Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Stodge and MoonRabbit’s Cheltenham Preview – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 2023 in General
imageStodge and MoonRabbit’s Cheltenham Preview – politicalbetting.com

Weather & Going (according to MoonRabbit) the week will be wet and windy at times, if you are going your wind resistant waterproof is essential. Put some heatpads in pockets too. The course and famous hill are always a stamina test, wet tracks add jeopardy, but will rain actually make for much soft going – just not been business as usual under turf all winter after last summers heatwave, what falls just absorbs so quick. With thirsty water table despite rain forecast, I think we should expect fast racing – remind ourselves of size and quality of all these fields, what comes out to play in a true-run race? For example, in the Champion Hurdle, if good pace throughout, Vauban can turnover State Man – anticipate other favourites losing out due to good going rather than soft.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • pingping Posts: 3,724
    edited March 2023
    Thanks. Ive had a small punt on those four tips.

    General advice, as always, go for the best odds offered;

    www.oddschecker.com

    And make the most of any bookmaker offers.

    Punting on horses is almost always EV- but the first day of Cheltenham has historically been one of the few EV+ opportunities.

    A few years ago, PP were offering £1k free bets to new customers. Sadly those days are gone, but there is still value out there, courtesy of the bookmakers marketing departments.

    Take full advantage.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    ping said:

    Thanks. Ive had a small punt on those four tips.

    General advice, as always, go for the best odds offered;

    www.oddschecker.com

    And make the most of any bookmaker offers.

    Punting on horses is almost always EV- but the first day of Cheltenham has historically been one of the few EV+ opportunities.

    A few years ago, PP were offering £1k free bets to new customers. Sadly those days are gone, but there is still value out there, courtesy of the bookmakers marketing departments.

    Take full advantage.

    Thanks Ping.

    If Maries Rock wins you will have to scrape me off the ceiling - absolutely ❤️ Marie’s Rock.

    But ❤️ Love Envoi too, so absolutely conflicted I have to choose between the two. 😖

    I’ll probably place the bet on Love Envoi, who I have fancied for Mares Hurdle all winter, and cheer Rock to her win and madly celebrate despite losing bet.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    edited March 2023
    .
    viewcode said:

    Good grief, this is a surprise and a nice one! Thank you @stodge and @MoonRabbit for your interesting article.

    A fun guide for the racing ignoramuses among us (me).
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    viewcode said:

    Good grief, this is a surprise and a nice one! Thank you @stodge and @MoonRabbit for your interesting article.

    Thanks yes! No Albanian Hugging Lineker to wake up to today. Crisis all sorted by the credits in true W1A fashion. 😉

    Couple of changes clearly, from posting my copy to final card confirmations - they can enter more than one run and go at least till 48hrs I think I read even 24 to finalise which one, so I don’t know how the newspapers with their pull out specials manage. Maries Rock race has been decided, she runs today. And Bainbridge doesn’t.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    Nigelb said:

    .

    viewcode said:

    Good grief, this is a surprise and a nice one! Thank you @stodge and @MoonRabbit for your interesting article.

    A fun guide for the racing ignoramuses among us (me).
    Think of it then, like the Tour de France - where we know just winning a stage can be pinnacle of a pro riders career and even for those who win quite a few stages, each one very special? So it is at the Cheltenham Festival, for owners, trainers, jockeys to get a winner in the most challenging races and duels they can enter into. Even the horses themselves know, they will dine out for life on finest hay and brandysnaps if they manage even just one win at the festival, and stand there lauded by the crowds.

    And it’s all that added emotional drama, that makes the big sporting events of every year so compelling isn’t it?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    Another piece if the criminal justice system falling apart,

    HMP Aylesbury ‘thrown into chaos’ by MoJ policy change, says watchdog
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/14/hmp-aylesbury-thrown-into-chaos-by-moj-policy-change-says-watchdog

    Meanwhile.

    More than 1,500 UK police officers accused of violence against women in six months
    ‘Staggering’ figures from the National Police Chiefs’ Council show that less than 1% of those accused have been sacked
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/14/more-than-1500-uk-police-officers-accused-of-violence-against-women-in-six-months
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Nigelb said:

    Another piece if the criminal justice system falling apart,

    HMP Aylesbury ‘thrown into chaos’ by MoJ policy change, says watchdog
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/14/hmp-aylesbury-thrown-into-chaos-by-moj-policy-change-says-watchdog

    Meanwhile.

    More than 1,500 UK police officers accused of violence against women in six months
    ‘Staggering’ figures from the National Police Chiefs’ Council show that less than 1% of those accused have been sacked
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/14/more-than-1500-uk-police-officers-accused-of-violence-against-women-in-six-months

    A few points about that second article: whilst the recent hideous stories coming out of the Met show that the police do not take accusations seriously (or utterly ignore them), policing is a job where you can routinely expect false accusations to be made.

    In which case, what proportion of those accused would you expect to be sacked within six months, allowing for due process? Ten percent? Fifty percent? Ninety-nine percent? How many of the accused have been suspended from duty, or put on restricted duties?

    I'd expect more than one percent, but how much more?

    It's also interesting that a little over half the cases were 'conduct' cases, usually raised by people within the force.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,601

    Nigelb said:

    Another piece if the criminal justice system falling apart,

    HMP Aylesbury ‘thrown into chaos’ by MoJ policy change, says watchdog
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/14/hmp-aylesbury-thrown-into-chaos-by-moj-policy-change-says-watchdog

    Meanwhile.

    More than 1,500 UK police officers accused of violence against women in six months
    ‘Staggering’ figures from the National Police Chiefs’ Council show that less than 1% of those accused have been sacked
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/14/more-than-1500-uk-police-officers-accused-of-violence-against-women-in-six-months

    A few points about that second article: whilst the recent hideous stories coming out of the Met show that the police do not take accusations seriously (or utterly ignore them), policing is a job where you can routinely expect false accusations to be made.

