Unfortunately he didn't return to the opening of the article to say whether their soil seismology had answered the questions about why Tolly's farming methods had not been universally replicable.
Those LD seats will sweep back to the Tories when they are favoured to return to government to eject Labour.
Whilst Reform are around the Tories simply won't be able to punch enough votes, but I still expect some to come back because Labour are hitting affluent voters hard.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
It wouldn’t be odd at all to not have any immigrants in the debate
16% of the UK population were born overseas, it would be quite odd if the BBC had to filter them all out from their audiences.
Or say us. PB. If the Mods censored all comments about immigration from posters who weren't born in the UK that wouldn't feel right at all, would it.
I think you'd also have to censor comments about immigration from posters who were born in the UK, but have now emigrated to a different country. They're immigrants too. Plus those with spouses who are immigrants: a clear bias there. Possibly those with parents who were immigrants? Maybe we should extend that to grandparents? Would that satisfy you, @noneoftheabove ?
Not sure why I should be the arbiter of this but if it were up to me I would ban the whole audience from the studio. Equal opportunities chap here.
I am sorry @noneoftheabove I got lost in the thread indenting and was thinking you'd said something @isam said.
Trump, Reform, Ukraine, Putin, the economy, the weather, winter, the cricket ffs!...
Is the nothing out there even slightly positive that might cheer us up?
England back in the game.
I think its heading away again. I see 5-0 approaching.
Ever the optimist !!
One of the PhD students is really into his cricket. I spent a good 30 mins explaining why will lose the Ashes in Aussie. He was so excited after Day one of the first test...
Younger son was there. He rang up in a high state of excitement after day one.
By no means as happy after day two!
Grandson Two is currently working in a bar near Brisbane; I must try and get him to tell the state of mind, cricket-wise, of his customers.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
As possession of a knife in a public place which has a blade larger than 7.62cm is a criminal offence in the UK even if legitimately purchased.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
As possession of a knife in a public place which has a blade larger than 7.62cm is a criminal offence in the UK even if legitimately purchased.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
Wouldn’t a receipt from the shop and it being in its packaging suffice ?
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
As possession of a knife in a public place which has a blade larger than 7.62cm is a criminal offence in the UK even if legitimately purchased.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
What about if you’re a celebrity chef doing a demo at a food festival? Or a butcher’s stall at the market?
In other news, anyone have any better solutions to completely remove burn marks from a stainless steel pan beyond those I have already tried, being barkeepers friend, elbow grease (both actual and the product), and boiling up water and vinegar?
When I was doing my duke of Edinburgh as a kid we were taught to rub the pan over wet grass...
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
As possession of a knife in a public place which has a blade larger than 7.62cm is a criminal offence in the UK even if legitimately purchased.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
Wouldn’t a receipt from the shop and it being in its packaging suffice ?
Depends on the race, age, gender and class of the carrier.
Those LD seats will sweep back to the Tories when they are favoured to return to government to eject Labour.
Whilst Reform are around the Tories simply won't be able to punch enough votes, but I still expect some to come back because Labour are hitting affluent voters hard.
Assuming Reform haven't overtaken the Tories on seats by then in which case they may still vote LD over Reform.
The LDs have opposed the family farm and business tax, the employers NI rise, the income tax threshold freeze and even opposed the Mansion Tax on properties over £2 million anyway. Hence I expect next to no Tory gains from the LDs at the next GE and Godalming etc might even go LD which the Tories held in 2024. Where the Tories make gains they will be almost entirely in Labour held seats which went Remain in 2016 or are very soft Leave and so unlikely to go Reform.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
As possession of a knife in a public place which has a blade larger than 7.62cm is a criminal offence in the UK even if legitimately purchased.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
Wouldn’t a receipt from the shop and it being in its packaging suffice ?
Are we expecting to be stopped, and have our shopping bags searched by HYUFD-force ?
Stokes is a genuine all rounder, one of the best. Atkinson has a batting average of 22 - on the verges of being a genuine bowling all rounder and a better average than Nesser who is Aus' no 8.
How on earth have we bowled, bar one over, from only 4 bowlers today.
Archer, Carse, Stoke and Gus have been flogged to death today which is probably a good part of the reason we've gone at over 5 an over - poor selection and captaincy picking Jacks who should have been 12th man and permanently on as sub fielder (Which meant he would still have taken the amazing Smith catch).
England had 5 batsmen out after 3 balls or less, all the Aussie batsmen have been in for more than 25 balls
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
As possession of a knife in a public place which has a blade larger than 7.62cm is a criminal offence in the UK even if legitimately purchased.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
Wouldn’t a receipt from the shop and it being in its packaging suffice ?
