all, but licence...
    I know you lawyers might not like it but the right of a Jury to make a decision against direction is still firmly embedded in law where it has sat since 1670. It was most famously (in recent times) used in Clive Ponting case where the jury ignored the direction of the judge and found him not guilty.

    The job of the Judge is to direct on the points of law. If a jury wishes to ignore that and still find the defendant not guilty then it is their right to do so.
    'liked'
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,908
    I'm not sure why the surprise. The data tables http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Newark-Reactions-Poll.pdf suggest the Newark question was asked first, thus firmly anchoring the question in UK Parliamentary, not European, elections. I would probably interpret “I would vote for Nigel Farage if he was standing in my constituency” as referring to a General Election in my constituency. If we ignore Don't Knows he scores around 30% (and I don't know how Survation usually reallocate don't knows and if anyone can give a rule of thumb estimate as to how it might work in this case).

    The most recent Survation poll found that 20% would vote Ukip in a general election.

    This seems to show Farage is at least as popular as his party as a whole, possibly a little more so.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Socrates said:

    I see the EU are continuing to be pathetic in their response to Russia aggression, despite us now having proof of Russian involvement:

    The list stopped short of following the US in naming key figures within Vladimir Putin's circle, or individual businessmen or institutions that might have a more serious economic impact on the Kremlin, underlining continuing European divisions over sanctions.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10797108/Ukraine-separatists-push-east-as-US-intercepts-Moscow-orders.html

    OK, let's say you're in charge.

    What would you do?
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    A mother of three from Manchester was murdered by her violent husband and his brother because she was "establishing an independent life" and becoming "westernised", a court has heard.

    http://news.sky.com/story/1252438/mother-was-murdered-for-becoming-westernised

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited April 2014
    I see the EU are continuing to be pathetic in their response to Russia aggression, despite us now having proof of Russian involvement:

    Would the response would be stronger if, as you would presumably advocate, the whole edifice no longer existed?
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    TheWatcher said:

    Socrates said:

    I see the EU are continuing to be pathetic in their response to Russia aggression, despite us now having proof of Russian involvement:

    The list stopped short of following the US in naming key figures within Vladimir Putin's circle, or individual businessmen or institutions that might have a more serious economic impact on the Kremlin, underlining continuing European divisions over sanctions.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10797108/Ukraine-separatists-push-east-as-US-intercepts-Moscow-orders.html

    OK, let's say you're in charge.

    What would you do?
    How about...

    My fellow Europeans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Alanbrooke said:

    AveryLP said:

    @OblitusSumMe

    St George and the DMO debt

    [...continued]

    A careful analysis will show that George and Danny are having their cake and eating it.

    The current arrangements allow government spending to remain stable while actual wholesale borrowing drops by 17%.

    Retail borrowing through NS&I increases by £10 bn. Retail borrowing costs the taxpayer slightly less than wholesale borrowing. The fact that the government is relying on an increase in net borrowing through the NS&I this year confirms its expectations that the growing recovery will lead to increased household savings.

    None of the above figures include proceeds from asset sales such as the disposal of the government's remaining 25% stake in the Lloyds Bank Group worth £13.4 bn at today's market prices. Nor does it include other additional income from the banking sector for example the payment of a dividend by the RBoS group or accelerated bank loan repayments. All of this would suggest that 2014-15 will generate a similar or larger cash surplus than 2013-14.

    All pre-election options are therefore open to George and Danny from outright electoral bribes through to further substantial decreases in actual borrowing (i.e. real deficit reduction).

    Lucky and skillful boy is our George.

    guffaw.

    move him on to Foreign Secretary like a good chap. Maybe we might get someone useful to replace him.
    But the only foreign language he speaks is Irish.

    Came with the baronetcy, Mr. Brooke.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,940
    AveryLP said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    AveryLP said:

    @OblitusSumMe

    St George and the DMO debt

    [...continued]

    A careful analysis will show that George and Danny are having their cake and eating it.

    The current arrangements allow government spending to remain stable while actual wholesale borrowing drops by 17%.

