politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s Scottish collapse appears so dramatic now because las

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. P, Merkel Meet sounds wrong.

Mr. Eagles, do you mean 'condemned'?

Ja. Fixed now.

Mr. Eagles, excellent impression of Lieutenant George as Blackadder's lawyer

The Ched Evans case teaches us that if you're going for a bit of spit roast how's your father with a young lass, buy her a pizza and pay her taxi fare rather than being the tag team partner waiting eagerly at the hotel room.

Well that's what I've drawn from the case anyway.

JackW said:

Topically and finally ....

For Jim Murphy .... Diane Abbott In My Pants ....

ARSE in my pants!

There was some discussion earlier of WWI stuff, I think. This is a nice piece about a chap who reminds me a bit of Mad Jack Churchill:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30685433

I'd never heard of Adrian Carton de Wiart before.

volcanopete said:

Alistair said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Alistair, I think the audio file is up on Guide Fawkes' site (I only listened to the first half, which didn't mention oil).

Found it on the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gd3wx

Hey may as well have said "It's our oil".

EDIT: Don;t know where the idea that SLab peple aren't mentioning Ed Milliband comes from, he's been mentioned several times by Murphy in that clip.

It all looks manufactured to me.Never before has Scotland had a Labour leader of its own with this much power.That's the message of separation that was asked for.No longer the "branch office",no longer "London Labour",Murphy has Salmond,a Murdoch man, in his sights,a bruiser.

LOL, pity he waited till Salmond was gone. Salmond in London has little to fear from Murphy , and neither do SNP in general.

Carnyx said:

volcanopete said:

Alistair said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Alistair, I think the audio file is up on Guide Fawkes' site (I only listened to the first half, which didn't mention oil).

Found it on the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gd3wx

Hey may as well have said "It's our oil".

EDIT: Don;t know where the idea that SLab peple aren't mentioning Ed Milliband comes from, he's been mentioned several times by Murphy in that clip.

It all looks manufactured to me.Never before has Scotland had a Labour leader of its own with this much power.That's the message of separation that was asked for.No longer the "branch office",no longer "London Labour",Murphy has Salmond,a Murdoch man, in his sights,a bruiser.

Salmond? Murdoch?? A little wee bittockie of an update needed there. But I agree, it does seem concocted, though at the risk of mixing messages. I'm not sure that Mr M has that much power, actually, because the logical consequence of his actions is to split off SLAB from London Labour or risk damaging both of them - at which point Mr Miliband & Co lose, and Mr Murphy might as well fight for a new referendum.

Considering they depend on London to fund the regional sub office, having not enough supporters or income to rent a shed by themselves.

Carnyx said:

volcanopete said:

Alistair said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Alistair, I think the audio file is up on Guide Fawkes' site (I only listened to the first half, which didn't mention oil).

Found it on the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gd3wx

Hey may as well have said "It's our oil".

EDIT: Don;t know where the idea that SLab peple aren't mentioning Ed Milliband comes from, he's been mentioned several times by Murphy in that clip.

It all looks manufactured to me.Never before has Scotland had a Labour leader of its own with this much power.That's the message of separation that was asked for.No longer the "branch office",no longer "London Labour",Murphy has Salmond,a Murdoch man, in his sights,a bruiser.

Salmond? Murdoch?? A little wee bittockie of an update needed there. But I agree, it does seem concocted, though at the risk of mixing messages. I'm not sure that Mr M has that much power, actually, because the logical consequence of his actions is to split off SLAB from London Labour or risk damaging both of them - at which point Mr Miliband & Co lose, and Mr Murphy might as well fight for a new referendum.

Had to be done.You may have an underlying set of problems but if someone has shot an arrow up your backside it has to be pulled out.just as the concession on the 100 % delegated powers for income tax had to be done.
Only a Miliband government will give the necessary stability to fend off an unnecessary EU referendum, putting the economy at risk for the sake of base party advantage.Salmond needs to get used to the fact he's no longer top dog.