    In which case, what proportion of those accused would you expect to be sacked within six months, allowing for due process? Ten percent? Fifty percent? Ninety-nine percent? How many of the accused have been suspended from duty, or put on restricted duties?

    I'd expect more than one percent, but how much more?

    It's also interesting that a little over half the cases were 'conduct' cases, usually raised by people within the force.
    I would expect

    - a bizarre series of miscarriages of justice where obviously innocent officers are crucifixes, because process
    - a number of cases where the obviously guilty are promoted. Because process.

    It is my belief that Chief Constable Savage is alive, well and has passed all his diversity exams with 100% marks. He now oversees a policy of arresting people for ordering their coffee black. Mostly black people, at anti-racism demos.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,007
    Excellent stuff. Love posts like this.

    I am working so won't be able to watch the races but put a few bets on.

    Thanks for the tips both!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    Many thanks for the betting post.
    Not really my area of expertise, but all the more interesting for that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,730
    dixiedean said:

    Many thanks for the betting post.
    Not really my area of expertise, but all the more interesting for that.

    Well, one poster a few weeks back said he only backed donkeys in horse races…
  • pingping Posts: 3,724
    edited March 2023
    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Many thanks for the betting post.
    Not really my area of expertise, but all the more interesting for that.

    Well, one poster a few weeks back said he only backed donkeys in horse races…
    But he did eventually get a winner in the last race of the day - with, somewhat ironically, a horse called Sound Money.
  • Shocked.

    Complaints about police officers' treatment of women are highly unlikely to result in action, according to new police data for England and Wales.

    The National Police Chiefs' Council says nine in 10 complaints were dropped in the six months to March 2022.

    It comes as the former wife of a West Yorkshire Police firearms officer says the force failed to fully investigate her allegations of domestic violence.

    West Yorkshire Police says it has now suspended an officer.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64915126
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,080
    ping said:

    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

    More like no gays, in that world.

    At least none you would notice.
  • Well.

    Anglo-Saxon feminist and transgender activism is threatening France, a leading French columnist has warned.

    Eugénie Bastié, 31, has angered leftwingers with an essay, Sauver la Différence des Sexes (Save the Difference Between the Sexes), in which she argues against the arrival in France of British and American theories she says involve a “totalitarian” cancel culture and the negation of biological realities.

    She says the result is women struggle to combine a career and childcare, and men, shorn of role models and their ancestral identity, become sad porn addicts. Her opponents call her a “gender crusader” panicking at the ending of France’s patriarchal system.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/transgender-war-france-le-figaro-2023-hpft3mp7l
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Many thanks for the betting post.
    Not really my area of expertise, but all the more interesting for that.

    Well, one poster a few weeks back said he only backed donkeys in horse races…
    I only back donkeys in political races also :)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    edited March 2023

    Nigelb said:

    Another piece if the criminal justice system falling apart,

    HMP Aylesbury ‘thrown into chaos’ by MoJ policy change, says watchdog
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/14/hmp-aylesbury-thrown-into-chaos-by-moj-policy-change-says-watchdog

    Meanwhile.

    More than 1,500 UK police officers accused of violence against women in six months
    ‘Staggering’ figures from the National Police Chiefs’ Council show that less than 1% of those accused have been sacked
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/14/more-than-1500-uk-police-officers-accused-of-violence-against-women-in-six-months

    A few points about that second article: whilst the recent hideous stories coming out of the Met show that the police do not take accusations seriously (or utterly ignore them), policing is a job where you can routinely expect false accusations to be made.

    In which case, what proportion of those accused would you expect to be sacked within six months, allowing for due process? Ten percent? Fifty percent? Ninety-nine percent? How many of the accused have been suspended from duty, or put on restricted duties?..
    .
    I don't know, but as you, I'd expect it ought to be considerably higher than 1%.
    Note also that the figures were supposed to have been published last November - and five forces are yet to submit any at all,
    Which also suggests how seriously it's been taken up until very recently.

    You might also ask, with numbers like that, how many think it simply not worth making a complaint at all - as also evidenced by recent notorious cases.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,730

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Many thanks for the betting post.
    Not really my area of expertise, but all the more interesting for that.

    Well, one poster a few weeks back said he only backed donkeys in horse races…
    I only back donkeys in political races also :)
    Given the current state of politics it's difficult to see how you could avoid that.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Britain’s most regressive tax “criminalising poverty”, with over 1,000 summary criminal convictions per week, 70% of whom are women and many are unaware of the case against them until after they have a criminal record.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/13/bbc-licence-fee-criminalising-poverty-1000-people-week-prosecuted/

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    ping said:

    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

    It's certainly not a part of religious belief that I'm willing to respect.
  • Sandpit said:

    Britain’s most regressive tax “criminalising poverty”, with over 1,000 summary criminal convictions per week, 70% of whom are women and many are unaware of the case against them until after they have a criminal record.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/13/bbc-licence-fee-criminalising-poverty-1000-people-week-prosecuted/

    I think you're missing the big story in your desire to bash the BBC and Lineker.

    But almost all of the cases are now dealt with under the controversial Single Justice Procedure (SJP), which means they are heard behind closed doors without the accused needing to enter a plea.

    If they fail to respond to the letter telling them they have been charged, the court simply rubber-stamps the guilty verdict and issues a fine, which can be up to £1,000.


    Now who introduced that then eh? Suella Braverman.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,601

    Shocked.

    Complaints about police officers' treatment of women are highly unlikely to result in action, according to new police data for England and Wales.