    Retail borrowing through NS&I increases by £10 bn. Retail borrowing costs the taxpayer slightly less than wholesale borrowing. The fact that the government is relying on an increase in net borrowing through the NS&I this year confirms its expectations that the growing recovery will lead to increased household savings.

    None of the above figures include proceeds from asset sales such as the disposal of the government's remaining 25% stake in the Lloyds Bank Group worth £13.4 bn at today's market prices. Nor does it include other additional income from the banking sector for example the payment of a dividend by the RBoS group or accelerated bank loan repayments. All of this would suggest that 2014-15 will generate a similar or larger cash surplus than 2013-14.

    All pre-election options are therefore open to George and Danny from outright electoral bribes through to further substantial decreases in actual borrowing (i.e. real deficit reduction).

    Lucky and skillful boy is our George.

    guffaw.

    move him on to Foreign Secretary like a good chap. Maybe we might get someone useful to replace him.
    But the only foreign language he speaks is Irish.

    Came with the baronetcy, Mr. Brooke.

    I'm sure we could find him a nice office in Crossmaglen.

    Meanwhile another month goes by and no reforms; what does he do all day ?
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited April 2014
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    The job of the Judge is to direct on the points of law. If a jury wishes to ignore that and still find the defendant not guilty then it is their right to do so.

    So if a judge directs the jury that they may not research the case on the internet, and it is proven that every member of the jury nevertheless did so intentionally, should the jury be punished for contempt of court, or congratulated for the exercise of an ahistorical "right"? What if a man were charged with murder, and the jury chose to ignore the direction on the standard of proof, and convict on the basis of "no smoke without fire"? Please tell me which directions in law the jury should be able to ignore, and indeed have every had any "right" to ignore.

    The verdict in Ponting was perverse. Indeed, the history on this is clear. Where a jury was suspected of having returned a verdict contrary to their oaths, it was open to the aggrieved party to seek a writ of attaint against the jury. If a jury of twenty-four found the original verdict to have been perverse,
    'those first jurors shall be committed to the prison of the lord king; their goods confiscated, and all their possessions seized into the king's hand; their houses and buildings demolished, their woods cut down, their meadows ploughed up, and they themselves shall henceforth be infamous, and their testimony as to the truth shall nowhere be accepted.' [Sir John Fortescue CJKB, De Laudibus Legum Angliae, S.C. Lockwood (trans.) (Cambridge, [c. 1470], 1997), p. 39]
    No English jury has every had a right to ignore lawful directions.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Socrates said:

    I see the EU are continuing to be pathetic in their response to Russia aggression, despite us now having proof of Russian involvement:

    The list stopped short of following the US in naming key figures within Vladimir Putin's circle, or individual businessmen or institutions that might have a more serious economic impact on the Kremlin, underlining continuing European divisions over sanctions.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10797108/Ukraine-separatists-push-east-as-US-intercepts-Moscow-orders.html

    Errrr it was the US that overthrew the democratically elected President. 5bn Victoria Nudelman-Kagan said they spent to achieve it.

    Not seen this 'evidence' but I am sure its as good as the photos and if Russia was supporting the popular uprising what business is it of yours? An unelected government is using their armed forces against their own people.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Life_ina_market_town said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    The job of the Judge is to direct on the points of law. If a jury wishes to ignore that and still find the defendant not guilty then it is their right to do so.

    So if a judge directs the jury that they may not research the case on the internet, and it is proven that every member of the jury nevertheless did so intentionally, should the jury be punished for contempt of court, or congratulated for the exercise of an ahistorical "right"? What if a man were charged with murder, and the jury chose to ignore the direction on the standard of proof, and convict on the basis of "no smoke without fire"? Please tell me which directions in law the jury should be able to ignore, and indeed have every had any "right" to ignore.

