The question is whether their statement now encourages the other side to hold out, sensing (wrongly I think) weakness on our side. I think it does and so gives a push towards your 'disastrous no-deal'.
We are weak
No amount of bluff and bluster from BoZo can hide that
Some Trump-backers were dismayed, I understand, when their bets were deemed losers on Dec 14th because they were of the view that the means of appeal, protests, legal challenges and the like had some way to run; nor had their man done anything to suggest he was yet ready to concede. Again, I sympathise. Whilst it always appeared exceedingly unlikely any of these protests would overturn the result, I should say that once Betfair had decided not to settle on the date the election was called for Biden, there was no particular logic in them settling on the 14th December since it had no bearing on the 'projected electoral college votes'. The relevance of this date to the political process is that it signifies the point at which projected votes become actual (although even then there are further procedural elements of confirming the next US President with which constitutional experts and some punters are familiar). What Betfair and nobody else can explain is how and why for the purposes of the betting markets the 'actual' date for casting the college votes came to supplant the date of 'projected' votes referred to very clearly in Betfair's market rules. Once the switch from 'projected' to 'actual' was made however there was every reason for Trump-backers to question the finality of the outcome and point to the various appeals, objections and Trump's refusal to concede as evidence that the actual result was still contestable.
In short, once Betfair moved the goalposts the date of market-settlement became unclear, indefinite and open to debate. I might think that Trump has zero chance of being re-elected as President, but I can certainly see why those who backed him to do so feel miffed that Betfair have ruled against them before every conceivable possibility has been exhausted. In fact I do not see how Betfair can remove their grievances without admitting they were wrong to shift the goalposts in the first place.
I do not know what, if anything , the Gambling Commission can or will do about all this, but I nevertheless have conveyed my thoughts in the hope that you can bring these matters to Betfair's attention. At the very least it might encourage them to frame their rules better in future, stick to the rules they have framed, and show greater respect to reasonable complaints from their customers. Anything you can do to bring this about will be much appreciated.
Warm regards, thanks and good luck.
Peter Smith
Well done. Excellent letter.
Hopefully BF will be clearer next time. Much better to simply say they pay out on day ECV meets. Or say the 'projected' vote will be what Assoc Press say on the night of the election is their projected vote.
Or just actually pay out on who the next president is, as implied by the title of the market?
Betfair seems to love these misleading markets, with titles that imply one thing (such as "will there be a no deal Brexit") that, when you read the small print, are actually about something different - with time limits not mentioned at all in the title, or defining 'no deal' in ways that significantly change the bet.
Some Trump-backers were dismayed, I understand, when their bets were deemed losers on Dec 14th because they were of the view that the means of appeal, protests, legal challenges and the like had some way to run; nor had their man done anything to suggest he was yet ready to concede. Again, I sympathise. Whilst it always appeared exceedingly unlikely any of these protests would overturn the result, I should say that once Betfair had decided not to settle on the date the election was called for Biden, there was no particular logic in them settling on the 14th December since it had no bearing on the 'projected electoral college votes'. The relevance of this date to the political process is that it signifies the point at which projected votes become actual (although even then there are further procedural elements of confirming the next US President with which constitutional experts and some punters are familiar). What Betfair and nobody else can explain is how and why for the purposes of the betting markets the 'actual' date for casting the college votes came to supplant the date of 'projected' votes referred to very clearly in Betfair's market rules. Once the switch from 'projected' to 'actual' was made however there was every reason for Trump-backers to question the finality of the outcome and point to the various appeals, objections and Trump's refusal to concede as evidence that the actual result was still contestable.
In short, once Betfair moved the goalposts the date of market-settlement became unclear, indefinite and open to debate. I might think that Trump has zero chance of being re-elected as President, but I can certainly see why those who backed him to do so feel miffed that Betfair have ruled against them before every conceivable possibility has been exhausted. In fact I do not see how Betfair can remove their grievances without admitting they were wrong to shift the goalposts in the first place.
I do not know what, if anything , the Gambling Commission can or will do about all this, but I nevertheless have conveyed my thoughts in the hope that you can bring these matters to Betfair's attention. At the very least it might encourage them to frame their rules better in future, stick to the rules they have framed, and show greater respect to reasonable complaints from their customers. Anything you can do to bring this about will be much appreciated.
Warm regards, thanks and good luck.
Peter Smith
Well done. Excellent letter.
Hopefully BF will be clearer next time. Much better to simply say they pay out on day ECV meets. Or say the 'projected' vote will be what Assoc Press say on the night of the election is their projected vote.
Or just actually pay out on who the next president is, as implied by the title of the market?
Betfair seems to love these misleading markets, with titles that imply one thing (such as "will there be a no deal Brexit") that, when you read the small print, are actually about something different - with time limits not mentioned at all in the title, or defining 'no deal' in ways that significantly change the bet.
They are often very slapdash in the wording of their markets.
Many on here noted the contradiction between the market title and the rules. In fact most of us were perfectly aware that we were not betting on the next President, but the name to be announced as the winner of the 'projected electoral vote'. It was widely accepted that this could be different to the next President.
One perfectly plausible scenario was that Trump would stand down between Nov 3rd and Jan 20th, in which case the likely Next President would have been Pence or Pelosi. Betfair would nevertheless still have been obliged to pay out on Biden if he had been the 'projected' winner.
Their rules were clear on this point, although whether they would have stuck to them is a completely different matter.
What is it with Johnson electioneering at an Openreach depot in Bolton mid pandemic (spreading his new Southern super-virus to the good people of Greater Burnham) and three and a half years out from the next General Election?
He doesn't face the voter for 3 years. He has to face the headbangers daily.
On the ethics of gambling, it is an addictive process like consuming too much alcohol, tobacco or sugar. There are certainly those harmed, a small percentage significantly, so regulation, protection and support is needed. We could do better on all three, fixing the FOBTs should have been a unanimous no brainer rather than anything controversial for example.
But compared to the rest of our society and economy, how unethical is it really? Utilities overcharging customers by 30-100% each year unless they move companies, car mechanics inventing non existent faults to repair, supermarkets and fast food places pushing unhealthy addictive food, banks pushing high margin low use financial derivatives, the arms industry, flying and the impact on the environment - I could go on and on.
I would say the majority of our economy is similarly unethical to gambling.
The question is whether their statement now encourages the other side to hold out, sensing (wrongly I think) weakness on our side. I think it does and so gives a push towards your 'disastrous no-deal'.
We are weak
No amount of bluff and bluster from BoZo can hide that
On the ethics of gambling, it is an addictive process like consuming too much alcohol, tobacco or sugar. There are certainly those harmed, a small percentage significantly, so regulation, protection and support is needed. We could do better on all three, fixing the FOBTs should have been a unanimous no brainer rather than anything controversial for example.
But compared to the rest of our society and economy, how unethical is it really? Utilities overcharging customers by 30-100% each year unless they move companies, car mechanics inventing non existent faults to repair, supermarkets and fast food places pushing unhealthy addictive food, banks pushing high margin low use financial derivatives, the arms industry, flying and the impact on the environment - I could go on and on.
I would say the majority of our economy is similarly unethical to gambling.
'All of life is a gamble, and mostly the odds are 5/4 against.' [Damon Runyon]
Problem gambling is something I hadn't come across before until one day a couple of years ago someone close to me called and asked if we could meet. Their partner had gambled £29,000. It was apparently a simple thing that could be done on a mobile phone. I wasn't really interested in the mechanics. Apparently he had been a bit depressed and it quickly mounted up. He had and has a good job. I took the view that it was only money and it could be sorted. Their relationship was a matter for them and as far as I know it's never happened again. But I never thought to blame the online bookies whoever they were or whatever the game they had peddled but the big question for me was how he managed to get that sort of credit so easily
My friend with the gambling problem is dead now, dying at the age of 50 from his other vice of smoking.
I knew him from school, his family being farmworkers, who lived in a mobile home in a field with no plumbing. He left school to work in a tractor repair shop aged 16. The poorest family that I have ever known personally.
He was intelligent, and while the rest of our group carried on at school, he was the one earning so the only one with money. We occasionally would have the odd poker game, but his real addiction was fruit machines. Each Friday and Saturday night he would buy some ciggies and put his wages in the fruit machine. He didn't drink or take drugs like the rest of us, so selective in his addictions. Then he would live off his girlfriend for a week, before his next paypacket, pay her back, then straight to the fruit machines again. It was a xsource of constant arguments between them, though he was a kind and gentle soul otherwise. This went on for some years before I went abroad and lost touch for a few decades.
Internet gambling is so accessible and instant that it would be catnip to such a personality.
Some Trump-backers were dismayed, I understand, when their bets were deemed losers on Dec 14th because they were of the view that the means of appeal, protests, legal challenges and the like had some way to run; nor had their man done anything to suggest he was yet ready to concede. Again, I sympathise. Whilst it always appeared exceedingly unlikely any of these protests would overturn the result, I should say that once Betfair had decided not to settle on the date the election was called for Biden, there was no particular logic in them settling on the 14th December since it had no bearing on the 'projected electoral college votes'. The relevance of this date to the political process is that it signifies the point at which projected votes become actual (although even then there are further procedural elements of confirming the next US President with which constitutional experts and some punters are familiar). What Betfair and nobody else can explain is how and why for the purposes of the betting markets the 'actual' date for casting the college votes came to supplant the date of 'projected' votes referred to very clearly in Betfair's market rules. Once the switch from 'projected' to 'actual' was made however there was every reason for Trump-backers to question the finality of the outcome and point to the various appeals, objections and Trump's refusal to concede as evidence that the actual result was still contestable.
In short, once Betfair moved the goalposts the date of market-settlement became unclear, indefinite and open to debate. I might think that Trump has zero chance of being re-elected as President, but I can certainly see why those who backed him to do so feel miffed that Betfair have ruled against them before every conceivable possibility has been exhausted. In fact I do not see how Betfair can remove their grievances without admitting they were wrong to shift the goalposts in the first place.
I do not know what, if anything , the Gambling Commission can or will do about all this, but I nevertheless have conveyed my thoughts in the hope that you can bring these matters to Betfair's attention. At the very least it might encourage them to frame their rules better in future, stick to the rules they have framed, and show greater respect to reasonable complaints from their customers. Anything you can do to bring this about will be much appreciated.
Warm regards, thanks and good luck.
Peter Smith
Well done. Excellent letter.
Hopefully BF will be clearer next time. Much better to simply say they pay out on day ECV meets. Or say the 'projected' vote will be what Assoc Press say on the night of the election is their projected vote.
Or just actually pay out on who the next president is, as implied by the title of the market?
Betfair seems to love these misleading markets, with titles that imply one thing (such as "will there be a no deal Brexit") that, when you read the small print, are actually about something different - with time limits not mentioned at all in the title, or defining 'no deal' in ways that significantly change the bet.
Some Trump-backers were dismayed, I understand, when their bets were deemed losers on Dec 14th because they were of the view that the means of appeal, protests, legal challenges and the like had some way to run; nor had their man done anything to suggest he was yet ready to concede. Again, I sympathise. Whilst it always appeared exceedingly unlikely any of these protests would overturn the result, I should say that once Betfair had decided not to settle on the date the election was called for Biden, there was no particular logic in them settling on the 14th December since it had no bearing on the 'projected electoral college votes'. The relevance of this date to the political process is that it signifies the point at which projected votes become actual (although even then there are further procedural elements of confirming the next US President with which constitutional experts and some punters are familiar). What Betfair and nobody else can explain is how and why for the purposes of the betting markets the 'actual' date for casting the college votes came to supplant the date of 'projected' votes referred to very clearly in Betfair's market rules. Once the switch from 'projected' to 'actual' was made however there was every reason for Trump-backers to question the finality of the outcome and point to the various appeals, objections and Trump's refusal to concede as evidence that the actual result was still contestable.