    The National Police Chiefs' Council says nine in 10 complaints were dropped in the six months to March 2022.

    It comes as the former wife of a West Yorkshire Police firearms officer says the force failed to fully investigate her allegations of domestic violence.

    West Yorkshire Police says it has now suspended an officer.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64915126

    I am shocked - shocked - to find that gambling is going on in here!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,601
    Nigelb said:

    ping said:

    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

    It's certainly not a part of religious belief that I'm willing to respect.
    Interesting, isn’t it, that we come back to interaction between rights.

    The idea of untrammelled rights for anyone, no matter how deserving is horse manure.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Nice to start the morning with a quality PB header. An all too rare event these days.

    Mike himself still has the knack, but this place desperately needs succession management. Far too many quality officers have jumped ship, and the bridge has a rat or two.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    Also true for foreign policy.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/mckaycoppins/status/1635368417325879296
    My theory is that a large and growing number of prominent conservatives (politicians, media personalities, etc.) are incapable of even feigning fluency in fiscal policy because they've been talking about culture war stuff nonstop for like eight years.

    (The comment was prompted by GOP responses to the 'woke' bailout - which was, of course, nothing of the sort.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    Another burger munching surrender monkey.

    After weeks of dancing between the raindrops on Ukraine, DeSantis makes his views clear to Tucker Carlson: Protecting Ukraine not a key US interest.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1635446358474620928
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,760
    edited March 2023
    ping said:

    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

    Excuse my ignorance but what exactly *is* conversion therapy? I vaguely think of it as something that anti-gay people do to try and convince gay people that they aren’t really attracted to men but surely there is more to it than that given the reaction it inspires?

    (Edited for clarity)
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670
    My only bet today is in the 1:30 TAHMURAS. Though I think Mullins will win last 2 races so likely have a punt on that later, Tekao & Gaillard Du Mesnil.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Labour councillor:



    https://twitter.com/pjwoodside/status/1635472334621376512?s=46

    I’m sure Anas Sarwar will be delighted.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Nigelb said:

    Also true for foreign policy.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/mckaycoppins/status/1635368417325879296
    My theory is that a large and growing number of prominent conservatives (politicians, media personalities, etc.) are incapable of even feigning fluency in fiscal policy because they've been talking about culture war stuff nonstop for like eight years.

    (The comment was prompted by GOP responses to the 'woke' bailout - which was, of course, nothing of the sort.)

    It's a parody, but they really do just call anything they are against woke. Given Desantis amongst others is on the anti Ukraine train expect them to call supporting defence against Russian aggression woke next.

    And I say that as someone critical of woke culture.
  • As I have zero interest in the gee-gees, back onto the SNP for a minute. Whilst I have better things to do than watch the debates, the reportage is interesting. Sounds like Regan has a UKIPesque view of how she would set up a Scottish Pound (as we hold all the cards, it would be the easiest deal in history) with zero detail.

    So she'll be out first, but the pitch for her transfer votes is also live and from what I read it looks like Forbes is far better positioned to hoover those up. So despite her rocky start I expect her to win - quite simply because continuity Sturgeon isn't what members appear to want.

    The question then will swing onto how Forbes translates her freakish religious beliefs into government policy. And for all that her views should be getting perverts like me recoiling in horror, I don't feel it. The world has moved on a long long way from the days of Section 28 and there is no going back. Gay marriage and equality before the law is already established and most people are comfortable of the concept (if not some of the more extreme laws that try and get pushed through like the GRR Bill).

    So I would expect she is so busy showing off a dynamic Scotland making itself rich from green energy, from food and drink, AND from harnessing oil and gas that she won't have the inclination to start banning deviance. She talks a lot about a Scotland looking forward. So why would she look back on this?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557

    Nigelb said:

    ping said:

    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

    It's certainly not a part of religious belief that I'm willing to respect.
    Interesting, isn’t it, that we come back to interaction between rights.

    The idea of untrammelled rights for anyone, no matter how deserving is horse manure.
    Not quite sure what you mean by interacting rights in this context.
    Forbes is entitled to hold and express her views - I have no issue with that - but I also have the right to hold that particular view in contempt.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Best prices:

    Yousaf 1/2 (Hills)
    Forbes 2/1 (Coral)

    Surely still value in Yousaf?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Well done Moon Rabbit and Stodge! I know nothing about the form but 'The Vaubin' 'is the name of a lovely building which I was interested in buying a few years ago just round the corner from me here in Villefranche.

    The sun's shining and it's looking in peak condition so why not? VAUBIN for the win......
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557

    ping said:

    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

    Excuse my ignorance but what exactly *is* conversion therapy? I vaguely think of it as something that anti-gay people do to try and convince gay people that they aren’t really attracted to men but sure there is more to it than that given the reaction it inspires?

    (Edited for clarity)
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    edited March 2023
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Also true for foreign policy.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/mckaycoppins/status/1635368417325879296
    My theory is that a large and growing number of prominent conservatives (politicians, media personalities, etc.) are incapable of even feigning fluency in fiscal policy because they've been talking about culture war stuff nonstop for like eight years.

    (The comment was prompted by GOP responses to the 'woke' bailout - which was, of course, nothing of the sort.)

    It's a parody, but they really do just call anything they are against woke. Given Desantis amongst others is on the anti Ukraine train expect them to call supporting defence against Russian aggression woke next.

    And I say that as someone critical of woke culture.
    It goes beyond parody, since it underpins so much of US politics. It crowds out intelligent analysis of policy.

    That's not to say that the same effect doesn't exist to an extent on the Democratic side. But it's yet to destroy their ability to react rationally to events in the same way.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,601
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ping said:

    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

    It's certainly not a part of religious belief that I'm willing to respect.
    Interesting, isn’t it, that we come back to interaction between rights.

