politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Opinium poll
The usual caveats apply, this is but one poll, we need to see other polling to see if this UKIP surge is occurring or not. My own thought is that, this is more a return to the status quo for Opinium with regards to UKIP, their last poll, a fortnight ago, had UKIP down to their lowest point since February 2013, and that didn’t feel right.
Comments
-
UKIP on 21 looks like the best result for the purples since John Comnenus was on the throne.0
-
Are UKIP supporters less likely to take foreign holidays in August?0
-
This tells you more about Opinium than UKIP.
Mind you, I did enjoy the comments on the previous thread claiming that ISIS being beastly in Iraq would boost UKIP's vote share.0 -
I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!
If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one0 -
Still ZILCH seats on UNS though. Mind, I don't expect UNS to be what happens. One or two Kipper seats and a better result for LDs and Nats is more likely.Morris_Dancer said:UKIP on 21 looks like the best result for the purples since John Comnenus was on the throne.
IMHO. FWIW!0 -
Mr. Nabavi, it has, however, seriously drawn the sting from the resignation of the minister for being an Asian woman. Gaza is now perhaps only the third most serious foreign story (definitely below IS, and perhaps Ukraine. If ebola gets worse it'll be the fourth).
Wonder how the Turks feel about the Kurds getting tooled up. The alternative might be having a country of insane violence all along the southern Turkish border.0 -
King Cole, don't OD on acronyms.0
-
LOL!Morris_Dancer said:King Cole, don't OD on acronyms.
0 -
ISIS being beastly – illegal immigrants at Tilbury Docks – school holidays & the Bojo effect.Richard_Nabavi said:This tells you more about Opinium than UKIP.
Mind you, I did enjoy the comments on the previous thread claiming that ISIS being beastly in Iraq would boost UKIP's vote share.
I suspect these and more will all be used this evening to explain the UKiP surge. ; )
0 -
FPT @TSE @isam @MikeK
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
All very scholarly, even with the wikipedia link, but I reckon that @TSE as just quoting West Wing (Series 1, Episode 2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_Wing_(season_1)#Episodes
0 -
Didn't see those comments re. IS & UKIP but I can see the logic (don't want anyone to rehearse the whole thing again).Richard_Nabavi said:This tells you more about Opinium than UKIP.
Mind you, I did enjoy the comments on the previous thread claiming that ISIS being beastly in Iraq would boost UKIP's vote share.
IS = Islamic State = Islamic = Islamist campaigning in the UK eg. against "our boys" = backlash = UKIP gaining.
(Edit: did I miss the nuances?)0 -
Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.
South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699
Gosh.0 -
Things happening in far-off countries don't affect UK elections, unless the UK is directly and heavily involved.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Nabavi, it has, however, seriously drawn the sting from the resignation of the minister for being an Asian woman. Gaza is now perhaps only the third most serious foreign story (definitely below IS, and perhaps Ukraine. If ebola gets worse it'll be the fourth).
Wonder how the Turks feel about the Kurds getting tooled up. The alternative might be having a country of insane violence all along the southern Turkish border.0 -
-
I did Latin long before I watched the West Wing.Charles said:FPT @TSE @isam @MikeK
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
All very scholarly, even with the wikipedia link, but I reckon that @TSE as just quoting West Wing (Series 1, Episode 2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_Wing_(season_1)#Episodes
My favourite bit of Latin, apart from Catullus 16, is Semper ubi, sub ubi0 -
Mr. Nabavi, but Warsi's resignation could've been much worse for the Government. ISIS and Ukraine, to a lesser extent, relegated it almost to insignificance. That's my point.
If ISIS had been beaten back rather than making startling gains and Ukraine had gone all peaceful Gaza might yet be the biggest foreign story, and broadcasters would be wibbling on about Warsi.0 -
According to the electoral calculus model UKIP have to be just 4 points behind the tories or 14 points ahead of the LD to gain a single seat and that one in scotland.OldKingCole said:
Still ZILCH seats on UNS though. Mind, I don't expect UNS to be what happens. One or two Kipper seats and a better result for LDs and Nats is more likely.Morris_Dancer said:UKIP on 21 looks like the best result for the purples since John Comnenus was on the throne.
IMHO. FWIW!
So the model doesn't work and they warn why it might not work:
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_UKIP.html
"This analysis has been conducted with the best available models and using national opinion poll support levels. It is the current best estimate of possible general election outcomes, but the growth of UKIP is a new phenomenon and there are a number of assumptions and approximations involved in the calculations. These sources of possible error include:
Assumption of uniform support The calculations assume that UKIP support is fairly evenly distributed, or at least it is evenly created from defecting Conservative and Liberal Democrat voters. The calculations have not used local election results to estimate possible locations of heavy UKIP support. If UKIP support is concentrated, rather than being evenly spread, then they will get more MPs despite lower levels of popular support.
Assumption of homogeneous defectors The transition model assumes that defecting voters behave identically, no matter which party they previously supported. Using the May 2013 polls, around 20% of Conservative voters and about half of Liberal Democrats are expected to defect. These defectors are assumed to break evenly between Labour and UKIP. In reality we might expect that the ex-Conservatives would be more attracted to UKIP, and the ex-LibDems to Labour. This might affect the accuracy of the calculations, especially in strong Conservative areas.
Absence of strong candidates The numerical models have no data on any strong UKIP candidate who might stand at the next general election. If a strong candidate with good local backing emerges, then UKIP could win that seat against the numerical odds. The election of Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion, Green) in 2010 is a useful example of this possibility."0 -
I think British citizens going to fight for Islam will make people vote for parties who are prepared to criticise multiculturalismRichard_Nabavi said:
Things happening in far-off countries don't affect UK elections, unless the UK is directly and heavily involved.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Nabavi, it has, however, seriously drawn the sting from the resignation of the minister for being an Asian woman. Gaza is now perhaps only the third most serious foreign story (definitely below IS, and perhaps Ukraine. If ebola gets worse it'll be the fourth).
Wonder how the Turks feel about the Kurds getting tooled up. The alternative might be having a country of insane violence all along the southern Turkish border.0 -
Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.isam said:I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!
If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one
FPTP screws smaller parties.0 -
If only foreign leaders would shut up regarding the scottish ref.MonikerDiCanio said:
Don't they realise that the more they critizise YES the more people will want to vote YES?0 -
Good stuff SpeedsterSpeedy said:
According to the electoral calculus model UKIP have to be just 4 points behind the tories or 14 points ahead of the LD to gain a single seat and that one in scotland.OldKingCole said:
Still ZILCH seats on UNS though. Mind, I don't expect UNS to be what happens. One or two Kipper seats and a better result for LDs and Nats is more likely.Morris_Dancer said:UKIP on 21 looks like the best result for the purples since John Comnenus was on the throne.
IMHO. FWIW!
So the model doesn't work and they warn why it might not work:
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_UKIP.html
"This analysis has been conducted with the best available models and using national opinion poll support levels. It is the current best estimate of possible general election outcomes, but the growth of UKIP is a new phenomenon and there are a number of assumptions and approximations involved in the calculations. These sources of possible error include:
Assumption of uniform support The calculations assume that UKIP support is fairly evenly distributed, or at least it is evenly created from defecting Conservative and Liberal Democrat voters. The calculations have not used local election results to estimate possible locations of heavy UKIP support. If UKIP support is concentrated, rather than being evenly spread, then they will get more MPs despite lower levels of popular support.