    The verdict in Ponting was perverse. Indeed, the history on this is clear. Where a jury was suspected of having returned a verdict contrary to their oaths, it was open to the aggrieved party to seek a writ of attaint against the jury. If a jury of twenty-four found the original verdict to have been perverse,
    'those first jurors shall be committed to the prison of the lord king; their goods confiscated, and all their possessions seized into the king's hand; their houses and buildings demolished, their woods cut down, their meadows ploughed up, and they themselves shall henceforth be infamous, and their testimony as to the truth shall nowhere be accepted.' [Sir John Fortescue CJKB, De Laudibus Legum Angliae, S.C. Lockwood (trans.) (Cambridge, [c. 1470], 1997), p. 39]
    No English jury has every had a right to ignore lawful directions.

    This jury certainly followed judicial directions:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xi-agPf95M
  • isamisam Posts: 42,270
    Matthew Goodwin ‏@GoodwinMJ 4m
    Thought C4 @MichaelLCrick story awful. Goading old man to air ignorant views to fit anti-Ukip stance. Will only fan flames of #Ukip support.
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited April 2014
    AveryLP said:

    This jury certainly followed judicial directions

    Cantley J's summing up in R v Thorpe et al. was perhaps worse than Caulfield J's in Archer. Not the finest moment in the history of the English judiciary.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Alanbrooke said:

    AveryLP said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    AveryLP said:

    @OblitusSumMe

    St George and the DMO debt

    [...continued]

    A careful analysis will show that George and Danny are having their cake and eating it.

    The current arrangements allow government spending to remain stable while actual wholesale borrowing drops by 17%.

    Retail borrowing through NS&I increases by £10 bn. Retail borrowing costs the taxpayer slightly less than wholesale borrowing. The fact that the government is relying on an increase in net borrowing through the NS&I this year confirms its expectations that the growing recovery will lead to increased household savings.

    None of the above figures include proceeds from asset sales such as the disposal of the government's remaining 25% stake in the Lloyds Bank Group worth £13.4 bn at today's market prices. Nor does it include other additional income from the banking sector for example the payment of a dividend by the RBoS group or accelerated bank loan repayments. All of this would suggest that 2014-15 will generate a similar or larger cash surplus than 2013-14.

    All pre-election options are therefore open to George and Danny from outright electoral bribes through to further substantial decreases in actual borrowing (i.e. real deficit reduction).

    Lucky and skillful boy is our George.

    guffaw.

    move him on to Foreign Secretary like a good chap. Maybe we might get someone useful to replace him.
    But the only foreign language he speaks is Irish.

    Came with the baronetcy, Mr. Brooke.

    I'm sure we could find him a nice office in Crossmaglen.

    Meanwhile another month goes by and no reforms; what does he do all day ?
    Cuts things, looks out of the window, drinks coffee, assaults SpAds?

    Dunno, Mr. Brooke.

    Whatever he does, it seems to be working.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,484
    Life_ina_market_town said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    The job of the Judge is to direct on the points of law. If a jury wishes to ignore that and still find the defendant not guilty then it is their right to do so.

    So if a judge directs the jury that they may not research the case on the internet, and it is proven that every member of the jury nevertheless did so intentionally, should the jury be punished for contempt of court, or congratulated for the exercise of an ahistorical "right"? What if a man were charged with murder, and the jury chose to ignore the direction on the standard of proof, and convict on the basis of "no smoke without fire"? Please tell me which directions in law the jury should be able to ignore, and indeed have every had any "right" to ignore.

    The verdict in Ponting was perverse. Indeed, the history on this is clear. Where a jury was suspected of having returned a verdict contrary to their oaths, it was open to the aggrieved party to seek a writ of attaint against the jury. If a jury of twenty-four found the original verdict to have been perverse,
    'those first jurors shall be committed to the prison of the lord king; their goods confiscated, and all their possessions seized into the king's hand; their houses and buildings demolished, their woods cut down, their meadows ploughed up, and they themselves shall henceforth be infamous, and their testimony as to the truth shall nowhere be accepted.' [Sir John Fortescue CJKB, De Laudibus Legum Angliae, S.C. Lockwood (trans.) (Cambridge, [c. 1470], 1997), p. 39]
    No English jury has every had a right to ignore lawful directions.