    The idea of untrammelled rights for anyone, no matter how deserving is horse manure.
    Not quite sure what you mean by interacting rights in this context.
    Forbes is entitled to hold and express her views - I have no issue with that - but I also have the right to hold that particular view in contempt.
    The right to have your religion “respected”, is held highly be some.

    I always find that right reminding on the respect that street criminals with poor impulse control demand, but hey.

    Dissing Forbes religion is acceptable, but if you said the same things about a religion held (largely) by an ethnic minority, you could face legal sanction.

    Remember the Glenn Hoddle comedy?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    As I have zero interest in the gee-gees, back onto the SNP for a minute. Whilst I have better things to do than watch the debates, the reportage is interesting. Sounds like Regan has a UKIPesque view of how she would set up a Scottish Pound (as we hold all the cards, it would be the easiest deal in history) with zero detail.

    So she'll be out first, but the pitch for her transfer votes is also live and from what I read it looks like Forbes is far better positioned to hoover those up. So despite her rocky start I expect her to win - quite simply because continuity Sturgeon isn't what members appear to want.

    The question then will swing onto how Forbes translates her freakish religious beliefs into government policy. And for all that her views should be getting perverts like me recoiling in horror, I don't feel it. The world has moved on a long long way from the days of Section 28 and there is no going back. Gay marriage and equality before the law is already established and most people are comfortable of the concept (if not some of the more extreme laws that try and get pushed through like the GRR Bill).

    So I would expect she is so busy showing off a dynamic Scotland making itself rich from green energy, from food and drink, AND from harnessing oil and gas that she won't have the inclination to start banning deviance. She talks a lot about a Scotland looking forward. So why would she look back on this?

    Yousaf will easily win the First Preference round, but if he fails to get over 50% he’s in trouble. Very hard to see him getting many of Regan’s Second Preferences.

    If you think he’ll get more than 45% of First Preferences, take Hills’ 1/2. If you don’t, take a modest stake in Forbes at Coral.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,117

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ping said:

    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

    It's certainly not a part of religious belief that I'm willing to respect.
    Interesting, isn’t it, that we come back to interaction between rights.

    The idea of untrammelled rights for anyone, no matter how deserving is horse manure.
    Not quite sure what you mean by interacting rights in this context.
    Forbes is entitled to hold and express her views - I have no issue with that - but I also have the right to hold that particular view in contempt.
    The right to have your religion “respected”, is held highly be some.

    I always find that right reminding on the respect that street criminals with poor impulse control demand, but hey.

    Dissing Forbes religion is acceptable, but if you said the same things about a religion held (largely) by an ethnic minority, you could face legal sanction.

    Remember the Glenn Hoddle comedy?
    I wouldn't go too far down that rabbit hole of argument if I were you. Gaels are arguably an ethnic minority, and certainly a linguistic one.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,758
    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ping said:

    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

    It's certainly not a part of religious belief that I'm willing to respect.
    Interesting, isn’t it, that we come back to interaction between rights.

    The idea of untrammelled rights for anyone, no matter how deserving is horse manure.
    Not quite sure what you mean by interacting rights in this context.
    Forbes is entitled to hold and express her views - I have no issue with that - but I also have the right to hold that particular view in contempt.
    The right to have your religion “respected”, is held highly be some.

    I always find that right reminding on the respect that street criminals with poor impulse control demand, but hey.

    Dissing Forbes religion is acceptable, but if you said the same things about a religion held (largely) by an ethnic minority, you could face legal sanction...
    Would you ?
    Such prejudice is no more acceptable, and I'm quite happy to say so.

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    More BBC impartiality:


  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,601
    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ping said:

    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

    It's certainly not a part of religious belief that I'm willing to respect.
    Interesting, isn’t it, that we come back to interaction between rights.

    The idea of untrammelled rights for anyone, no matter how deserving is horse manure.
    Not quite sure what you mean by interacting rights in this context.
    Forbes is entitled to hold and express her views - I have no issue with that - but I also have the right to hold that particular view in contempt.
    The right to have your religion “respected”, is held highly be some.

    I always find that right reminding on the respect that street criminals with poor impulse control demand, but hey.

    Dissing Forbes religion is acceptable, but if you said the same things about a religion held (largely) by an ethnic minority, you could face legal sanction.

    Remember the Glenn Hoddle comedy?
    I wouldn't go too far down that rabbit hole of argument if I were you. Gaels are arguably an ethnic minority, and certainly a linguistic one.
    You are aware that arguing that a subset of white people is a minority is held to be an evidence of bigoted views, by some?

    Good luck trying to get Christianity, of any variant, “protected”
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ping said:

    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

    It's certainly not a part of religious belief that I'm willing to respect.
    Interesting, isn’t it, that we come back to interaction between rights.

    The idea of untrammelled rights for anyone, no matter how deserving is horse manure.
    Not quite sure what you mean by interacting rights in this context.
    Forbes is entitled to hold and express her views - I have no issue with that - but I also have the right to hold that particular view in contempt.
    I thought that was the point. That her right to hold her beliefs does not preclude being mocked or criticised for her beliefs. And that some on other subjects like beliefs about, say, gender identity, have the right to seek to advance that belief but that doesn't mean that belief should override all others or not face criticism simply because it's their belief.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,760
    Nigelb said:

    ping said:

    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

    Excuse my ignorance but what exactly *is* conversion therapy? I vaguely think of it as something that anti-gay people do to try and convince gay people that they aren’t really attracted to men but sure there is more to it than that given the reaction it inspires?

    (Edited for clarity)
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
    And how does that differ from torture?