In short, once Betfair moved the goalposts the date of market-settlement became unclear, indefinite and open to debate. I might think that Trump has zero chance of being re-elected as President, but I can certainly see why those who backed him to do so feel miffed that Betfair have ruled against them before every conceivable possibility has been exhausted. In fact I do not see how Betfair can remove their grievances without admitting they were wrong to shift the goalposts in the first place.
I do not know what, if anything , the Gambling Commission can or will do about all this, but I nevertheless have conveyed my thoughts in the hope that you can bring these matters to Betfair's attention. At the very least it might encourage them to frame their rules better in future, stick to the rules they have framed, and show greater respect to reasonable complaints from their customers. Anything you can do to bring this about will be much appreciated.
Warm regards, thanks and good luck.
Peter Smith
Well done. Excellent letter.
Hopefully BF will be clearer next time. Much better to simply say they pay out on day ECV meets. Or say the 'projected' vote will be what Assoc Press say on the night of the election is their projected vote.
Or just actually pay out on who the next president is, as implied by the title of the market?
Betfair seems to love these misleading markets, with titles that imply one thing (such as "will there be a no deal Brexit") that, when you read the small print, are actually about something different - with time limits not mentioned at all in the title, or defining 'no deal' in ways that significantly change the bet.
They are often very slapdash in the wording of their markets.
Many on here noted the contradiction between the market title and the rules. In fact most of us were perfectly aware that we were not betting on the next President, but the name to be announced as the winner of the 'projected electoral vote'. It was widely accepted that this could be different to the next President.
One perfectly plausible scenario was that Trump would stand down between Nov 3rd and Jan 20th, in which case the likely Next President would have been Pence or Pelosi. Betfair would nevertheless still have been obliged to pay out on Biden if he had been the 'projected' winner.
Their rules were clear on this point, although whether they would have stuck to them is a completely different matter.
'Slapdash' doesn't feel right to me. I don't believe that the rules of the bet came first and then they casually slapped a title on it.
They are offering markets on the obvious things people want to bet on, like "next president", then very carefully crafting legal wording that often means something different.
Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea
How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
I suspect that you are actually correct. However, the Committee rather than showing Johnson's hand of all the cards, are nervous that he might accidentally fall into no deal Brexit over a handful of mackerel.
That is ultimately the PM's decision.
As it always was.
This is like an incredibly protracted corporate deal, which it is essential for the company to conclude, getting down to a handful of the toughest issues - and then a couple of the non-execs issue a public report criticising your negotiations to date and telling you - and the Board - "Just sign the bloody deal on offer. You will never get anything better."
With whom do you think the shareholders are going to be pissed off?
You might just be over analysing the negotiation process and maybe, over estimating Frost's negotiating ability.
Unless of course the whole charade is a theatrical performance to demonstrate Johnson's genius at snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Not in itself beyond the realms of probability.
Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"
It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.
When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?
It was a deliberate choice
I don’t know if you have school age kids, but having schools closed was massively destructive to their education, mental health and life chances.
Closing everything else to keep schools open would have been a price worth paying
Thanks for the response. I believe poor Covid responses and the financial aftermaths will hurt incumbents across Europe. Therefore, Johnson's Covid performance handicaps the Tories as much as Drakeford's does for Labour. I agree also with @YBarddCwsc that Paul Davies can only be a Labour Trojan horse. The mere fact that Paul and Andrew RT Davies are the faces of the Welsh Conservatives is bad enough, but when they open their mouths the utter nonsense emitted loses vote after vote.
Conservatives most seats is not beyond the realms of possibly, and Drakeford has a few months yet to lower his competence bar still further. There may be a bounce for the Tories with Boris' vaccine (I am surprised that hasn't been seen yet) and his awesome Brexit deal, but for me the stars are not aligning. As a disillusioned Labour voter, I rate Adam Price, but I lent Leanne my vote last time, only for her to attempt a rainbow pact with UKIP and RT.
I was unaware Kirsty was off to pastures new. I really like her.
Yes, the delicately-scented, but very dim, Kirsty Williams is retiring.
The LibDems have chosen William Powell to run in B&R. Powell lives in the constituency (so a better choice than many recent LibDem picks in Wales).
However, Powell has been in trouble for kissing young LibDem activists, so he's not exactly a brilliant choice.
What is it with elderly LibDem grandees?
It is just asking for trouble surrounding them with shaggable, adoring boys and girls.
In future, the LibDems should insist that all their activists weigh 20 stone, be more than unusually plain for their age and stink of bad teeth.
So, I agree with YDoethur that B&R looks a solid Tory gain in the Senedd.
And I suspect the outcome of the elections will be (i) the Don't Votes will easily win, (ii) there will be some snarling & bickering Labour/Plaid coalition installed after the election.
IMO, the best thing for Wales would be if ALL the existing AMs are forced to retire -- most have completely failed and the standard of the existing AMs is abysmally low. Then, we get a completely new set of AMs for ALL parties. They really could hardly be worse.
And this way, we get rid of Neil Hamilton, Mark Reckless, Mark Drakeford, RT and Paul Davies all in one swoop.
This is like an incredibly protracted corporate deal, which it is essential for the company to conclude, getting down to a handful of the toughest issues - and then a couple of the non-execs issue a public report criticising your negotiations to date and telling you - and the Board - "Just sign the bloody deal on offer. You will never get anything better."
With whom do you think the shareholders are going to be pissed off?
If the non-execs are right (and in this example they certainly are) and BoZo doesn't sign it, then the shareholders are going to be pissed at him
Some Trump-backers were dismayed, I understand, when their bets were deemed losers on Dec 14th because they were of the view that the means of appeal, protests, legal challenges and the like had some way to run; nor had their man done anything to suggest he was yet ready to concede. Again, I sympathise. Whilst it always appeared exceedingly unlikely any of these protests would overturn the result, I should say that once Betfair had decided not to settle on the date the election was called for Biden, there was no particular logic in them settling on the 14th December since it had no bearing on the 'projected electoral college votes'. The relevance of this date to the political process is that it signifies the point at which projected votes become actual (although even then there are further procedural elements of confirming the next US President with which constitutional experts and some punters are familiar). What Betfair and nobody else can explain is how and why for the purposes of the betting markets the 'actual' date for casting the college votes came to supplant the date of 'projected' votes referred to very clearly in Betfair's market rules. Once the switch from 'projected' to 'actual' was made however there was every reason for Trump-backers to question the finality of the outcome and point to the various appeals, objections and Trump's refusal to concede as evidence that the actual result was still contestable.
In short, once Betfair moved the goalposts the date of market-settlement became unclear, indefinite and open to debate. I might think that Trump has zero chance of being re-elected as President, but I can certainly see why those who backed him to do so feel miffed that Betfair have ruled against them before every conceivable possibility has been exhausted. In fact I do not see how Betfair can remove their grievances without admitting they were wrong to shift the goalposts in the first place.
I do not know what, if anything , the Gambling Commission can or will do about all this, but I nevertheless have conveyed my thoughts in the hope that you can bring these matters to Betfair's attention. At the very least it might encourage them to frame their rules better in future, stick to the rules they have framed, and show greater respect to reasonable complaints from their customers. Anything you can do to bring this about will be much appreciated.
Warm regards, thanks and good luck.
Peter Smith
A good representation.
You do wonder why BFE didn't simply make the market on who would be installed as the president in January (or at any earlier date if Trump relinquished), rather than produce convoluted rules relating to projected votes. That's what punters thought they were betting on, as the bets for Harris and Pelosi and Pence etc. surely indicate.
Some Trump-backers were dismayed, I understand, when their bets were deemed losers on Dec 14th because they were of the view that the means of appeal, protests, legal challenges and the like had some way to run; nor had their man done anything to suggest he was yet ready to concede. Again, I sympathise. Whilst it always appeared exceedingly unlikely any of these protests would overturn the result, I should say that once Betfair had decided not to settle on the date the election was called for Biden, there was no particular logic in them settling on the 14th December since it had no bearing on the 'projected electoral college votes'. The relevance of this date to the political process is that it signifies the point at which projected votes become actual (although even then there are further procedural elements of confirming the next US President with which constitutional experts and some punters are familiar). What Betfair and nobody else can explain is how and why for the purposes of the betting markets the 'actual' date for casting the college votes came to supplant the date of 'projected' votes referred to very clearly in Betfair's market rules. Once the switch from 'projected' to 'actual' was made however there was every reason for Trump-backers to question the finality of the outcome and point to the various appeals, objections and Trump's refusal to concede as evidence that the actual result was still contestable.
In short, once Betfair moved the goalposts the date of market-settlement became unclear, indefinite and open to debate. I might think that Trump has zero chance of being re-elected as President, but I can certainly see why those who backed him to do so feel miffed that Betfair have ruled against them before every conceivable possibility has been exhausted. In fact I do not see how Betfair can remove their grievances without admitting they were wrong to shift the goalposts in the first place.
I do not know what, if anything , the Gambling Commission can or will do about all this, but I nevertheless have conveyed my thoughts in the hope that you can bring these matters to Betfair's attention. At the very least it might encourage them to frame their rules better in future, stick to the rules they have framed, and show greater respect to reasonable complaints from their customers. Anything you can do to bring this about will be much appreciated.
Warm regards, thanks and good luck.
Peter Smith
A good representation.
You do wonder why BFE didn't simply make the market on who would be installed as the president in January (or at any earlier date if Trump relinquished), rather than produce convoluted rules relating to projected votes. That's what punters thought they were betting on, as the bets for Harris and Pelosi and Pence etc. surely indicate.
IBAS contributed some wise and valuable comments on the US Presidential betting, principally with Betfair in mind but also with a much wider application. They made a very clear distinction between rules for the purposes of betting and the general societal rules embodied in laws and constitutions.
It is entirely reasonable, they said, for betting rules to be defined in a way that provides a quick and clear outcome. This is no doubt what Betfair had in mind when they framed the Next President rules. They were written so that the results could be determined quickly, probably within a few days of the election and without having to wait for Trump to concede or legal challenges to work their way through the system. They were good rules in this respect, although they ought perhaps to have been more explicit as to what they meant by 'projected electoral college votes'.
Betfair's problem arose not from bad rules, but from changing them after the event. I don't think anybody has a problem seeing what was wrong with that, legally and ethically.
I disagree - they are presenting their customers with an apparently clear proposition in bold on their website - bet on "who will be the next president?" - and then defining within the small print how it will be adjudicated in a way that very many of those placing bets will be both unaware and not expecting.
I agree with your proposition that they have taken many of the late backers of Trump for a ride.
I'd also argue that those who backed Pence or Pelosi or Harris, based on perfectly reasonable inferences from the way BFE presented the bet, have also been taken for a ride.
Fair point, Ian. Personally I would want to check the small print if I were betting serious money on a market like Next President, but I agree that not every punter would think to do so.
The title of the market was certainly a misnomer.
Edit: As regards your 'slapdash' point, I'd like to think you are right but if you have ever communicated with these guys I think you would change your mind. Words like shallow, juvenile, reckless, superficial come to mind far more readily than careful and crafty.
Something that has been a article of faith amongst Covid Deniers is that Lockdown has lead to a spike in suicides. They haven't based this on any actual data, it's is just something they have intuited because they don't like lockdown so there must be bad effects.
It takes a fair while to gather data on suicides and the ONS has been cautious about releasing the data due to a backlog of Coroner's cases but we now have a decent look at the previous year, no Q4 data yet obviously. Figures given as raw numbers and age-standardised per 100,000 figure in brackets
5-year average to 2019 Q1 - 1134 (9.5) Q2 - 1195 (9.9) Q3 - 1240 (10.2)
Suicides in general have been trending up over the last 10 years but the key thing is that absolutely massive dip in the 2020 Q2 figures with no "bounce back" in Q3.