Assumption of homogeneous defectors The transition model assumes that defecting voters behave identically, no matter which party they previously supported. Using the May 2013 polls, around 20% of Conservative voters and about half of Liberal Democrats are expected to defect. These defectors are assumed to break evenly between Labour and UKIP. In reality we might expect that the ex-Conservatives would be more attracted to UKIP, and the ex-LibDems to Labour. This might affect the accuracy of the calculations, especially in strong Conservative areas.
Absence of strong candidates The numerical models have no data on any strong UKIP candidate who might stand at the next general election. If a strong candidate with good local backing emerges, then UKIP could win that seat against the numerical odds. The election of Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion, Green) in 2010 is a useful example of this possibility."
Who'd have thought it eh?0 -
Mr D, the Police complained that the BBC were slow to acknowledge they (the Police) were not the source of the leak.Morris_Dancer said:Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.
South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699
Gosh.
There are 4 possibilities
1. The BBC has helicopters flying over every Police HQ to see where columns of unmarked cars are going.
2. Someone in SYP rang the BBC "off the record".
3. The BBC has hacked into SYP mobile phones.
4. Invisible giant green lizards in SYP are in telepathic communications with relations in the BBC.
5. Thames Valley Police were the source of the leak.0 -
So thats UKIP poll 21 and Labour gain 85 seats. There's clever isn't it? But really isn't this company just giving opinion polling a bad name?0
-
Mr. Flightpath, have to wait and see how the latest poll compares to the electoral result.0
-
They'd probably win a decent number of seats on 21%, but this is another way of saying that a national poll now showing them at 21% nationally doesn't really translate into 21% in a FPTP election, because the people telling Opinium they'll vote for them will get squeezed everywhere except the UKIP targets.isam said:I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!
If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one0 -
Whats that got to do with UKIP getting no seats?!TheScreamingEagles said:
Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.isam said:I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!
If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one
FPTP screws smaller parties.
Ill bet as much as you like that if UKIP score, I will be generous, 17% they will win at least one seat.
£5000 at EVS?
Bet void if they don't get 17%0 -
I'm willing to bet 500 million BitCamerons!isam said:
Whats that got to do with UKIP getting no seats?!TheScreamingEagles said:
Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.isam said:I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!
If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one
FPTP screws smaller parties.
Ill bet as much as you like that if UKIP score, I will be generous, 17% they will win at least one seat.
£5000 at EVS?
Bet void if they don't get 17%0 -
Obviously - but the election is months away - we will have to see how the polls then compare with the result. This latest poll says that all the other polls are pants - although only after standing its own previous poll on its head.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Flightpath, have to wait and see how the latest poll compares to the electoral result.
If all these polls show anything its that the electorate have the attention span of a goldfish - bumping from one contrary opinion to the next. I appreciate I am apparently delivering malcomg levels of contempt for fellow voters here but really - what is the level of attention and thought processes which commit a voter to give an answer to a pollster. Voters have lives to lead. Are people really interested?0 -
Mr. Flightpath, the joy of democracy is that half of the voters have below average intelligence
Edited extra bit: mind you, it was a lot of intellectually self-confident cretins who decided to embark on the eurozone madness. Judgement and intelligence don't always go hand-in-hand.0 -
That national share of the vote, has a poor relationship with the number of seats won.isam said:
Whats that got to do with UKIP getting no seats?!TheScreamingEagles said:
Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.isam said:I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!
If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one
FPTP screws smaller parties.
Ill bet as much as you like that if UKIP score, I will be generous, 17% they will win at least one seat.
£5000 at EVS?
Bet void if they don't get 17%0 -
Your idea of a good polling company is the one which gives Tories the best result !Flightpath said:So thats UKIP poll 21 and Labour gain 85 seats. There's clever isn't it? But really isn't this company just giving opinion polling a bad name?
0 -
Sad, sad, sad man that I am, I am watching Thursday nights Newsnight on Sky+
Dubyas speech to Iraqi's assuring them its all going to be ok, now he has gotten rid of Saddam, and the assurances US forces will leave once they've sorted it all out..
All I can picture is some kind of ISIS nutter coming on BBC1 telling me the UK will be ok now they have liberated it.. no wonder they hate us so!
First time I have seen it.. how utterly patronising...uh-oh Blairs on now
Here it is.. listen to the bullshit spew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0xGWaDb2Yg0 -
FPT
No sources. I can tell you how it works (simplified) and you can believe it or not.Rexel56 said:Increasingly of the view that the GE will depend on Labour's success in motivating vote to get out and do so. This will be part targeted policies, part Tory demonisation and part ground operation.
Can anyone point me to sources that describe how the party at constituency level plans and executes their GOTV campaign, what techniques are used to get someone to vote by post or in person and whether the plan flexes on the day based on what's happening...
Any help appreciated, cynical comments on voting fraud not required!
The problem with Labour voters is 1) they are a bit slack about voting especially at mid-term type elections and 2) when they are annoyed at Labour they'll still say they support them but stay at home and not vote.
old way:
step 1) knock on door and ask if support labour
step 2) if yes mark address on bit of paper
step 3) election day look at bit of paper, knock up and ask if voted yet
net result: one day of nagging to offset the slackness
new improved postal voting way:
step 1) knock on door and ask if support labour
step 2) if yes mark address on bit of paper *and* try and persuade them to get a postal vote
step 3) come election time go out knocking up those with postal votes *after the postal votes have been sent out* and ask if they've sent it him yet, want help filling them in, want someone to post it for them etc. Keep doing it till election day.
net result: weeks of nagging to offset the slackness
If it was just that I wouldn't be bothered personally but it also partially counters the silent rebellion effect.
(edit: so postal votes are more important the more unpopular Labour are with their voters.)
This is separate both from the fraud aspect - important but overplayed imo - and the bit that looks like fraud but is actually just a side effect of how some ethnic groups self-organize which leads to 100% turnout from those groups.
All tolled a pretty big deal with the first bit being more important overall and the second bit more important in some areas.
0 -
Hahaha desperado!TheScreamingEagles said:
That national share of the vote, has a poor relationship with the number of seats won.isam said:
Whats that got to do with UKIP getting no seats?!TheScreamingEagles said:
Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.isam said:I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!
If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one
FPTP screws smaller parties.
Ill bet as much as you like that if UKIP score, I will be generous, 17% they will win at least one seat.
£5000 at EVS?
Bet void if they don't get 17%0 -
Since many are complaining about UKIP seats I give you (after the excuses) a separate effort using constituency polls.
You can make seat projections with those opinion polls in 62 constituencies though it is doubtful that those 62 seats are a representantive sample.
Using a probability model in each seat I get LAB 380, CON 182, LD 34, UKIP 24, SNP 10, PC 2
The seat model really depends on those 62 seats being representative of the whole country (which I don't think they exactly are).