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    GIN1138 said:
    Bruce is appalling. Totally unsuited to that job. She is damaging the BBC’s reputation every time she hosts the programme.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,117
    edited March 2023
    GIN1138 said:
    "But on Monday, friends of the presenter said she has been 'hung out to dry' by BBC producers, who they say had provided her with with the line to defend against any defamatory claims, The Telegraph reports."

    Interesting - I had wondered if she had actually been told in advance, as her wording did in deed imply.

    But how? why? what made then do something so specific? The clanger was in response to a purely incidental remark by one panellist. The implication is that presenters are stuffed full to the gills with all sorts of possible "How Not to Upset Tories in the News" attack/defence lines.

    The other possibility is that it is a recorded programme, and ...
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Your “impartial” BBC folks. Just Robbie Gibb liking anti SNP tweets


    https://twitter.com/davidrobson20/status/1634964692996345857?s=46
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited March 2023
    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    The story has expanded but initially was quite amusing, as it was basically 'this is bad news, this is bad news, this is bad news, quote from someone saying its not that bad really'
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,730
    Carnyx said:

    GIN1138 said:
    Interesting - I had wondered if she had actually been told in advance, as her wording did in deed imply.

    But how? why? what made then do something so specific? The clanger was in response to a purely incidental remark by one panellist. The implication is that presenters are stuffed full to the gills with all sorts of possible "How Not to Upset Tories in the News" attack/defence lines.

    The other possibility is that it is a recorded programme, and ...
    The other possibility is that the BBC are panicking over their previous cockup so cocked up again.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,760
    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,530
    edited March 2023
    The biggest threat to liberal democracies are right wing politicians seeking to shut down any criticism, bully the judiciary and to try and put laws into place that disenfranchise those likely to vote against them .

    Ring any bells....

    Trump , Orban , Netenyahu , Bolsanaro , and now add to that the current crop of Tories who have clearly shown that they’re an existential threat to UK democracy .
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    GIN1138 said:
    It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her.
    That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,117
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    GIN1138 said:
    Interesting - I had wondered if she had actually been told in advance, as her wording did in deed imply.

    But how? why? what made then do something so specific? The clanger was in response to a purely incidental remark by one panellist. The implication is that presenters are stuffed full to the gills with all sorts of possible "How Not to Upset Tories in the News" attack/defence lines.

    The other possibility is that it is a recorded programme, and ...
    The other possibility is that the BBC are panicking over their previous cockup so cocked up again.
    Hmm. Certainly both are possible. But wouldn't QT have been recorded before the Lineker affair?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Matthew Syed is a presenter for the BBC. Here’s a column from today’s Sunday Times in which he offers a lot of opinions on the UK’s asylum system, a hotly contested party political issue. I’m genuinely unclear why that’s permissible:


    https://twitter.com/j_coatsworth/status/1634834386959958018?s=46
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557

    Nigelb said:

    ping said:

    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

    Excuse my ignorance but what exactly *is* conversion therapy? I vaguely think of it as something that anti-gay people do to try and convince gay people that they aren’t really attracted to men but sure there is more to it than that given the reaction it inspires?

    (Edited for clarity)
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
    And how does that differ from torture?

    Other than the particular motivation, it doesn't really.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ping said:

    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

    It's certainly not a part of religious belief that I'm willing to respect.
    Interesting, isn’t it, that we come back to interaction between rights.

    The idea of untrammelled rights for anyone, no matter how deserving is horse manure.
    Not quite sure what you mean by interacting rights in this context.
    Forbes is entitled to hold and express her views - I have no issue with that - but I also have the right to hold that particular view in contempt.
    The right to have your religion “respected”, is held highly be some.

    I always find that right reminding on the respect that street criminals with poor impulse control demand, but hey.

    Dissing Forbes religion is acceptable, but if you said the same things about a religion held (largely) by an ethnic minority, you could face legal sanction.

    Remember the Glenn Hoddle comedy?
    I wouldn't go too far down that rabbit hole of argument if I were you. Gaels are arguably an ethnic minority, and certainly a linguistic one.
    You are aware that arguing that a subset of white people is a minority is held to be an evidence of bigoted views, by some?

    Good luck trying to get Christianity, of any variant, “protected”
    Some people also argue that its impossible for someone of an ethnic minority to be racist or that everyone of a specific race is born and raised a racist even if they've never uttered or had a racist thought in their lives.

    Some people are idiots.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,781
    edited March 2023

    Your “impartial” BBC folks. Just Robbie Gibb liking anti SNP tweets


    https://twitter.com/davidrobson20/status/1634964692996345857?s=46

    This BBC stuff is a sign of weakness from SNP supporters (even if they are correct that there is a bias there).

    Every time I see this come up on twitter I'm just reminded of Farage/Trump and the "MSM", or worse the stupid march on Pacific Quay in 2014.

    It harms your cause.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,730
    edited March 2023

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

    This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.

    Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.

    The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.

    If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,760
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ping said:

    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

    Excuse my ignorance but what exactly *is* conversion therapy? I vaguely think of it as something that anti-gay people do to try and convince gay people that they aren’t really attracted to men but sure there is more to it than that given the reaction it inspires?

    (Edited for clarity)
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
    And how does that differ from torture?

    Other than the particular motivation, it doesn't really.
    Ok, so I was right to characterise as Not A Good Thing then

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,742
    GIN1138 said:
    ‘Friends’ of Stanley Johnson and now ‘friends’ of Fiona Bruce.
    Of all the various wankeries abroad, public discourse being conducted by friends, sources close to and anonymous individuals are among the worst.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,758

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

    I agree with @MaxPB that the recent statistics are not consistent with any kind of recession. Once again the OBR looks to have been seriously pessimistic.