Obviously these numbers are subject to revision, 2020's numbers were only recently declared final, but compared to 2019 suicides are down overall so far with lockdown have a positive impact.
Thanks for the response. I believe poor Covid responses and the financial aftermaths will hurt incumbents across Europe. Therefore, Johnson's Covid performance handicaps the Tories as much as Drakeford's does for Labour. I agree also with @YBarddCwsc that Paul Davies can only be a Labour Trojan horse. The mere fact that Paul and Andrew RT Davies are the faces of the Welsh Conservatives is bad enough, but when they open their mouths the utter nonsense emitted loses vote after vote.
Conservatives most seats is not beyond the realms of possibly, and Drakeford has a few months yet to lower his competence bar still further. There may be a bounce for the Tories with Boris' vaccine (I am surprised that hasn't been seen yet) and his awesome Brexit deal, but for me the stars are not aligning. As a disillusioned Labour voter, I rate Adam Price, but I lent Leanne my vote last time, only for her to attempt a rainbow pact with UKIP and RT.
I was unaware Kirsty was off to pastures new. I really like her.
Yes, the delicately-scented, but very dim, Kirsty Williams is retiring.
The LibDems have chosen William Powell to run in B&R. Powell lives in the constituency (so a better choice than many recent LibDem picks in Wales).
However, Powell has been in trouble for kissing young LibDem activists, so he's not exactly a brilliant choice.
What is it with elderly LibDem grandees?
It is just asking for trouble surrounding them with shaggable, adoring boys and girls.
In future, the LibDems should insist that all their activists weigh 20 stone, be more than unusually plain for their age and stink of bad teeth.
So, I agree with YDoethur that B&R looks a solid Tory gain in the Senedd.
And I suspect the outcome of the elections will be (i) the Don't Votes will easily win, (ii) there will be some snarling & bickering Labour/Plaid coalition installed after the election.
IMO, the best thing for Wales would be if ALL the existing AMs are forced to retire -- most have completely failed and the standard of the existing AMs is abysmally low. Then, we get a completely new set of AMs for ALL parties. They really could hardly be worse.
And this way, we get rid of Neil Hamilton, Mark Reckless, Mark Drakeford, RT and Paul Davies all in one swoop.
I remember advocating the same before the last GE, and we'd be much better off had it been done.
You can compare to a football goalscorer market, where most bookies settle according to the Press Association announced result - and any subsequent decision about who the goal is really awarded to is ignored. You might be annoyed if the player you backed is later awarded a goal, but the rules are clear.
Perhaps Betfair, more used to sports betting, had something like this in mind. They could have defined it as projected winner of EC when eg ABC, NBC and Fox News all agree on this, with further rules on how to handle it if they don't all agree. This would avoid having to wait for any court cases, coups, deaths, resignations, alien invasions - but would need to be clearly highlighted to anyone betting.
IMO the phrasing of projected result needs to be read in connection with the next sentence about faithless electors. They’re not going to pay out based on what media companies say, but rather on the certified results from the States, noting who the electors are *supposed* to vote for when the EC meets.
Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"
It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.
When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?
It was a deliberate choice
I don’t know if you have school age kids, but having schools closed was massively destructive to their education, mental health and life chances.
Closing everything else to keep schools open would have been a price worth paying
Yes I have a school age child. I have talked extensively on here about the challenges of having a spouse of the shielding list as well as having a school age child.
You are going to need to produce some cites on the "massively destructive to their mental health" when the only studies that have been done say that school age children were less stressed and more relaxed over lockdown.
Also we didn't close everything else to keep schools open. That would be a decision I could understand. Instead we opened everything and the schools.
Thanks for the response. I believe poor Covid responses and the financial aftermaths will hurt incumbents across Europe. Therefore, Johnson's Covid performance handicaps the Tories as much as Drakeford's does for Labour. I agree also with @YBarddCwsc that Paul Davies can only be a Labour Trojan horse. The mere fact that Paul and Andrew RT Davies are the faces of the Welsh Conservatives is bad enough, but when they open their mouths the utter nonsense emitted loses vote after vote.
Conservatives most seats is not beyond the realms of possibly, and Drakeford has a few months yet to lower his competence bar still further. There may be a bounce for the Tories with Boris' vaccine (I am surprised that hasn't been seen yet) and his awesome Brexit deal, but for me the stars are not aligning. As a disillusioned Labour voter, I rate Adam Price, but I lent Leanne my vote last time, only for her to attempt a rainbow pact with UKIP and RT.
I was unaware Kirsty was off to pastures new. I really like her.
Yes, the delicately-scented, but very dim, Kirsty Williams is retiring.
The LibDems have chosen William Powell to run in B&R. Powell lives in the constituency (so a better choice than many recent LibDem picks in Wales).
However, Powell has been in trouble for kissing young LibDem activists, so he's not exactly a brilliant choice.
What is it with elderly LibDem grandees?
It is just asking for trouble surrounding them with shaggable, adoring boys and girls.
In future, the LibDems should insist that all their activists weigh 20 stone, be more than unusually plain for their age and stink of bad teeth.
So, I agree with YDoethur that B&R looks a solid Tory gain in the Senedd.
And I suspect the outcome of the elections will be (i) the Don't Votes will easily win, (ii) there will be some snarling & bickering Labour/Plaid coalition installed after the election.
IMO, the best thing for Wales would be if ALL the existing AMs are forced to retire -- most have completely failed and the standard of the existing AMs is abysmally low. Then, we get a completely new set of AMs for ALL parties. They really could hardly be worse.
And this way, we get rid of Neil Hamilton, Mark Reckless, Mark Drakeford, RT and Paul Davies all in one swoop.
I remember advocating the same before the last GE, and we'd be much better off had it been done.
You suggested that senior LibDems should be surrounded by unshaggable fatsos?
Something that has been a article of faith amongst Covid Deniers is that Lockdown has lead to a spike in suicides. They haven't based this on any actual data, it's is just something they have intuited because they don't like lockdown so there must be bad effects.
It takes a fair while to gather data on suicides and the ONS has been cautious about releasing the data due to a backlog of Coroner's cases but we now have a decent look at the previous year, no Q4 data yet obviously. Figures given as raw numbers and age-standardised per 100,000 figure in brackets
5-year average to 2019 Q1 - 1134 (9.5) Q2 - 1195 (9.9) Q3 - 1240 (10.2)
Suicides in general have been trending up over the last 10 years but the key thing is that absolutely massive dip in the 2020 Q2 figures with no "bounce back" in Q3.
Obviously these numbers are subject to revision, 2020's numbers were only recently declared final, but compared to 2019 suicides are down overall so far with lockdown have a positive impact.
We can only speculate that the 2020 Q2 numbers would have been materially higher if the Govt. hadn't put in place a mass of financial measures that eased the money worries of many.
Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea
How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
I suspect that you are actually correct. However, the Committee rather than showing Johnson's hand of all the cards, are nervous that he might accidentally fall into no deal Brexit over a handful of mackerel.
That is ultimately the PM's decision.
As it always was.
This is like an incredibly protracted corporate deal, which it is essential for the company to conclude, getting down to a handful of the toughest issues - and then a couple of the non-execs issue a public report criticising your negotiations to date and telling you - and the Board - "Just sign the bloody deal on offer. You will never get anything better."
With whom do you think the shareholders are going to be pissed off?
You might just be over analysing the negotiation process and maybe, over estimating Frost's negotiating ability.
Unless of course the whole charade is a theatrical performance to demonstrate Johnson's genius at snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Not in itself beyond the realms of probability.
"You might just be over analysing the negotiation process"
Possibly. But as a negotiator of 25 years experience doing 9-figure deals - who helped take a company from start-up to the edge of the FTSE 100 in five years - I could just have more insight that many of the gum-bumpers here and in Committee....
Apart from the fact the market is on Betfair what possible reason is there for me to to put all my remaining stake money left on there into the Trump Exit 2 market?
The question is whether their statement now encourages the other side to hold out, sensing (wrongly I think) weakness on our side. I think it does and so gives a push towards your 'disastrous no-deal'.
We are weak
No amount of bluff and bluster from BoZo can hide that
Echos of the Oxford 'King and Country' debate.
Oh dear, the dumbest thing about Brexit apologists is when they try and draw parallels with WW2. There are no parallels. In case you have not noticed war is rather more serious and Bozo is most definitely no Winston Spencer Churchill. Frank Spencer, perhaps.
On your recommendation, I had Fillet Steak tonight. I'm sorry. It didn't cut it.
Oh I'm so sorry you didn't enjoy it. Was it cured for a sufficient length of time? I like mine to be 30-day cured. I coat it with a little olive oil for an hour or two in the fridge then lightly seasoned and straight onto the hot griddle. 2 mins either side max 3 mins.
Horses for courses then. Although I suspect we'd both agree about horse steak. Tends to be very tough. A bit like hippopotamus which I've eaten. Appropriately, as in Greek the latter means 'river horse.'
Tommy Cooper; I tried to have filet steak tonight. I didn't cut it.
I went to the butchers the other day and I bet him 50 quid that he couldn't reach the meat off the top shelf. He said, “No, the steaks are too high."
Very good! Are we getting a Christmas crossword this year?
You can compare to a football goalscorer market, where most bookies settle according to the Press Association announced result - and any subsequent decision about who the goal is really awarded to is ignored. You might be annoyed if the player you backed is later awarded a goal, but the rules are clear.
Perhaps Betfair, more used to sports betting, had something like this in mind. They could have defined it as projected winner of EC when eg ABC, NBC and Fox News all agree on this, with further rules on how to handle it if they don't all agree. This would avoid having to wait for any court cases, coups, deaths, resignations, alien invasions - but would need to be clearly highlighted to anyone betting.
IMO the phrasing of projected result needs to be read in connection with the next sentence about faithless electors. They’re not going to pay out based on what media companies say, but rather on the certified results from the States, noting who the electors are *supposed* to vote for when the EC meets.
Except they didn't settle on the certified results. Those were known well before December 14th.
Apart from the fact the market is on Betfair what possible reason is there for me to to put all my remaining stake money left on there into the Trump Exit 2 market?
The question is whether their statement now encourages the other side to hold out, sensing (wrongly I think) weakness on our side. I think it does and so gives a push towards your 'disastrous no-deal'.
We are weak
No amount of bluff and bluster from BoZo can hide that
We are not.
No amount of bed wetting from you and your ilk will change that.
Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"
It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.
When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?
It was a deliberate choice
I don’t know if you have school age kids, but having schools closed was massively destructive to their education, mental health and life chances.
Closing everything else to keep schools open would have been a price worth paying
Yes I have a school age child. I have talked extensively on here about the challenges of having a spouse of the shielding list as well as having a school age child.
You are going to need to produce some cites on the "massively destructive to their mental health" when the only studies that have been done say that school age children were less stressed and more relaxed over lockdown.
Also we didn't close everything else to keep schools open. That would be a decision I could understand. Instead we opened everything and the schools.
My kids have left school, so no skin in this game. I do think the lockdown has significantly adversely impacted some kids. Some schools have coped very well with remote learning, but others have been rubbish , with the kids doing very little at all. Guess which are the posh kids.
I was doing med school interviews online yesterday. Lots more applicants this year as more straight A's. It will be interesting to see how they cope with first year exams. Seemed like a decent bunch of candidates overall, and some outstanding. Fairly easy to spot the privately educated, lots of tells.
You can compare to a football goalscorer market, where most bookies settle according to the Press Association announced result - and any subsequent decision about who the goal is really awarded to is ignored. You might be annoyed if the player you backed is later awarded a goal, but the rules are clear.
Perhaps Betfair, more used to sports betting, had something like this in mind. They could have defined it as projected winner of EC when eg ABC, NBC and Fox News all agree on this, with further rules on how to handle it if they don't all agree. This would avoid having to wait for any court cases, coups, deaths, resignations, alien invasions - but would need to be clearly highlighted to anyone betting.