Or if you want percentages of vote (which I believe is more accurate) you get the average change of the vote from each constituency and apply it to the 2010 results, so you get LAB 34, CON 28, UKIP 18, LD 9, Greens 3.
A 6% swing from CON to LAB.
I prefer the vote share because it is more accurate and in line with national opinion polls.0 -
As someone said on a previous, albeit recent, thread, the Alliance polled 23% in 1983 and won no more seats. In fact they lost seats. And, as the previous poster pointed out they had the benefit of incumbency in several seats.
As someone who was involved at a ,coal level we confidently expected much more and as Election night wore on became more and more despondent. I can see the same happening to Kippers.
Under FPTP there's nothing for second place!0 -
Is it really that impossible to come up with a model of UKIP votes distribution based on , say, the EURO 2014 vote spread.0
-
What % vote did the Greens get in GE2010?0
-
If someone rang the BBC off the record then surely an offence has been committed which the BBC are complicit in? Are they investigating it? I think we can guess the answer.OldKingCole said:
Mr D, the Police complained that the BBC were slow to acknowledge they (the Police) were not the source of the leak.Morris_Dancer said:Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.
South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699
Gosh.
There are 4 possibilities
1. The BBC has helicopters flying over every Police HQ to see where columns of unmarked cars are going.
2. Someone in SYP rang the BBC "off the record".
3. The BBC has hacked into SYP mobile phones.
4. Invisible giant green lizards in SYP are in telepathic communications with relations in the BBC.
5. Thames Valley Police were the source of the leak.
Given that SYP are under criticism for Hillborough then I for one can imagine they would relish complaints against celebreties as a way to shake off the flak. The police felt confident enough to fit up a cabinet minister so I don't think anyone is safe and if the police here are at fault then it is in their self interest to keep the pot boiling and spread as much dirt as possible.
Amazingly there was a time once when I trusted the police. Then they arrested Damien Green and raided his office in Parliament. Then we read the investigated Stephen Lawrence's family then we read about Hillsborough.
0 -
What is blatantly obvious is that someone in West Yorkshire or Thames Valley leaked the raid, probably, if past history is anything to go by, for money. That both forces seem to be denying this is what happened just discredits them further, and, crumbs, its not as if South Yorks had a lot of credibility to start with.OldKingCole said:
Mr D, the Police complained that the BBC were slow to acknowledge they (the Police) were not the source of the leak.Morris_Dancer said:Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.
South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699
Gosh.
There are 4 possibilities
1. The BBC has helicopters flying over every Police HQ to see where columns of unmarked cars are going.
2. Someone in SYP rang the BBC "off the record".
3. The BBC has hacked into SYP mobile phones.
4. Invisible giant green lizards in SYP are in telepathic communications with relations in the BBC.
5. Thames Valley Police were the source of the leak.
Both forces seem to be denying something that is self evidently true and not even attempting to investigate a corrupt person in their ranks, indeed not even admitting the possibility that such a person exists. I do hope the Home Affairs Select Committee roasts the Chief Constables. Of course the respective Police and Crime Commissioners should already be doing that if they were doing their jobs, but it would seem they are not.
In the East End of London the police were known as the Filth. I always thought it was unfair, but over the years I have changed my mind.0 -
isam said:
Sad, sad, sad man that I am, I am watching Thursday nights Newsnight on Sky+
Dubyas speech to Iraqi's assuring them its all going to be ok, now he has gotten rid of Saddam, and the assurances US forces will leave once they've sorted it all out..
All I can picture is some kind of ISIS nutter coming on BBC1 telling me the UK will be ok now they have liberated it.. no wonder they hate us so!
First time I have seen it.. how utterly patronising...uh-oh Blairs on now
Here it is.. listen to the bullshit spew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0xGWaDb2Yg
I saw that one. Had to mute it.
The stand-in woman was less annoying than the usual presenters though.
0 -
RN.
"Things happening in far-off countries don't affect UK elections, unless the UK is directly and heavily involved."
Far to preoccupied with hunting for paedos.0 -
0.9%Sunil_Prasannan said:What % vote did the Greens get in GE2010?
0 -
A deliberate leak isn't the only possibility here, is it? (I'm talking about the original leak, not the follow-up where they say they promised the BBC priority information in return for keeping a lid on it for a while, in the manner of President Beck in Deep Impact.) Don't get me wrong, it's completely plausible and police everywhere lie all the time, but it's also possible that a policeman told his wife and she told her hairdresser and somebody in the salon told the BBC or whatever.HurstLlama said:
What is blatantly obvious is that someone in West Yorkshire or Thames Valley leaked the raid, probably, if past history is anything to go by, for money. That both forces seem to be denying this is what happened just discredits them further, and, crumbs, its not as if South Yorks had a lot of credibility to start with.OldKingCole said:
Mr D, the Police complained that the BBC were slow to acknowledge they (the Police) were not the source of the leak.Morris_Dancer said:Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.
South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699
Gosh.
There are 4 possibilities
1. The BBC has helicopters flying over every Police HQ to see where columns of unmarked cars are going.
2. Someone in SYP rang the BBC "off the record".
3. The BBC has hacked into SYP mobile phones.
4. Invisible giant green lizards in SYP are in telepathic communications with relations in the BBC.
5. Thames Valley Police were the source of the leak.0 -
To be fair Mr L, IF there is some substance in the allegations and someone else with a genuine complaint comes forward as a result of the publicity......HurstLlama said:
What is blatantly obvious is that someone in West Yorkshire or Thames Valley leaked the raid, probably, if past history is anything to go by, for money. That both forces seem to be denying this is what happened just discredits them further, and, crumbs, its not as if South Yorks had a lot of credibility to start with.OldKingCole said:
Mr D, the Police complained that the BBC were slow to acknowledge they (the Police) were not the source of the leak.Morris_Dancer said:Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.
South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699
Gosh.
There are 4 possibilities
1. The BBC has helicopters flying over every Police HQ to see where columns of unmarked cars are going.
2. Someone in SYP rang the BBC "off the record".
3. The BBC has hacked into SYP mobile phones.
4. Invisible giant green lizards in SYP are in telepathic communications with relations in the BBC.
5. Thames Valley Police were the source of the leak.
Both forces seem to be denying something that is self evidently true and not even attempting to investigate a corrupt person in their ranks, indeed not even admitting the possibility that such a person exists. I do hope the Home Affairs Select Committee roasts the Chief Constables. Of course the respective Police and Crime Commissioners should already be doing that if they were doing their jobs, but it would seem they are not.
In the East End of London the police were known as the Filth. I always thought it was unfair, but over the years I have changed my mind.
Tonight the view in the public house where I drink was that someone would come forward, with the expectation that coin o f the realm would be forthcoming.0 -
Ta!TheScreamingEagles said:
0.9%Sunil_Prasannan said:What % vote did the Greens get in GE2010?
So 0.9% = 1 seat
21% / 0.9 x 1 = 23 seats
0 -
Where do you draw that conclusion.surbiton said:
Your idea of a good polling company is the one which gives Tories the best result !Flightpath said:So thats UKIP poll 21 and Labour gain 85 seats. There's clever isn't it? But really isn't this company just giving opinion polling a bad name?