    Which is ok when you are considering what the government deficit is, for example. You would not want to be overly optimistic about that and create too much downside. The problem is these overly negative projections can be self fulfilling, they do not exactly encourage investment for example. And they narrow the window in which the government can act and perhaps seek to address the underlying problems.
  • Nigelb said:

    ping said:

    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

    Excuse my ignorance but what exactly *is* conversion therapy? I vaguely think of it as something that anti-gay people do to try and convince gay people that they aren’t really attracted to men but sure there is more to it than that given the reaction it inspires?

    (Edited for clarity)
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
    And how does that differ from torture?

    It doesn't. Which is why Forbes wants to ban it. Yet despite saying very clearly she would ban it, there is a Twitter pile on saying that she supports it. Which she clearly doesn't. I've then looked up her position on abortion which is similarly causing ruptions. She says she couldn't get an abortion herself but absolutely supports the legal right of other women to do so.

    As that is Mrs RP's position it sounds perfectly rational to me. Supporting something for other people that you couldn't do yourself is not - as keeps being reported - her being a threat to abortion. Or gay rights. Unless banning conversion therapy is a threat.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Eabhal said:

    Your “impartial” BBC folks. Just Robbie Gibb liking anti SNP tweets


    https://twitter.com/davidrobson20/status/1634964692996345857?s=46

    This BBC stuff is a sign of weakness from SNP supporters (even if they are correct that there is a bias there).

    Every time I see this come up on twitter I'm just reminded of Farage/Trump and the "MSM", or worse the stupid march on Pacific Quay in 2014.

    It harms your cause.
    Fairy nuff.

    But you acknowledge that there is BBC bias. So, how does one go about countering that?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,730

    GIN1138 said:
    ‘Friends’ of Stanley Johnson and now ‘friends’ of Fiona Bruce.
    Of all the various wankeries abroad, public discourse being conducted by friends, sources close to and anonymous individuals are among the worst.
    It's ridiculous.

    As if Stanley Johnson has friends.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    edited March 2023
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    GIN1138 said:
    Interesting - I had wondered if she had actually been told in advance, as her wording did in deed imply.

    But how? why? what made then do something so specific? The clanger was in response to a purely incidental remark by one panellist. The implication is that presenters are stuffed full to the gills with all sorts of possible "How Not to Upset Tories in the News" attack/defence lines.

    The other possibility is that it is a recorded programme, and ...
    The other possibility is that the BBC are panicking over their previous cockup so cocked up again.
    Hmm. Certainly both are possible. But wouldn't QT have been recorded before the Lineker affair?
    I'm surprised at Fiona Bruce's actions.

    I'd say she could have asked the charities concerned whether they wanted her to stay on in position, and just followed that recommendation. Given that it is about domestic violence, I don't see the BBC management causing trouble in those circs.

    Lineker is a gormless, attention-seeking plank without a brain cell or a policy reflection to his name; Fiona Bruce is in a different league. Also, afaik she has not violated her own commitments made to the BBC.

    (Lordy, checking the clip I see that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown was the panellist, and Fiona Bruce did absolutely nothing of what she has been accused, unless creative video-editing is involved. )
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Due to being cursed by a witch to have atrocious horse betting luck, I am not betting on such things.

    Annoying not to have the first half of the football season's records, but I think I'm probably going to shift to focus on the EPL with some bets for Serie A and Ligue 1. Had two more La Liga red bets, again a goal off green (but you don't get anything for that).

    Red this year, but green overall.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,760
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

    This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.

    Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.

    The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.

    If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
    You are also taking more risk.

    Your downside may be protected by the level of vacancies in schools, but that’s why contracting work generally gets a premium

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    GIN1138 said:
    ‘Friends’ of Stanley Johnson and now ‘friends’ of Fiona Bruce.
    Of all the various wankeries abroad, public discourse being conducted by friends, sources close to and anonymous individuals are among the worst.
    I mean, who are they trying to fool? What 'friends of Prince Andrew' are so keen to keep feeding lines to the press saying he's not such a bad guy after all?

    Its just insulting.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    edited March 2023
    .

    More BBC impartiality:


    0.5% of Lineker's followers on Twitter.
    I think de minimis applies, although you're right about the principle.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited March 2023
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

    I agree with @MaxPB that the recent statistics are not consistent with any kind of recession. Once again the OBR looks to have been seriously pessimistic.

    Which is ok when you are considering what the government deficit is, for example. You would not want to be overly optimistic about that and create too much downside. The problem is these overly negative projections can be self fulfilling, they do not exactly encourage investment for example. And they narrow the window in which the government can act and perhaps seek to address the underlying problems.
    Indeed.

    Liz Truss had been vindicated by the economic data, and the Tory MPs should have rallied behind her, rather than bin her after only six weeks.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,730

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

    This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.

    Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.

    The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.

    If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
    You are also taking more risk.

    Your downside may be protected by the level of vacancies in schools, but that’s why contracting work generally gets a premium

    Fair point, although I'm getting lots of people in two or three year contracts.

    But actually given the frequency with which schools are restructuring at the moment to try and deal with their deficits two years is about the length of time you'd expect to stay anyway.

    (Again, that doesn't really apply to physics or maths teachers of course!)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,758

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

    This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.

    Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.

    The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.

    If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
    You are also taking more risk.

    Your downside may be protected by the level of vacancies in schools, but that’s why contracting work generally gets a premium

    Exactly so. But it is amazing what self employment does for your health. I have only had a handful of days off sick in the last couple of decades. No play, no pay, it works wonders.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,080

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

    Don't retire. The economy can't afford so many people to retire.