IMO the phrasing of projected result needs to be read in connection with the next sentence about faithless electors. They’re not going to pay out based on what media companies say, but rather on the certified results from the States, noting who the electors are *supposed* to vote for when the EC meets.
Absolutely 100% this.
Too much fascination with the word projected and not enough attention to the rest of the T's and C's.
Can't just pretend everything else they wrote didn't exist just because there's a solitary word you think trumps everything else.
You can compare to a football goalscorer market, where most bookies settle according to the Press Association announced result - and any subsequent decision about who the goal is really awarded to is ignored. You might be annoyed if the player you backed is later awarded a goal, but the rules are clear.
Perhaps Betfair, more used to sports betting, had something like this in mind. They could have defined it as projected winner of EC when eg ABC, NBC and Fox News all agree on this, with further rules on how to handle it if they don't all agree. This would avoid having to wait for any court cases, coups, deaths, resignations, alien invasions - but would need to be clearly highlighted to anyone betting.
IMO the phrasing of projected result needs to be read in connection with the next sentence about faithless electors. They’re not going to pay out based on what media companies say, but rather on the certified results from the States, noting who the electors are *supposed* to vote for when the EC meets.
Except they didn't settle on the certified results. Those were known well before December 14th.
Indeed. There’s nothing in the wording that suggested they would wait until the actual EC meeting to settle, in fact the wording referred specifically to “subsequent events, such as faithless electors” that suggested they should have settled before the EC meeting.
I think it was a combination of just how big the market was, that people were still betting heavily on both sides of it, and the worry there were still legal challenges outstanding. It will have ended up at corporate board level with the lawyers involved, and they agreed that the EC meeting would be a fair (to them) time to settle it.
Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"
It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.
When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?
It was a deliberate choice
I don’t know if you have school age kids, but having schools closed was massively destructive to their education, mental health and life chances.
Closing everything else to keep schools open would have been a price worth paying
Yes I have a school age child. I have talked extensively on here about the challenges of having a spouse of the shielding list as well as having a school age child.
You are going to need to produce some cites on the "massively destructive to their mental health" when the only studies that have been done say that school age children were less stressed and more relaxed over lockdown.
Also we didn't close everything else to keep schools open. That would be a decision I could understand. Instead we opened everything and the schools.
The point of my last paragraph is that schools have a large impact on r0, but there are the first - and if necessary only - thing you open. The fact that the government screwed up is a different point
You can compare to a football goalscorer market, where most bookies settle according to the Press Association announced result - and any subsequent decision about who the goal is really awarded to is ignored. You might be annoyed if the player you backed is later awarded a goal, but the rules are clear.
Perhaps Betfair, more used to sports betting, had something like this in mind. They could have defined it as projected winner of EC when eg ABC, NBC and Fox News all agree on this, with further rules on how to handle it if they don't all agree. This would avoid having to wait for any court cases, coups, deaths, resignations, alien invasions - but would need to be clearly highlighted to anyone betting.
IMO the phrasing of projected result needs to be read in connection with the next sentence about faithless electors. They’re not going to pay out based on what media companies say, but rather on the certified results from the States, noting who the electors are *supposed* to vote for when the EC meets.
Except they didn't settle on the certified results. Those were known well before December 14th.
Certification can change until 14 December actually. As of 14 December it is finalised and locked.
"The gambling known as business looks with austere disfavor upon the business known as gambling." Ambrose Bierce.
Agree with Alistair on the header. I don't know who is taking the other side of my betfair bets... or why they are being made. The recent misprice on Brian Rose for Mayor is plausibly his campaign trying to generate a 2nd favourite tag.
There’s at least two, possibly three hotels in Dubai that were built with rooms designed as casinos, with all the cabling in the floor and ceiling, waiting for the day that the government allows them to open. It’s not happened yet!
An old shipmate of mine had the idea of getting an old cruise ship, fitting it out as a casino and mooring it international waters due south of the Greater/Lesser Thumb seaway so cashed up arabs from Manama/Doha/Dubai could visit it on their gin palaces.
The Iranians would probably sink it with a Saccade AShM and say it was an accident.
Wanted to order something online. Found that I couldn't as I was greeted with this message on my chosen product's website:
"As a result of the Brexit, we regret to inform you that we are temporarily unable to accept orders from our UK customers as of Friday, 16 December and until further notice. We hope that economic bridges will be rebuilt soon and we can return to your valued custom again."
I also see that the next time I drive to Ireland all my cheese sandwiches are going to be tossed on arrival. Epic.
Thanks Brexit voters. Just marvellous. Any time you guys want to stop fucking things up for me let me know. No need to wait. Start today.
Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea
How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
I suspect that you are actually correct. However, the Committee rather than showing Johnson's hand of all the cards, are nervous that he might accidentally fall into no deal Brexit over a handful of mackerel.
That is ultimately the PM's decision.
As it always was.
This is like an incredibly protracted corporate deal, which it is essential for the company to conclude, getting down to a handful of the toughest issues - and then a couple of the non-execs issue a public report criticising your negotiations to date and telling you - and the Board - "Just sign the bloody deal on offer. You will never get anything better."
With whom do you think the shareholders are going to be pissed off?
You might just be over analysing the negotiation process and maybe, over estimating Frost's negotiating ability.
Unless of course the whole charade is a theatrical performance to demonstrate Johnson's genius at snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Not in itself beyond the realms of probability.
"You might just be over analysing the negotiation process"
Possibly. But as a negotiator of 25 years experience doing 9-figure deals - who helped take a company from start-up to the edge of the FTSE 100 in five years - I could just have more insight that many of the gum-bumpers here and in Committee....
No offence intended!
I stand by my statements. Frost's negotiating technique seems unnecessarily combative, besides which his hand doesn't seem to be as strong as he believes. My negotiating experience only ever got me into the low six figures, but what I did learn was have all your facts to hand, never antagonise your negotiating partner, always remain courteous, never throw them a curve ball and never overplay your hand unless you are comfortable to walk away.
I suspect from your mini CV you might have been better equipped than Frost to bring back the bacon, and probably several months ago, thereby not spooking Select Committees!
You can compare to a football goalscorer market, where most bookies settle according to the Press Association announced result - and any subsequent decision about who the goal is really awarded to is ignored. You might be annoyed if the player you backed is later awarded a goal, but the rules are clear.
Perhaps Betfair, more used to sports betting, had something like this in mind. They could have defined it as projected winner of EC when eg ABC, NBC and Fox News all agree on this, with further rules on how to handle it if they don't all agree. This would avoid having to wait for any court cases, coups, deaths, resignations, alien invasions - but would need to be clearly highlighted to anyone betting.
IMO the phrasing of projected result needs to be read in connection with the next sentence about faithless electors. They’re not going to pay out based on what media companies say, but rather on the certified results from the States, noting who the electors are *supposed* to vote for when the EC meets.
Except they didn't settle on the certified results. Those were known well before December 14th.
Indeed. There’s nothing in the wording that suggested they would wait until the actual EC meeting to settle, in fact the wording referred specifically to “subsequent events, such as faithless electors” that suggested they should have settled before the EC meeting.
I think it was a combination of just how big the market was, that people were still betting heavily on both sides of it, and the worry there were still legal challenges outstanding. It will have ended up at corporate board level with the lawyers involved, and they agreed that the EC meeting would be a fair (to them) time to settle it.
When they settled the market, and when they closed the market, are different issues. I agree (unusually) with Philip that settling on 14 Dec wasn't unreasonable, given the rules. But they should have closed the market much earlier.
The question is whether their statement now encourages the other side to hold out, sensing (wrongly I think) weakness on our side. I think it does and so gives a push towards your 'disastrous no-deal'.
We are weak
No amount of bluff and bluster from BoZo can hide that
We are not.
No amount of bed wetting from you and your ilk will change that.
You can compare to a football goalscorer market, where most bookies settle according to the Press Association announced result - and any subsequent decision about who the goal is really awarded to is ignored. You might be annoyed if the player you backed is later awarded a goal, but the rules are clear.
Perhaps Betfair, more used to sports betting, had something like this in mind. They could have defined it as projected winner of EC when eg ABC, NBC and Fox News all agree on this, with further rules on how to handle it if they don't all agree. This would avoid having to wait for any court cases, coups, deaths, resignations, alien invasions - but would need to be clearly highlighted to anyone betting.
IMO the phrasing of projected result needs to be read in connection with the next sentence about faithless electors. They’re not going to pay out based on what media companies say, but rather on the certified results from the States, noting who the electors are *supposed* to vote for when the EC meets.
Except they didn't settle on the certified results. Those were known well before December 14th.
Certification can change until 14 December actually. As of 14 December it is finalised and locked.
"Subsequent event". Should Pereiro backers have been able to claim a winning betslip for the 2006 Tour De France ?
Wanted to order something online. Found that I couldn't as I was greeted with this message on my chosen product's website:
"As a result of the Brexit, we regret to inform you that we are temporarily unable to accept orders from our UK customers as of Friday, 16 December and until further notice. We hope that economic bridges will be rebuilt soon and we can return to your valued custom again."
I also see that the next time I drive to Ireland all my cheese sandwiches are going to be tossed on arrival. Epic.
Thanks Brexit voters. Just marvellous. Any time you guys want to stop fucking things up for me let me know. No need to wait. Start today.
Can’t get anything from Amazon uk in Spain it’s all coming from Germany?,
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
Wanted to order something online. Found that I couldn't as I was greeted with this message on my chosen product's website:
"As a result of the Brexit, we regret to inform you that we are temporarily unable to accept orders from our UK customers as of Friday, 16 December and until further notice. We hope that economic bridges will be rebuilt soon and we can return to your valued custom again."
I also see that the next time I drive to Ireland all my cheese sandwiches are going to be tossed on arrival. Epic.
Thanks Brexit voters. Just marvellous. Any time you guys want to stop fucking things up for me let me know. No need to wait. Start today.
I am guessing that a lot of voters are going to run into niggles and hassles large and small, like yours, and suddenly be presented with a practical impact of something they thought would only disadvantage others. It will be interesting to see how this affects public opinion.
Hunt, who was responsible for drawing up the UK’s pandemic preparedness plan. And who would still be leading a minority government with the other Jeremy biting at his heels. That Hunt?
Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"
It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.
When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?
It was a deliberate choice
I don’t know if you have school age kids, but having schools closed was massively destructive to their education, mental health and life chances.
Closing everything else to keep schools open would have been a price worth paying
Yes I have a school age child. I have talked extensively on here about the challenges of having a spouse of the shielding list as well as having a school age child.
You are going to need to produce some cites on the "massively destructive to their mental health" when the only studies that have been done say that school age children were less stressed and more relaxed over lockdown.
Also we didn't close everything else to keep schools open. That would be a decision I could understand. Instead we opened everything and the schools.
My kids have left school, so no skin in this game. I do think the lockdown has significantly adversely impacted some kids. Some schools have coped very well with remote learning, but others have been rubbish , with the kids doing very little at all. Guess which are the posh kids.
I was doing med school interviews online yesterday. Lots more applicants this year as more straight A's. It will be interesting to see how they cope with first year exams. Seemed like a decent bunch of candidates overall, and some outstanding. Fairly easy to spot the privately educated, lots of tells.
Is it part of your interview mandate to try and “spot” the privately educated candidates?
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters".
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
Is the address spelling consistent? That can cause random problems.
There’s at least two, possibly three hotels in Dubai that were built with rooms designed as casinos, with all the cabling in the floor and ceiling, waiting for the day that the government allows them to open. It’s not happened yet!
An old shipmate of mine had the idea of getting an old cruise ship, fitting it out as a casino and mooring it international waters due south of the Greater/Lesser Thumb seaway so cashed up arabs from Manama/Doha/Dubai could visit it on their gin palaces.