    I am amazed that someone in law would even think to quote any case involving a jury that predates the Bushel's Case of 1670. It is one of the cornerstones of modern legal proceedings and it sets the absolute precedent that no jury can be forced to make a decision one way or the other by anyone including the judge.

    No Jury can be punished because of returning a particular verdict - although individual jurors may still be punished if they are shown to have acted improperly.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,687
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Life_ina_market_town said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    The job of the Judge is to direct on the points of law. If a jury wishes to ignore that and still find the defendant not guilty then it is their right to do so.

    So if a judge directs the jury that they may not research the case on the internet, and it is proven that every member of the jury nevertheless did so intentionally, should the jury be punished for contempt of court, or congratulated for the exercise of an ahistorical "right"? What if a man were charged with murder, and the jury chose to ignore the direction on the standard of proof, and convict on the basis of "no smoke without fire"? Please tell me which directions in law the jury should be able to ignore, and indeed have every had any "right" to ignore.

    The verdict in Ponting was perverse. Indeed, the history on this is clear. Where a jury was suspected of having returned a verdict contrary to their oaths, it was open to the aggrieved party to seek a writ of attaint against the jury. If a jury of twenty-four found the original verdict to have been perverse,
    'those first jurors shall be committed to the prison of the lord king; their goods confiscated, and all their possessions seized into the king's hand; their houses and buildings demolished, their woods cut down, their meadows ploughed up, and they themselves shall henceforth be infamous, and their testimony as to the truth shall nowhere be accepted.' [Sir John Fortescue CJKB, De Laudibus Legum Angliae, S.C. Lockwood (trans.) (Cambridge, [c. 1470], 1997), p. 39]
    No English jury has every had a right to ignore lawful directions.
    I am amazed that someone in law would even think to quote any case involving a jury that predates the Bushel's Case of 1670. It is one of the cornerstones of modern legal proceedings and it sets the absolute precedent that no jury can be forced to make a decision one way or the other by anyone including the judge.

    No Jury can be punished because of returning a particular verdict - although individual jurors may still be punished if they are shown to have acted improperly.

    Hear hear. I was also astounded to see no mention of the Quakers affair.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited April 2014
    FalseFlag said:

    Socrates said:

    I see the EU are continuing to be pathetic in their response to Russia aggression, despite us now having proof of Russian involvement:

    The list stopped short of following the US in naming key figures within Vladimir Putin's circle, or individual businessmen or institutions that might have a more serious economic impact on the Kremlin, underlining continuing European divisions over sanctions.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10797108/Ukraine-separatists-push-east-as-US-intercepts-Moscow-orders.html

    Errrr it was the US that overthrew the democratically elected President. 5bn Victoria Nudelman-Kagan said they spent to achieve it.

    Not seen this 'evidence' but I am sure its as good as the photos and if Russia was supporting the popular uprising what business is it of yours? An unelected government is using their armed forces against their own people.
    Oh here we go, Russian apologism - strange how you only popped up on here after this trouble in Ukraine cropped up and most of your posts have been about this topic. A stooge if ever I saw one.

    The US didn't overthrow anyone. The democratically elected parliament of Ukraine voted to remove the president via a constitutional supermajority. The reason they removed that president was that he had ordered troops to shoot dozens of unarmed protesters on the streets of Kiev. The only people the Ukrainian government is using their forces against are the armed, largely Russian militants that have illegally stormed and barricaded government buildings.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,270
    Sam Launder ‏@SamuelLaunder 10m
    BREAKING NEWS: UKIP member burps out loud.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    Chelsea 1Torres 36′Atlético Madrid1Adrián 44′
    50 mins
    HT 1-1
    (agg 1 - 1)
    Atlético Madrid win the tie.