Are we expecting to be stopped, and have our shopping bags searched by HYUFD-force ?
I think you can be sure that HYUFD will find a way to interpret your actions to justify whatever the police do to you.
The new US national security document seems to be actively hostile towards Europe.
The new 🇺🇸 security strategy proclaims, among other remarkable things, as an aim of 🇺🇸 policy ”cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations.” https://x.com/carlbildt/status/1996855580468674617
At the same time as they are purporting to negotiate our future security, on our behalf, with an actively hostile Russia.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
As possession of a knife in a public place which has a blade larger than 7.62cm is a criminal offence in the UK even if legitimately purchased.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
Wouldn’t a receipt from the shop and it being in its packaging suffice ?
Depends on the race, age, gender and class of the carrier.
Some years back, a chap got convicted for
- having 2 bladed items in the boot of his car. Both tools - his justification for having them was that he worked in bulk newspaper handling facility and they were his tools
The real story was that he was a ex-con. The police lifted him to question him, and the tools were what they found. Since they wanted to put him away, they used that.
So yes, if you take your domestic toolbox for a drive, they can do you for that.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
As possession of a knife in a public place which has a blade larger than 7.62cm is a criminal offence in the UK even if legitimately purchased.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
Wouldn’t a receipt from the shop and it being in its packaging suffice ?
Are we expecting to be stopped, and have our shopping bags searched by HYUFD-force ?
I think you can be sure that HYUFD will find a way to interpret your actions to justify whatever the police do to you.
Tbh, unless you're going equipped with a sharp blade anyway, you're not going to be able to unpackage a knife you've just bought until you get home.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
As possession of a knife in a public place which has a blade larger than 7.62cm is a criminal offence in the UK even if legitimately purchased.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
Wouldn’t a receipt from the shop and it being in its packaging suffice ?
Are we expecting to be stopped, and have our shopping bags searched by HYUFD-force ?
I think he has a point. You can't be convicted for possession of a knife if you have a lawful purpose. If you need a knife for your job, that's a lawful purpose. "I just happened to have bought it" isn't of itself a lawful purpose. You would need to demonstrate you're on your way from the shop to home, I think.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
As possession of a knife in a public place which has a blade larger than 7.62cm is a criminal offence in the UK even if legitimately purchased.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
Wouldn’t a receipt from the shop and it being in its packaging suffice ?
Are we expecting to be stopped, and have our shopping bags searched by HYUFD-force ?
I think you can be sure that HYUFD will find a way to interpret your actions to justify whatever the police do to you.
Tbh, unless you're going equipped with a sharp blade anyway, you're not going to be able to unpackage a knife you've just bought until you get home.
They’ll just do you for being In Possession Of An Offensive Wife
Our election model considers what might happen in each of Britain’s 632 constituencies if an election were held today. But rather than giving a single prediction, we fine-tuned our model to show a range of possible outcomes, based on historical trends and the latest opinion polls. As illustrated above, Britain’s electoral system is highly uncertain. We drew on data from the past 80 years of elections to quantify this uncertainty, and estimate how it might unfold in an imaginary election.
"...The starting point for our model is nationwide opinion polling..."
That's your input, but what's your output?
"...We measured the difference between thousands of historical nationwide polls and the subsequent election results to estimate the likely polling error if an election were held today. We found that polling errors often lean towards the last election result (perhaps because undecided voters return to the party they supported last time) and encoded that into our model..."
OK the best predictor of the next election is the last election, but I could have told them that. And they're modelling the polling error (between the poll and the vote?)
"...Next we considered how each region and nation might swing..."
Fair enough, you've added a regional component. I like that. This is presumably a swing in the vote?
"...We fit a regression model to consider the historical relationship between a party’s vote share in a constituency in one election and the next, given the nationwide and regional picture..."
OK, you've built a model that inputs one or more polls, the estimated polling error and regional swing, and converts that to...an election vote in a region?
"...Finally, we translate these regional results to each constituency [using MRP]...."
OK, got that,
So they have three models.
MODEL 0
Inputs: lots of historical and regional polls up to the last election
Method: Simulation
Output: polling error and regional swing for the next election
MODEL 1
Inputs: Today's poll(s)
Method: Linear regression?
Output: Today's election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
MODEL 2
Input: election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
Method: MRP
Output: Today's election result for each constituency and hence today's election result
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
It wouldn’t be odd at all to not have any immigrants in the debate
16% of the UK population were born overseas, it would be quite odd if the BBC had to filter them all out from their audiences.