1. I point out that even a big vote for UKIP only succeeds in giving a resounding result to a Europhile Labour Party and denies us a referendum (which I would welcome). How very clever of UKIP.
2. I draw attention to this pollsters a) flip flopping of its own results and b) the fact that it is way out of line with other polls. Where does that leave ones faith?
Admitedly I used a bit of cryptic shorthand to point this out in order to save typing time. Hey ho.0 -
I shut it off after the first 3 seconds when George W . said "this is G.W.B. president of the USA".MrJones said:isam said:Sad, sad, sad man that I am, I am watching Thursday nights Newsnight on Sky+
Dubyas speech to Iraqi's assuring them its all going to be ok, now he has gotten rid of Saddam, and the assurances US forces will leave once they've sorted it all out..
All I can picture is some kind of ISIS nutter coming on BBC1 telling me the UK will be ok now they have liberated it.. no wonder they hate us so!
First time I have seen it.. how utterly patronising...uh-oh Blairs on now
Here it is.. listen to the bullshit spew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0xGWaDb2Yg
I saw that one. Had to mute it.
The stand-in woman was less annoying than the usual presenters though.0 -
I think that theory fits in with Mr. Cole's possibility number 4. Someone leaked the raid. There will be a very small pool of suspects (probably no more than half a dozen) and almost all of them will be at quite a senior level. Finding out who should not be that difficult. However, it would seem that the Filth don't even want to try. South Yorkshire Police seem to prefer the idea that the BBC got the initial information from a fairy.edmundintokyo said:
A deliberate leak isn't the only possibility here, is it? (I'm talking about the original leak, not the follow-up where they say they promised the BBC priority information in return for keeping a lid on it for a while, in the manner of President Beck in Deep Impact.) Don't get me wrong, it's completely plausible and police everywhere lie all the time, but it's also possible that a policeman told his wife and she told her hairdresser and somebody in the salon told the BBC or whatever.HurstLlama said:
What is blatantly obvious is that someone in West Yorkshire or Thames Valley leaked the raid, probably, if past history is anything to go by, for money. That both forces seem to be denying this is what happened just discredits them further, and, crumbs, its not as if South Yorks had a lot of credibility to start with.OldKingCole said:
Mr D, the Police complained that the BBC were slow to acknowledge they (the Police) were not the source of the leak.Morris_Dancer said:Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.
South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699
Gosh.
There are 4 possibilities
1. The BBC has helicopters flying over every Police HQ to see where columns of unmarked cars are going.
2. Someone in SYP rang the BBC "off the record".
3. The BBC has hacked into SYP mobile phones.
4. Invisible giant green lizards in SYP are in telepathic communications with relations in the BBC.
5. Thames Valley Police were the source of the leak.0 -
Cameron is only offering a referendum because UKIP are doing so well, that's the whole point. He doesn't want one and would never have offered one had it not been out of desperation.Flightpath said:
Where do you draw that conclusion.surbiton said:
Your idea of a good polling company is the one which gives Tories the best result !Flightpath said:So thats UKIP poll 21 and Labour gain 85 seats. There's clever isn't it? But really isn't this company just giving opinion polling a bad name?
1. I point out that even a big vote for UKIP only succeeds in giving a resounding result to a Europhile Labour Party and denies us a referendum (which I would welcome). How very clever of UKIP.
2. I draw attention to this pollsters a) flip flopping of its own results and b) the fact that it is way out of line with other polls. Where does that leave ones faith?
Admitedly I used a bit of cryptic shorthand to point this out in order to save typing time. Hey ho.
0 -
Stick with it. Absolutely amazing.Speedy said:
I shut it off after the first 3 seconds when George W . said "this is G.W.B. president of the USA".MrJones said:isam said:Sad, sad, sad man that I am, I am watching Thursday nights Newsnight on Sky+
Dubyas speech to Iraqi's assuring them its all going to be ok, now he has gotten rid of Saddam, and the assurances US forces will leave once they've sorted it all out..
All I can picture is some kind of ISIS nutter coming on BBC1 telling me the UK will be ok now they have liberated it.. no wonder they hate us so!
First time I have seen it.. how utterly patronising...uh-oh Blairs on now
Here it is.. listen to the bullshit spew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0xGWaDb2Yg
I saw that one. Had to mute it.
The stand-in woman was less annoying than the usual presenters though.
They just both sound like evil villains who want to change someone else's country to the way they would like it to be, and assume the people who live there will suffer it. I can really empathise with Islamists nutters having watched that0 -
Yes, I think you did.TOPPING said:
Didn't see those comments re. IS & UKIP but I can see the logic (don't want anyone to rehearse the whole thing again).Richard_Nabavi said:This tells you more about Opinium than UKIP.
Mind you, I did enjoy the comments on the previous thread claiming that ISIS being beastly in Iraq would boost UKIP's vote share.
IS = Islamic State = Islamic = Islamist campaigning in the UK eg. against "our boys" = backlash = UKIP gaining.
(Edit: did I miss the nuances?)
ISIS persecuting Christians (and other religious minorities)=Cameron says (and does) sweet FA=Cameron doesn't defend Christians no matter how innocent they are=Cameron wouldn't defend Christians in UK no matter how badly treated they are=Vote UKIP!
Incidentally, a letter about Iraq from the Archbishop was read out at mass last Sunday and there was a second collection for Iraq as well.0 -
I agree with the second paragraph, Mr. Cole, the first one is disturbing.OldKingCole said:
To be fair Mr L, IF there is some substance in the allegations and someone else with a genuine complaint comes forward as a result of the publicity......HurstLlama said:
What is blatantly obvious is that someone in West Yorkshire or Thames Valley leaked the raid, probably, if past history is anything to go by, for money. That both forces seem to be denying this is what happened just discredits them further, and, crumbs, its not as if South Yorks had a lot of credibility to start with.OldKingCole said:
Mr D, the Police complained that the BBC were slow to acknowledge they (the Police) were not the source of the leak.Morris_Dancer said:Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.
South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699
Gosh.
There are 4 possibilities
1. The BBC has helicopters flying over every Police HQ to see where columns of unmarked cars are going.
2. Someone in SYP rang the BBC "off the record".
3. The BBC has hacked into SYP mobile phones.
4. Invisible giant green lizards in SYP are in telepathic communications with relations in the BBC.
5. Thames Valley Police were the source of the leak.
Both forces seem to be denying something that is self evidently true and not even attempting to investigate a corrupt person in their ranks, indeed not even admitting the possibility that such a person exists. I do hope the Home Affairs Select Committee roasts the Chief Constables. Of course the respective Police and Crime Commissioners should already be doing that if they were doing their jobs, but it would seem they are not.
In the East End of London the police were known as the Filth. I always thought it was unfair, but over the years I have changed my mind.
Tonight the view in the public house where I drink was that someone would come forward, with the expectation that coin o f the realm would be forthcoming.