    (But seriously, folks... Presumably that's one of the odd things about the economy now- the large number of people who have enough housing wealth that they feel they can act on the "I don't feel like working" impulse. Fine for Individuals, but possibly a problem at a national level.)
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,742
    Eabhal said:

    Your “impartial” BBC folks. Just Robbie Gibb liking anti SNP tweets


    https://twitter.com/davidrobson20/status/1634964692996345857?s=46

    This BBC stuff is a sign of weakness from SNP supporters (even if they are correct that there is a bias there).

    Every time I see this come up on twitter I'm just reminded of Farage/Trump and the "MSM", or worse the stupid march on Pacific Quay in 2014.

    It harms your cause.
    Oh aye?



    Thank goodness the rUK is entirely relaxed about the issue of BBC impartiality.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,730
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

    I agree with @MaxPB that the recent statistics are not consistent with any kind of recession. Once again the OBR looks to have been seriously pessimistic.

    Which is ok when you are considering what the government deficit is, for example. You would not want to be overly optimistic about that and create too much downside. The problem is these overly negative projections can be self fulfilling, they do not exactly encourage investment for example. And they narrow the window in which the government can act and perhaps seek to address the underlying problems.
    Indeed.

    Liz Truss had been vindicated by the economic data, and the Tory MPs should have rallied behind her, rather than bin her after only six weeks.
    She lost her own nerve on the subject and signed her death warrant by binning her Chancellor because of the chaos.

    And, of course, we can't know that the crisis wouldn't have got much worse if she and Kwarteng had stayed rather than stabilising and reversing.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

    I agree with @MaxPB that the recent statistics are not consistent with any kind of recession. Once again the OBR looks to have been seriously pessimistic.

    Which is ok when you are considering what the government deficit is, for example. You would not want to be overly optimistic about that and create too much downside. The problem is these overly negative projections can be self fulfilling, they do not exactly encourage investment for example. And they narrow the window in which the government can act and perhaps seek to address the underlying problems.
    Indeed.

    Liz Truss had been vindicated by the economic data, and the Tory MPs should have rallied behind her, rather than bin her after only six weeks.
    How has she been vindicated? One criticism she faced was she was borrowing to pay for tax cuts to the super rich for no clear reason - certainly she and Kwarteng appeared to have no answer to any of the criticisms.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

    I agree with @MaxPB that the recent statistics are not consistent with any kind of recession. Once again the OBR looks to have been seriously pessimistic.

    Which is ok when you are considering what the government deficit is, for example. You would not want to be overly optimistic about that and create too much downside. The problem is these overly negative projections can be self fulfilling, they do not exactly encourage investment for example. And they narrow the window in which the government can act and perhaps seek to address the underlying problems.
    Was the OBR always too pessimistic, or has it been something that has varied over time?

    I think we should always be wary of according too much precision to forecasts, and consider what would the situation be if, say, the deficit is £15bn higher or lower than forecast.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,760

    Nigelb said:

    ping said:

    Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.

    How depressing.

    While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.

    She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.

    No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.

    A nasty nasty piece of work.

    Excuse my ignorance but what exactly *is* conversion therapy? I vaguely think of it as something that anti-gay people do to try and convince gay people that they aren’t really attracted to men but sure there is more to it than that given the reaction it inspires?

    (Edited for clarity)
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
    And how does that differ from torture?

    It doesn't. Which is why Forbes wants to ban it. Yet despite saying very clearly she would ban it, there is a Twitter pile on saying that she supports it. Which she clearly doesn't. I've then looked up her position on abortion which is similarly causing ruptions. She says she couldn't get an abortion herself but absolutely supports the legal right of other women to do so.

    As that is Mrs RP's position it sounds perfectly rational to me. Supporting something for other people that you couldn't do yourself is not - as keeps being reported - her being a threat to abortion. Or gay rights. Unless banning conversion therapy is a threat.
    Social media being A Bad Thing

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,730
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

    This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.

    Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.

    The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.

    If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
    You are also taking more risk.

    Your downside may be protected by the level of vacancies in schools, but that’s why contracting work generally gets a premium

    Exactly so. But it is amazing what self employment does for your health. I have only had a handful of days off sick in the last couple of decades. No play, no pay, it works wonders.
    Mind you, I only had seven days off sick in ten years in the classroom. And four of those were waiting for the results of covid tests.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,742
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

    I agree with @MaxPB that the recent statistics are not consistent with any kind of recession. Once again the OBR looks to have been seriously pessimistic.

    Which is ok when you are considering what the government deficit is, for example. You would not want to be overly optimistic about that and create too much downside. The problem is these overly negative projections can be self fulfilling, they do not exactly encourage investment for example. And they narrow the window in which the government can act and perhaps seek to address the underlying problems.
    Indeed.

    Liz Truss had been vindicated by the economic data, and the Tory MPs should have rallied behind her, rather than bin her after only six weeks.
    You can come out of the jungle now, Sandpit-san.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,760
    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    GIN1138 said:
    Interesting - I had wondered if she had actually been told in advance, as her wording did in deed imply.

    But how? why? what made then do something so specific? The clanger was in response to a purely incidental remark by one panellist. The implication is that presenters are stuffed full to the gills with all sorts of possible "How Not to Upset Tories in the News" attack/defence lines.

    The other possibility is that it is a recorded programme, and ...
    The other possibility is that the BBC are panicking over their previous cockup so cocked up again.
    Hmm. Certainly both are possible. But wouldn't QT have been recorded before the Lineker affair?
    I'm surprised at Fiona Bruce's actions.

    I'd say she could have asked the charities concerned whether they wanted her to stay on in position, and just followed that recommendation. Given that it is about domestic violence, I don't see the BBC management causing trouble in those circs.

    Lineker is a gormless, attention-seeking plank without a brain cell or a policy reflection to his name; Fiona Bruce is in a different league. Also, afaik she has not violated her own commitments made to the BBC.