Socrates said:

Cyclefree said:

Socrates said:

Cyclefree said:

I have done a number of criminal trials. In my view juries generally get it right and I think it is dangerous - on the basis of limited newspaper reports - and without having heard all the evidence and seen the witnesses and accused in court to second guess a jury's decision.

I do appreciate this concern. I really do. But this is a much publicised case, and I've yet to hear a single strong argument about compelling evidence against Evans. Those screaming for him not to get a job don't even want to have a discussion beyond "BUT HE'S A RAPIST!".

I really want to know if disputed scientific evidence and claims of a lack of memory are enough to convict a male of rape in this country. Not least because I want to know whether I need to teach my son to get provable evidence of consent if the standard of reasonable doubt isn't going to be enforced any more.

All I can say is this: a gentleman does not sleep with a woman who's incapable with drink, no matter how many "consent letters" she may sign.

Yet whether she is "incapable with drink" is the whole damn question that's contested. The woman had no alcohol in her system about ten hours later. So unless there's some evidence that isn't being mentioned in the write-ups, it's quite possible males can go to jail for years for having sex with a woman who is capable.

That's always been the case.

I was responding to your request about what to teach your son.

Rather than get het up on the technicalities of consent, I think young men need to learn to treat women and themselves with respect when it comes to sex - not behave like rutting animals feasting over a bit of meat.

I don't think any of the people in this affair - from what I know of it - have behaved at all well, quite apart from the person who has been convicted. And that includes the woman. Women have a right not to be raped or sexually abused. But, old-fashioned as it may make me, when I see the way some young women behave - half-naked, incapably drunk - I'm horrified. They are - potentially - putting themselves in harm's way, even if the person who causes them harm is responsible. Women / men - all should have more respect for themselves if they want others to respect them.

As I say - hopelessly old-fashioned - but there you go.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

JackW said:

Topically and finally ....

For Jim Murphy .... Diane Abbott In My Pants ....

ARSE in my pants!

Be worrying if it was NOT.

volcanopete said:

Carnyx said:

volcanopete said:

Alistair said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Alistair, I think the audio file is up on Guide Fawkes' site (I only listened to the first half, which didn't mention oil).

Found it on the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gd3wx

Hey may as well have said "It's our oil".

EDIT: Don;t know where the idea that SLab peple aren't mentioning Ed Milliband comes from, he's been mentioned several times by Murphy in that clip.

It all looks manufactured to me.Never before has Scotland had a Labour leader of its own with this much power.That's the message of separation that was asked for.No longer the "branch office",no longer "London Labour",Murphy has Salmond,a Murdoch man, in his sights,a bruiser.

Salmond? Murdoch?? A little wee bittockie of an update needed there. But I agree, it does seem concocted, though at the risk of mixing messages. I'm not sure that Mr M has that much power, actually, because the logical consequence of his actions is to split off SLAB from London Labour or risk damaging both of them - at which point Mr Miliband & Co lose, and Mr Murphy might as well fight for a new referendum.

Had to be done.You may have an underlying set of problems but if someone has shot an arrow up your backside it has to be pulled out.just as the concession on the 100 % delegated powers for income tax had to be done.
Only a Miliband government will give the necessary stability to fend off an unnecessary EU referendum, putting the economy at risk for the sake of base party advantage.Salmond needs to get used to the fact he's no longer top dog.

The income tax delegated nothing , all they do is take same amount of block grant , it does absolutely nothing purely a sham.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

The Ched Evans case teaches us that if you're going for a bit of spit roast how's your father with a young lass, buy her a pizza and pay her taxi fare rather than being the tag team partner waiting eagerly at the hotel room.

Well that's what I've drawn from the case anyway.

The bit that stood out for me was that Ched Evans' brother watched the attack/sex through a window.

