politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Real worrying thing for LAB about the Ashcroft Scottish pol
Comments
-
A perfect storm for Labour: under attack on three fronts from the SNP, UKIP and the Greens.0
-
In the future, usually in a few days time, when we've spoken to Mike and the rest of the moderating team.Socrates said:
Who are you then - rcs1000? When is the decision likely to be revisited?PBModerator said:
Until we decide otherwise.Socrates said:
What, permanently?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
FYI - I'm not TSE.0 -
I'd say for as long as it suits the political agenda of the moderators.Socrates said:
Apparently I'm wrong on at lest this occasion, but it's my understanding PBModerator is sometimes the account used by TSE.isam said:
Nooooo???!Socrates said:
PBModerator is TheScreamingEagles, not rcs1000.MikeK said:
Do you mean that no one is allowed to mention the Rotherham case from now on. I thought you and your dad were for Je suis Charlie? Now you are banning discussion?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
However, I would like to know from whoever is using the account right now the minimum on how long my ban on discussing the biggest scandal in British politics for decades will last for. It seems like a huge restriction on free discussion when I have always done my best to respect the rules of the site, and to retract claims when I have overstepped. I don't believe Mike is put at any real risk for my comments if I continue to act in such a way.0 -
Thanks. I'd appreciate if you could let me know. Like I said, I find it a huge restriction for an issue I care strongly about, which I feel is being swept under the carpet. Perhaps a happy balance would be for me to never mention specific individuals who have supposedly done crimes in connection with this issue?PBModerator said:
In the future, usually in a few days time, when we've spoken to Mike and the rest of the moderating team.Socrates said:
Who are you then - rcs1000? When is the decision likely to be revisited?PBModerator said:
Until we decide otherwise.Socrates said:
What, permanently?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
FYI - I'm not TSE.0 -
No wonder the 1000+ abused came as a surprise for her. Must walk around looking at the sky.Sean_F said:Sean_F said:
Are you joking?YBarddCwsc said:Critics of Sarah Champion will be pleased to see she is active on the matter of child abuse.
I read on her website of her innovative campaign :
"Sarah has become the first foster Mum of a teddy bear called Mistoffelees. The bear represents victims of child abuse; a companion of a child who has seen and experienced what the victim went through. The idea is for Mistoffolees to be handed around Westminster, with each politician having pictures taken with him and writing a message in his accompanying book to show their support against child abuse."
You aren't
http://www.sarahchampionmp.com/sarah-champion-becomes-first-mp-to-join-innovative-campaign-raising-awareness-of-child-abuse/
0 -
So an inability to use a comma correctly is more a general site moderator thing?PBModerator said:
Until we decide otherwise.Socrates said:
What, permanently?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
FYI - I'm not TSE.0 -
Am I banned? If so I'll behave from now on.
EDIT: It seems not. Nevertheless, point noted.0 -
The biggest scandal in British politics in all time is going to be the Westminster Paedophile Ring. It will make Rotherham look like a sideshow - in terms of the depravity of the acts (as far as I'm aware no murders were alleged in Rotherham, and in terms of the extent of the cover-up.Socrates said:
Apparently I'm wrong on at lest this occasion, but it's my understanding PBModerator is sometimes the account used by TSE.isam said:
Nooooo???!Socrates said:
PBModerator is TheScreamingEagles, not rcs1000.MikeK said:
Do you mean that no one is allowed to mention the Rotherham case from now on. I thought you and your dad were for Je suis Charlie? Now you are banning discussion?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
However, I would like to know from whoever is using the account right now the minimum on how long my ban on discussing the biggest scandal in British politics for decades will last for. It seems like a huge restriction on free discussion when I have always done my best to respect the rules of the site, and to retract claims when I have overstepped. I don't believe Mike is put at any real risk for my comments if I continue to act in such a way.
There will be a lot of new Jimmy Saville's, and it won't be pretty.0 -
Have they gone a bit SNP crazy in the constituencies?Richard_Nabavi said:
I very strongly suggest you try to remember it. There's other stuff.Pulpstar said:Pah can't remember my username.
0 -
It is all very gaulling.....TOPPING said:
No asterikses? What about Vitalstatistix? Can we mention him?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
0 -
And yet they still look likely to win more seats than in 2010, in no small part thanks to the Lib Dem collapse. Only once before have so many owed so much to so few.AndyJS said:A perfect storm for Labour: under attack on three fronts from the SNP, UKIP and the Greens.
0 -
TheWatcher (or should it be Thelooktheotherway,
"I trust he'd make as much noise on the topic if local white Christians were perpetrating similar crimes."
You've obviously missed the element of political correctness that was emphasised in the Casey Report. Do you really think that they'd look the other way if white Christians were the main perpetrators? That's a genuine question.0 -
I was following someone else's lead below. Who is on the moderating team?rcs1000 said:@Socrates, I am not pbmoderator, have never been pbmoderator, and have only moderated two comments in my entire history on this site.
I would respond to your other comment, but I'm currently banned from discussing the issue.
0 -
Thanks, RCS. That is my view too.rcs1000 said:
The biggest scandal in British politics in all time is going to be the Westminster Paedophile Ring. It will make Rotherham look like a sideshow - in terms of the depravity of the acts (as far as I'm aware no murders were alleged in Rotherham, and in terms of the extent of the cover-up.Socrates said:
Apparently I'm wrong on at lest this occasion, but it's my understanding PBModerator is sometimes the account used by TSE.isam said:
Nooooo???!Socrates said:
PBModerator is TheScreamingEagles, not rcs1000.MikeK said:
Do you mean that no one is allowed to mention the Rotherham case from now on. I thought you and your dad were for Je suis Charlie? Now you are banning discussion?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
However, I would like to know from whoever is using the account right now the minimum on how long my ban on discussing the biggest scandal in British politics for decades will last for. It seems like a huge restriction on free discussion when I have always done my best to respect the rules of the site, and to retract claims when I have overstepped. I don't believe Mike is put at any real risk for my comments if I continue to act in such a way.