    (Lordy, checking the clip I see that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown was the panellist, and Fiona Bruce did absolutely nothing of what she has been accused, unless creative video-editing is involved. )
    She stated Stanley Johnson’s defence - that it was a one off - which campaigners on these matters argue is never the case

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,730
    edited March 2023

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

    I agree with @MaxPB that the recent statistics are not consistent with any kind of recession. Once again the OBR looks to have been seriously pessimistic.

    Which is ok when you are considering what the government deficit is, for example. You would not want to be overly optimistic about that and create too much downside. The problem is these overly negative projections can be self fulfilling, they do not exactly encourage investment for example. And they narrow the window in which the government can act and perhaps seek to address the underlying problems.
    Was the OBR always too pessimistic, or has it been something that has varied over time?

    I think we should always be wary of according too much precision to forecasts, and consider what would the situation be if, say, the deficit is £15bn higher or lower than forecast.
    I think its job is to be pessimistic. It was set up after years when the Treasury were over optimistic and let us sleepwalk unprepared into a crisis.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,781

    Eabhal said:

    Your “impartial” BBC folks. Just Robbie Gibb liking anti SNP tweets


    https://twitter.com/davidrobson20/status/1634964692996345857?s=46

    This BBC stuff is a sign of weakness from SNP supporters (even if they are correct that there is a bias there).

    Every time I see this come up on twitter I'm just reminded of Farage/Trump and the "MSM", or worse the stupid march on Pacific Quay in 2014.

    It harms your cause.
    Oh aye?



    Thank goodness the rUK is entirely relaxed about the issue of BBC impartiality.
    You're still doing it haha! And you prove my point: the SNP are just moaning about the BBC like all governments do (particularly Tory ones). It's a waste of energy.

    Focus on stuff like migration, wind energy potential, the Nordic model, a 50-year plan for an independent Scotland and how that could diverge from a Scotland in the current devolution framework.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670

    Best prices:

    Yousaf 1/2 (Hills)
    Forbes 2/1 (Coral)

    Surely still value in Yousaf?

    He is not worth a bent penny
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,760
    Nigelb said:

    .

    More BBC impartiality:


    0.5% of Lineker's followers on Twitter.
    I think de minimis applies, although you're right about the principle.
    Plus the fact it is clearly a joke?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited March 2023
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

    This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.

    Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.

    The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.

    If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
    A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?

    That surprises me (link ?), because

    https://thetab.com/uk/cambridge/2022/07/05/bursars-committee-agrees-to-pay-raise-for-supervisors-162832

    So, one-to-one or one-to-two undergraduate supervisions in Oxford & Cambridge (usually carried out by grad students/postdocs in the sciences) are paid at £32.59 an hour.

    If your fact becomes widely known, you will collapse the College system in Oxbridge ...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,758
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

    I agree with @MaxPB that the recent statistics are not consistent with any kind of recession. Once again the OBR looks to have been seriously pessimistic.

    Which is ok when you are considering what the government deficit is, for example. You would not want to be overly optimistic about that and create too much downside. The problem is these overly negative projections can be self fulfilling, they do not exactly encourage investment for example. And they narrow the window in which the government can act and perhaps seek to address the underlying problems.
    Indeed.

    Liz Truss had been vindicated by the economic data, and the Tory MPs should have rallied behind her, rather than bin her after only six weeks.
    The problem with her economic policy was the completely blank cheque she offered in terms of energy costs at the same time as she was taking a bit of a punt on the finances. The first thing Hunt did was curtail that promise severely.

    The blank cheque was almost an afterthought. During the leadership fight she seemed reluctant to do anything at all but she got bullied into it and then went overboard.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,730
    malcolmg said:

    Best prices:

    Yousaf 1/2 (Hills)
    Forbes 2/1 (Coral)

    Surely still value in Yousaf?

    He is not worth a bent penny
    I wouldn't exactly pay the worth of a King George III guinea for any of them, Malc.

    Although that's not a problem confined to the SNP!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

    I agree with @MaxPB that the recent statistics are not consistent with any kind of recession. Once again the OBR looks to have been seriously pessimistic.

    Which is ok when you are considering what the government deficit is, for example. You would not want to be overly optimistic about that and create too much downside. The problem is these overly negative projections can be self fulfilling, they do not exactly encourage investment for example. And they narrow the window in which the government can act and perhaps seek to address the underlying problems.
    Was the OBR always too pessimistic, or has it been something that has varied over time?

    I think we should always be wary of according too much precision to forecasts, and consider what would the situation be if, say, the deficit is £15bn higher or lower than forecast.
    The OBR agrees with you.

    https://obr.uk/forecast-evaluation-reports/
    ...In each EFO, we stress the uncertainty that lies around all such forecasts. We compare our central forecasts to those of other forecasters. We highlight the limited confidence that should be placed in our central forecast given the scale of shocks that inevitably drive a wedge between any central predictions and subsequent outcomes. We use sensitivity and scenario analysis to show how the public finances could be affected by alternative economic outcomes. ..
  • Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.

    Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336
    The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
    Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…

    It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda

    (*lights match and retires*)

    I agree with @MaxPB that the recent statistics are not consistent with any kind of recession. Once again the OBR looks to have been seriously pessimistic.

    Which is ok when you are considering what the government deficit is, for example. You would not want to be overly optimistic about that and create too much downside. The problem is these overly negative projections can be self fulfilling, they do not exactly encourage investment for example. And they narrow the window in which the government can act and perhaps seek to address the underlying problems.
    Indeed.

    Liz Truss had been vindicated by the economic data, and the Tory MPs should have rallied behind her, rather than bin her after only six weeks.
    The economic data. Generated by Hunt rapidly binning her entire economic program. Is the proof that her binned economic program has worked.

    ?
This discussion has been closed.