Frankly the whole think is bizarre. I think we can conclude that the level of proof in rape cases can be very very low and men have to be very very careful. Frankly in my youth I could have been accused and even convicted of rape if the standard of evidence in the Ched Evans case was enough. No injuries, no sperm, no alcohol in the blood 10 hours after the event, the night porter confirming that he heard the sounds of people enjoying having sex. I had the occasional boozy one night stand after a night out. If a girl had gone to the police and said she couldn't remember anything then I could have been charged with and perhaps convicted of rape. Remember in this case the victim did not say that she did not consent, all she said was that she was so drunk she could not remember. Thats why he was found guilty of rape. Clayton MAcdonald (Ched Evans co-defandant) was cleared of rape because she had gone back to the room with him so in effect in the jury's opinion had consented (this despite her being so drunk she cant remember). As I said, bizarre!

volcanopete said:

Alistair said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Alistair, I think the audio file is up on Guide Fawkes' site (I only listened to the first half, which didn't mention oil).

Found it on the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gd3wx

Hey may as well have said "It's our oil".

EDIT: Don;t know where the idea that SLab peple aren't mentioning Ed Milliband comes from, he's been mentioned several times by Murphy in that clip.

It all looks manufactured to me.Never before has Scotland had a Labour leader of its own with this much power.That's the message of separation that was asked for.No longer the "branch office",no longer "London Labour",Murphy has Salmond,a Murdoch man, in his sights,a bruiser.

It all seems rather daft to me - mainly caused by Abbott being a serial hypocrite who's trying to position herself for a mayoral run. Murphy to me seemed to be fairly on side with Ed - he takes UK decisions, I take devolved Scottish decisions. The mansion tax money is earmarked for the NHS in England, but isn't necessarily in Scotland where the additional revenue will come in the block grant. Perfectly sensible for Murphy to campaign on this - essentially it's vote for Ed in as UK Prime Minister and he'll institute this tax, this is how I'll spend our slice of the UK pie - vote SNP and there's no guarantee you'll get it. It's trying to put the SNP in the awkward position where they're forced to say they want an Ed Miliband government (of some description) but also to kick the Labour party out of Scotland.

Shapps appears to be accusing Murphy of insubordination for err...agreeing with UK Labour Party policy and translating it to a devolved Scotland.

The real story being the insubordination of London Labour MPs jockeying to be mayor. Although it's breathtaking hypocrisy (or idiocy) from Abbott who ran for the leadership on a platform of...fewer public service cuts due to more taxes on the wealthiest. Now as the wealthiest part of the country is London and the South East that inevitably means that money will be shifted to other regions. That's how taxing and public spending works. There may be intellectually coherent arguments against the mansion tax, but they're not this tax disproportionately comes from one part of the country and will be spent across it.

Socrates said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Not old-fashioned at all, just common sense.

If you leave money laying about, you are encouraging theft but it is still theft and an offence. A drunken woman is incautious, but not 'fair game'.

The same applies to men of course. I used to get drunk regularly but if I'd ever been buggered whilst incapable I'd have considered it a criminal offence, even though I bore some responsibility myself.

There's a huge difference between being "drunk" and being "incapable". But it now seems that if you have sex with someone who is merely "drunk" there's a danger that their word will be taken beyond yours in court, and you could go to jail for years and have your career ruined.

If a woman is drunk you need to think hard about whether she has really consented. We don't trust people who are "drunk" to be in charge of cars. It's not too much, really, to ask men to consider that someone who is not fit to drive is not really able to mean "yes" to sex and that, frankly, it's indecent to take advantage of someone in such a situation.

Is it too much to ask men to exercise some judgment? Even to think that sex with a willing and conscious woman is - on the whole - more fun?

Perhaps I have higher expectations of men.....

Dance in my pants

Socrates said:

Cyclefree said:

To answer your first question: men have been convicted of raping women who were not drunk. The Evans case has not established some new point of law. On the question of consent, the prosecution has to show that the man could not reasonably have thought that the woman consented.