The Iranians would probably sink it with a Saccade AShM and say it was an accident.
There’s at least two groups who have seriously considered something similar in the past decade, either with an old liner moored up, or a serviceable one doing day trips from the major ME ports.
Hunt, who was responsible for drawing up the UK’s pandemic preparedness plan. And who would still be leading a minority government with the other Jeremy biting at his heels. That Hunt?
Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"
It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.
When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?
It was a deliberate choice
I don’t know if you have school age kids, but having schools closed was massively destructive to their education, mental health and life chances.
Closing everything else to keep schools open would have been a price worth paying
Yes I have a school age child. I have talked extensively on here about the challenges of having a spouse of the shielding list as well as having a school age child.
You are going to need to produce some cites on the "massively destructive to their mental health" when the only studies that have been done say that school age children were less stressed and more relaxed over lockdown.
Also we didn't close everything else to keep schools open. That would be a decision I could understand. Instead we opened everything and the schools.
My kids have left school, so no skin in this game. I do think the lockdown has significantly adversely impacted some kids. Some schools have coped very well with remote learning, but others have been rubbish , with the kids doing very little at all. Guess which are the posh kids.
I was doing med school interviews online yesterday. Lots more applicants this year as more straight A's. It will be interesting to see how they cope with first year exams. Seemed like a decent bunch of candidates overall, and some outstanding. Fairly easy to spot the privately educated, lots of tells.
Is it part of your interview mandate to try and “spot” the privately educated candidates?
If you read Hunt's comments they are a good deal more nuanced than 'impose tougher restrictions now'
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
If you go on moneysupermaket, you’ll find a bunch of online savings accounts with better rates. Just keep your current account where it is and spread the deposits about.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
You can inspect your credit record directly (or indirectly through the MSE service) and it would be worth doing so just to check there hasn't been some very recent irregular activity.
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
Hunt, who was responsible for drawing up the UK’s pandemic preparedness plan. And who would still be leading a minority government with the other Jeremy biting at his heels. That Hunt?
Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"
It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.
When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?
It was a deliberate choice
I don’t know if you have school age kids, but having schools closed was massively destructive to their education, mental health and life chances.
Closing everything else to keep schools open would have been a price worth paying
Yes I have a school age child. I have talked extensively on here about the challenges of having a spouse of the shielding list as well as having a school age child.
You are going to need to produce some cites on the "massively destructive to their mental health" when the only studies that have been done say that school age children were less stressed and more relaxed over lockdown.
Also we didn't close everything else to keep schools open. That would be a decision I could understand. Instead we opened everything and the schools.
My kids have left school, so no skin in this game. I do think the lockdown has significantly adversely impacted some kids. Some schools have coped very well with remote learning, but others have been rubbish , with the kids doing very little at all. Guess which are the posh kids.
I was doing med school interviews online yesterday. Lots more applicants this year as more straight A's. It will be interesting to see how they cope with first year exams. Seemed like a decent bunch of candidates overall, and some outstanding. Fairly easy to spot the privately educated, lots of tells.
Is it part of your interview mandate to try and “spot” the privately educated candidates?
If you read Hunt's comments they are a good deal more nuanced than 'impose tougher restrictions now'
Sorry I messed up the quoting there and somehow got another convo included in my reply to foxy
Problem gambling is something I hadn't come across before until one day a couple of years ago someone close to me called and asked if we could meet. Their partner had gambled £29,000. It was apparently a simple thing that could be done on a mobile phone. I wasn't really interested in the mechanics. Apparently he had been a bit depressed and it quickly mounted up. He had and has a good job. I took the view that it was only money and it could be sorted. Their relationship was a matter for them and as far as I know it's never happened again. But I never thought to blame the online bookies whoever they were or whatever the game they had peddled but the big question for me was how he managed to get that sort of credit so easily
My friend with the gambling problem is dead now, dying at the age of 50 from his other vice of smoking.
I knew him from school, his family being farmworkers, who lived in a mobile home in a field with no plumbing. He left school to work in a tractor repair shop aged 16. The poorest family that I have ever known personally.
He was intelligent, and while the rest of our group carried on at school, he was the one earning so the only one with money. We occasionally would have the odd poker game, but his real addiction was fruit machines. Each Friday and Saturday night he would buy some ciggies and put his wages in the fruit machine. He didn't drink or take drugs like the rest of us, so selective in his addictions. Then he would live off his girlfriend for a week, before his next paypacket, pay her back, then straight to the fruit machines again. It was a xsource of constant arguments between them, though he was a kind and gentle soul otherwise. This went on for some years before I went abroad and lost touch for a few decades.
Internet gambling is so accessible and instant that it would be catnip to such a personality.
I would say it was up to him how he lived his life. It is up to the Government how it regulates Gambling.
On the whole, games where the punter has no chance should be limited to very small stakes. Fruit machines would be a good example. So would a lot of internet gambling, but not where there is a significant skill element and it is possible to show a profit. Most political betting would qualify, as would most sports as long as bookmakers do not close accounts purely on the grounds that the punter is too successful.
Interesting Header. I have no qualms about betting with bookies or exchanges. But what I never do is leg over someone I know (incl on here). For example, do a bet at evens with somebody when I know for a fact the fair value of what I'm backing is heavily odds on. That is not 'smug city' for me.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
With the rates you are getting, is it worth the hassle vs parking it all at National Savings?
Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"
It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.
When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?
It was a deliberate choice
I don’t know if you have school age kids, but having schools closed was massively destructive to their education, mental health and life chances.
Closing everything else to keep schools open would have been a price worth paying
Yes I have a school age child. I have talked extensively on here about the challenges of having a spouse of the shielding list as well as having a school age child.
You are going to need to produce some cites on the "massively destructive to their mental health" when the only studies that have been done say that school age children were less stressed and more relaxed over lockdown.
Also we didn't close everything else to keep schools open. That would be a decision I could understand. Instead we opened everything and the schools.
The summer holidays should have been the perfect chance to drive the virus to near extinction. Maybe bring them forward a bit to and sync them up across the UK, as home learning wasn't very effective anyway especially for younger children. Continue the lockdown through the holidays except for dropping the restrictions on outdoor exercise. And close the airports for all but the most essential travel.
That would have brought the virus down to a level where we could then throw the kitchen sink at each local outbreak, as New Zealand and Australia are doing.
Open much more carefully, with schools first, leaving enough time between reopening steps to get data rather than do it on a predetermined schedule. We could have something near normal now.
But no, we and the rest of Europe declared premature victory, opened everything in quick succession, actively encouraged people to go to restaurants and on holidays, and ended up in much the same place we were in March, only with less willingness to follow rules.
Apart from the fact the market is on Betfair what possible reason is there for me to to put all my remaining stake money left on there into the Trump Exit 2 market?
Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"
It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.
When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?
It was a deliberate choice
I don’t know if you have school age kids, but having schools closed was massively destructive to their education, mental health and life chances.
Closing everything else to keep schools open would have been a price worth paying
Yes I have a school age child. I have talked extensively on here about the challenges of having a spouse of the shielding list as well as having a school age child.
You are going to need to produce some cites on the "massively destructive to their mental health" when the only studies that have been done say that school age children were less stressed and more relaxed over lockdown.
Also we didn't close everything else to keep schools open. That would be a decision I could understand. Instead we opened everything and the schools.
The point of my last paragraph is that schools have a large impact on r0, but there are the first - and if necessary only - thing you open. The fact that the government screwed up is a different point
Well indeed, the point is not that schools were opened. It is that schools were opened and then the government went to inordinate lengths to pretend opening schools has no effect on R which even the most cursory glance at the data shows to be nonsense.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
With the rates you are getting, is it worth the hassle vs parking it all at National Savings?
"The gambling known as business looks with austere disfavor upon the business known as gambling." Ambrose Bierce.
Agree with Alistair on the header. I don't know who is taking the other side of my betfair bets... or why they are being made. The recent misprice on Brian Rose for Mayor is plausibly his campaign trying to generate a 2nd favourite tag.
The Brian Rose price is as mysterious as the Le Pen price. I know sod all about the London Mayor race but I have went and laid Rose much like I knew sod all about the French Presidential race but I backed Macron in round 2.
Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"
It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.
When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?
It was a deliberate choice
I don’t know if you have school age kids, but having schools closed was massively destructive to their education, mental health and life chances.
Closing everything else to keep schools open would have been a price worth paying
Yes I have a school age child. I have talked extensively on here about the challenges of having a spouse of the shielding list as well as having a school age child.
You are going to need to produce some cites on the "massively destructive to their mental health" when the only studies that have been done say that school age children were less stressed and more relaxed over lockdown.
Also we didn't close everything else to keep schools open. That would be a decision I could understand. Instead we opened everything and the schools.
The summer holidays should have been the perfect chance to drive the virus to near extinction. Maybe bring them forward a bit to and sync them up across the UK, as home learning wasn't very effective anyway especially for younger children. Continue the lockdown through the holidays except for dropping the restrictions on outdoor exercise. And close the airports for all but the most essential travel.
That would have brought the virus down to a level where we could then throw the kitchen sink at each local outbreak, as New Zealand and Australia are doing.
Open much more carefully, with schools first, leaving enough time between reopening steps to get data rather than do it on a predetermined schedule. We could have something near normal now.
But no, we and the rest of Europe declared premature victory, opened everything in quick succession, actively encouraged people to go to restaurants and on holidays, and ended up in much the same place we were in March, only with less willingness to follow rules.
It is now the middle of summer in Australia and New Zealand. Not winter.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
With the rates you are getting, is it worth the hassle vs parking it all at National Savings?
Lol. Most NS&I rates are now 0.01%!
Premium bonds are fine at 1% and part of National Savings. Takes time to beat that without extra risk.
Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"
It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.
When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?
It was a deliberate choice
I don’t know if you have school age kids, but having schools closed was massively destructive to their education, mental health and life chances.
Closing everything else to keep schools open would have been a price worth paying
Yes I have a school age child. I have talked extensively on here about the challenges of having a spouse of the shielding list as well as having a school age child.
You are going to need to produce some cites on the "massively destructive to their mental health" when the only studies that have been done say that school age children were less stressed and more relaxed over lockdown.
Also we didn't close everything else to keep schools open. That would be a decision I could understand. Instead we opened everything and the schools.
My kids have left school, so no skin in this game. I do think the lockdown has significantly adversely impacted some kids. Some schools have coped very well with remote learning, but others have been rubbish , with the kids doing very little at all. Guess which are the posh kids.
I was doing med school interviews online yesterday. Lots more applicants this year as more straight A's. It will be interesting to see how they cope with first year exams. Seemed like a decent bunch of candidates overall, and some outstanding. Fairly easy to spot the privately educated, lots of tells.
Is it part of your interview mandate to try and “spot” the privately educated candidates?
To an extent, yes. One thing that we assess is motivation, persistence, and drive to overcome obstacles. In order to do so, we need to get some understanding of the obstacles that they have faced, and the opportunities that were available to them.
The report this week on social mobility and university entrance was particularly damning of privilege and medical school entrance.
Problem gambling is something I hadn't come across before until one day a couple of years ago someone close to me called and asked if we could meet. Their partner had gambled £29,000. It was apparently a simple thing that could be done on a mobile phone. I wasn't really interested in the mechanics. Apparently he had been a bit depressed and it quickly mounted up. He had and has a good job. I took the view that it was only money and it could be sorted. Their relationship was a matter for them and as far as I know it's never happened again. But I never thought to blame the online bookies whoever they were or whatever the game they had peddled but the big question for me was how he managed to get that sort of credit so easily
My friend with the gambling problem is dead now, dying at the age of 50 from his other vice of smoking.
I knew him from school, his family being farmworkers, who lived in a mobile home in a field with no plumbing. He left school to work in a tractor repair shop aged 16. The poorest family that I have ever known personally.