There will be a lot of new Jimmy Saville's, and it won't be pretty.0 -
Well "if" they were "local white Christians" I'd hope so too. But the fact is they weren't and your handwringing is a perfect example of why this was allowed to carry on for so long.blackburn63 said:
I note Farage's emphasis on the religion, and implied nationality of the abusers. I trust he'd make as much noise on the topic if local white Christians were perpetrating similar crimes.TheWatcher said:MikeK said:— Harry Plowman (@HarryPlowman2) February 4, 2015
Farage has spoken about child grooming. Above is a smiggin of what he said.
Dont worry, we can all look forward to a BBC drama in which the perpetrators are local white christians and the victims are muslim children.0 -
They might make 20 net gains, the same as Kinnock in 1987.OblitusSumMe said:
And yet they still look likely to win more seats than in 2010, in no small part thanks to the Lib Dem collapse. Only once before have so many owed so much to so few.AndyJS said:A perfect storm for Labour: under attack on three fronts from the SNP, UKIP and the Greens.
Incidentally I've just put £10 on UKIP in Bootle at 20/1 with Betfair Sportsbook. Paul Nuttall was reselected as candidate a couple of days ago. The constituency is a bit like an English version of Coatbridge.
0 -
Yesisam said:
Have they gone a bit SNP crazy in the constituencies?Richard_Nabavi said:
I very strongly suggest you try to remember it. There's other stuff.Pulpstar said:Pah can't remember my username.
0 -
The evidence for Rotherham is there because employees just didn't look for it instead of actively removing, deleting and shredding it. I think (sadly) you will find those in Westminster were slightly more careful....rcs1000 said:
The biggest scandal in British politics in all time is going to be the Westminster Paedophile Ring. It will make Rotherham look like a sideshow - in terms of the depravity of the acts (as far as I'm aware no murders were alleged in Rotherham, and in terms of the extent of the cover-up.Socrates said:
Apparently I'm wrong on at lest this occasion, but it's my understanding PBModerator is sometimes the account used by TSE.isam said:
Nooooo???!Socrates said:
PBModerator is TheScreamingEagles, not rcs1000.MikeK said:
Do you mean that no one is allowed to mention the Rotherham case from now on. I thought you and your dad were for Je suis Charlie? Now you are banning discussion?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
However, I would like to know from whoever is using the account right now the minimum on how long my ban on discussing the biggest scandal in British politics for decades will last for. It seems like a huge restriction on free discussion when I have always done my best to respect the rules of the site, and to retract claims when I have overstepped. I don't believe Mike is put at any real risk for my comments if I continue to act in such a way.
There will be a lot of new Jimmy Saville's, and it won't be pretty.0 -
Re Moderation
New rulings from rcs1000.
isam will no longer be allowed to use the letter 'l'. Any posts with the letter 'l' in will be automatically deleted.
MarkSenior will only be allowed to post if he predicts imminent demise for the Liberal Democrats. Any posts that contradict this will be deleted.
SeanT must begin all posts with the following "As a famous author, you probably wish to hear my thoughts on the topic of"
I'll think of some more rules in a bit0 -
Re: Chilcott.
Having watched his performance today he reinforced the view that Whitehall is stuffed full of deadbeat civil servants that are incapable of managing anything. Clearly unable to create a project plan and seems to have spent his time exploring interesting thoughts. No sense of urgency. No sense of needing to get things done by deadlines. Would he know what a deadline looks like? A first class specimen.
Hopefully the NZ judge can show our civil service how to do things properly.0 -
I genuinely have no idea. I manage the servers, I don't have any input into editorial. I know there are four or five people who help Mike and TSE. (Allegedly I went to university with TSE, but this in no way biases me.)Socrates said:
I was following someone else's lead below. Who is on the moderating team?rcs1000 said:@Socrates, I am not pbmoderator, have never been pbmoderator, and have only moderated two comments in my entire history on this site.
I would respond to your other comment, but I'm currently banned from discussing the issue.0 -
duplicate0
-
Guardian article on IFS report has this interesting observation:
Voters should brace themselves for across-the-board tax increases in the early years of the next parliament, it said, despite all the major parties insisting they can achieve their targets without major rises.
I think an increase in VAT is a certainty, given the size of the deficit, the low rate of inflation and the [understandable] political aversion to increasing direct taxation.
“History suggests that general elections tend to be followed by tax rises. The first year after each of the last five elections has seen the announcement of net tax rises of more than £5 billion per year in today’s terms,” the IFS said.
Unfortunately, the competitive dishonesty that runs through the core of British politics means that no-one will admit to this. Unless we can find a way for honest politicians not to be punished for their honesty we are never going to be able to have a proper debate about the choices we face.0 -
There's one major name whom the CPS are deliberating over right now. Maybe they'll continue deliberating until he dies, or until it's "no longer in the public interest" to prosecute.rcs1000 said:
The biggest scandal in British politics in all time is going to be the Westminster Paedophile Ring. It will make Rotherham look like a sideshow - in terms of the depravity of the acts (as far as I'm aware no murders were alleged in Rotherham, and in terms of the extent of the cover-up.Socrates said:
Apparently I'm wrong on at lest this occasion, but it's my understanding PBModerator is sometimes the account used by TSE.isam said:
Nooooo???!Socrates said:
PBModerator is TheScreamingEagles, not rcs1000.MikeK said:
Do you mean that no one is allowed to mention the Rotherham case from now on. I thought you and your dad were for Je suis Charlie? Now you are banning discussion?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
However, I would like to know from whoever is using the account right now the minimum on how long my ban on discussing the biggest scandal in British politics for decades will last for. It seems like a huge restriction on free discussion when I have always done my best to respect the rules of the site, and to retract claims when I have overstepped. I don't believe Mike is put at any real risk for my comments if I continue to act in such a way.
There will be a lot of new Jimmy Saville's, and it won't be pretty.
I first heard allegations about him over 30 years ago, btw...