South Yorks police seem to have invented a new method of Criminal Investigation. In effect take a celebrities name and publicly ask for allegations about them. I am not sure how that fits in with the way we are accustomed to be policed, and Robert Peel is probably spinning in his grave. If it catches on of course it need not be confined to celebrities. Suppose, to pull a name out the hat, Leicester Police are short of a few convictions to meet their targets what would there be to stop them advertising in the Leicester Echo, "We are investigating Dr. Smith, any one who wants to make an allegation against him, no matter long ago the offence took place, should contact us".0 -
In calculating its polling averages, does UKPR allocate the same weighting to Opinium's findings as it does, for example, in the case of ICM?0
-
Spot on, Mr. Isam. UKIP is getting things to happen even without any MPs, primarily, I think, because the major parties are starting to realise they cannot indefinitely ignore a big chunk of the electorate. The more voters UKIP gathers the more this effect will grow. The Parliamentary seats will probably come in time but the effects are already starting to be felt.isam said:
Cameron is only offering a referendum because UKIP are doing so well, that's the whole point. He doesn't want one and would never have offered one had it not been out of desperation.Flightpath said:
Where do you draw that conclusion.surbiton said:
Your idea of a good polling company is the one which gives Tories the best result !Flightpath said:So thats UKIP poll 21 and Labour gain 85 seats. There's clever isn't it? But really isn't this company just giving opinion polling a bad name?
1. I point out that even a big vote for UKIP only succeeds in giving a resounding result to a Europhile Labour Party and denies us a referendum (which I would welcome). How very clever of UKIP.
2. I draw attention to this pollsters a) flip flopping of its own results and b) the fact that it is way out of line with other polls. Where does that leave ones faith?
Admitedly I used a bit of cryptic shorthand to point this out in order to save typing time. Hey ho.0 -
Either that or smash the telly.Speedy said:
I shut it off after the first 3 seconds when George W . said "this is G.W.B. president of the USA".MrJones said:isam said:Sad, sad, sad man that I am, I am watching Thursday nights Newsnight on Sky+
Dubyas speech to Iraqi's assuring them its all going to be ok, now he has gotten rid of Saddam, and the assurances US forces will leave once they've sorted it all out..
All I can picture is some kind of ISIS nutter coming on BBC1 telling me the UK will be ok now they have liberated it.. no wonder they hate us so!
First time I have seen it.. how utterly patronising...uh-oh Blairs on now
Here it is.. listen to the bullshit spew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0xGWaDb2Yg
I saw that one. Had to mute it.
The stand-in woman was less annoying than the usual presenters though.0 -
It is explained herepeter_from_putney said:In calculating its polling averages, does UKPR allocate the same weighting to Opinium's findings as it does, for example, in the case of ICM?
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average-20 -
David Cameron Bishop bashing story
Church launches bitter attack on PM's 'incoherent' Middle East policy
Bishop of Leeds slams failure over Islamist extremism in scathing letter backed by the archbishop of Canterbury
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/16/church-of-england-attack-david-cameron-middle-east-policy0 -
Indeed. It will be interesting to see the reaction toward UKIP, as anticipated, markedly increase their GE share but pick up no seats at all, vs if they markedly increase their GE share and pick up a couple of seats. What would the impact of continuing to be totally cut off from Westminster have on their current impact without any such Westminster representation, if any?HurstLlama said:
Spot on, Mr. Isam. UKIP is getting things to happen even without any MPs, primarily, I think, because the major parties are starting to realise they cannot indefinitely ignore a big chunk of the electorate. The more voters UKIP gathers the more this effect will grow. The Parliamentary seats will probably come in time but the effects are already starting to be felt.isam said:
Cameron is only offering a referendum because UKIP are doing so well, that's the whole point. He doesn't want one and would never have offered one had it not been out of desperation.Flightpath said:
Where do you draw that conclusion.surbiton said:
Your idea of a good polling company is the one which gives Tories the best result !Flightpath said:So thats UKIP poll 21 and Labour gain 85 seats. There's clever isn't it? But really isn't this company just giving opinion polling a bad name?
1. I point out that even a big vote for UKIP only succeeds in giving a resounding result to a Europhile Labour Party and denies us a referendum (which I would welcome). How very clever of UKIP.
2. I draw attention to this pollsters a) flip flopping of its own results and b) the fact that it is way out of line with other polls. Where does that leave ones faith?
Admitedly I used a bit of cryptic shorthand to point this out in order to save typing time. Hey ho.
0 -
Good evening. Opinium doesn't prompt for UKIP.TheScreamingEagles said:
It is explained herepeter_from_putney said:In calculating its polling averages, does UKPR allocate the same weighting to Opinium's findings as it does, for example, in the case of ICM?
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average-2
0 -
Police 'trawling' for witnesses has a number of practical and moral difficulties: seeHurstLlama said:
South Yorks police seem to have invented a new method of Criminal Investigation. In effect take a celebrities name and publicly ask for allegations about them. I am not sure how that fits in with the way we are accustomed to be policed, and Robert Peel is probably spinning in his grave. If it catches on of course it need not be confined to celebrities. Suppose, to pull a name out the hat, Leicester Police are short of a few convictions to meet their targets what would there be to stop them advertising in the Leicester Echo, "We are investigating Dr. Smith, any one who wants to make an allegation against him, no matter long ago the offence took place, should contact us".
http://www.newstatesman.com/node/135233
There is a discussion to be had about suspect anonymity, but on the other hand, would Harris, Hall and Clifford have been jailed for their crimes without the publicity persuading other victims to come forward?
I'm really not sure where the scales should balance on this one. For reasons regular readers would know, I'm veering towards the victims rather than the suspects. It's a difficult one, though, especially when the press and media get involved.0 -
Cameron sacked Gove because of an opinion poll from trade union members!kle4 said:
Indeed. It will be interesting to see the reaction toward UKIP, as anticipated, markedly increase their GE share but pick up no seats at all, vs if they markedly increase their GE share and pick up a couple of seats. What would the impact of continuing to be totally cut off from Westminster have on their current impact without any such Westminster representation, if any?HurstLlama said:
Spot on, Mr. Isam. UKIP is getting things to happen even without any MPs, primarily, I think, because the major parties are starting to realise they cannot indefinitely ignore a big chunk of the electorate. The more voters UKIP gathers the more this effect will grow. The Parliamentary seats will probably come in time but the effects are already starting to be felt.isam said:
Cameron is only offering a referendum because UKIP are doing so well, that's the whole point. He doesn't want one and would never have offered one had it not been out of desperation.Flightpath said:
Where do you draw that conclusion.surbiton said:
Your idea of a good polling company is the one which gives Tories the best result !Flightpath said:So thats UKIP poll 21 and Labour gain 85 seats. There's clever isn't it? But really isn't this company just giving opinion polling a bad name?
1. I point out that even a big vote for UKIP only succeeds in giving a resounding result to a Europhile Labour Party and denies us a referendum (which I would welcome). How very clever of UKIP.
2. I draw attention to this pollsters a) flip flopping of its own results and b) the fact that it is way out of line with other polls. Where does that leave ones faith?
