More evidence that Keir Starmer should not attempt thinking on his feet.
I think Keir Starmer comes across as a quite nasty piece of work over this. Not a good look for him at all.
Imo both Starmer and Moon Rabbit have it wrong and the more embarrassing story is not the bet but the one Topping posted at the start of this thread about donations.
Yes hence handing back the 100 grand like it had piss on it
This story does smell, but it can be spiked by two words "Frank Hester".
Ilford North poster update. This afternoon I returned to that constituency and spotted a very large Leanne Mohamad poster on a flat's balcony, and an MPV with her name on top that might belong to a supporter or be serving as her battlebus. Still no posters seen for Labour or Conservative so presumably they think Wes Streeting has it in the bag.
Is it the same balcony I saw in Barkingside High Street today? Saw a fixed wooden poster in someone's garden on Horns Road, south of Barkingside.
The only Labour poster I saw was just further up Horns Road, closer to Barkingside.
There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
For me, it's fine to use information that other people could find out even if they had to put in some amount of (legal) effort to get it. So betting based on a personal conversation with a coach or a trainer, or overheard on a pub or on a train - none of that sounds like a problem.
On the other hand, betting on something you can potentially influence seems clearly wrong. So the Campaign Director, or the C-level person in charge of data are both going to have a huge input into the timing of the election, and so shouldn't have been betting on it.
That is indeed what the current state of the law says. Beyond that clarity it gets a bit more hazy.
The Labour candidate is arrogant and/or a fool who’s laid himself open to just that sort of suspicion.
Starmer rightly dumped him without hesitation.
It seems to have got @MoonRabbit quite excited. She’s probably in the minority there.
Are not iffy bets a matter for the bookies concerned and, if they make a valid complaint, the police/courts trying fraud.
Why does there have to be a well paid quango at taxpayers expense?
Although I agree the Gambling Commission is a bit crap, it's actually funded by licence fees paid by businesses in the industry rather than the taxpayer (indeed, you could say that's why they've been rather, er, over-zealous).
Are not iffy bets a matter for the bookies concerned and, if they make a valid complaint, the police/courts trying fraud.
Why does there have to be a well paid quango at taxpayers expense?
From what I recall the GC spent the first half of its existence sorting out generous pensions and the second half sending borderline 18-year-olds into shops to tackle the scourge of underage betting, which is minimal and self-limiting because mostly schoolkids are skint. It has fined bookies millions of pounds for infringements but mainly that has just led to more intrusive checks on punters, an area where the GC has again been neither use nor ornament.
A Conservative cabinet minister claimed that he won more than £2,000 betting on a July general election.
Shortly after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the election date, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack told the BBC he had made £2,100 after betting on June and July election dates. He claimed one of the bets was placed at odds of 25/1.
Last week, Mr Jack told the BBC the comments were “a joke… I was pulling your leg”.
Today, the Scottish Secretary said in a statement he “did not place any bets on the date of the general election during May”.
Well, today's statement, by including the qualification "during May", seems a reasonably clear indication that he did place a bet on the date of the election at some time.
So where does that leave his claim last week that he had been joking when he told the BBC earlier about his winnings?
The web is a bit tangled. It looks as though he placed bets, but not immediately before the date of the election was announced. If so, I wonder if he denied it on his own initiative,
The labour candidate has done nothing illegal, however he has brought his party into disrepute by his actions, so they have suspended him, as is their right.
The press have done their job and exposed him.
If anyone does anything illegal that is for the police and courts.
The state and its quangos need to butt out (other than wholesale abolition of unelected quangos).
There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
I don't think it's accepted, so much as commentariat gossips in the media want it to be true. And even if it is accepted, it shouldn't be. So there is no line to be drawn.
Do you mean that you don't think cheating is illegal, or that you don't think it's cheating to bet on an outcome that you have privileged knowledge about?
"Youth Demand describes itself as a campaign calling for an arms embargo on Israel, as well as for the government to revoke new oil and gas licences granted since 2021."
There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
I don't think it's accepted, so much as commentariat gossips in the media want it to be true. And even if it is accepted, it shouldn't be. So there is no line to be drawn.
I said the other day a lot of (political) journalists do not understand gambling.
I've pointed out that is possible to have made a profit on a May election and you didn't need to even bet a single penny on a May election, you could for example lay an October/November election.
Do you think that if you knew the date of the election, it would be cheating to back a May election, but not cheating to lay an October election?
Are not iffy bets a matter for the bookies concerned and, if they make a valid complaint, the police/courts trying fraud.
Why does there have to be a well paid quango at taxpayers expense?