0 -
Much, much more stuff is coming. The papers have teams combing through stuff and the lawyers are locked up with the editors. I have heard it said that there are quite a few retired police who are being very helpful.eek said:
The evidence for Rotherham is there because employees just didn't look for it instead of actively removing, deleting and shredding it. I think (sadly) you will find those in Westminster were slightly more careful....rcs1000 said:
The biggest scandal in British politics in all time is going to be the Westminster Paedophile Ring. It will make Rotherham look like a sideshow - in terms of the depravity of the acts (as far as I'm aware no murders were alleged in Rotherham, and in terms of the extent of the cover-up.Socrates said:
Apparently I'm wrong on at lest this occasion, but it's my understanding PBModerator is sometimes the account used by TSE.isam said:
Nooooo???!Socrates said:
PBModerator is TheScreamingEagles, not rcs1000.MikeK said:
Do you mean that no one is allowed to mention the Rotherham case from now on. I thought you and your dad were for Je suis Charlie? Now you are banning discussion?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
However, I would like to know from whoever is using the account right now the minimum on how long my ban on discussing the biggest scandal in British politics for decades will last for. It seems like a huge restriction on free discussion when I have always done my best to respect the rules of the site, and to retract claims when I have overstepped. I don't believe Mike is put at any real risk for my comments if I continue to act in such a way.
There will be a lot of new Jimmy Saville's, and it won't be pretty.0 -
One of the papers will blink first. And then they'll have to prosecute and then the whole thing will come crumbling down...RodCrosby said:
There's one major name whom the CPS are deliberating over right now. Maybe they'll continue deliberating until he dies, or until it's "no longer in the public interest" to prosecute.rcs1000 said:
The biggest scandal in British politics in all time is going to be the Westminster Paedophile Ring. It will make Rotherham look like a sideshow - in terms of the depravity of the acts (as far as I'm aware no murders were alleged in Rotherham, and in terms of the extent of the cover-up.Socrates said:
Apparently I'm wrong on at lest this occasion, but it's my understanding PBModerator is sometimes the account used by TSE.isam said:
Nooooo???!Socrates said:
PBModerator is TheScreamingEagles, not rcs1000.MikeK said:
Do you mean that no one is allowed to mention the Rotherham case from now on. I thought you and your dad were for Je suis Charlie? Now you are banning discussion?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
However, I would like to know from whoever is using the account right now the minimum on how long my ban on discussing the biggest scandal in British politics for decades will last for. It seems like a huge restriction on free discussion when I have always done my best to respect the rules of the site, and to retract claims when I have overstepped. I don't believe Mike is put at any real risk for my comments if I continue to act in such a way.
There will be a lot of new Jimmy Saville's, and it won't be pretty.
I first heard allegations about him over 30 years ago, btw...
As an aside: has anyone noticed how David Icke was right?0 -
H/T to antifrank for the predictions on Scotland.Thanks.Funny old election but a profitable one hopefully.Best possible scenario for SLAB is 20 losses,LDs 7.Ironically,the Tories could end up with an extra panda too.We are witnessing a democratic revolution.Interesting times.0
-
If Labour are in government then a VAT rise would be astonishing. I know [most] politicians are venal, lying creatures but raising such a regressive tax on those suffering a 'cost of living crisis' - and hitting their core vote hardest of all - would be borderline suicidal.OblitusSumMe said:*snip*
I think an increase in VAT is a certainty, given the size of the deficit, the low rate of inflation and the [understandable] political aversion to increasing direct taxation.
Unfortunately, the competitive dishonesty that runs through the core of British politics means that no-one will admit to this. Unless we can find a way for honest politicians not to be punished for their honesty we are never going to be able to have a proper debate about the choices we face.0 -
When I was in my very early 20s, and a university activist, I met a handful of older Tory MPs who I found decidedly creepy. I won't say any more than that (and I wonder if even that's too much) but I felt uncomfortable in their presence. I also heard stories but just didn't believe them.rcs1000 said:
The biggest scandal in British politics in all time is going to be the Westminster Paedophile Ring. It will make Rotherham look like a sideshow - in terms of the depravity of the acts (as far as I'm aware no murders were alleged in Rotherham, and in terms of the extent of the cover-up.Socrates said:
Apparently I'm wrong on at lest this occasion, but it's my understanding PBModerator is sometimes the account used by TSE.isam said:
Nooooo???!Socrates said:
PBModerator is TheScreamingEagles, not rcs1000.MikeK said:
Do you mean that no one is allowed to mention the Rotherham case from now on. I thought you and your dad were for Je suis Charlie? Now you are banning discussion?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
However, I would like to know from whoever is using the account right now the minimum on how long my ban on discussing the biggest scandal in British politics for decades will last for. It seems like a huge restriction on free discussion when I have always done my best to respect the rules of the site, and to retract claims when I have overstepped. I don't believe Mike is put at any real risk for my comments if I continue to act in such a way.
There will be a lot of new Jimmy Saville's, and it won't be pretty.
But nothing like that. Shocking doesn't come close. I don't want to believe it but I'm not sure anything surprise me anymore.0 -
rcs1000 said:
Re Moderation
New rulings from rcs1000.
isam will no longer be allowed to use the letter 'l'. Any posts with the letter 'l' in will be automatically deleted.
MarkSenior will only be allowed to post if he predicts imminent demise for the Liberal Democrats. Any posts that contradict this will be deleted.
SeanT must begin all posts with the following "As a famous author, you probably wish to hear my thoughts on the topic of"
I'll think of some more rules in a bit
All betting tips must be vetted in advance by the Moderation Team.rcs1000 said:Re Moderation
New rulings from rcs1000.
isam will no longer be allowed to use the letter 'l'. Any posts with the letter 'l' in will be automatically deleted.
MarkSenior will only be allowed to post if he predicts imminent demise for the Liberal Democrats. Any posts that contradict this will be deleted.
SeanT must begin all posts with the following "As a famous author, you probably wish to hear my thoughts on the topic of"
I'll think of some more rules in a bit
I'm guessing....0 -
Don't worry... there'll be a bonus tax on bankers.Anorak said:
If Labour are in government then a VAT rise would be astonishing. I know [most] politicians are venal, lying creatures but raising such a regressive tax on those suffering a 'cost of living crisis' - and hitting their core vote hardest of all - would be borderline suicidal.OblitusSumMe said:
More seriously, UK debt to GDP may have already peaked, even absent any tax rises, so it's hard to see *why* there needs to be any significant increase in taxes.0 -
If you could forward them to me to 'check' first, that would be great...MarqueeMark said:rcs1000 said:Re Moderation
New rulings from rcs1000.
isam will no longer be allowed to use the letter 'l'. Any posts with the letter 'l' in will be automatically deleted.