Admitedly I used a bit of cryptic shorthand to point this out in order to save typing time. Hey ho.0 -
Why is David Cameron expected to have developed an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamic extremism from Iraq to Nigeria? He's the Prime Minister of Britain, which is nowhere near either Iraq or Nigeria.TheScreamingEagles said:David Cameron Bishop bashing story
Church launches bitter attack on PM's 'incoherent' Middle East policy
Bishop of Leeds slams failure over Islamist extremism in scathing letter backed by the archbishop of Canterbury
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/16/church-of-england-attack-david-cameron-middle-east-policy
Occasionally there are violent Islamic extremists in Britain and it would be his job to deal with them, but they generally tackle themselves by things like setting fire to their own van and crashing it into a concrete bollard outside an airport then getting the shit kicked out of them by off-duty baggage handlers.0 -
Will England turn Purple?
If Britain voted the same way in the General Election as they did in the Euro's here is how Parliament would look. pic.twitter.com/3QumjgICss"
0 -
so you are agreeing with me.Ninoinoz said:
Yes, I think you did.TOPPING said:
Didn't see those comments re. IS & UKIP but I can see the logic (don't want anyone to rehearse the whole thing again).Richard_Nabavi said:This tells you more about Opinium than UKIP.
Mind you, I did enjoy the comments on the previous thread claiming that ISIS being beastly in Iraq would boost UKIP's vote share.
IS = Islamic State = Islamic = Islamist campaigning in the UK eg. against "our boys" = backlash = UKIP gaining.
(Edit: did I miss the nuances?)
ISIS persecuting Christians (and other religious minorities)=Cameron says (and does) sweet FA=Cameron doesn't defend Christians no matter how innocent they are=Cameron wouldn't defend Christians in UK no matter how badly treated they are=Vote UKIP!
Incidentally, a letter about Iraq from the Archbishop was read out at mass last Sunday and there was a second collection for Iraq as well.
Incidentally, what message do you suppose it sends (and to whom) when the West only intervenes when Christians are being persecuted after Sunnis have had to suffer years of discrimination?
Of course we are far from the topic (IS being beastly benefits UKIP) but as I said, IS in Iraq being beastly to Christians does, I think, benefit UKIP.
Or were you making a different (yet more nuanced) point altogether?0 -
Time for disestablishment.edmundintokyo said:
Why is David Cameron expected to have developed an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamic extremism from Iraq to Nigeria? He's the Prime Minister of Britain, which is nowhere near either Iraq or Nigeria.TheScreamingEagles said:David Cameron Bishop bashing story
Church launches bitter attack on PM's 'incoherent' Middle East policy
Bishop of Leeds slams failure over Islamist extremism in scathing letter backed by the archbishop of Canterbury
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/16/church-of-england-attack-david-cameron-middle-east-policy
Occasionally there are violent Islamic extremists in Britain and it would be his job to deal with them, but they generally tackle themselves by things like setting fire to their own van and crashing it into a concrete bollard outside an airport then getting the shit kicked out of them by off-duty baggage handlers.0 -
Many thanks.TheScreamingEagles said:
It is explained herepeter_from_putney said:In calculating its polling averages, does UKPR allocate the same weighting to Opinium's findings as it does, for example, in the case of ICM?
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average-20 -
UKIP donation from BNP member
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/16/UKIP-to-donate-dodge-donation-to-charity0 -
Yes, but who's saying UKIP are going to get anything close to 23 seats?TheScreamingEagles said:
Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.isam said:I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!
If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one
FPTP screws smaller parties.
Your example proves UKIP will not be winning anything close to the number of seats that are proportional to their voteshare, that's true. But 8-10 seats is very possible on the sort of polling numbers they currently have.0 -
Diane James a couple of months ago was talking about 60 UKIP MPs at the next General ElectionDanny565 said:
Yes, but who's saying UKIP are going to get anything close to 23 seats?TheScreamingEagles said:
Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.isam said:I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!
If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one
FPTP screws smaller parties.
Your example proves UKIP will not be winning anything close to the number of seats that are proportional to their voteshare, that's true. But 8-10 seats is very possible on the sort of polling numbers they currently have.0 -
Mr. Jessop, I have sympathy with your view of where the balance should lie, but I am bloody certain that the actions of South Yorkshire and Thames Valley Police are outrageous.JosiasJessop said:
Police 'trawling' for witnesses has a number of practical and moral difficulties: seeHurstLlama said:
South Yorks police seem to have invented a new method of Criminal Investigation. In effect take a celebrities name and publicly ask for allegations about them. I am not sure how that fits in with the way we are accustomed to be policed, and Robert Peel is probably spinning in his grave. If it catches on of course it need not be confined to celebrities. Suppose, to pull a name out the hat, Leicester Police are short of a few convictions to meet their targets what would there be to stop them advertising in the Leicester Echo, "We are investigating Dr. Smith, any one who wants to make an allegation against him, no matter long ago the offence took place, should contact us".
http://www.newstatesman.com/node/135233
There is a discussion to be had about suspect anonymity, but on the other hand, would Harris, Hall and Clifford have been jailed for their crimes without the publicity persuading other victims to come forward?
I'm really not sure where the scales should balance on this one. For reasons regular readers would know, I'm veering towards the victims rather than the suspects. It's a difficult one, though, especially when the press and media get involved.
Leave aside the corrupt leaking of information for a moment (even though it was in itself probably a criminal offence), How would you feel if your local force asked in the national news papers for people with allegations against you to come forward, even though they had never interviewed you for any offence, let alone been arrested you. The conduct of South Yorkshire police is scandalous, possibly unlawful, and probably corrupt (if they didn't leak it Thames Valley did).0 -
Diane and Mike K should hook up!TheScreamingEagles said:
Diane James a couple of months ago was talking about 60 UKIP MPs at the next General ElectionDanny565 said:
Yes, but who's saying UKIP are going to get anything close to 23 seats?TheScreamingEagles said:
Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.isam said:I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!
If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one
FPTP screws smaller parties.
Your example proves UKIP will not be winning anything close to the number of seats that are proportional to their voteshare, that's true. But 8-10 seats is very possible on the sort of polling numbers they currently have.
0 -
Speaking of which, why hasn't the Church of England developed an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamic extremism from Iraq to Nigeria? They're supposed to be the ones communicating with a benevolent, omnipotent being every day. If neither the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost can work out what to do about this I don't see why they expect David Cameron to have all the answers.0
-
Or maybe Mike K is Diane?Neil said:
Diane and Mike K should hook up!TheScreamingEagles said:
Diane James a couple of months ago was talking about 60 UKIP MPs at the next General ElectionDanny565 said:
Yes, but who's saying UKIP are going to get anything close to 23 seats?TheScreamingEagles said:
Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.isam said:I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!
If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one
FPTP screws smaller parties.
Your example proves UKIP will not be winning anything close to the number of seats that are proportional to their voteshare, that's true. But 8-10 seats is very possible on the sort of polling numbers they currently have.