    A bit premature to write off Chelsea at half time, even Liverpool know that.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    Life_ina_market_town said:

    AveryLP said:

    This jury certainly followed judicial directions

    Cantley J's summing up in R v Thorpe et al. was perhaps worse than Caulfield J's in Archer. Not the finest moment in the history of the English judiciary.
    Though it did provide Peter Cook with inspiration.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    BBC - Apparently Gerry Adams arrested in connection with 1972 murder of Jean McConville.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,362
    Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams arrested by Northern Ireland police in connection with 1972 Jean McConville murder

    Source: BBC ticker

    Wow.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,270
    In some regions over 50% plan to vote ukip

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2616981/Ukip-course-win-HALF-votes-areas-despite-1-3-voters-saying-Farages-party-racist.html
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Wow, very big news indeed:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27232731
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    taffys said:

    Pound close to 1.7 dollars after fed time...

    Time to buy a few greenbacks?

    That was the view of a couple of my Trustees yesterday. But no hurry - the pound has a habit of staying high longer than expected, but ultimately sinking back
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    isam said:

    In some regions over 50% plan to vote ukip

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2616981/Ukip-course-win-HALF-votes-areas-despite-1-3-voters-saying-Farages-party-racist.html

    Those regional breakdowns look very strange. UKIP has no real history ion the West Midlands but is polling at over 50%, while in the east Midlands - which is a heartland - it is level pegging with Labour.

  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    When was the last time we had a derby in the European cup final? Must be going back a while...
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Not a great night to change my avatar...
  • The_WoodpeckerThe_Woodpecker Posts: 506
    Never I believe.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited April 2014
    RobD said:

    BBC - Apparently Gerry Adams arrested in connection with 1972 murder of Jean McConville.

    That is quite remarkable news - and long overdue.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    looks if Chelsea are on their way out. 1:3
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,940
    AveryLP said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    AveryLP said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    AveryLP said:

    @OblitusSumMe

    St George and the DMO debt

    [...continued]

    A careful analysis will show that George and Danny are having their cake and eating it.

    The current arrangements allow government spending to remain stable while actual wholesale borrowing drops by 17%.

    Retail borrowing through NS&I increases by £10 bn. Retail borrowing costs the taxpayer slightly less than wholesale borrowing. The fact that the government is relying on an increase in net borrowing through the NS&I this year confirms its expectations that the growing recovery will lead to increased household savings.

    None of the above figures include proceeds from asset sales such as the disposal of the government's remaining 25% stake in the Lloyds Bank Group worth £13.4 bn at today's market prices. Nor does it include other additional income from the banking sector for example the payment of a dividend by the RBoS group or accelerated bank loan repayments. All of this would suggest that 2014-15 will generate a similar or larger cash surplus than 2013-14.

    All pre-election options are therefore open to George and Danny from outright electoral bribes through to further substantial decreases in actual borrowing (i.e. real deficit reduction).

    Lucky and skillful boy is our George.

    guffaw.

    move him on to Foreign Secretary like a good chap. Maybe we might get someone useful to replace him.
    But the only foreign language he speaks is Irish.

    Came with the baronetcy, Mr. Brooke.

    I'm sure we could find him a nice office in Crossmaglen.

    Meanwhile another month goes by and no reforms; what does he do all day ?
    Cuts things, looks out of the window, drinks coffee, assaults SpAds?

    Dunno, Mr. Brooke.

    Whatever he does, it seems to be working.

    chortle

    yes he's dropped the march of the manufacturers for the congo line of the estate agents.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,270
    SouthamObserver said:

    isam said:

    In some regions over 50% plan to vote ukip

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2616981/Ukip-course-win-HALF-votes-areas-despite-1-3-voters-saying-Farages-party-racist.html

    Those regional breakdowns look very strange. UKIP has no real history ion the West Midlands but is polling at over 50%, while in the east Midlands - which is a heartland - it is level pegging with Labour.

    Small samples I guess
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Good evening, everybody.