He was intelligent, and while the rest of our group carried on at school, he was the one earning so the only one with money. We occasionally would have the odd poker game, but his real addiction was fruit machines. Each Friday and Saturday night he would buy some ciggies and put his wages in the fruit machine. He didn't drink or take drugs like the rest of us, so selective in his addictions. Then he would live off his girlfriend for a week, before his next paypacket, pay her back, then straight to the fruit machines again. It was a xsource of constant arguments between them, though he was a kind and gentle soul otherwise. This went on for some years before I went abroad and lost touch for a few decades.
Internet gambling is so accessible and instant that it would be catnip to such a personality.
Though I know of addictive gambling and I agree that your story sounds more typical if my brush with it told me anything it's that that's not what it was. When the story was tearfully poured out I was terrified that he'd got this terrible 'addiction' about which I knew little. But I'm guessing it was more naive than that and it was very brief.
Apparently a few of his friends played the same game(?) and my interest (his partner) and the partners of these other guys thought nothing of it. It was just fun. No real money involved. Maybe he was just unlucky because in no time there was the big confession and they had to remortgage the house. I felt it was an expensive mistake and not an addiction and I was grateful for that.
Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"
It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.
When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?
It was a deliberate choice
I don’t know if you have school age kids, but having schools closed was massively destructive to their education, mental health and life chances.
Closing everything else to keep schools open would have been a price worth paying
Yes I have a school age child. I have talked extensively on here about the challenges of having a spouse of the shielding list as well as having a school age child.
You are going to need to produce some cites on the "massively destructive to their mental health" when the only studies that have been done say that school age children were less stressed and more relaxed over lockdown.
Also we didn't close everything else to keep schools open. That would be a decision I could understand. Instead we opened everything and the schools.
The point of my last paragraph is that schools have a large impact on r0, but there are the first - and if necessary only - thing you open. The fact that the government screwed up is a different point
Well indeed, the point is not that schools were opened. It is that schools were opened and then the government went to inordinate lengths to pretend opening schools has no effect on R which even the most cursory glance at the data shows to be nonsense.
Covid is no real danger to young people. That being the case, there is surely no reason whatever to deny them the human right to a good and uninterrupted education.
"The gambling known as business looks with austere disfavor upon the business known as gambling." Ambrose Bierce.
Agree with Alistair on the header. I don't know who is taking the other side of my betfair bets... or why they are being made. The recent misprice on Brian Rose for Mayor is plausibly his campaign trying to generate a 2nd favourite tag.
The Brian Rose price is as mysterious as the Le Pen price. I know sod all about the London Mayor race but I have went and laid Rose much like I knew sod all about the French Presidential race but I backed Macron in round 2.
It isn't mysterious. There isn't much money in the market for minor candidates, so him or somebody close to him sticks on some decent money and it drives the price right down.
It is all part of his grift. He made a £1 million out of his last crowd sourcing "scheme", so he has plenty of cash to do so. He is just trying to repeat the same again with his new donation led scheme.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
Experian are bad news and in my opinion a rip-off. A few years ago, I also wanted to open a new bank account but this was blocked by Experian. I did pay to find out why. They said I had a debt of 540 pounds with British Gas. I didn´t of course. My gas bills never came anywhere near that in any month. British Gas had never asked me for any such sum.
Apart for that, my credit with Experian would have been 900 points.
This was not a problem, as I didn´t need a loan, and I already had a bank account (albeit a bit unsatisfactory). I did not settle the alleged debt with British Gas. It just time expired with Experian after a matter of years. But Experian are rubbish.
I wonder what comments the Tory supporters and other bankers will make about this.
On your recommendation, I had Fillet Steak tonight. I'm sorry. It didn't cut it.
Oh I'm so sorry you didn't enjoy it. Was it cured for a sufficient length of time? I like mine to be 30-day cured. I coat it with a little olive oil for an hour or two in the fridge then lightly seasoned and straight onto the hot griddle. 2 mins either side max 3 mins.
Horses for courses then. Although I suspect we'd both agree about horse steak. Tends to be very tough. A bit like hippopotamus which I've eaten. Appropriately, as in Greek the latter means 'river horse.'
Tommy Cooper; I tried to have filet steak tonight. I didn't cut it.
I went to the butchers the other day and I bet him 50 quid that he couldn't reach the meat off the top shelf. He said, “No, the steaks are too high."
Very good! Are we getting a Christmas crossword this year?
With regards to Marquee's snarl about the Brexit committee - surely Benn saying what is self-evident upsetting people like you IS the story.
In diplomacy world you can negotiate up until the deadline which is New Year's Eve. In trading world the deadline is in the past. No deal was agreed so no deal is in effect. There is a small window of opportunity to try and shift stuff across the border before the threatened tariffs kick in and before the real standards and customs checks start. Combine that with the impacts of Covid and the usual logistical challenge of Christmas and our borders are essentially under siege.
Here's the key point. For days now we have seen vast queues of vehicles heading both for the channel AND the Irish Sea, with a similar queue in France. When these vehicles arrive at the port they have to do no paperwork. No standards checks. No customs inspections. I'm sure that processing time will have slowed a little from the usual couple of minutes but its still fast when you eventually get there. At an external EU border with full customs the checks take an average of 45 minutes. Which is why the queues often are 20 hours plus on either side of the border.
We can't take back control of the French border and the Kent queues are for vehicles which will be checked and inspected in France. Our own border needs emergency funding to try to be ready for JULY - Dover asked for £33m and was given one-THOUSANDTH of the funds - £33k. Saying that we are not ready for something which has already been actualised and is causing utter chaos is like pointing at the blue sky and correctly saying it is blue. Hardly something for Brexity alt-fact people to get upset about yet upset they are.
EU trucks will largely not be coming to the UK in few weeks. Drivers get paid by the kilometre, they don't get paid when sat in endless queues. If you go on Twitter you will see photos of signs on EU based trucks saying that they do not serve the UK. That is the new reality - we have cut ourselves off from our main supply chain counterparty. Nor can we sign a last minute EU deal to waive all tariffs and avoid the chaos. The trucks will still have to stop for inspection and paperwork. An average of 45 minues vs the current 2 minutes. Which would tie vehicles up in day long queues if the drivers and the logistics firms were stupid enough to send vehicles which they aren't.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
If you have that much in savings, you should consider other investments. Current interest rates are negligible. Some low risk equities for example, unless you are anticipating spending the money soon.
Problem gambling is something I hadn't come across before until one day a couple of years ago someone close to me called and asked if we could meet. Their partner had gambled £29,000. It was apparently a simple thing that could be done on a mobile phone. I wasn't really interested in the mechanics. Apparently he had been a bit depressed and it quickly mounted up. He had and has a good job. I took the view that it was only money and it could be sorted. Their relationship was a matter for them and as far as I know it's never happened again. But I never thought to blame the online bookies whoever they were or whatever the game they had peddled but the big question for me was how he managed to get that sort of credit so easily
My friend with the gambling problem is dead now, dying at the age of 50 from his other vice of smoking.
I knew him from school, his family being farmworkers, who lived in a mobile home in a field with no plumbing. He left school to work in a tractor repair shop aged 16. The poorest family that I have ever known personally.
He was intelligent, and while the rest of our group carried on at school, he was the one earning so the only one with money. We occasionally would have the odd poker game, but his real addiction was fruit machines. Each Friday and Saturday night he would buy some ciggies and put his wages in the fruit machine. He didn't drink or take drugs like the rest of us, so selective in his addictions. Then he would live off his girlfriend for a week, before his next paypacket, pay her back, then straight to the fruit machines again. It was a xsource of constant arguments between them, though he was a kind and gentle soul otherwise. This went on for some years before I went abroad and lost touch for a few decades.
Internet gambling is so accessible and instant that it would be catnip to such a personality.
I would say it was up to him how he lived his life. It is up to the Government how it regulates Gambling.
On the whole, games where the punter has no chance should be limited to very small stakes. Fruit machines would be a good example. So would a lot of internet gambling, but not where there is a significant skill element and it is possible to show a profit. Most political betting would qualify, as would most sports as long as bookmakers do not close accounts purely on the grounds that the punter is too successful.
Yes, there should be a distinction between games of skill or judgement. Agreed.
I'd also stop throwing around the term addict to describe anyone who gets in over their head. Sometimes these are desperate people who, having lost more than they can afford, see their only way out to be placing more and more bets, often termed "chasing". Similarly, someone who regularly loses their pay-packet the first Saturday after pay day might be misguided or even damn stupid but is probably not addicted. It is not that these latter groups do not need or deserve help but that the nature of that help is likely to be different from that for the true addict.
You can compare to a football goalscorer market, where most bookies settle according to the Press Association announced result - and any subsequent decision about who the goal is really awarded to is ignored. You might be annoyed if the player you backed is later awarded a goal, but the rules are clear.
Perhaps Betfair, more used to sports betting, had something like this in mind. They could have defined it as projected winner of EC when eg ABC, NBC and Fox News all agree on this, with further rules on how to handle it if they don't all agree. This would avoid having to wait for any court cases, coups, deaths, resignations, alien invasions - but would need to be clearly highlighted to anyone betting.
IMO the phrasing of projected result needs to be read in connection with the next sentence about faithless electors. They’re not going to pay out based on what media companies say, but rather on the certified results from the States, noting who the electors are *supposed* to vote for when the EC meets.
Except they didn't settle on the certified results. Those were known well before December 14th.
Certification can change until 14 December actually. As of 14 December it is finalised and locked.
"Subsequent event". Should Pereiro backers have been able to claim a winning betslip for the 2006 Tour De France ?
You can compare to a football goalscorer market, where most bookies settle according to the Press Association announced result - and any subsequent decision about who the goal is really awarded to is ignored. You might be annoyed if the player you backed is later awarded a goal, but the rules are clear.
Perhaps Betfair, more used to sports betting, had something like this in mind. They could have defined it as projected winner of EC when eg ABC, NBC and Fox News all agree on this, with further rules on how to handle it if they don't all agree. This would avoid having to wait for any court cases, coups, deaths, resignations, alien invasions - but would need to be clearly highlighted to anyone betting.
IMO the phrasing of projected result needs to be read in connection with the next sentence about faithless electors. They’re not going to pay out based on what media companies say, but rather on the certified results from the States, noting who the electors are *supposed* to vote for when the EC meets.
Except they didn't settle on the certified results. Those were known well before December 14th.
Certification can change until 14 December actually. As of 14 December it is finalised and locked.
"Subsequent event". Should Pereiro backers have been able to claim a winning betslip for the 2006 Tour De France ?
IBAS made the point that nobody suggested that winning bets on Lance Armstrong's Tour de France win in 1999 should be returned when the result was voided many years later. They made a very clear distinction between rules for betting purposes, and subsequent events.
Without such a distinction, serious betting would become impractical.
On your recommendation, I had Fillet Steak tonight. I'm sorry. It didn't cut it.
Oh I'm so sorry you didn't enjoy it. Was it cured for a sufficient length of time? I like mine to be 30-day cured. I coat it with a little olive oil for an hour or two in the fridge then lightly seasoned and straight onto the hot griddle. 2 mins either side max 3 mins.
Horses for courses then. Although I suspect we'd both agree about horse steak. Tends to be very tough. A bit like hippopotamus which I've eaten. Appropriately, as in Greek the latter means 'river horse.'
Tommy Cooper; I tried to have filet steak tonight. I didn't cut it.
I went to the butchers the other day and I bet him 50 quid that he couldn't reach the meat off the top shelf. He said, “No, the steaks are too high."
Very good! Are we getting a Christmas crossword this year?
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
I'm not an expert in this area of finance but I suppose its possible that clients such as yourself don't make banks much money. Or any money, given where rates are. Access to liquidity may be extremely ample and they like people they can charge high rates of interest.
|ISAs are good but remember that many markets are very fully valued right now so have a ponder. Even so, dividends are tax free (I think).