0 -
Below is another reason that UKIP is gaining recruits. The Lab/Lib/Con's have brought this country to a near nervous breakdown.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100283280/travelodge-removes-the-bibles-from-its-rooms-on-grounds-of-diversity-were-satanists-complaining/0 -
Yes, well, people say silly things at times. Come the day I realistically think UKIP will do well to hit 12% because some of their Conservative converts will panic and go back in an attempt to keep Miliband out. In terms of seats it depends where those panic stricken voters are. If they are down here in the Conservative heartlands it won't matter a toss. If they are in the "UKIP winnable" seats then that will hurt (and probably let Miliband in).TheScreamingEagles said:
Diane James a couple of months ago was talking about 60 UKIP MPs at the next General ElectionDanny565 said:
Yes, but who's saying UKIP are going to get anything close to 23 seats?TheScreamingEagles said:
Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.isam said:I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!
If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one
FPTP screws smaller parties.
Your example proves UKIP will not be winning anything close to the number of seats that are proportional to their voteshare, that's true. But 8-10 seats is very possible on the sort of polling numbers they currently have.0 -
I thought it was a joint TV venture between the BBC and South Yorkshire constabularyHurstLlama said:
I think that theory fits in with Mr. Cole's possibility number 4. Someone leaked the raid. There will be a very small pool of suspects (probably no more than half a dozen) and almost all of them will be at quite a senior level. Finding out who should not be that difficult. However, it would seem that the Filth don't even want to try. South Yorkshire Police seem to prefer the idea that the BBC got the initial information from a fairy.edmundintokyo said:
A deliberate leak isn't the only possibility here, is it? (I'm talking about the original leak, not the follow-up where they say they promised the BBC priority information in return for keeping a lid on it for a while, in the manner of President Beck in Deep Impact.) Don't get me wrong, it's completely plausible and police everywhere lie all the time, but it's also possible that a policeman told his wife and she told her hairdresser and somebody in the salon told the BBC or whatever.HurstLlama said:
What is blatantly obvious is that someone in West Yorkshire or Thames Valley leaked the raid, probably, if past history is anything to go by, for money. That both forces seem to be denying this is what happened just discredits them further, and, crumbs, its not as if South Yorks had a lot of credibility to start with.OldKingCole said:
Mr D, the Police complained that the BBC were slow to acknowledge they (the Police) were not the source of the leak.Morris_Dancer said:Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.
South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699
Gosh.
There are 4 possibilities
1. The BBC has helicopters flying over every Police HQ to see where columns of unmarked cars are going.
2. Someone in SYP rang the BBC "off the record".
3. The BBC has hacked into SYP mobile phones.
4. Invisible giant green lizards in SYP are in telepathic communications with relations in the BBC.
5. Thames Valley Police were the source of the leak.
‘Celebrity Police Search.’ – coming to your screens this Autumn…
0 -
Agree about the leaking of this (and as I said the other day, Jim Davidson had something interesting to say on the radio about his own experience of this).HurstLlama said:
Mr. Jessop, I have sympathy with your view of where the balance should lie, but I am bloody certain that the actions of South Yorkshire and Thames Valley Police are outrageous.
Leave aside the corrupt leaking of information for a moment (even though it was in itself probably a criminal offence), How would you feel if your local force asked in the national news papers for people with allegations against you to come forward, even though they had never interviewed you for any offence, let alone been arrested you. The conduct of South Yorkshire police is scandalous, possibly unlawful, and probably corrupt (if they didn't leak it Thames Valley did).
It was interesting the way the investigation into Rolf Harris was reported by the BBC as "a man of xxx age living in yyy has been arrested" for weeks (despite Harris's name being on t'Internet), whilst Jim Davidson's name was reported with something approaching glee immediately.
At least, I hope I remembered that correctly ...
Of course, Davidson was innocent (the case did not even go to trial and was investigated by two different forces). Harris was not.
It stank of the media protecting their own in the case of Harris. Exactly the sort of behaviour that led to these sorts of problems in the first place.
On a matter of note: have either police force publicly asked for people to come forward wrt the latest case? I haven't been following the case that closely.0 -
Mr. Edmund,edmundintokyo said:Speaking of which, why hasn't the Church of England developed an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamic extremism from Iraq to Nigeria? They're supposed to be the ones communicating with a benevolent, omnipotent being every day. If neither the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost can work out what to do about this I don't see why they expect David Cameron to have all the answers.
Maybe the name Church of ENGLAND should give you a clue as to why they have not formed a plan to combat Islamic Extremism in parts foreign. Mind you the CofE is so limp-wristed and so uncertain of what it believes and too terrified of actually saying anything that might be unpopular that it has, these days, all the moral authority of a haddock.0 -
Is there no end to religious discrimination?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/pastafarian-fights-for-his-right-to-wear-a-colander-on-his-head-in-driving-licence-photo-9673376.html0 -
Avast, Mr Llama! The Anglican Communion has many fans in Africa (and other sunnier climes) too!HurstLlama said:
Mr. Edmund,edmundintokyo said:Speaking of which, why hasn't the Church of England developed an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamic extremism from Iraq to Nigeria? They're supposed to be the ones communicating with a benevolent, omnipotent being every day. If neither the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost can work out what to do about this I don't see why they expect David Cameron to have all the answers.
Maybe the name Church of ENGLAND should give you a clue as to why they have not formed a plan to combat Islamic Extremism in parts foreign. Mind you the CofE is so limp-wristed and so uncertain of what it believes and too terrified of actually saying anything that might be unpopular that it has, these days, all the moral authority of a haddock.0 -
I'm not an expert in theology but I'm pretty sure their invisible superhero is supposed to have jurisdiction across national boundaries. Either way they should stop bitching about what the Prime Minister of BRITAIN isn't doing about it.HurstLlama said:
Mr. Edmund,edmundintokyo said:Speaking of which, why hasn't the Church of England developed an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamic extremism from Iraq to Nigeria? They're supposed to be the ones communicating with a benevolent, omnipotent being every day. If neither the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost can work out what to do about this I don't see why they expect David Cameron to have all the answers.
Maybe the name Church of ENGLAND should give you a clue as to why they have not formed a plan to combat Islamic Extremism in parts foreign. Mind you the CofE is so limp-wristed and so uncertain of what it believes and too terrified of actually saying anything that might be unpopular that it has, these days, all the moral authority of a haddock.0 -
So long as they don't breed.Neil said:
Diane and Mike K should hook up!TheScreamingEagles said:
Diane James a couple of months ago was talking about 60 UKIP MPs at the next General ElectionDanny565 said:
Yes, but who's saying UKIP are going to get anything close to 23 seats?TheScreamingEagles said:
Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.isam said:I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!
If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one
FPTP screws smaller parties.
Your example proves UKIP will not be winning anything close to the number of seats that are proportional to their voteshare, that's true. But 8-10 seats is very possible on the sort of polling numbers they currently have.0 -
Good point, they even have a bunch of international franchises and things. Get yourself over to Nigeria, Bishop of Leeds, and don't come back until you've turned them all into Christians.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Avast, Mr Llama! The Anglican Communion has many fans in Africa (and other sunnier climes) too!HurstLlama said:
Mr. Edmund,edmundintokyo said:Speaking of which, why hasn't the Church of England developed an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamic extremism from Iraq to Nigeria? They're supposed to be the ones communicating with a benevolent, omnipotent being every day. If neither the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost can work out what to do about this I don't see why they expect David Cameron to have all the answers.