Or say us. PB. If the Mods censored all comments about immigration from posters who weren't born in the UK that wouldn't feel right at all, would it.
I think you'd also have to censor comments about immigration from posters who were born in the UK, but have now emigrated to a different country. They're immigrants too. Plus those with spouses who are immigrants: a clear bias there. Possibly those with parents who were immigrants? Maybe we should extend that to grandparents? Would that satisfy you, @noneoftheabove ?
Tut tut, British people are never immigrants! Only colonists and ex-pats.
I'd have thought it would be obvious that British people abroad are EMigrants
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
As possession of a knife in a public place which has a blade larger than 7.62cm is a criminal offence in the UK even if legitimately purchased.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
The retailer sells it legitimately wrapped and taking it home is not an offence no matter how you try to define it
Our election model considers what might happen in each of Britain’s 632 constituencies if an election were held today. But rather than giving a single prediction, we fine-tuned our model to show a range of possible outcomes, based on historical trends and the latest opinion polls. As illustrated above, Britain’s electoral system is highly uncertain. We drew on data from the past 80 years of elections to quantify this uncertainty, and estimate how it might unfold in an imaginary election.
"...The starting point for our model is nationwide opinion polling..."
That's your input, but what's your output?
"...We measured the difference between thousands of historical nationwide polls and the subsequent election results to estimate the likely polling error if an election were held today. We found that polling errors often lean towards the last election result (perhaps because undecided voters return to the party they supported last time) and encoded that into our model..."
OK the best predictor of the next election is the last election, but I could have told them that. And they're modelling the polling error (between the poll and the vote?)
"...Next we considered how each region and nation might swing..."
Fair enough, you've added a regional component. I like that. This is presumably a swing in the vote?
"...We fit a regression model to consider the historical relationship between a party’s vote share in a constituency in one election and the next, given the nationwide and regional picture..."
OK, you've built a model that inputs one or more polls, the estimated polling error and regional swing, and converts that to...an election vote in a region?
"...Finally, we translate these regional results to each constituency [using MRP]...."
OK, got that,
So they have three models.
MODEL 0
Inputs: lots of historical and regional polls up to the last election
Method: Simulation
Output: polling error and regional swing for the next election
MODEL 1
Inputs: Today's poll(s)
Method: Linear regression?
Output: Today's election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
MODEL 2
Input: election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
Method: MRP
Output: Today's election result for each constituency and hence today's election result
Ok, I've not read the article (no access). What do they conclude?
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
As possession of a knife in a public place which has a blade larger than 7.62cm is a criminal offence in the UK even if legitimately purchased.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
Wouldn’t a receipt from the shop and it being in its packaging suffice ?
Are we expecting to be stopped, and have our shopping bags searched by HYUFD-force ?
I think he has a point. You can't be convicted for possession of a knife if you have a lawful purpose. If you need a knife for your job, that's a lawful purpose. "I just happened to have bought it" isn't of itself a lawful purpose. You would need to demonstrate you're on your way from the shop to home, I think.
Yes, because you might have bought it to stab someone. The first is no mitigation for the second. You can wave the receipt around as much as you like but you'll still face charges.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
As possession of a knife in a public place which has a blade larger than 7.62cm is a criminal offence in the UK even if legitimately purchased.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
The retailer sells it legitimately wrapped and taking it home is not an offence no matter how you try to define it
If you are found in public place to have a bladed article that meets the criteria, you need a reason the courts consider valid, not to be guilty of a crime.
In the case I mentioned above, the courts ruled “I had my work tools in the boot of my car. But I wasn’t travelling to and from work.” not to be a valid reason.
The new US national security document seems to be actively hostile towards Europe.
The new 🇺🇸 security strategy proclaims, among other remarkable things, as an aim of 🇺🇸 policy ”cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations.” https://x.com/carlbildt/status/1996855580468674617
At the same time as they are purporting to negotiate our future security, on our behalf, with an actively hostile Russia.
The US, like Russia, has been seeking to undermine European unity for a long time, but they were never so open about it before. Brexit was an absolute triumph for Europe's enemies and competitors.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
As possession of a knife in a public place which has a blade larger than 7.62cm is a criminal offence in the UK even if legitimately purchased.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
The retailer sells it legitimately wrapped and taking it home is not an offence no matter how you try to define it
If you took a knife home you had bought unwrapped or took it out of its wrapping to carry it home you would be committing an offence
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
As possession of a knife in a public place which has a blade larger than 7.62cm is a criminal offence in the UK even if legitimately purchased.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
Wouldn’t a receipt from the shop and it being in its packaging suffice ?