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
You can inspect your credit record directly (or indirectly through the MSE service) and it would be worth doing so just to check there hasn't been some very recent irregular activity.
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
'Three-figure income'?
I checked - still excellent. The only negative points listed are that they don't think i'm on the electoral register (I am, but not the public one) and I don't have a mortgage. (3-figure - £125K.)
NS&I may be the answer, but the main purpose of the savings is to help a vulnerable relative to buy a house so I can't tie them down. When I klast looked the NS&I schemes had changed so you had to tie down for 2 years. Hadn't thought of premium bonds though.
"The gambling known as business looks with austere disfavor upon the business known as gambling." Ambrose Bierce.
Agree with Alistair on the header. I don't know who is taking the other side of my betfair bets... or why they are being made. The recent misprice on Brian Rose for Mayor is plausibly his campaign trying to generate a 2nd favourite tag.
The Brian Rose price is as mysterious as the Le Pen price. I know sod all about the London Mayor race but I have went and laid Rose much like I knew sod all about the French Presidential race but I backed Macron in round 2.
That can work well, betting on something you are not close to. Ideally you want the wood AND the trees, but if it's a choice give me the wood every time.
On the ethics of gambling, it is an addictive process like consuming too much alcohol, tobacco or sugar. There are certainly those harmed, a small percentage significantly, so regulation, protection and support is needed. We could do better on all three, fixing the FOBTs should have been a unanimous no brainer rather than anything controversial for example.
But compared to the rest of our society and economy, how unethical is it really? Utilities overcharging customers by 30-100% each year unless they move companies, car mechanics inventing non existent faults to repair, supermarkets and fast food places pushing unhealthy addictive food, banks pushing high margin low use financial derivatives, the arms industry, flying and the impact on the environment - I could go on and on.
I would say the majority of our economy is similarly unethical to gambling.
The really unethical thing about the gambling industry is that they stop consistently successful gamblers from betting.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
You can inspect your credit record directly (or indirectly through the MSE service) and it would be worth doing so just to check there hasn't been some very recent irregular activity.
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
'Three-figure income'?
I checked - still excellent. The only negative points listed are that they don't think i'm on the electoral register (I am, but not the public one) and I don't have a mortgage. (3-figure - £125K.)
NS&I may be the answer, but the main purpose of the savings is to help a vulnerable relative to buy a house so I can't tie them down. When I klast looked the NS&I schemes had changed so you had to tie down for 2 years. Hadn't thought of premium bonds though.
Anyway, thanks everyone!
Government have recently massively slashed premium bond pay outs and also NS&I saving rates.
With regards to Marquee's snarl about the Brexit committee - surely Benn saying what is self-evident upsetting people like you IS the story.
In diplomacy world you can negotiate up until the deadline which is New Year's Eve. In trading world the deadline is in the past. No deal was agreed so no deal is in effect. There is a small window of opportunity to try and shift stuff across the border before the threatened tariffs kick in and before the real standards and customs checks start. Combine that with the impacts of Covid and the usual logistical challenge of Christmas and our borders are essentially under siege.
Here's the key point. For days now we have seen vast queues of vehicles heading both for the channel AND the Irish Sea, with a similar queue in France. When these vehicles arrive at the port they have to do no paperwork. No standards checks. No customs inspections. I'm sure that processing time will have slowed a little from the usual couple of minutes but its still fast when you eventually get there. At an external EU border with full customs the checks take an average of 45 minutes. Which is why the queues often are 20 hours plus on either side of the border.
We can't take back control of the French border and the Kent queues are for vehicles which will be checked and inspected in France. Our own border needs emergency funding to try to be ready for JULY - Dover asked for £33m and was given one-THOUSANDTH of the funds - £33k. Saying that we are not ready for something which has already been actualised and is causing utter chaos is like pointing at the blue sky and correctly saying it is blue. Hardly something for Brexity alt-fact people to get upset about yet upset they are.
EU trucks will largely not be coming to the UK in few weeks. Drivers get paid by the kilometre, they don't get paid when sat in endless queues. If you go on Twitter you will see photos of signs on EU based trucks saying that they do not serve the UK. That is the new reality - we have cut ourselves off from our main supply chain counterparty. Nor can we sign a last minute EU deal to waive all tariffs and avoid the chaos. The trucks will still have to stop for inspection and paperwork. An average of 45 minues vs the current 2 minutes. Which would tie vehicles up in day long queues if the drivers and the logistics firms were stupid enough to send vehicles which they aren't.
So enjoy this last Christmas.
Dover's error was not to involve Chris Grayling, he seems to be able to access Government money for the port authorities he represents.
On your recommendation, I had Fillet Steak tonight. I'm sorry. It didn't cut it.
Oh I'm so sorry you didn't enjoy it. Was it cured for a sufficient length of time? I like mine to be 30-day cured. I coat it with a little olive oil for an hour or two in the fridge then lightly seasoned and straight onto the hot griddle. 2 mins either side max 3 mins.
Horses for courses then. Although I suspect we'd both agree about horse steak. Tends to be very tough. A bit like hippopotamus which I've eaten. Appropriately, as in Greek the latter means 'river horse.'
Tommy Cooper; I tried to have filet steak tonight. I didn't cut it.
I went to the butchers the other day and I bet him 50 quid that he couldn't reach the meat off the top shelf. He said, “No, the steaks are too high."
Very good! Are we getting a Christmas crossword this year?
Hi Sandpit. Yes. It's oven ready!
Fantastic. I look forward to not getting any of the cryptic answers!
On your recommendation, I had Fillet Steak tonight. I'm sorry. It didn't cut it.
Oh I'm so sorry you didn't enjoy it. Was it cured for a sufficient length of time? I like mine to be 30-day cured. I coat it with a little olive oil for an hour or two in the fridge then lightly seasoned and straight onto the hot griddle. 2 mins either side max 3 mins.
Horses for courses then. Although I suspect we'd both agree about horse steak. Tends to be very tough. A bit like hippopotamus which I've eaten. Appropriately, as in Greek the latter means 'river horse.'
Tommy Cooper; I tried to have filet steak tonight. I didn't cut it.
I went to the butchers the other day and I bet him 50 quid that he couldn't reach the meat off the top shelf. He said, “No, the steaks are too high."
Very good! Are we getting a Christmas crossword this year?
How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
Once again Brexiteers outraged by a statement of the bleeding obvious.
We need a deal. It must be done now.
Neither of these statements is controversial, unless your head is up your ass.
But "it must be done now" is only because the Johnson/Cummings/Gove dream team refuse to even consider an additional extension due to the covid crisis.
Any half rational person facing the situation we are in would roll these discussions on until this time next year. It would still be completed well in time for 2024 when Johnson faces the voters again.
We needed a deal months ago. Even if one materialises tomorrow Q1 21 will be fucked.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
With the rates you are getting, is it worth the hassle vs parking it all at National Savings?
Lol. Most NS&I rates are now 0.01%!
Premium bonds are fine at 1% and part of National Savings. Takes time to beat that without extra risk.
True - although there's a skew in the actual rates people receive, due to the need to fund the very large prizes, and the median annual return for anyone with up to a few £thousand in PBs is actually zero. With a £5,000 investment you have an average chance of matching the better rates on offer from savings accounts.
For larger sums, of the sort the OP is considering, you're right that PBs might actually make sense.
Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"
It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.
When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?
It was a deliberate choice
I don’t know if you have school age kids, but having schools closed was massively destructive to their education, mental health and life chances.
Closing everything else to keep schools open would have been a price worth paying
Yes I have a school age child. I have talked extensively on here about the challenges of having a spouse of the shielding list as well as having a school age child.
You are going to need to produce some cites on the "massively destructive to their mental health" when the only studies that have been done say that school age children were less stressed and more relaxed over lockdown.
Also we didn't close everything else to keep schools open. That would be a decision I could understand. Instead we opened everything and the schools.
Toffs are not used to having to suffer their children for more than an hour or two max a week, I think he means massively destructive to him having them around and the staff not keeping them out of the way. Have a look at The Crown and you will see the problems that arise when toffs have to see their children for more than 5 minutes.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
You can inspect your credit record directly (or indirectly through the MSE service) and it would be worth doing so just to check there hasn't been some very recent irregular activity.
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
'Three-figure income'?
I checked - still excellent. The only negative points listed are that they don't think i'm on the electoral register (I am, but not the public one) and I don't have a mortgage. (3-figure - £125K.)
NS&I may be the answer, but the main purpose of the savings is to help a vulnerable relative to buy a house so I can't tie them down. When I klast looked the NS&I schemes had changed so you had to tie down for 2 years. Hadn't thought of premium bonds though.
Anyway, thanks everyone!
Government have recently massively slashed premium bond pay outs and also NS&I saving rates.
PBs were cut, but not by so much. My guess is that NS&I know they have lots of inertia holders - like my mother who, despite modest total savings, has always held a lot of PBs, going back years. If they slashed PB rates dramatically and prize winnings dried up for the larger holders, they could lose people they'll never get back.
Elsewhere NS&I rates are laughable. Someone there must see a difference between paying 0.1% and 0.01%; to customers it just looks like they are having a laugh.
On the ethics of gambling, it is an addictive process like consuming too much alcohol, tobacco or sugar. There are certainly those harmed, a small percentage significantly, so regulation, protection and support is needed. We could do better on all three, fixing the FOBTs should have been a unanimous no brainer rather than anything controversial for example.
But compared to the rest of our society and economy, how unethical is it really? Utilities overcharging customers by 30-100% each year unless they move companies, car mechanics inventing non existent faults to repair, supermarkets and fast food places pushing unhealthy addictive food, banks pushing high margin low use financial derivatives, the arms industry, flying and the impact on the environment - I could go on and on.
I would say the majority of our economy is similarly unethical to gambling.
The really unethical thing about the gambling industry is that they stop consistently successful gamblers from betting.
That was precisely the view of the chap at the Gambling Commission I spoke to recently.
He was at pains to emphasise it was a personal view, but I bet it's fairly widely held within the organisation.
A curious thing on which maybe finance people here can advise. My savings are sufficient that it seems prudent to spread them over 3 bank accounts instead of 2, because of the £85K guarantee limit. I always pay off my credit card, have an impeccable credit history, a three-figure income and a 674 ("excellent") Experian credit rating. So I popped in an application to Virgin for a current account, and was turned down "on advice from Experian on your credit rating and other matters". I wasn't asking them for any kind of credit or overdraft - I simply want to give them £85K.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
You can inspect your credit record directly (or indirectly through the MSE service) and it would be worth doing so just to check there hasn't been some very recent irregular activity.
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
'Three-figure income'?
I checked - still excellent. The only negative points listed are that they don't think i'm on the electoral register (I am, but not the public one) and I don't have a mortgage. (3-figure - £125K.)
NS&I may be the answer, but the main purpose of the savings is to help a vulnerable relative to buy a house so I can't tie them down. When I klast looked the NS&I schemes had changed so you had to tie down for 2 years. Hadn't thought of premium bonds though.
Anyway, thanks everyone!
I think the problem may be the electoral register snafu. (Relates to money laundering checks.)
I`d look into this if I were you. Write to Experian.
Comments
No amount of bluff and bluster from BoZo can hide that
Many on here noted the contradiction between the market title and the rules. In fact most of us were perfectly aware that we were not betting on the next President, but the name to be announced as the winner of the 'projected electoral vote'. It was widely accepted that this could be different to the next President.
One perfectly plausible scenario was that Trump would stand down between Nov 3rd and Jan 20th, in which case the likely Next President would have been Pence or Pelosi. Betfair would nevertheless still have been obliged to pay out on Biden if he had been the 'projected' winner.
Their rules were clear on this point, although whether they would have stuck to them is a completely different matter.