MarkSenior will only be allowed to post if he predicts imminent demise for the Liberal Democrats. Any posts that contradict this will be deleted.
SeanT must begin all posts with the following "As a famous author, you probably wish to hear my thoughts on the topic of"
I'll think of some more rules in a bit
All betting tips must be vetted in advance by the Moderation Team.rcs1000 said:Re Moderation
New rulings from rcs1000.
isam will no longer be allowed to use the letter 'l'. Any posts with the letter 'l' in will be automatically deleted.
MarkSenior will only be allowed to post if he predicts imminent demise for the Liberal Democrats. Any posts that contradict this will be deleted.
SeanT must begin all posts with the following "As a famous author, you probably wish to hear my thoughts on the topic of"
I'll think of some more rules in a bit
I'm guessing....0 -
For those who love a middle:
SNP Over 38.5 @ 5/6, Ladbrokes
SNP Under 42.5 @ 5/6, Coral
10/1 on the central four seat band is spiffing - though obviously the distribution has got fat tails.0 -
I went onto his site shortly after the Savile story started spreading to the rest of the BBC, expecting to see "I told you!!!!!"rcs1000 said:
One of the papers will blink first. And then they'll have to prosecute and then the whole thing will come crumbling down...
As an aside: has anyone noticed how David Icke was right?
Instead he had some story about a mystery hidden planet that was coming towards Earth to destroy it.
0 -
To punish those who are seen as having too much money, of course. As you're one of "them", I'm surprised you haven't seen that coming.rcs1000 said:
Don't worry... there'll be a bonus tax on bankers.Anorak said:
If Labour are in government then a VAT rise would be astonishing. I know [most] politicians are venal, lying creatures but raising such a regressive tax on those suffering a 'cost of living crisis' - and hitting their core vote hardest of all - would be borderline suicidal.OblitusSumMe said:
More seriously, UK debt to GDP may have already peaked, even absent any tax rises, so it's hard to see *why* there needs to be any significant increase in taxes.
Also, more nurses. Can't have enough of them. Ever.0 -
And you can cover 45 at 45/1 to boot.Tissue_Price said:For those who love a middle:
SNP Over 38.5 @ 5/6, Ladbrokes
SNP Under 42.5 @ 5/6, Coral
10/1 on the central four seat band is spiffing - though obviously the distribution has got fat tails.
0 -
Somewhat to my surprise, I see the issue is addressed quite frankly on this individual's Wikipedia entry.RodCrosby said:
There's one major name whom the CPS are deliberating over right now. Maybe they'll continue deliberating until he dies, or until it's "no longer in the public interest" to prosecute.rcs1000 said:
The biggest scandal in British politics in all time is going to be the Westminster Paedophile Ring. It will make Rotherham look like a sideshow - in terms of the depravity of the acts (as far as I'm aware no murders were alleged in Rotherham, and in terms of the extent of the cover-up.Socrates said:
Apparently I'm wrong on at lest this occasion, but it's my understanding PBModerator is sometimes the account used by TSE.isam said:
Nooooo???!Socrates said:
PBModerator is TheScreamingEagles, not rcs1000.MikeK said:
Do you mean that no one is allowed to mention the Rotherham case from now on. I thought you and your dad were for Je suis Charlie? Now you are banning discussion?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
However, I would like to know from whoever is using the account right now the minimum on how long my ban on discussing the biggest scandal in British politics for decades will last for. It seems like a huge restriction on free discussion when I have always done my best to respect the rules of the site, and to retract claims when I have overstepped. I don't believe Mike is put at any real risk for my comments if I continue to act in such a way.
There will be a lot of new Jimmy Saville's, and it won't be pretty.
I first heard allegations about him over 30 years ago, btw...
0 -
OH MY LORDRichard_Nabavi said:
I very strongly suggest you try to remember it. There's other stuff.Pulpstar said:Pah can't remember my username.
0 -
I think there's still a couple more points to close from numbers I've looked at. Plus, we really want to have lower debt than in 2007 when the next recession hits, so we have a way to go to pay down.rcs1000 said:
Don't worry... there'll be a bonus tax on bankers.Anorak said:
If Labour are in government then a VAT rise would be astonishing. I know [most] politicians are venal, lying creatures but raising such a regressive tax on those suffering a 'cost of living crisis' - and hitting their core vote hardest of all - would be borderline suicidal.OblitusSumMe said:
More seriously, UK debt to GDP may have already peaked, even absent any tax rises, so it's hard to see *why* there needs to be any significant increase in taxes.0 -
You are not alone.Cyclefree said:the idea that business has a responsibility to the society in which it operates is not some dangerously left-wing viewpoint but one which chimes with a lot of people, myself included.
Clearly business has external stakeholders: customers, regulators, employees and the shareholders. (Possibly in that order... although I might switch the first two around)
But fundamentally, a business can only flourish in a thriving local ecosystem. With success comes responsibility.0 -
Looks like a Commonwealth judge is going to lead the child abuse inquiry. I seem to recall suggesting this a while back!0
-
Will you link to a wikipedia entry making no comment? Or including as part of this chain of comments.Sean_F said:
Somewhat to my surprise, I see the issue is addressed quite frankly on this individual's Wikipedia entry.RodCrosby said:
There's one major name whom the CPS are deliberating over right now. Maybe they'll continue deliberating until he dies, or until it's "no longer in the public interest" to prosecute.rcs1000 said:
The biggest scandal in British politics in all time is going to be the Westminster Paedophile Ring. It will make Rotherham look like a sideshow - in terms of the depravity of the acts (as far as I'm aware no murders were alleged in Rotherham, and in terms of the extent of the cover-up.Socrates said:
Apparently I'm wrong on at lest this occasion, but it's my understanding PBModerator is sometimes the account used by TSE.isam said:
Nooooo???!Socrates said:
PBModerator is TheScreamingEagles, not rcs1000.MikeK said:
Do you mean that no one is allowed to mention the Rotherham case from now on. I thought you and your dad were for Je suis Charlie? Now you are banning discussion?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
However, I would like to know from whoever is using the account right now the minimum on how long my ban on discussing the biggest scandal in British politics for decades will last for. It seems like a huge restriction on free discussion when I have always done my best to respect the rules of the site, and to retract claims when I have overstepped. I don't believe Mike is put at any real risk for my comments if I continue to act in such a way.