I know the Evans case is not establishing anything new, but it is the case in which I learnt that men can be convicted apparently on very thin evidence indeed. They certainly didn't seem to prove beyond reasonably doubt that he "could not reasonably have thought the woman consented". According to Evans, she did so verbally, and the alleged victim couldn't remember. What was he convicted on?

Cyclefree said:

I'm sure LIAMT (if he's around) will give the correct formulation. That's why I suggested - and I was not making a legal point more one of sexual manners - that any decent man should surely think twice before having sex with someone who is drunk/unconscious/off their head on drugs or whatever

Give me a break. Perfectly decent couples regularly get drunk on a night out and then go home and have sex afterwards. If my wife has a glass too many at a dinner party, am I supposed to turn around and say "not tonight love, I know we're both in the mood, but your past the driving limit and it wouldn't be gentlemanly"?

Cyclefree said:

It all depends on the facts of the case. I would suggest that where people have been dating for some months it would be very much harder to establish rape.

I don't believe relationship status matters, but am happy to be corrected.

Socrates: I'm not commenting on your relationship with your wife!

The reference to "drunk/unconscious/off their head" is to a level of intoxication way past a merry evening dinner.

But sometimes someone in a relationship - however fleeting - has to behave like a grown up. And all I said was to think twice. I was not laying down some hard and fast rule. People have to exercise judgment.

And juries do the same - on the evidence presented before them.

I don't believe relationship status matters, but am happy to be corrected.

Breitbart did a series of articles on something called the 'sexodus' recently. It claimed that growing numbers of young men simply do not associate with women any longer because it is simply not worth it.

I don;t know if that's true but its food for thought.

Cyclefree said:

Socrates said:

Cyclefree said:

To answer your first question: men have been convicted of raping women who were not drunk. The Evans case has not established some new point of law. On the question of consent, the prosecution has to show that the man could not reasonably have thought that the woman consented.

I know the Evans case is not establishing anything new, but it is the case in which I learnt that men can be convicted apparently on very thin evidence indeed. They certainly didn't seem to prove beyond reasonably doubt that he "could not reasonably have thought the woman consented". According to Evans, she did so verbally, and the alleged victim couldn't remember. What was he convicted on?

Cyclefree said:

I'm sure LIAMT (if he's around) will give the correct formulation. That's why I suggested - and I was not making a legal point more one of sexual manners - that any decent man should surely think twice before having sex with someone who is drunk/unconscious/off their head on drugs or whatever

Give me a break. Perfectly decent couples regularly get drunk on a night out and then go home and have sex afterwards. If my wife has a glass too many at a dinner party, am I supposed to turn around and say "not tonight love, I know we're both in the mood, but your past the driving limit and it wouldn't be gentlemanly"?

Cyclefree said:

It all depends on the facts of the case. I would suggest that where people have been dating for some months it would be very much harder to establish rape.

I don't believe relationship status matters, but am happy to be corrected.

Socrates: I'm not commenting on your relationship with your wife!

The reference to "drunk/unconscious/off their head" is to a level of intoxication way past a merry evening dinner.

But sometimes someone in a relationship - however fleeting - has to behave like a grown up. And all I said was to think twice. I was not laying down some hard and fast rule. People have to exercise judgment.

And juries do the same - on the evidence presented before them.

If a woman is so plastered she can't remember if she has consented, and a man is so plastered he forgot to get her to write down her consent, why is he a rapist?

Why does her drunkenness allow her to claim she didn't consent and be believed, whereas his drunkenness does not allow him to claim that she did consent, and be believed?

HurstLlama said:

"Vince Cable will tomorrow lose his job as Liberal Democrat economy spokesman for the election"

So says the Speccie. Why the Lib Dems have decided that St Vince of Hindsight is not a fit and proper person to talk for them on economic matters we can only speculate.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/charlottehenry/2015/01/exclusive-vince-cable-will-lose-his-economy-job-with-the-lib-dems-tomorrow

Maybe he's leading by example for Osborne.