Although I agree the Gambling Commission is a bit crap, it's actually funded by licence fees paid by businesses in the industry rather than the taxpayer (indeed, you could say that's why they've been rather, er, over-zealous).
So its worse than a Quango. Its a SEFRA (Self Financing Regulatory Agency)?
"Youth Demand describes itself as a campaign calling for an arms embargo on Israel, as well as for the government to revoke new oil and gas licences granted since 2021."
There should be no problem for MPs betting on themselves to win a seat . Betting against yourself is an issue though.
It's qualitatively different to betting against yourself in sports though. You can't throw an election in the same way that you can throw a match, even though it might seem like Sunak is trying to prove otherwise.
There should be no problem for MPs betting on themselves to win a seat . Betting against yourself is an issue though.
It's qualitatively different to betting against yourself in sports though. You can't throw an election in the same way that you can throw a match, even though it might seem like Sunak is trying to prove otherwise.
Sure you can throw an election [gestures at Sunak]
There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
For me, it's fine to use information that other people could find out even if they had to put in some amount of (legal) effort to get it. So betting based on a personal conversation with a coach or a trainer, or overheard on a pub or on a train - none of that sounds like a problem.
On the other hand, betting on something you can potentially influence seems clearly wrong. So the Campaign Director, or the C-level person in charge of data are both going to have a huge input into the timing of the election, and so shouldn't have been betting on it.
That is indeed what the current state of the law says. Beyond that clarity it gets a bit more hazy.
The Labour candidate is arrogant and/or a fool who’s laid himself open to just that sort of suspicion.
Starmer rightly dumped him without hesitation.
It seems to have got @MoonRabbit quite excited. She’s probably in the minority there.
It's the sort of thing that might never have been detected if the GC hadn't been digging into the Tory timing bets story. Wonder how much of that sort of thing goes on anyway (Bets on themselves losing as a "disappointment insurance" sort of thing)?
Either way, Starmer dropped him quickly, which was what he said he'd do a few days ago. Not a good look and I suspect there was an apocalyptically angry phone call from LHQ to our dozy candidate, but it could have been worse. And of course, Alastair Jack turned up in time to make it about the Tories again.
I'm much more concerned that this sort of sleaze helps Reform than it hurting Labour. It feeds anti-politics sentiment if both parties are seen to be "at it", even if it's only one idiot candidate on the Lab side and the Reform crew are all bent as a corkscrew.
A Conservative cabinet minister claimed that he won more than £2,000 betting on a July general election.
Shortly after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the election date, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack told the BBC he had made £2,100 after betting on June and July election dates. He claimed one of the bets was placed at odds of 25/1.
Last week, Mr Jack told the BBC the comments were “a joke… I was pulling your leg”.
Today, the Scottish Secretary said in a statement he “did not place any bets on the date of the general election during May”.
Well, today's statement, by including the qualification "during May", seems a reasonably clear indication that he did place a bet on the date of the election at some time.
So where does that leave his claim last week that he had been joking when he told the BBC earlier about his winnings?
The web is a bit tangled. It looks as though he placed bets, but not immediately before the date of the election was announced. If so, I wonder if he denied it on his own initiative,
The labour candidate has done nothing illegal, however he has brought his party into disrepute by his actions, so they have suspended him, as is their right.
The press have done their job and exposed him.
If anyone does anything illegal that is for the police and courts.
The state and its quangos need to butt out (other than wholesale abolition of unelected quangos).
I know it's confusing, but my post was about the Tory minister, not the Labour candidate.
There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
For me, it's fine to use information that other people could find out even if they had to put in some amount of (legal) effort to get it. So betting based on a personal conversation with a coach or a trainer, or overheard on a pub or on a train - none of that sounds like a problem.
On the other hand, betting on something you can potentially influence seems clearly wrong. So the Campaign Director, or the C-level person in charge of data are both going to have a huge input into the timing of the election, and so shouldn't have been betting on it.
That is indeed what the current state of the law says.
I think it's what a lot of people thought the law said, but in fact the law prohibits "cheating" and emphasises that deception and influence are only examples of cheating, and not exhaustive.
A Conservative cabinet minister claimed that he won more than £2,000 betting on a July general election.
Shortly after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the election date, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack told the BBC he had made £2,100 after betting on June and July election dates. He claimed one of the bets was placed at odds of 25/1.
Last week, Mr Jack told the BBC the comments were “a joke… I was pulling your leg”.
Today, the Scottish Secretary said in a statement he “did not place any bets on the date of the general election during May”.
Well, today's statement, by including the qualification "during May", seems a reasonably clear indication that he did place a bet on the date of the election at some time.
So where does that leave his claim last week that he had been joking when he told the BBC earlier about his winnings?