Maybe the name Church of ENGLAND should give you a clue as to why they have not formed a plan to combat Islamic Extremism in parts foreign. Mind you the CofE is so limp-wristed and so uncertain of what it believes and too terrified of actually saying anything that might be unpopular that it has, these days, all the moral authority of a haddock.0 -
@JossiasJessop
In those exact terms, no. But as near as as makes no difference.
Just looking at the story on the Telegraph Web Site, South Yorks seem to be digging themselves into an even bigger hole. They are showing all the signs of a public body that has been caught out doing something stupid/illegal and are flailing around like mad trying to get the problem to stop. You would think that West Yorks, of all forces, would have learned the lesson that when you have done something wrong do not try and lie (sorry spin) your way out of it.
The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has a pay and pension package worth over £200,000 p.a.. One has to ask, why?0 -
It seems to me in these recent sex offence cases, the more pious and do goody the suspects image, the more guilty they are, and vice versaJosiasJessop said:
Agree about the leaking of this (and as I said the other day, Jim Davidson had something interesting to say on the radio about his own experience of this).HurstLlama said:
Mr. Jessop, I have sympathy with your view of where the balance should lie, but I am bloody certain that the actions of South Yorkshire and Thames Valley Police are outrageous.
Leave aside the corrupt leaking of information for a moment (even though it was in itself probably a criminal offence), How would you feel if your local force asked in the national news papers for people with allegations against you to come forward, even though they had never interviewed you for any offence, let alone been arrested you. The conduct of South Yorkshire police is scandalous, possibly unlawful, and probably corrupt (if they didn't leak it Thames Valley did).
It was interesting the way the investigation into Rolf Harris was reported by the BBC as "a man of xxx age living in yyy has been arrested" for weeks (despite Harris's name being on t'Internet), whilst Jim Davidson's name was reported with something approaching glee immediately.
At least, I hope I remembered that correctly ...
Of course, Davidson was innocent (the case did not even go to trial and was investigated by two different forces). Harris was not.
It stank of the media protecting their own in the case of Harris. Exactly the sort of behaviour that led to these sorts of problems in the first place.
On a matter of note: have either police force publicly asked for people to come forward wrt the latest case? I haven't been following the case that closely.0 -
I'm not sure what your evidence base is for the assertion unless you're making assumptions about a recent event.isam said:
It seems to me in these recent sex offence cases, the more pious and do goody the suspects image, the more guilty they are, and vice versaJosiasJessop said:
Agree about the leaking of this (and as I said the other day, Jim Davidson had something interesting to say on the radio about his own experience of this).HurstLlama said:
Mr. Jessop, I have sympathy with your view of where the balance should lie, but I am bloody certain that the actions of South Yorkshire and Thames Valley Police are outrageous.
Leave aside the corrupt leaking of information for a moment (even though it was in itself probably a criminal offence), How would you feel if your local force asked in the national news papers for people with allegations against you to come forward, even though they had never interviewed you for any offence, let alone been arrested you. The conduct of South Yorkshire police is scandalous, possibly unlawful, and probably corrupt (if they didn't leak it Thames Valley did).
It was interesting the way the investigation into Rolf Harris was reported by the BBC as "a man of xxx age living in yyy has been arrested" for weeks (despite Harris's name being on t'Internet), whilst Jim Davidson's name was reported with something approaching glee immediately.
At least, I hope I remembered that correctly ...
Of course, Davidson was innocent (the case did not even go to trial and was investigated by two different forces). Harris was not.
It stank of the media protecting their own in the case of Harris. Exactly the sort of behaviour that led to these sorts of problems in the first place.
On a matter of note: have either police force publicly asked for people to come forward wrt the latest case? I haven't been following the case that closely.0 -
Indeed it does, Cap'n Doc, at least for the moment, but that is the Anglican Communion. Mr. Tokyo was talking about the CofE which is a related but different thing altogether. I expect Mr Tokyo knew that but perhaps he was trying to make a, silly, point.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Avast, Mr Llama! The Anglican Communion has many fans in Africa (and other sunnier climes) too!HurstLlama said:
Mr. Edmund,edmundintokyo said:Speaking of which, why hasn't the Church of England developed an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamic extremism from Iraq to Nigeria? They're supposed to be the ones communicating with a benevolent, omnipotent being every day. If neither the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost can work out what to do about this I don't see why they expect David Cameron to have all the answers.
Maybe the name Church of ENGLAND should give you a clue as to why they have not formed a plan to combat Islamic Extremism in parts foreign. Mind you the CofE is so limp-wristed and so uncertain of what it believes and too terrified of actually saying anything that might be unpopular that it has, these days, all the moral authority of a haddock.
Else0 -
In this post you're mixing South Yorks and West YorksHurstLlama said:@JossiasJessop
In those exact terms, no. But as near as as makes no difference.
Just looking at the story on the Telegraph Web Site, South Yorks seem to be digging themselves into an even bigger hole. They are showing all the signs of a public body that has been caught out doing something stupid/illegal and are flailing around like mad trying to get the problem to stop. You would think that West Yorks, of all forces, would have learned the lesson that when you have done something wrong do not try and lie (sorry spin) your way out of it.
The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has a pay and pension package worth over £200,000 p.a.. One has to ask, why?0 -
Oops, apologies all, and thanks Mr Putney for pointing out a silly error. Should be South Yorkshire Police throughout.peter_from_putney said:
In this post you're mixing South Yorks and West YorksHurstLlama said:@JossiasJessop
In those exact terms, no. But as near as as makes no difference.
Just looking at the story on the Telegraph Web Site, South Yorks seem to be digging themselves into an even bigger hole. They are showing all the signs of a public body that has been caught out doing something stupid/illegal and are flailing around like mad trying to get the problem to stop. You would think that West Yorks, of all forces, would have learned the lesson that when you have done something wrong do not try and lie (sorry spin) your way out of it.
The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has a pay and pension package worth over £200,000 p.a.. One has to ask, why?0 -
0
-
Nick Sutton ✔ @suttonnick
Scotland on Sunday front page - "Poll: Yes vote advances despite currency fears" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers pic.twitter.com/YCnsBNcsDE
0 -
We all make mistakes, like that berk of a senior police officer announcing to camera the raid on a property in Berkshire, which he pronounced as "Burkshire".
Didn't people like him ever go to school?0 -
It's looking increasingly likely UKIP will poll at least 10% next year.0
-
The Greens only contested 335 seats in 2010. UKIP will be contesting all of them in 2015.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Ta!TheScreamingEagles said:
0.9%Sunil_Prasannan said:What % vote did the Greens get in GE2010?
So 0.9% = 1 seat
21% / 0.9 x 1 = 23 seats0 -
If there is anyone around who enjoys a good laugh then I recommend them to read Cameron's latest article in the the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11039214/PM-Our-generational-struggle-against-a-poisonous-ideology.html
I love the bits where he talks about the UKs military prowess, you know those capabilities he is determined to cut even further. Then there is the great section when he says the police are going to act against people promoting Islamist views in the UK. Its comedy gold stuff.0