There will be a lot of new Jimmy Saville's, and it won't be pretty.
I first heard allegations about him over 30 years ago, btw...0 -
Anorak said:Sean_F said:
Somewhat to my surprise, I see the issue is addressed quite frankly on this individual's Wikipedia entry.RodCrosby said:
There's one major name whom the CPS are deliberating over right now. Maybe they'll continue deliberating until he dies, or until it's "no longer in the public interest" to prosecute.rcs1000 said:
The biggest scandal in British politics in all time is going to be the Westminster Paedophile Ring. It will make Rotherham look like a sideshow - in terms of the depravity of the acts (as far as I'm aware no murders were alleged in Rotherham, and in terms of the extent of the cover-up.Socrates said:
Apparently I'm wrong on at lest this occasion, but it's my understanding PBModerator is sometimes the account used by TSE.isam said:
Nooooo???!Socrates said:
PBModerator is TheScreamingEagles, not rcs1000.MikeK said:
Do you mean that no one is allowed to mention the Rotherham case from now on. I thought you and your dad were for Je suis Charlie? Now you are banning discussion?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
However, I would like to know from whoever is using the account right now the minimum on how long my ban on discussing the biggest scandal in British politics for decades will last for. It seems like a huge restriction on free discussion when I have always done my best to respect the rules of the site, and to retract claims when I have overstepped. I don't believe Mike is put at any real risk for my comments if I continue to act in such a way.
There will be a lot of new Jimmy Saville's, and it won't be pretty.
I first heard allegations about him over 30 years ago, btw...
No.0 -
Blimey... over reactionsville!!!Richard_Nabavi said:
Yesisam said:
Have they gone a bit SNP crazy in the constituencies?Richard_Nabavi said:
I very strongly suggest you try to remember it. There's other stuff.Pulpstar said:Pah can't remember my username.
0 -
We're also discussing whether bad jokes should result in instant moderation!MarqueeMark said:
It is all very gaulling.....TOPPING said:
No asterikses? What about Vitalstatistix? Can we mention him?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.0 -
Take on the pandas, would be my advicePulpstar said:
OH MY LORDRichard_Nabavi said:
I very strongly suggest you try to remember it. There's other stuff.Pulpstar said:Pah can't remember my username.
0 -
I still want to know from the moderators, what we can or cannot write on the subject of Rotherham? Can we have a clear answer for once, because I'm buggered if I'm going to write acres of text that will be rubbed out on a whim.0
-
One of the papers will blink first. And then they'll have to prosecute and then the whole thing will come crumbling down...
As an aside: has anyone noticed how David Icke was right?
He wasn't the first though. The now deceased Reverend Goatboy a long standing contributor to Popbitch, alluded to many of the subsequently true activities of Saville, years before Icke.0 -
Is Chilcott paid on a time basis?TCPoliticalBetting said:Re: Chilcott.
Having watched his performance today he reinforced the view that Whitehall is stuffed full of deadbeat civil servants that are incapable of managing anything. Clearly unable to create a project plan and seems to have spent his time exploring interesting thoughts. No sense of urgency. No sense of needing to get things done by deadlines. Would he know what a deadline looks like? A first class specimen.
Hopefully the NZ judge can show our civil service how to do things properly.0 -
Mr. Monkeys, to be fair, The Fifth Element is an enjoyable film.0
-
Coalition involving the SNP 6/4Pulpstar said:
OH MY LORDRichard_Nabavi said:
I very strongly suggest you try to remember it. There's other stuff.Pulpstar said:Pah can't remember my username.
Edit - they seem to be unaware of what a minority government is.0 -
Hideous stuff in Rotherham - and it will be the same story in numerous other parts of the country. The involvement of police officers and the blind eye turned by so many others, as well as social services, should come as no surprise to anyone. It has been happening for decades. The victims - vulnerable, inarticulate, socially awkward, poorly educated, sometimes aggressive because they have learned that is the only way to get attention, sometimes totally meek because they just want to hide away from the world, often from broken homes - are seen as a "problem", and what they say is discounted or they are seen to have deserved what they got. It's easier than having to investigate and do anything about it. Look at any child abuse scandal from any decade and it is the same. Children who say they have been abused are either not believed or they are ignored. Those who want to abuse children, and such people have also existed in large numbers for hundreds of years, take advantage of this.
In Rotherham and other places the abusers also took advantage of the poisonous culture built up around political correctness. They knew that this would protect them from scrutiny - either because people were genuinely (and wrongly) concerned not to offend perceived cultural sensitivities or, just as often (if not more so), because it gave people an excuse not to get involved. That's the perniciousness of politically correct culture - like data protection, like health and safety, it is a catch-all that gets people off the hook. And the left is responsible for it. There is just no getting round it. We took something that had its roots in the right place and let it become all-pervasive: a shield for the wicked, the indifferent and the lazy to hide behind. That is to our shame and we should admit it.
However, if we just see this as a case of PC gone mad we will not solve anything, because child abusers will use whatever tools they can. If it's not PC, if it's not indifference, it will be something else. We need to look at how children arrive at a place that makes them vulnerable to sexual predators in the first place and we need to tackle those things head on. That may mean early intervention, it will probably mean more money spent on social care and training, it will require close monitoring in schools, as well as detailed oversight of the police and agencies.