    Mr. Socrates, that reminds me of ITV News at ten. I could be wrong, but isn't (wasn't, if you like) Mercer a former Conservative MP? Because it reported he still was one.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    SouthamObserver said:

    isam said:

    In some regions over 50% plan to vote ukip

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2616981/Ukip-course-win-HALF-votes-areas-despite-1-3-voters-saying-Farages-party-racist.html

    Those regional breakdowns look very strange. UKIP has no real history ion the West Midlands but is polling at over 50%, while in the east Midlands - which is a heartland - it is level pegging with Labour.

    The West Midlands was UKIP's most successful region in 2009.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Life_ina_market_town said:

    AveryLP said:

    I would prefer the verdict of a properly-directed jury which has heard all the evidence, not only to that of the man on the street but, more importantly, to that of a Puisne Judge sitting alone... [I]sn't the 'right' to ignore judicial direction the reason why we have jury trials?

    Far from it. There is no authority at all for the proposition that juries should ignore judicial directions. If a jury feels free to ignore a direction forbidding the consideration of irrelevant matters such as previous newspaper reports, then why should it not be able to ignore a direction about the burden or standard of proof? That way lies capricious and arbitrary justice. A juror who intentionally fails to follow a direction is guilty of contempt of court, and, if possible, should be proceeded against as such. There is even an argument that a jury's failure to give reasons for its verdict renders the whole procedure incompatible with article 6 ECHR.

    The traditional justifications for jury trial were as a bulwark of local justice ('putting oneself for good or ill on the country') and avoiding having the facts determined by prosecution-minded judges. The Courts Act 1971 vitiated the first justification, and the second is of far less relevance today. The jury's function is not to attempt to preserve liberty by stepping outside of the law. For liberty outside the law is no liberty at all, but licence...
    I know you lawyers might not like it but the right of a Jury to make a decision against direction is still firmly embedded in law where it has sat since 1670. It was most famously (in recent times) used in Clive Ponting case where the jury ignored the direction of the judge and found him not guilty.

    The job of the Judge is to direct on the points of law. If a jury wishes to ignore that and still find the defendant not guilty then it is their right to do so.
    Well said that man.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Socrates said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Socrates said:

    I see the EU are continuing to be pathetic in their response to Russia aggression, despite us now having proof of Russian involvement:

    The list stopped short of following the US in naming key figures within Vladimir Putin's circle, or individual businessmen or institutions that might have a more serious economic impact on the Kremlin, underlining continuing European divisions over sanctions.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10797108/Ukraine-separatists-push-east-as-US-intercepts-Moscow-orders.html

    Errrr it was the US that overthrew the democratically elected President. 5bn Victoria Nudelman-Kagan said they spent to achieve it.

    Not seen this 'evidence' but I am sure its as good as the photos and if Russia was supporting the popular uprising what business is it of yours? An unelected government is using their armed forces against their own people.
    Oh here we go, Russian apologism - strange how you only popped up on here after this trouble in Ukraine cropped up and most of your posts have been about this topic. A stooge if ever I saw one.

    The US didn't overthrow anyone. The democratically elected parliament of Ukraine voted to remove the president via a constitutional supermajority. The reason they removed that president was that he had ordered troops to shoot dozens of unarmed protesters on the streets of Kiev. The only people the Ukrainian government is using their forces against are the armed, largely Russian militants that have illegally stormed and barricaded government buildings.
    Yes clearly those parliamentarians weren't in fear for their lives when they voted, no pressure applied at all and no Baroness Ashton wasn't recorded discussing the shootings with the Lithuanian foreign minister as being carried out by the protesters.

    Actually I believe in the English national interest and can't conceive of how it would be in our interest to support a nation that has always acted against our interests, see Enoch Powell on the US and our foreign policy, interfering in a nation well within the sphere of influence of a country who we rely on for our energy needs. Unfortunately morons like you, Osborne and Cameron too, who dominate the establishment are given free reign in a compliant media to spout your nonsense. Thankfully the internet provides an avenue for an increasingly sceptic post Iraq public to see through your lies.

    http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/march/13/russia-annexing-crimea-is-the-cost-of-useu-intervention-in-ukraine.aspx
  • isamisam Posts: 42,270
    edited April 2014
    BobaFett said:

    When was the last time we had a derby in the European cup final? Must be going back a while...