The web is a bit tangled. It looks as though he placed bets, but not immediately before the date of the election was announced. If so, I wonder if he denied it on his own initiative,
The labour candidate has done nothing illegal, however he has brought his party into disrepute by his actions, so they have suspended him, as is their right.
The press have done their job and exposed him.
If anyone does anything illegal that is for the police and courts.
The state and its quangos need to butt out (other than wholesale abolition of unelected quangos).
I know it's confusing, but my post was about the Tory minister, not the Labour candidate.
I see why Armando Iannucci retired from writing contemporary satire.
There should be no problem for MPs betting on themselves to win a seat . Betting against yourself is an issue though.
It's qualitatively different to betting against yourself in sports though. You can't throw an election in the same way that you can throw a match, even though it might seem like Sunak is trying to prove otherwise.
I agree the sports aspect is different but I think a candidate betting against themself optics wise isn’t s good look and could lead to questions .
Are not iffy bets a matter for the bookies concerned and, if they make a valid complaint, the police/courts trying fraud.
Why does there have to be a well paid quango at taxpayers expense?
It does appear to be something New Labour would absolutely love, but this Government has made many quangos self funding. Take the HSE, back in the day if they found a non conformance they would give you some handy free advice. If they find a non conformance now you are on the clock at several hundred pounds and hour, including their own follow-up visit to ensure you did what you were told.
A Conservative cabinet minister claimed that he won more than £2,000 betting on a July general election.
Shortly after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the election date, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack told the BBC he had made £2,100 after betting on June and July election dates. He claimed one of the bets was placed at odds of 25/1.
Last week, Mr Jack told the BBC the comments were “a joke… I was pulling your leg”.
Today, the Scottish Secretary said in a statement he “did not place any bets on the date of the general election during May”.
Well, today's statement, by including the qualification "during May", seems a reasonably clear indication that he did place a bet on the date of the election at some time.
So where does that leave his claim last week that he had been joking when he told the BBC earlier about his winnings?
The web is a bit tangled. It looks as though he placed bets, but not immediately before the date of the election was announced. If so, I wonder if he denied it on his own initiative,
The labour candidate has done nothing illegal, however he has brought his party into disrepute by his actions, so they have suspended him, as is their right.
The press have done their job and exposed him.
If anyone does anything illegal that is for the police and courts.
The state and its quangos need to butt out (other than wholesale abolition of unelected quangos).
I know it's confusing, but my post was about the Tory minister, not the Labour candidate.
I'm not sure the Tory minister has done anything illegal either (given Sunak apparently didn't think it necessary to consult the cabinet before going to the King)but he has been very silly.
Q1. If you are a Tory MP. If I do this and the Daily Mirror find out, will it be embarrasing? If "yes" don't do it.
Q2 Same question but swap Tory for Labour and Mirror for Mail.
Oh lol the Suffolk candidate bet against himself, thought he'd have backed himself given the MRPs if it was odds against tbh
Eh? Surely his canvassing returns are better information than a statistical model. It's the difference between the two that create the value.
Surely more to do with the fact if he wins the seat and loses the bet he has 4 years pulling on an extra 80 grand on top of his apparently GB News cash
Deciding the winner by the number of goals is the first-past-the-post of football.
Perhaps it could be modernised by using a fairer proportional system based on possession.
First Past The Post is when I score 1 goal in the first half and you score 8 in the second half and it's a draw because we both won a half each.
Which is fine if them's the rules. Tennis, which has the cleverest scoring system because it creates constant mini dramas, has that sort of system. In a 5 setter you win if you go 0-6, 0-6, 6-4,6-4,6-4. You have won 18 games, the other bloke has won 24.
The USA president system is a bit like tennis. You can win by losing in the right configuration.
Deciding the winner by the number of goals is the first-past-the-post of football.
Perhaps it could be modernised by using a fairer proportional system based on possession.
First Past The Post is when I score 1 goal in the first half and you score 8 in the second half and it's a draw because we both won a half each.
Which is fine if them's the rules. Tennis, which has the cleverest scoring system because it creates constant mini dramas, has that sort of system. In a 5 setter you win if you go 0-6, 0-6, 6-4,6-4,6-4. You have won 18 games, the other bloke has won 24.
The USA president system is a bit like tennis. You can win by losing in the right configuration.
Are not iffy bets a matter for the bookies concerned and, if they make a valid complaint, the police/courts trying fraud.
Why does there have to be a well paid quango at taxpayers expense?