Of course, Labour will get a battering over this and that is absolutely as it should be. My guess, though, is that similar things will have happened in one form or another in Tory shires and in LibDem university towns. Child abuse is not new, it is not limited and it is not restricted to certain ethnicities or religions. So, while politicians will rightly condemn what has happened and will legitimately attack their opponents, also listen to what they have to say about future prevention. It's not enough to say we will not be PC, because it is not PC that causes abuse and never has been.0 -
Stakeholders are important, but some are more important than others.0
-
Anyone know where I can find a list of record swings at the GE? I'd have thought this would be easy but am surprised to find only Lab/Con records most places I look.0
-
In case of a Labour recovery am on Dundee West at 33-1 there for them.0
-
So looking at the Ladbroke's odds for each seat, at present:
SNP: 41 (+35)
LAB: 14 (-27)
LD: 3 (-8)
CONS: 1 (0)
Will the GE be +/- 10% of this?0 -
On the panda bet - Sweet Jesus.0
-
Just on thread - might the lack of an incumbency bonus, suggest shockingly (not) that those MPs have taken their voters for granted and basically haven't worked to build up any personal support - relying on the red rosette as being all that was needed?0
-
Great hedge for Aberdeen West.0
-
Financier said:
So looking at the Ladbroke's odds for each seat, at present:
SNP: 41 (+35)
LAB: 14 (-27)
LD: 3 (-8)
CONS: 1 (0)
Will the GE be +/- 10% of this?
Even that looks optimistic for Labour.Financier said:So looking at the Ladbroke's odds for each seat, at present:
SNP: 41 (+35)
LAB: 14 (-27)
LD: 3 (-8)
CONS: 1 (0)
Will the GE be +/- 10% of this?
0 -
As you are clearly comfortable with the phrase "in the future", could you stop saying "going forward", going forward? Please?PBModerator said:
In the future, usually in a few days time, when we've spoken to Mike and the rest of the moderating team.Socrates said:
Who are you then - rcs1000? When is the decision likely to be revisited?PBModerator said:
Until we decide otherwise.Socrates said:
What, permanently?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
FYI - I'm not TSE.
0 -
In an effort to be funny Coral have overpriced the latter two options:
Scottish Conservative MPs v Pandas
Number of Pandas in Scotland on Election Day 1/25
Tie 10/1
Number of Constituencies won in Scotland by the Conservatives 25/1 now 18/1, still value
Plus you get the chance that the pandas die.0 -
Heh heh. That's close to the "do you know who I am" disease. I can't see SeanT succumbing to that one.rcs1000 said:Re Moderation
New rulings from rcs1000.
isam will no longer be allowed to use the letter 'l'. Any posts with the letter 'l' in will be automatically deleted.
MarkSenior will only be allowed to post if he predicts imminent demise for the Liberal Democrats. Any posts that contradict this will be deleted.
SeanT must begin all posts with the following "As a famous author, you probably wish to hear my thoughts on the topic of"
I'll think of some more rules in a bit0 -
Presumably that or Lord Thurso'ssurbiton said:
Finally, the constituency odds are lining up with Scotland UNS swings. Which is the third Lib Dem seat ? Roxburgh ?Financier said:So looking at the Ladbroke's odds for each seat, at present:
SNP: 41 (+35)
LAB: 14 (-27)
LD: 3 (-8)
CONS: 1 (0)
Will the GE be +/- 10% of this?0 -
But, as mentioned earlier, the "expected" seats - i.e. giving partial credit for each seat, depending on price, are:Financier said:So looking at the Ladbroke's odds for each seat, at present:
SNP: 41 (+35)
LAB: 14 (-27)
LD: 3 (-8)
CONS: 1 (0)
Will the GE be +/- 10% of this?
SNP 34
LAB 20
LD 3.5
CON 20 -
Meanwhile, some scaremongering crap from America:
Rand Paul was more forthright. “The state doesn’t own your children,” he said, adding that he had deliberately spread out the vaccinations of his own children so they didn’t receive too many at one time. He said he had “heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines”. But he offered no details.
[this one is a couple of days old - may already have been discussed]0 -
If the Lib Dems hold three, I should think it would be Orkney & Shetland, Ross, Cromarty & Skye, and Caithness & Sutherland.surbiton said:
Finally, the constituency odds are lining up with Scotland UNS swings. Which is the third Lib Dem seat ? Roxburgh ?Financier said:So looking at the Ladbroke's odds for each seat, at present:
SNP: 41 (+35)
LAB: 14 (-27)
LD: 3 (-8)
CONS: 1 (0)
Will the GE be +/- 10% of this?0 -
The point he's making - rightly or wrongly - is that parents should be allowed to make up their own minds.Anorak said:Meanwhile, some scaremongering crap from America:
Rand Paul was more forthright. “The state doesn’t own your children,” he said, adding that he had deliberately spread out the vaccinations of his own children so they didn’t receive too many at one time. He said he had “heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines”. But he offered no details.
[this one is a couple of days old - may already have been discussed]
The correlation, causation mix up is genuinely scary, mind.0 -
He should have stopped with "the state doesn't own your children". I might think parents who don't vaccinate their children are ill-informed, selfish and despicable, but they are still their children.rcs1000 said:
The point he's making - rightly or wrongly - is that parents should be allowed to make up their own minds.Anorak said:Meanwhile, some scaremongering crap from America:
Rand Paul was more forthright. “The state doesn’t own your children,” he said, adding that he had deliberately spread out the vaccinations of his own children so they didn’t receive too many at one time. He said he had “heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines”. But he offered no details.
[this one is a couple of days old - may already have been discussed]
The correlation, causation mix up is genuinely scary, mind.
The "heard of many cases ..." shit poo [sorry mum, I mean, mods] could actually endanger kids.0 -
@SouthamObserver
Well said Southam. You deserve high praise for writing as you have, considering your leftist approach to politics and life. I hope I will be as courageous as you, if and when my side is guilty of not noticing what hangs before it's nose.
0 -
One of the papers will blink first. And then they'll have to prosecute and then the whole thing will come crumbling down...TheWatcher said:
As an aside: has anyone noticed how David Icke was right?
He wasn't the first though. The now deceased Reverend Goatboy a long standing contributor to Popbitch, alluded to many of the subsequently true activities of Saville, years before Icke.
Popbitch outed Rolf Harris as well, when it seemed preposterous at the time.
0 -
Now 10/1 and restricted stakes...Tissue_Price said:In an effort to be funny Coral have overpriced the latter two options:
Scottish Conservative MPs v Pandas
Number of Pandas in Scotland on Election Day 1/25
Tie 10/1
Number of Constituencies won in Scotland by the Conservatives 25/1 now 18/1, still value
Plus you get the chance that the pandas die.0 -
http://www.bmrb.co.uk/RobD said:Looks like a Commonwealth judge is going to lead the child abuse inquiry. I seem to recall suggesting this a while back!