NHS in crisis.

surprised!!!!

Jim Murphy is a creation of mainstream media and political commentators. That was why many of us Scots on the site couldn’t fathom why Murphy’s anointing as the SLAB leader was such great news. In Scotland Jim Murphy due to blanket media coverage of the last few months, has got good name recognition but very few Scots actually know the record of the man. Once the media start covering his back story he will quickly become an electoral liability for SLAB.

More worryingly two days in to the GE2015 campaign, he is shaping up to being an electoral liability at a national level.

I think Labour need to focus on simple, clean messaging of national policies. Any attempt to offer Scots anything more is going to backfire for Labour and SLAB. Instead of starting to fight the Holyrood 2016 campaign, Murphy first has to negotiate GE2015 without shooting himself and possibly his party in the head.

Miss Cyclefree, jein. Without commenting on that particular case, some people are naturally more or less emotive. An Australian woman was convicted of murdering her baby son based on her seemingly cold testimony. Evidence later backed up her claim that he was taken by dingos.

surprised!!!!

Agreed. Isn't what is happening in Wales terrible??? poor chap left with badly broken leg for 3 hours with no ambulance.

King Kong in my pants?

I know what you did last summer in my pants

Bond_James_Bond said:

Cyclefree said:

Socrates said:

Cyclefree said:

Cyclefree said:

I'm sure LIAMT (if he's around) will give the correct formulation. That's why I suggested - and I was not making a legal point more one of sexual manners - that any decent man should surely think twice before having sex with someone who is drunk/unconscious/off their head on drugs or whatever

Give me a break. Perfectly decent couples regularly get drunk on a night out and then go home and have sex afterwards. If my wife has a glass too many at a dinner party, am I supposed to turn around and say "not tonight love, I know we're both in the mood, but your past the driving limit and it wouldn't be gentlemanly"?

Cyclefree said:

It all depends on the facts of the case. I would suggest that where people have been dating for some months it would be very much harder to establish rape.

I don't believe relationship status matters, but am happy to be corrected.

Socrates: I'm not commenting on your relationship with your wife!

The reference to "drunk/unconscious/off their head" is to a level of intoxication way past a merry evening dinner.

But sometimes someone in a relationship - however fleeting - has to behave like a grown up. And all I said was to think twice. I was not laying down some hard and fast rule. People have to exercise judgment.

And juries do the same - on the evidence presented before them.

If a woman is so plastered she can't remember if she has consented, and a man is so plastered he forgot to get her to write down her consent, why is he a rapist?

Why does her drunkenness allow her to claim she didn't consent and be believed, whereas his drunkenness does not allow him to claim that she did consent, and be believed?

You will have to ask the Court of Appeal who gave a ruling on the issue of consent when drunk.

And, pace, Socrates, I'm not arguing that anyone who has a drink should not have sex. That would indeed be absurd. I am saying that the more someone has to drink the more her partner (however fleeting) needs to think about whether she can really consent and, separate from the legal question (not usually uppermost at times like these!) whether it's the right thing to do.

I don't think this is - or should be - asking too much.

Interesting how much worse Labour did in eastern England than western in 2010.

I do not think it coincidental that it is also in eastern England where UKIP does best.

Guy writes foolish tweet, outrage level hits critical. GM Plod comment, A & S Plod ask for cyclist to come foward. Guy sacked by firm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30700872

May be more to it, but something doesn't quite add up.

taffys said:

I don't believe relationship status matters, but am happy to be corrected.

Breitbart did a series of articles on something called the 'sexodus' recently. It claimed that growing numbers of young men simply do not associate with women any longer because it is simply not worth it.

I don;t know if that's true but its food for thought.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594036756

There is a body of men who believe that it is all more trouble than it is worth.

Not me of course!

I have "the Monster that ate Sheboygan" in my pants!

Socrates said:

Cyclefree said:

Socrates said:

Cyclefree said:

To answer your first question: men have been convicted of raping women who were not drunk. The Evans case has not established some new point of law. On the question of consent, the prosecution has to show that the man could not reasonably have thought that the woman consented.