It does appear to be something New Labour would absolutely love, but this Government has made many quangos self funding. Take the HSE, back in the day if they found a non conformance they would give you some handy free advice. If they find a non conformance now you are on the clock at several hundred pounds and hour, including their own follow-up visit to ensure you did what you were told.
Quite soviet. And another example of why people are furious with the Tories and looking at "radical" alternatives.
Only today I read that another such set of bureacrats has upped the cost of the licence gas fitters need to practice by 30%. Doubles all round for the bureaucrats.
The one that annoys me most is that to do anything much in Engineering you need access to a slew of British Standards/European Norms. Which cost about £400 each, which massively favours big corporations that can lose it in the overheads,
Why do our governments despise small/medium enterprises when the formation of small companies and their growth over time to large ones is the golden egg for the economy.
Deciding the winner by the number of goals is the first-past-the-post of football.
Perhaps it could be modernised by using a fairer proportional system based on possession.
First Past The Post is when I score 1 goal in the first half and you score 8 in the second half and it's a draw because we both won a half each.
Which is fine if them's the rules. Tennis, which has the cleverest scoring system because it creates constant mini dramas, has that sort of system. In a 5 setter you win if you go 0-6, 0-6, 6-4,6-4,6-4. You have won 18 games, the other bloke has won 24.
The USA president system is a bit like tennis. You can win by losing in the right configuration.
The UK's system is match play on a 650 hole course.
Tory member of the Welsh Parliament Russell George investigated by Gambling Commission regarding bets on the timing of the General Election…
I am getting increasingly pissed off that Rishi did not tip me the wink with half of the rest of the country. It seems to be getting personal. Has my criticism on PB been taken to heart?
Deciding the winner by the number of goals is the first-past-the-post of football.
Perhaps it could be modernised by using a fairer proportional system based on possession.
First Past The Post is when I score 1 goal in the first half and you score 8 in the second half and it's a draw because we both won a half each.
Which is fine if them's the rules. Tennis, which has the cleverest scoring system because it creates constant mini dramas, has that sort of system. In a 5 setter you win if you go 0-6, 0-6, 6-4,6-4,6-4. You have won 18 games, the other bloke has won 24.
The USA president system is a bit like tennis. You can win by losing in the right configuration.
The UK's system is match play on a 650 hole course.
And that's just the number of holes Rishi has dug for himself.
Are not iffy bets a matter for the bookies concerned and, if they make a valid complaint, the police/courts trying fraud.
Why does there have to be a well paid quango at taxpayers expense?
To make sure there are no unlicensed gambling/lottery companies and to make sure they are solvent.
To ensure the vulnerable aren't exploited.
The Gambling Commission was founded in 2007 but it's predecessor was founded decades earlier
In theory; in practice, they provide agreeable jobs for well paid bureacrats, increase their activites and costs over time and undermine the competitiveness of the industry so that in the end you get much better odds from a dodgy character offering bets out of a suitcase, which as there is little enforcement (no money for that once youve paid all the regulators), becomes as endemic as american candy shops.
Tory member of the Welsh Parliament Russell George investigated by Gambling Commission regarding bets on the timing of the General Election…
I am getting increasingly pissed off that Rishi did not tip me the wink with half of the rest of the country. It seems to be getting personal. Has my criticism on PB been taken to heart?
I got told.
By the King.
When exactly were the bets placed? Surely the rumours were all out on the Wednesday morning, and I indeed did place a bet. Are we talking wed morning or much earlier?
A Conservative cabinet minister claimed that he won more than £2,000 betting on a July general election.
Shortly after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the election date, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack told the BBC he had made £2,100 after betting on June and July election dates. He claimed one of the bets was placed at odds of 25/1.
Last week, Mr Jack told the BBC the comments were “a joke… I was pulling your leg”.
Today, the Scottish Secretary said in a statement he “did not place any bets on the date of the general election during May”.
Well, today's statement, by including the qualification "during May", seems a reasonably clear indication that he did place a bet on the date of the election at some time.
So where does that leave his claim last week that he had been joking when he told the BBC earlier about his winnings?
The web is a bit tangled. It looks as though he placed bets, but not immediately before the date of the election was announced. If so, I wonder if he denied it on his own initiative,
The labour candidate has done nothing illegal, however he has brought his party into disrepute by his actions, so they have suspended him, as is their right.
The press have done their job and exposed him.
If anyone does anything illegal that is for the police and courts.
The state and its quangos need to butt out (other than wholesale abolition of unelected quangos).
I know it's confusing, but my post was about the Tory minister, not the Labour candidate.
I'm not sure the Tory minister has done anything illegal either (given Sunak apparently didn't think it necessary to consult the cabinet before going to the King)but he has been very silly.