    I cant remember one

    I went to the San Siro to watch a semi final 2nd leg between Inter and AC about ten years ago... probably the biggest derby in European Cup I guess
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited April 2014
    isam said:

    Sam Launder ‏@SamuelLaunder 10m
    BREAKING NEWS: UKIP member burps out loud.

    Latest anti-kipper ruse is to persuade recipients of unwanted UKIP leaflets to return them to the party's Freepost address.

    This has escalated to bricks being parcelled up and sent. Apparently a court judgement has set a precedent for such mailings to be lawful.

    All a bit silly but this tweetpic did make me laugh:

    http://t.co/dkXUPlVlwc
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    @Avery

    LOL. I hope Number 11 are paying you well.
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited April 2014
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    I am amazed that someone in law would even think to quote any case involving a jury that predates the Bushel's [sic] Case of 1670. It is one of the cornerstones of modern legal proceedings and it sets the absolute precedent that no jury can be forced to make a decision one way or the other by anyone including the judge.

    No Jury can be punished because of returning a particular verdict - although individual jurors may still be punished if they are shown to have acted improperly.

    Let us have a look at Bushell's case in the English reports, at 89 ER 2. At p. 5, note (h):
    '[I]t is now settled, that (with the exception of the proceeding in attaints) jurors are in no way questionable for their finding either by summary process, indictment, or action.
    At footnote (g), doubt is expressed by the reporter as to whether attaint still lay in criminal matters. Hale asserted that it did, albeit Hawkins among others disagreed. Bushell's case did not concern writs of attaint against a jury, but whether the judge had a right to fine the trial jury for returning a verdict contrary to the evidence and direction of the court. All that was decided was that immunity belonged to decisions of a judicial character, and that the return of a verdict was a decision of that character. As for the suggestion of Chief Justice Vaughan that no jury could be punished for a perverse verdict 'because the jury may know that of their own knowledge, which might guide them to give their verdict contrary to the sense of the Court' (Ibid, p. 5), the reporter rightly observers at footnote (h) that 'the doctrine is now treated as exploded'. If a juror has private knowledge of the case, he should be sworn as a witness.

    Bushell's case certainly does not establish that a jury has a right to return a verdict contrary to the evidence or direction of the court. There is no such authority for that heretical proposition.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,270
    AveryLP said:

    isam said:

    Sam Launder ‏@SamuelLaunder 10m
    BREAKING NEWS: UKIP member burps out loud.

    Latest anti-kipper ruse is to persuade recipients of unwanted UKIP leaflets to return them to the party's Freepost address.

    This has escalated to bricks being parcelled up and sent. Apparently a court judgement has set a precedent for such mailings to be lawful.

    All a bit silly but this tweetpic did make me laugh:

    http://t.co/dkXUPlVlwc
    The rascals
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    rcs1000 said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    It's not exactly Marine Le Pen territory, is it?

    the poll shows that if [Hollande] were to find himself in a second-round face-off with Ms Le Pen, he would win by just 54 per cent to 46 per cent.

    http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2014/04/springtime-in-paris-fails-to-dispel-clouds-over-hollande/

    Other polled match-ups:
    Kermit vs Hollande (78:22)
    Attila the Hun vs Hollande (62:38)
    Saddam Hussein vs Hollande (71:29)
    SeanT vs Hollande (12:78)
    Hitler vs Hollande (48:52)

    LOL

    Paging @SeanT - deemed by OGH Jr less popular than Hitler, Saddam and Attila the Hun (in France).
  • isamisam Posts: 42,270
    John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 21m
    Farage's bottling of the best chance of an MP confirms what I wrote in Feb: it's all over for UKIP http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ukip-has-a-sellby-date-and-its-may-2015-9131005.html …


    Patrick O'Flynn ‏@oflynndirector 5m
    @JohnRentoul Hodges disease - you need a holiday John.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    UKIP heading for more than 50% in Eastern region and West Midlands according to the ComRes poll.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    isam said:

    BobaFett said:

    When was the last time we had a derby in the European cup final? Must be going back a while...