I know the Evans case is not establishing anything new, but it is the case in which I learnt that men can be convicted apparently on very thin evidence indeed. They certainly didn't seem to prove beyond reasonably doubt that he "could not reasonably have thought the woman consented". According to Evans, she did so verbally, and the alleged victim couldn't remember. What was he convicted on?

Perhaps the jury did not believe him when he said that. You underestimate, IMO, the value that the jury (rightly) place on what the defendant says in court and how he says it.

So "beyond reasonable doubt" - and thus a man's career and liberty - now comes down to jury members' ability to read tone and body language? It shouldn't matter what they believed from the defendant. They should need near indisputable evidence that she didn't give consent or was incapable of giving consent. What was that in this case?

Oh for heaven's sake Socrates. Forget rape cases. Paying attention to what witnesses and the defendant says has always mattered in jury trials. Any lawyer will tell you that what someone says written down and what someone says when they look you in the eye or not can be very different. And that a near certain case can look very different when you hear and see people speak. Credibility matters.

We don't employ people just by reading a CV. We talk to them. In lots and lots of walks of life we assess people by what they say and how they say it. You seem to be complaining that the jury did just than in this case but came to some different view to the one that you might have come to even though you were not there and have not heard or seen or considered all the evidence.

So the Tories said that the NHS wouldn't be an election issue. Lansley's changes were so utterly mad and have so stripped front line services of much-needed resources because of the expense of the unnecessary reorganization that it could not fail to be so.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Isam, Relax in my pants.

You'll have to buy me a drink first

Scott_P said:

Bye Bye...

@IsabelHardman: Lib Dems to confirm Vince Cable no longer their economy spokesman tomorrow http://t.co/9gsrJ3iZqo good work from @charlotteahenry

Looks like the Lib-Dems differentiation strategy gather's pace... With themselves, LOL!

Socrates said:

@Bond_James_Bond

What happens if two drunk people have sex? Are they both rapists and rape victims?

If she's so drunk she consents and forgets, and he's so drunk he takes her at her word but fails to video it on his phone, her drunkenness excuses her and condemns him. So he's a rapist if at the time or at any point later she either doesn't consent or regrets that she did.

So that's all perfectly clear and fair.

Socrates said:

Cyclefree said:

Socrates: I have to go now.

The advice I would give to your son (and not just in matters of sex) is this: ask yourself not just whether you can do something. But whether you should. Ask yourself whether it is the right thing to do. And try and do the right thing.

There is a difference between what is right and what is legal (as I say to bankers every day). And in that difference lie morality and decency and values.

I know you've probably gone, but I don't disagree with any of that. My point is that the standard of evidence in this case appears so weak that it means people who are entirely moral and decent could end up losing their liberty. "The accused seems shifty" isn't evidence.

I got distracted by other matters. The standard of evidence in this case was such that the jury, having been properly directed by the judge, decided that the defendant was guilty. It does not mean that other moral and decent people will lose their liberty in as yet unknown different circumstances and on different facts.

taffys said:

Sell shares in Jowell, buy in Khan who's been conspicuous by his loyalty.

It isn;t the tax its where it is being spent. Khan is happy for it to be sent to Scotland, an almost autonomous country that despises the South of England.

It isn't being 'sent to Scotland' though is it? It will mostly go to fund the NHS across England (including London), with the Barnett formula determining the small amount (relative to how much raised) of extra money spent in Scotland as it's a devolved matter as happens with all spending.

Calum

"Jim Murphy is a creation of mainstream media and political commentators. That was why many of us Scots on the site couldn’t fathom why Murphy’s anointing as the SLAB leader was such great news."

Not great news for the Nats. But it looks like it's going to be very good news for Scottish labour.

@GeoffM
Very true Geoff, we need people like you, to give us well balanced and reasonable opinion (in an unbiased way)