I know it's confusing, but my point was that he denied having placed a bet in May, in which case he presumably had no definite knowledge about the date of the election.
The interesting thing is that he had earlier felt the need to deny having placed a bet at all. After earlier still having told people he had placed bets.
Are not iffy bets a matter for the bookies concerned and, if they make a valid complaint, the police/courts trying fraud.
Why does there have to be a well paid quango at taxpayers expense?
To make sure there are no unlicensed gambling/lottery companies and to make sure they are solvent.
To ensure the vulnerable aren't exploited.
The Gambling Commission was founded in 2007 but it's predecessor was founded decades earlier
In theory; in practice, they provide agreeable jobs for well paid bureacrats, increase their activites and costs over time and undermine the competitiveness of the industry so that in the end you get much better odds from a dodgy character offering bets out of a suitcase, which as there is little enforcement (no money for that once youve paid all the regulators), becomes as endemic as american candy shops.
There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
I don't think it's accepted, so much as commentariat gossips in the media want it to be true. And even if it is accepted, it shouldn't be. So there is no line to be drawn.
Do you mean that you don't think cheating is illegal, or that you don't think it's cheating to bet on an outcome that you have privileged knowledge about?
Tory member of the Welsh Parliament Russell George investigated by Gambling Commission regarding bets on the timing of the General Election…
I am getting increasingly pissed off that Rishi did not tip me the wink with half of the rest of the country. It seems to be getting personal. Has my criticism on PB been taken to heart?
I got told.
By the King.
Careful, you'll attract the attention of people with suspicious minds. A little less conversation on this subject would be smart.
Are not iffy bets a matter for the bookies concerned and, if they make a valid complaint, the police/courts trying fraud.
Why does there have to be a well paid quango at taxpayers expense?
To make sure there are no unlicensed gambling/lottery companies and to make sure they are solvent.
To ensure the vulnerable aren't exploited.
The Gambling Commission was founded in 2007 but it's predecessor was founded decades earlier
In theory; in practice, they provide agreeable jobs for well paid bureacrats, increase their activites and costs over time and undermine the competitiveness of the industry so that in the end you get much better odds from a dodgy character offering bets out of a suitcase, which as there is little enforcement (no money for that once youve paid all the regulators), becomes as endemic as american candy shops.
Of course. Which is why it's a fucking shame bookies went into FOBTs and slots etc so heavily. While in principle adults should be able to do what they want, there's clearly absolutely no rational reason to spunk away a years salary in an hour on something that's -EV. Apart from money laundering I guess.
This naked exploitation of gambling addicts - and that's what it is - has ruined it for everyone else. I don't know if I hate the addicts or the bookies more for how much they've fucked it up for the rest of us, but fucked it up they have.
There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
I don't think it's accepted, so much as commentariat gossips in the media want it to be true. And even if it is accepted, it shouldn't be. So there is no line to be drawn.
Do you mean that you don't think cheating is illegal, or that you don't think it's cheating to bet on an outcome that you have privileged knowledge about?
There should be no problem for MPs betting on themselves to win a seat . Betting against yourself is an issue though.
It's qualitatively different to betting against yourself in sports though. You can't throw an election in the same way that you can throw a match, even though it might seem like Sunak is trying to prove otherwise.
There are plenty of things you can do to put people off voting for you, though.
Personally, I think betting against yourself isn't enough by itself to be unethical - I'd want to see other evidence that suggested an intention to throw the result.
But Starmer's really not taking any chances, that's the real story here: the ming vase isn't going to be dropped.
Are not iffy bets a matter for the bookies concerned and, if they make a valid complaint, the police/courts trying fraud.
Why does there have to be a well paid quango at taxpayers expense?
To make sure there are no unlicensed gambling/lottery companies and to make sure they are solvent.
To ensure the vulnerable aren't exploited.
The Gambling Commission was founded in 2007 but it's predecessor was founded decades earlier
In theory; in practice, they provide agreeable jobs for well paid bureacrats, increase their activites and costs over time and undermine the competitiveness of the industry so that in the end you get much better odds from a dodgy character offering bets out of a suitcase, which as there is little enforcement (no money for that once youve paid all the regulators), becomes as endemic as american candy shops.
Of course. Which is why it's a fucking shame bookies went into FOBTs and slots etc so heavily. While in principle adults should be able to do what they want, there's clearly absolutely no rational reason to spunk away a years salary in an hour on something that's -EV. Apart from money laundering I guess.
This naked exploitation of gambling addicts - and that's what it is - has ruined it for everyone else. I don't know if I hate the addicts or the bookies more for how much they've fucked it up for the rest of us, but fucked it up they have.
Ain't technology wonderful.