0 -
We need to form a Grand Army of the Commonwealth!RobD said:Looks like a Commonwealth judge is going to lead the child abuse inquiry. I seem to recall suggesting this a while back!
0 -
"Those Pandas you sold me, they won't mate. They just walk around, eating, and not mating. You sold me... queer Pandas. I want my money back."Tissue_Price said:In an effort to be funny Coral have overpriced the latter two options:
Scottish Conservative MPs v Pandas
Number of Pandas in Scotland on Election Day 1/25
Tie 10/1
Number of Constituencies won in Scotland by the Conservatives 25/1 now 18/1, still value
Plus you get the chance that the pandas die.0 -
http://www.edinburghzoo.org.uk/pandawatchScott_P said:
Now 10/1 and restricted stakes...Tissue_Price said:In an effort to be funny Coral have overpriced the latter two options:
Scottish Conservative MPs v Pandas
Number of Pandas in Scotland on Election Day 1/25
Tie 10/1
Number of Constituencies won in Scotland by the Conservatives 25/1 now 18/1, still value
Plus you get the chance that the pandas die.0 -
Yes. That would explain things. Now if he was paid if delivered within a year.....Financier said:
Is Chilcott paid on a time basis?TCPoliticalBetting said:Re: Chilcott.
Having watched his performance today he reinforced the view that Whitehall is stuffed full of deadbeat civil servants that are incapable of managing anything. Clearly unable to create a project plan and seems to have spent his time exploring interesting thoughts. No sense of urgency. No sense of needing to get things done by deadlines. Would he know what a deadline looks like? A first class specimen.
Hopefully the NZ judge can show our civil service how to do things properly.
0 -
He's now 8/1 with Corals, clearly some adherents to St. Jude have bewen at work.Artist said:Danny Alexander 25/1 to be an MP after the election with Coral.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/danny-alexander-to-be-an-mp-after-the-election0 -
We certainly don't want to hear the pitter-patter of panda paws before 7 May. Queer pandas are alright.Sunil_Prasannan said:
"Those Pandas you sold me, they won't mate. They just walk around, eating, and not mating. You sold me... queer Pandas. I want my money back."Tissue_Price said:In an effort to be funny Coral have overpriced the latter two options:
Scottish Conservative MPs v Pandas
Number of Pandas in Scotland on Election Day 1/25
Tie 10/1
Number of Constituencies won in Scotland by the Conservatives 25/1 now 18/1, still value
Plus you get the chance that the pandas die.0 -
I have heard the same, particularly the last point.rcs1000 said:
Much, much more stuff is coming. The papers have teams combing through stuff and the lawyers are locked up with the editors. I have heard it said that there are quite a few retired police who are being very helpful.eek said:
The evidence for Rotherham is there because employees just didn't look for it instead of actively removing, deleting and shredding it. I think (sadly) you will find those in Westminster were slightly more careful....rcs1000 said:
The biggest scandal in British politics in all time is going to be the Westminster Paedophile Ring. It will make Rotherham look like a sideshow - in terms of the depravity of the acts (as far as I'm aware no murders were alleged in Rotherham, and in terms of the extent of the cover-up.Socrates said:
Apparently I'm wrong on at lest this occasion, but it's my understanding PBModerator is sometimes the account used by TSE.isam said:
Nooooo???!Socrates said:
PBModerator is TheScreamingEagles, not rcs1000.MikeK said:
Do you mean that no one is allowed to mention the Rotherham case from now on. I thought you and your dad were for Je suis Charlie? Now you are banning discussion?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
However, I would like to know from whoever is using the account right now the minimum on how long my ban on discussing the biggest scandal in British politics for decades will last for. It seems like a huge restriction on free discussion when I have always done my best to respect the rules of the site, and to retract claims when I have overstepped. I don't believe Mike is put at any real risk for my comments if I continue to act in such a way.
There will be a lot of new Jimmy Saville's, and it won't be pretty.
And one day our intelligence services will be exposed for allowing this to go on to serve their own purposes. Maybe. Allegedly.0 -
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/memo-right-if-labour-rubbish-you-say-why-aren-t-tories-streets-ahead
A timely and refreshing article.0 -
25/1 looked like the right price, but obviously it was an arb, so...peter_from_putney said:
He's now 8/1 with Corals, clearly some adherents to St. Jude have bewen at work.Artist said:Danny Alexander 25/1 to be an MP after the election with Coral.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/danny-alexander-to-be-an-mp-after-the-election0 -
The gestation period is 95 to 160 days, so you'd have to be incredibly unluckyTissue_Price said:We certainly don't want to hear the pitter-patter of panda paws before 7 May.
0 -
Where did you find that? Ladbrokes are quoting 5/1 on Labour for Dundee West.Pulpstar said:In case of a Labour recovery am on Dundee West at 33-1 there for them.
0 -
Pandas entering a suicide pact are presumably better. Some of that bamboo is pretty sharp, or a piece of discarded rope...Tissue_Price said:
We certainly don't want to hear the pitter-patter of panda paws before 7 May. Queer pandas are alright.Sunil_Prasannan said:
"Those Pandas you sold me, they won't mate. They just walk around, eating, and not mating. You sold me... queer Pandas. I want my money back."Tissue_Price said:In an effort to be funny Coral have overpriced the latter two options:
Scottish Conservative MPs v Pandas
Number of Pandas in Scotland on Election Day 1/25
Tie 10/1
Number of Constituencies won in Scotland by the Conservatives 25/1 now 18/1, still value
Plus you get the chance that the pandas die.0 -
Clueless CoralsCasino_Royale said:
Where did you find that? Ladbrokes are quoting 5/1 on Labour for Dundee West.Pulpstar said:In case of a Labour recovery am on Dundee West at 33-1 there for them.