But compared to the rest of our society and economy, how unethical is it really? Utilities overcharging customers by 30-100% each year unless they move companies, car mechanics inventing non existent faults to repair, supermarkets and fast food places pushing unhealthy addictive food, banks pushing high margin low use financial derivatives, the arms industry, flying and the impact on the environment - I could go on and on.
I would say the majority of our economy is similarly unethical to gambling.
Actually, probably not the dumbest Brexit suggestion ever, but must be pretty damn close
I knew him from school, his family being farmworkers, who lived in a mobile home in a field with no plumbing. He left school to work in a tractor repair shop aged 16. The poorest family that I have ever known personally.
He was intelligent, and while the rest of our group carried on at school, he was the one earning so the only one with money. We occasionally would have the odd poker game, but his real addiction was fruit machines. Each Friday and Saturday night he would buy some ciggies and put his wages in the fruit machine. He didn't drink or take drugs like the rest of us, so selective in his addictions. Then he would live off his girlfriend for a week, before his next paypacket, pay her back, then straight to the fruit machines again. It was a xsource of constant arguments between them, though he was a kind and gentle soul otherwise. This went on for some years before I went abroad and lost touch for a few decades.
Internet gambling is so accessible and instant that it would be catnip to such a personality.
They are offering markets on the obvious things people want to bet on, like "next president", then very carefully crafting legal wording that often means something different.
Unless of course the whole charade is a theatrical performance to demonstrate Johnson's genius at snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Not in itself beyond the realms of probability.
I don’t know if you have school age kids, but having schools closed was massively destructive to their education, mental health and life chances.
Closing everything else to keep schools open would have been a price worth paying
The LibDems have chosen William Powell to run in B&R. Powell lives in the constituency (so a better choice than many recent LibDem picks in Wales).
However, Powell has been in trouble for kissing young LibDem activists, so he's not exactly a brilliant choice.
What is it with elderly LibDem grandees?
It is just asking for trouble surrounding them with shaggable, adoring boys and girls.
In future, the LibDems should insist that all their activists weigh 20 stone, be more than unusually plain for their age and stink of bad teeth.
So, I agree with YDoethur that B&R looks a solid Tory gain in the Senedd.
And I suspect the outcome of the elections will be (i) the Don't Votes will easily win, (ii) there will be some snarling & bickering Labour/Plaid coalition installed after the election.
IMO, the best thing for Wales would be if ALL the existing AMs are forced to retire -- most have completely failed and the standard of the existing AMs is abysmally low. Then, we get a completely new set of AMs for ALL parties. They really could hardly be worse.
And this way, we get rid of Neil Hamilton, Mark Reckless, Mark Drakeford, RT and Paul Davies all in one swoop.
And rightly so
The title of the market was certainly a misnomer.
Edit: As regards your 'slapdash' point, I'd like to think you are right but if you have ever communicated with these guys I think you would change your mind. Words like shallow, juvenile, reckless, superficial come to mind far more readily than careful and crafty.
It takes a fair while to gather data on suicides and the ONS has been cautious about releasing the data due to a backlog of Coroner's cases but we now have a decent look at the previous year, no Q4 data yet obviously. Figures given as raw numbers and age-standardised per 100,000 figure in brackets
5-year average to 2019
Q1 - 1134 (9.5)
Q2 - 1195 (9.9)
Q3 - 1240 (10.2)
2019
Q1 - 1247 (10.3)
Q2 - 1326 (10.3)
Q3 - 1330 (10.8)
2020
Q1 - 1262 (10.3)
Q2 - 845 (6.9)
Q3 - 1334 (10.7)
Suicides in general have been trending up over the last 10 years but the key thing is that absolutely massive dip in the 2020 Q2 figures with no "bounce back" in Q3.
Obviously these numbers are subject to revision, 2020's numbers were only recently declared final, but compared to 2019 suicides are down overall so far with lockdown have a positive impact.
You are going to need to produce some cites on the "massively destructive to their mental health" when the only studies that have been done say that school age children were less stressed and more relaxed over lockdown.
Also we didn't close everything else to keep schools open. That would be a decision I could understand. Instead we opened everything and the schools.
I don't remember you saying that
- Boris Johnson ‘hoping to avoid’ national lockdown by having national free-for-all for five days
- Do as we say, not as we say, clarifies government
- Priti Patel will not visit parents this Christmas amid fears she might deport them
- JRM informs UNICEF that English kids don’t need help because they’re being so well fed by the food banks
- “You won’t be arrested for your Christmas plans, you’ll just be blamed” confirms Boris
- Santa only offering ‘Click & Collect’ this year
As so often, there is much truth in comedy...
Possibly. But as a negotiator of 25 years experience doing 9-figure deals - who helped take a company from start-up to the edge of the FTSE 100 in five years - I could just have more insight that many of the gum-bumpers here and in Committee....
That’s the way things happen in the real world.
No amount of bed wetting from you and your ilk will change that.
I was doing med school interviews online yesterday. Lots more applicants this year as more straight A's. It will be interesting to see how they cope with first year exams. Seemed like a decent bunch of candidates overall, and some outstanding. Fairly easy to spot the privately educated, lots of tells.
Too much fascination with the word projected and not enough attention to the rest of the T's and C's.
Can't just pretend everything else they wrote didn't exist just because there's a solitary word you think trumps everything else.
I think it was a combination of just how big the market was, that people were still betting heavily on both sides of it, and the worry there were still legal challenges outstanding. It will have ended up at corporate board level with the lawyers involved, and they agreed that the EC meeting would be a fair (to them) time to settle it.
Ambrose Bierce.
Agree with Alistair on the header.
I don't know who is taking the other side of my betfair bets... or why they are being made. The recent misprice on Brian Rose for Mayor is plausibly his campaign trying to generate a 2nd favourite tag.
The Iranians would probably sink it with a Saccade AShM and say it was an accident.
"As a result of the Brexit, we regret to inform you that we are temporarily unable to accept orders from our UK customers as of Friday, 16 December and until further notice. We hope that economic bridges will be rebuilt soon and we can return to your valued custom again."
I also see that the next time I drive to Ireland all my cheese sandwiches are going to be tossed on arrival. Epic.
Thanks Brexit voters. Just marvellous. Any time you guys want to stop fucking things up for me let me know. No need to wait. Start today.
I stand by my statements. Frost's negotiating technique seems unnecessarily combative, besides which his hand doesn't seem to be as strong as he believes. My negotiating experience only ever got me into the low six figures, but what I did learn was have all your facts to hand, never antagonise your negotiating partner, always remain courteous, never throw them a curve ball and never overplay your hand unless you are comfortable to walk away.
I suspect from your mini CV you might have been better equipped than Frost to bring back the bacon, and probably several months ago, thereby not spooking Select Committees!
That’s the way things happen in the real world.
Presumably if I apply somewhere else I'll run into the same problem. They say I can ask Experian to tell me what they advised Virgin but there may be a substantial charge to get an answer. In a way it doesn't matter since I don't suppose RBS and FD will really go bust. But it's a bit baffling. Any advice?
Applications in themselves can affect scoring, so I am assuming you haven't applied for lots of other loans/cards/accounts recently?
'Three-figure income'?
On the whole, games where the punter has no chance should be limited to very small stakes. Fruit machines would be a good example. So would a lot of internet gambling, but not where there is a significant skill element and it is possible to show a profit. Most political betting would qualify, as would most sports as long as bookmakers do not close accounts purely on the grounds that the punter is too successful.
That would have brought the virus down to a level where we could then throw the kitchen sink at each local outbreak, as New Zealand and Australia are doing.
Open much more carefully, with schools first, leaving enough time between reopening steps to get data rather than do it on a predetermined schedule. We could have something near normal now.
But no, we and the rest of Europe declared premature victory, opened everything in quick succession, actively encouraged people to go to restaurants and on holidays, and ended up in much the same place we were in March, only with less willingness to follow rules.
Or 'fake news' as it is otherwise known.
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1339137538469076993
To an extent, yes. One thing that we assess is motivation, persistence, and drive to overcome obstacles. In order to do so, we need to get some understanding of the obstacles that they have faced, and the opportunities that were available to them.
The report this week on social mobility and university entrance was particularly damning of privilege and medical school entrance.
Apparently a few of his friends played the same game(?) and my interest (his partner) and the partners of these other guys thought nothing of it. It was just fun. No real money involved. Maybe he was just unlucky because in no time there was the big confession and they had to remortgage the house. I felt it was an expensive mistake and not an addiction and I was grateful for that.
It is all part of his grift. He made a £1 million out of his last crowd sourcing "scheme", so he has plenty of cash to do so. He is just trying to repeat the same again with his new donation led scheme.
Apart for that, my credit with Experian would have been 900 points.
This was not a problem, as I didn´t need a loan, and I already had a bank account (albeit a bit unsatisfactory). I did not settle the alleged debt with British Gas. It just time expired with Experian after a matter of years. But Experian are rubbish.
I wonder what comments the Tory supporters and other bankers will make about this.
In diplomacy world you can negotiate up until the deadline which is New Year's Eve. In trading world the deadline is in the past. No deal was agreed so no deal is in effect. There is a small window of opportunity to try and shift stuff across the border before the threatened tariffs kick in and before the real standards and customs checks start. Combine that with the impacts of Covid and the usual logistical challenge of Christmas and our borders are essentially under siege.
Here's the key point. For days now we have seen vast queues of vehicles heading both for the channel AND the Irish Sea, with a similar queue in France. When these vehicles arrive at the port they have to do no paperwork. No standards checks. No customs inspections. I'm sure that processing time will have slowed a little from the usual couple of minutes but its still fast when you eventually get there. At an external EU border with full customs the checks take an average of 45 minutes. Which is why the queues often are 20 hours plus on either side of the border.
We can't take back control of the French border and the Kent queues are for vehicles which will be checked and inspected in France. Our own border needs emergency funding to try to be ready for JULY - Dover asked for £33m and was given one-THOUSANDTH of the funds - £33k. Saying that we are not ready for something which has already been actualised and is causing utter chaos is like pointing at the blue sky and correctly saying it is blue. Hardly something for Brexity alt-fact people to get upset about yet upset they are.
EU trucks will largely not be coming to the UK in few weeks. Drivers get paid by the kilometre, they don't get paid when sat in endless queues. If you go on Twitter you will see photos of signs on EU based trucks saying that they do not serve the UK. That is the new reality - we have cut ourselves off from our main supply chain counterparty. Nor can we sign a last minute EU deal to waive all tariffs and avoid the chaos. The trucks will still have to stop for inspection and paperwork. An average of 45 minues vs the current 2 minutes. Which would tie vehicles up in day long queues if the drivers and the logistics firms were stupid enough to send vehicles which they aren't.
So enjoy this last Christmas.
I'd also stop throwing around the term addict to describe anyone who gets in over their head. Sometimes these are desperate people who, having lost more than they can afford, see their only way out to be placing more and more bets, often termed "chasing". Similarly, someone who regularly loses their pay-packet the first Saturday after pay day might be misguided or even damn stupid but is probably not addicted. It is not that these latter groups do not need or deserve help but that the nature of that help is likely to be different from that for the true addict.
Without such a distinction, serious betting would become impractical.
|ISAs are good but remember that many markets are very fully valued right now so have a ponder. Even so, dividends are tax free (I think).
NS&I may be the answer, but the main purpose of the savings is to help a vulnerable relative to buy a house so I can't tie them down. When I klast looked the NS&I schemes had changed so you had to tie down for 2 years. Hadn't thought of premium bonds though.
Anyway, thanks everyone!
For larger sums, of the sort the OP is considering, you're right that PBs might actually make sense.
Elsewhere NS&I rates are laughable. Someone there must see a difference between paying 0.1% and 0.01%; to customers it just looks like they are having a laugh.
He was at pains to emphasise it was a personal view, but I bet it's fairly widely held within the organisation.
I`d look into this if I were you. Write to Experian.
I have not found any.