Sometimes I think we would all be better off if it turned out that the reason that no one used electricity before the late 19th century was because interference from space stopped it working and the solar system has been going through a quiet part of space, temporarily, and we will soon all be back to candles, horses, paper and steam engines.
Are not iffy bets a matter for the bookies concerned and, if they make a valid complaint, the police/courts trying fraud.
Why does there have to be a well paid quango at taxpayers expense?
To make sure there are no unlicensed gambling/lottery companies and to make sure they are solvent.
To ensure the vulnerable aren't exploited.
The Gambling Commission was founded in 2007 but it's predecessor was founded decades earlier
In theory; in practice, they provide agreeable jobs for well paid bureacrats, increase their activites and costs over time and undermine the competitiveness of the industry so that in the end you get much better odds from a dodgy character offering bets out of a suitcase, which as there is little enforcement (no money for that once youve paid all the regulators), becomes as endemic as american candy shops.
@MattSingh_ Because I'm feeling generous I've created a Google Sheet with the PA declaration times, tabulated and matched to ONS codes. (AI was involved for this, so please let me know if you spot any errors)
Some of the most highly regulated countries in the world (like Switzerland and Singapore) provide their citizens with incredibly high standards of living. While some of the least regulated (like, say, Albania) provide their citizens with a pretty shitty one.
What I also find weird is this belief that Europe is far more regulated than the US. As someone who has started businesses in both places, I've found the US to have the higher regulatory burden: one can't even open a nail salon in the US without a raft of permits, while it is almost entirely hassle free in the - say - France.
It's almost like "less regulation" is not the be all and end all for solving economic malaise.
Some of the most highly regulated countries in the world (like Switzerland and Singapore) provide their citizens with incredibly high standards of living. While some of the least regulated (like, say, Albania) provide their citizens with a pretty shitty one.
What I also find weird is this belief that Europe is far more regulated than the US. As someone who has started businesses in both places, I've found the US to have the higher regulatory burden: one can't even open a nail salon in the US without a raft of permits, while it is almost entirely hassle free in the - say - France.
It's almost like "less regulation" is not the be all and end all for solving economic malaise.
Hey, you don't need to convince us that Brexit was stupid. We already know
Some of the most highly regulated countries in the world (like Switzerland and Singapore) provide their citizens with incredibly high standards of living. While some of the least regulated (like, say, Albania) provide their citizens with a pretty shitty one.
What I also find weird is this belief that Europe is far more regulated than the US. As someone who has started businesses in both places, I've found the US to have the higher regulatory burden: one can't even open a nail salon in the US without a raft of permits, while it is almost entirely hassle free in the - say - France.
It's almost like "less regulation" is not the be all and end all for solving economic malaise.
Whilst I am happy to accept your report, Oh Fine Publisher Of Articles, I do have to ask: when did you open a nail bar in France? 😀
Some of the most highly regulated countries in the world (like Switzerland and Singapore) provide their citizens with incredibly high standards of living. While some of the least regulated (like, say, Albania) provide their citizens with a pretty shitty one.
What I also find weird is this belief that Europe is far more regulated than the US. As someone who has started businesses in both places, I've found the US to have the higher regulatory burden: one can't even open a nail salon in the US without a raft of permits, while it is almost entirely hassle free in the - say - France.
It's almost like "less regulation" is not the be all and end all for solving economic malaise.
I'm not sure that's an entirely fair comparison. The Swiss and Singaporeans are so culturally autistic that if regulation didn't exist, they'd have to invent it. This cultural autism has many other advantages for building a high standard of living. So methinks you're getting cause and effect mixed up.
Ruder things could be said about Albania the other way. Maybe Leon's about.
Some of the most highly regulated countries in the world (like Switzerland and Singapore) provide their citizens with incredibly high standards of living. While some of the least regulated (like, say, Albania) provide their citizens with a pretty shitty one.
What I also find weird is this belief that Europe is far more regulated than the US. As someone who has started businesses in both places, I've found the US to have the higher regulatory burden: one can't even open a nail salon in the US without a raft of permits, while it is almost entirely hassle free in the - say - France.
It's almost like "less regulation" is not the be all and end all for solving economic malaise.
Some of the most highly regulated countries in the world (like Switzerland and Singapore) provide their citizens with incredibly high standards of living. While some of the least regulated (like, say, Albania) provide their citizens with a pretty shitty one.
What I also find weird is this belief that Europe is far more regulated than the US. As someone who has started businesses in both places, I've found the US to have the higher regulatory burden: one can't even open a nail salon in the US without a raft of permits, while it is almost entirely hassle free in the - say - France.