    I cant remember one

    I went to the San Siro to watch a semi final 2nd leg between Inter and AC about ten years ago... probably the biggest derby in European Cup I guess
    That was an oddity IIRC as one of them won on away goals (even though they share a ground). Anyway, no surprise you don't remember a derby final - there has never been one it seems (just wiki-ed it)
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,908
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good evening, everybody.

    Mr. Socrates, that reminds me of ITV News at ten. I could be wrong, but isn't (wasn't, if you like) Mercer a former Conservative MP? Because it reported he still was one.

    he may still not have officially taken up one of the Offices of Profit, so he may technically still be one.

  • isamisam Posts: 42,270
    BobaFett said:

    isam said:

    BobaFett said:

    When was the last time we had a derby in the European cup final? Must be going back a while...


    I cant remember one

    I went to the San Siro to watch a semi final 2nd leg between Inter and AC about ten years ago... probably the biggest derby in European Cup I guess
    That was an oddity IIRC as one of them won on away goals (even though they share a ground). Anyway, no surprise you don't remember a derby final - there has never been one it seems (just wiki-ed it)
    That's it. I went to the 1-1 which meant AC qualified.. I think Obafemi Martins scored for Inter

    Drove to Turin next day to watch Juve bt Real Madrid 3-1
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. Lilburne, I meant that he was (prior to resignation) an independent MP.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    Think it's fair to say pretty much the entire world will be rooting for Atletico in the European Cup Final. Real have won it nine times already and are effectively funded by the Spanish government. Atletico fans deserve a medal for supporting the red and whites given the vast wealth and prestige just outside their own backyard
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    isam said:

    John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 21m
    Farage's bottling of the best chance of an MP confirms what I wrote in Feb: it's all over for UKIP http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ukip-has-a-sellby-date-and-its-may-2015-9131005.html …


    Patrick O'Flynn ‏@oflynndirector 5m
    @JohnRentoul Hodges disease - you need a holiday John.

    The panic in the media and other political parties,you have to laugh ;-)

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,940
    AveryLP said:

    isam said:

    Sam Launder ‏@SamuelLaunder 10m
    BREAKING NEWS: UKIP member burps out loud.

    Latest anti-kipper ruse is to persuade recipients of unwanted UKIP leaflets to return them to the party's Freepost address.

    This has escalated to bricks being parcelled up and sent. Apparently a court judgement has set a precedent for such mailings to be lawful.

    All a bit silly but this tweetpic did make me laugh:

    http://t.co/dkXUPlVlwc
    Headline news from Warwickshire; Leaflet count

    LDs 0 ( late off the mark this year )
    Labour 0 ( but they never bother round here )
    Conservatives 0 ( one of the horses has a chill )
    UKIP 1 ( but then he ran away without stopping)

    Conclusion : Mr Zahawi is busy fighting UKIP racism but has decided to cede his consitituency to them
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    BobaFett said:

    Think it's fair to say pretty much the entire world will be rooting for Atletico in the European Cup Final. Real have won it nine times already and are effectively funded by the Spanish government. Atletico fans deserve a medal for supporting the red and whites given the vast wealth and prestige just outside their own backyard

    Bob,as a labour supporter,what about lending your vote to ukip for the euro elections ;-)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    BREAKING NEWS:

    Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams arrested by Northern Ireland police in connection with 1972 Jean McConville murder
  • The_WoodpeckerThe_Woodpecker Posts: 506
    There's a political angle too, Real traditionally being the team of the right and Atletico the left.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,133
    Finding myself with surprisingly mixed feelings about Gerry Adams.

    He needs to face justice but at the same time we need to move on and he has helped to do this.

    which leads neatly onto @Smarmeron‌ - saw your comment about your mate in NI. Those debussing boys would have come straight from NITAT having had all the SOPs drilled into them. Same for everyone: I would put it down to new unit in NI-ism rather than anything peculiar to HDiv.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025