0 -
Alternatively, given the rise of UKIP and the loss of the Red Liberals, Labour are doing epically badly to be level at this stage.taffys said:http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/memo-right-if-labour-rubbish-you-say-why-aren-t-tories-streets-ahead
A timely and refreshing article.0 -
That may be why May has changed the inquiry to a Statutory one - i believe Goddard can compel witnesses to attend, and give evidence under oathOldKingCole said:
Be very interesting if they ever get into a postion where they are under oath.SeanT said:This is incredible:
"Only two people refused to speak to Casey team, former council leader Roger Stone and former SYPCC Shaun Wright"
Refused to speak????0 -
Do a bit of research, you might end up a lot less certain.rcs1000 said:
The point he's making - rightly or wrongly - is that parents should be allowed to make up their own minds.Anorak said:Meanwhile, some scaremongering crap from America:
Rand Paul was more forthright. “The state doesn’t own your children,” he said, adding that he had deliberately spread out the vaccinations of his own children so they didn’t receive too many at one time. He said he had “heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines”. But he offered no details.
[this one is a couple of days old - may already have been discussed]
The correlation, causation mix up is genuinely scary, mind.
0 -
Sounds like the plot of a bad novel.nigel4england said:
I have heard the same, particularly the last point.rcs1000 said:
Much, much more stuff is coming. The papers have teams combing through stuff and the lawyers are locked up with the editors. I have heard it said that there are quite a few retired police who are being very helpful.eek said:
The evidence for Rotherham is there because employees just didn't look for it instead of actively removing, deleting and shredding it. I think (sadly) you will find those in Westminster were slightly more careful....rcs1000 said:
The biggest scandal in British politics in all time is going to be the Westminster Paedophile Ring. It will make Rotherham look like a sideshow - in terms of the depravity of the acts (as far as I'm aware no murders were alleged in Rotherham, and in terms of the extent of the cover-up.Socrates said:
Apparently I'm wrong on at lest this occasion, but it's my understanding PBModerator is sometimes the account used by TSE.isam said:
Nooooo???!Socrates said:
PBModerator is TheScreamingEagles, not rcs1000.MikeK said:
Do you mean that no one is allowed to mention the Rotherham case from now on. I thought you and your dad were for Je suis Charlie? Now you are banning discussion?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.
However, I would like to know from whoever is using the account right now the minimum on how long my ban on discussing the biggest scandal in British politics for decades will last for. It seems like a huge restriction on free discussion when I have always done my best to respect the rules of the site, and to retract claims when I have overstepped. I don't believe Mike is put at any real risk for my comments if I continue to act in such a way.
There will be a lot of new Jimmy Saville's, and it won't be pretty.
And one day our intelligence services will be exposed for allowing this to go on to serve their own purposes. Maybe. Allegedly.0 -
is the expectation management starting already?taffys said:http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/memo-right-if-labour-rubbish-you-say-why-aren-t-tories-streets-ahead
A timely and refreshing article.
Things must be bad.0 -
Out of interest, do you believe Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon?Luckyguy1983 said:
Do a bit of research, you might end up a lot less certain.rcs1000 said:
The point he's making - rightly or wrongly - is that parents should be allowed to make up their own minds.Anorak said:Meanwhile, some scaremongering crap from America:
Rand Paul was more forthright. “The state doesn’t own your children,” he said, adding that he had deliberately spread out the vaccinations of his own children so they didn’t receive too many at one time. He said he had “heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines”. But he offered no details.
[this one is a couple of days old - may already have been discussed]
The correlation, causation mix up is genuinely scary, mind.0 -
Not sure how that's relevant, but i'll bite:Sunil_Prasannan said:
http://www.bmrb.co.uk/RobD said:Looks like a Commonwealth judge is going to lead the child abuse inquiry. I seem to recall suggesting this a while back!
Use the BMRB, Sunil!0 -
Lol, I just checked that too. Imagine 3 Tory MPs, and getting chinned by panda twins.Richard_Nabavi said:
The gestation period is 95 to 160 days, so you'd have to be incredibly unluckyTissue_Price said:We certainly don't want to hear the pitter-patter of panda paws before 7 May.
0 -
I have three young children. I did the research. They are all vaccinated. You need to look at the expertise and credibility on each side of the argument. The health profession vs. Mrs Jim Carrey (ex playmate of the year, no less) is not an even match.Luckyguy1983 said:
Do a bit of research, you might end up a lot less certain.rcs1000 said:
The point he's making - rightly or wrongly - is that parents should be allowed to make up their own minds.Anorak said:Meanwhile, some scaremongering crap from America:
Rand Paul was more forthright. “The state doesn’t own your children,” he said, adding that he had deliberately spread out the vaccinations of his own children so they didn’t receive too many at one time. He said he had “heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines”. But he offered no details.
[this one is a couple of days old - may already have been discussed]
The correlation, causation mix up is genuinely scary, mind.0 -
Um, what? How is that related to this?rcs1000 said:The correlation, causation mix up is genuinely scary, mind.
0 -
Lol!PBModerator said:
We're also discussing whether bad jokes should result in instant moderation!MarqueeMark said:
It is all very gaulling.....TOPPING said:
No asterikses? What about Vitalstatistix? Can we mention him?PBModerator said:Socrates - Don't talk about Rotherham or grooming going forward.
Again, you've accused people of being guilty of crimes, that they weren't found being guilty of, they were found guilty of other crimes.
Your comments are likely to get Mike into trouble.
Everyone else - Tone it down - The spam trap is now set to automatically anyone who swears, including those who use asterikses.0 -
If your case was strong, I don't see why you would need to create a straw man. Rand Paul's children are also vaccinated according to the text you posted.Anorak said:
I have three young children. I did the research. They are all vaccinated. You need to look at the expertise and credibility on each side of the argument. The health profession vs. Mrs Jim Carrey is not an even match.Luckyguy1983 said:
Do a bit of research, you might end up a lot less certain.rcs1000 said:
The point he's making - rightly or wrongly - is that parents should be allowed to make up their own minds.Anorak said:Meanwhile, some scaremongering crap from America:
Rand Paul was more forthright. “The state doesn’t own your children,” he said, adding that he had deliberately spread out the vaccinations of his own children so they didn’t receive too many at one time. He said he had “heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines”. But he offered no details.
[this one is a couple of days old - may already have been discussed]
The correlation, causation mix up is genuinely scary, mind.
0