It's almost like "less regulation" is not the be all and end all for solving economic malaise.
It's almost like the ability and integrity of the government matters more,
Man suffers from massive, repeated and obviously entirely deliberate attempted fraud from an energy company.
This is OFGEM's response:
The energy regulator Ofgem said it expected suppliers to "act compassionately", adding it had toughened up rules for companies to follow when dealing with people who were struggling to pay bills.
Fuck them. Shoot them, indeed. Neither use nor ornament. Clearly hopelessly corrupt or so stupid they should not be given the right to have sex.
Some of the most highly regulated countries in the world (like Switzerland and Singapore) provide their citizens with incredibly high standards of living. While some of the least regulated (like, say, Albania) provide their citizens with a pretty shitty one.
What I also find weird is this belief that Europe is far more regulated than the US. As someone who has started businesses in both places, I've found the US to have the higher regulatory burden: one can't even open a nail salon in the US without a raft of permits, while it is almost entirely hassle free in the - say - France.
It's almost like "less regulation" is not the be all and end all for solving economic malaise.
So, to be clear, you recommend a people trafficking business in France rather than California? Helpful.
Poor attempt at a biblical joke. I've spend most of the day reading about people jumping out of planes and getting shot for democracy and then coming back to find a bunch of chancers making a mockery of it so I'm a little fried. Plus the people who viewed my house yesterday moaned about it being cluttered and disorganised so I'm cheering myself up with booze.
Are not iffy bets a matter for the bookies concerned and, if they make a valid complaint, the police/courts trying fraud.
Why does there have to be a well paid quango at taxpayers expense?
It does appear to be something New Labour would absolutely love, but this Government has made many quangos self funding. Take the HSE, back in the day if they found a non conformance they would give you some handy free advice. If they find a non conformance now you are on the clock at several hundred pounds and hour, including their own follow-up visit to ensure you did what you were told.
Quite soviet. And another example of why people are furious with the Tories and looking at "radical" alternatives.
Only today I read that another such set of bureacrats has upped the cost of the licence gas fitters need to practice by 30%. Doubles all round for the bureaucrats.
The one that annoys me most is that to do anything much in Engineering you need access to a slew of British Standards/European Norms. Which cost about £400 each, which massively favours big corporations that can lose it in the overheads,
Why do our governments despise small/medium enterprises when the formation of small companies and their growth over time to large ones is the golden egg for the economy.
Just been looking at the current state of powers of attorney for an elderly relative.
Interested to discover that the relevant agency made so much money from fees that were supposed only to cover their costs in the late 2010s that punters can now claim a fair chunk back. Or, logically enough, their attorneys.
@MattSingh_ Because I'm feeling generous I've created a Google Sheet with the PA declaration times, tabulated and matched to ONS codes. (AI was involved for this, so please let me know if you spot any errors)
Some of the most highly regulated countries in the world (like Switzerland and Singapore) provide their citizens with incredibly high standards of living. While some of the least regulated (like, say, Albania) provide their citizens with a pretty shitty one.
What I also find weird is this belief that Europe is far more regulated than the US. As someone who has started businesses in both places, I've found the US to have the higher regulatory burden: one can't even open a nail salon in the US without a raft of permits, while it is almost entirely hassle free in the - say - France.
It's almost like "less regulation" is not the be all and end all for solving economic malaise.
Hey, you don't need to convince us that Brexit was stupid. We already know
Farooq earlier humourously suggested that HYUFD's head can only hold 5 ideas (The 1997 General Election, Gordon Brown, the Russell Group, a cat, the monarchy). Look it up, it was very funny, if a little harsh. But honestly Scott, I sometimes think your brain only has one idea. Brexit has happened. Britain has done neither noticeably better nor noticeably worse than its counterparts in the EU. Relax and let it go.
Poor attempt at a biblical joke. I've spend most of the day reading about people jumping out of planes and getting shot for democracy and then coming back to find a bunch of chancers making a mockery of it so I'm a little fried. Plus the people who viewed my house yesterday moaned about it being cluttered and disorganised so I'm cheering myself up with booze.
What's the problem? Presumably you and your impedimenta don't get included in the house sale?
Comments
Beyond that clarity it gets a bit more hazy.
The Labour candidate is arrogant and/or a fool who’s laid himself open to just that sort of suspicion.
Starmer rightly dumped him without hesitation.
It seems to have got @MoonRabbit quite excited. She’s probably in the minority there.
To ensure the vulnerable aren't exploited.
The Gambling Commission was founded in 2007 but it's predecessor was founded decades earlier
The press have done their job and exposed him.
If anyone does anything illegal that is for the police and courts.
The state and its quangos need to butt out (other than wholesale abolition of unelected quangos).
"Youth Demand describes itself as a campaign calling for an arms embargo on Israel, as well as for the government to revoke new oil and gas licences granted since 2021."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrrlep3l0ro
Starmer does have a slightly puritanical vibe about him.
Surely not?
Perhaps it could be modernised by using a fairer proportional system based on possession.
Either way, Starmer dropped him quickly, which was what he said he'd do a few days ago. Not a good look and I suspect there was an apocalyptically angry phone call from LHQ to our dozy candidate, but it could have been worse. And of course, Alastair Jack turned up in time to make it about the Tories again.
I'm much more concerned that this sort of sleaze helps Reform than it hurting Labour. It feeds anti-politics sentiment if both parties are seen to be "at it", even if it's only one idiot candidate on the Lab side and the Reform crew are all bent as a corkscrew.
A view a lot of lefty's seem to have when it comes to women and maybe explains why Labour still hasn't had a woman leading it?
Q1. If you are a Tory MP. If I do this and the Daily Mirror find out, will it be embarrasing? If "yes" don't do it.
Q2 Same question but swap Tory for Labour and Mirror for Mail.
It is the crass stupidity that astonishes me.
Or is he in Downing Street right now pretending to be a Tory campaign strategist?
Taking the heat out will be good and then steering a way forward. Wes Streeting was vg last night on Peston.
Anyway, not one for now.
England are soooooo dull.
I hear Thierry Henri could replace Rob Page for Wales
The USA president system is a bit like tennis. You can win by losing in the right configuration.
the lionesses men’s team aren’t very good are they
Only today I read that another such set of bureacrats has upped the cost of the licence gas fitters need to practice by 30%. Doubles all round for the bureaucrats.
The one that annoys me most is that to do anything much in Engineering you need access to a slew of British Standards/European Norms. Which cost about £400 each, which massively favours big corporations that can lose it in the overheads,
Why do our governments despise small/medium enterprises when the formation of small companies and their growth over time to large ones is the golden egg for the economy.
By the King.
Can't expect any of those three to tell decent jokes before the second pint.
The interesting thing is that he had earlier felt the need to deny having placed a bet at all. After earlier still having told people he had placed bets.
This naked exploitation of gambling addicts - and that's what it is - has ruined it for everyone else. I don't know if I hate the addicts or the bookies more for how much they've fucked it up for the rest of us, but fucked it up they have.
Personally, I think betting against yourself isn't enough by itself to be unethical - I'd want to see other evidence that suggested an intention to throw the result.
But Starmer's really not taking any chances, that's the real story here: the ming vase isn't going to be dropped.
Sometimes I think we would all be better off if it turned out that the reason that no one used electricity before the late 19th century was because interference from space stopped it working and the solar system has been going through a quiet part of space, temporarily, and we will soon all be back to candles, horses, paper and steam engines.
Because I'm feeling generous I've created a Google Sheet with the PA declaration times, tabulated and matched to ONS codes. (AI was involved for this, so please let me know if you spot any errors)
https://x.com/MattSingh_/status/1805656746305683753
Some of the most highly regulated countries in the world (like Switzerland and Singapore) provide their citizens with incredibly high standards of living. While some of the least regulated (like, say, Albania) provide their citizens with a pretty shitty one.
What I also find weird is this belief that Europe is far more regulated than the US. As someone who has started businesses in both places, I've found the US to have the higher regulatory burden: one can't even open a nail salon in the US without a raft of permits, while it is almost entirely hassle free in the - say - France.
It's almost like "less regulation" is not the be all and end all for solving economic malaise.
Ruder things could be said about Albania the other way. Maybe Leon's about.
Your dreams deserved a better receptacle than England.
Incidentally, how's this for disgusting:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnee9e22klno
Man suffers from massive, repeated and obviously entirely deliberate attempted fraud from an energy company.
This is OFGEM's response:
The energy regulator Ofgem said it expected suppliers to "act compassionately", adding it had toughened up rules for companies to follow when dealing with people who were struggling to pay bills.
Fuck them. Shoot them, indeed. Neither use nor ornament. Clearly hopelessly corrupt or so stupid they should not be given the right to have sex.
No wonder British Gas thinks it is above the law.
Interested to discover that the relevant agency made so much money from fees that were supposed only to cover their costs in the late 2010s that punters can now claim a fair chunk back. Or, logically enough, their attorneys.
Presumably such fussiness is de trop nowadays.
But honestly Scott, I sometimes think your brain only has one idea.
Brexit has happened. Britain has done neither noticeably better nor noticeably worse than its counterparts in the EU. Relax and let it go.