Context is everything. Nephew is a tree surgeon. Got into trouble a while back as he likes to smoke a bit of weed and one night there was a cracking thunderstorm, so he pulled up his truck and smoked and watched... Police arrive - he's bang to rights on the weed, but they find his knife in the truck too. They immediately turn it into a massive thing - drugs 'n' knives etc, when it really wasn't. He's as gentle as they come.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
As possession of a knife in a public place which has a blade larger than 7.62cm is a criminal offence in the UK even if legitimately purchased.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
What about if you’re a celebrity chef doing a demo at a food festival? Or a butcher’s stall at the market?
Same rules apply unless well wrapped, although a butcher with an unwrapped knife just outside his market stall might be able to have that as a legitimate reason
The new US national security document seems to be actively hostile towards Europe.
The new 🇺🇸 security strategy proclaims, among other remarkable things, as an aim of 🇺🇸 policy ”cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations.” https://x.com/carlbildt/status/1996855580468674617
At the same time as they are purporting to negotiate our future security, on our behalf, with an actively hostile Russia.
The US, like Russia, has been seeking to undermine European unity for a long time, but they were never so open about it before. Brexit was an absolute triumph for Europe's enemies and competitors.
And yet the UK has been generally very good indeed when it comes to Ukraine, quite unlike countries such as Germany (initially) and Hungary.
The new US national security document seems to be actively hostile towards Europe.
The new 🇺🇸 security strategy proclaims, among other remarkable things, as an aim of 🇺🇸 policy ”cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations.” https://x.com/carlbildt/status/1996855580468674617
At the same time as they are purporting to negotiate our future security, on our behalf, with an actively hostile Russia.
The US, like Russia, has been seeking to undermine European unity for a long time, but they were never so open about it before. Brexit was an absolute triumph for Europe's enemies and competitors.
It's possibly the most coherent (and hostile) element in a document that's otherwise composed largely of braggadocio and empty pontification.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Yes, if a magistrate or jury decides your forgetting to pay for something was done with intent, bang you are convicted and have a criminal record.
Possession of a knife in a public place is also a criminal offence, I am sure not done with intent by your wife but sometimes it is a case of there but for the grace of God go I, certainly for minor criminal offences if not careful at all times. As you say, speeding is also against the law and lots of people including you have done that
If I buy a new carving knife at the department store, how do I get it home legally? Do I have to get the store to deliver it now?
You have to put it in secure packaging and ideally in the boot of your car to avoid the police looking suspicious if they find you with it
You do talk nonsense at times
Why would anyone need to hide a knife they had legitimately purchased from a shop and were taking it home ?
As possession of a knife in a public place which has a blade larger than 7.62cm is a criminal offence in the UK even if legitimately purchased.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
Wouldn’t a receipt from the shop and it being in its packaging suffice ?
Depends on the race, age, gender and class of the carrier.
Some years back, a chap got convicted for
- having 2 bladed items in the boot of his car. Both tools - his justification for having them was that he worked in bulk newspaper handling facility and they were his tools
The real story was that he was a ex-con. The police lifted him to question him, and the tools were what they found. Since they wanted to put him away, they used that.
So yes, if you take your domestic toolbox for a drive, they can do you for that.
A Leatherman multi-tool can be awkward, as they have locking blades and therefore the blade length rule is irrelevant.
A big change from my youth when carrying a penknife just in case it was useful was regarded as fairly normal.
Our election model considers what might happen in each of Britain’s 632 constituencies if an election were held today. But rather than giving a single prediction, we fine-tuned our model to show a range of possible outcomes, based on historical trends and the latest opinion polls. As illustrated above, Britain’s electoral system is highly uncertain. We drew on data from the past 80 years of elections to quantify this uncertainty, and estimate how it might unfold in an imaginary election.
"...The starting point for our model is nationwide opinion polling..."
That's your input, but what's your output?
"...We measured the difference between thousands of historical nationwide polls and the subsequent election results to estimate the likely polling error if an election were held today. We found that polling errors often lean towards the last election result (perhaps because undecided voters return to the party they supported last time) and encoded that into our model..."
OK the best predictor of the next election is the last election, but I could have told them that. And they're modelling the polling error (between the poll and the vote?)
"...Next we considered how each region and nation might swing..."
Fair enough, you've added a regional component. I like that. This is presumably a swing in the vote?
"...We fit a regression model to consider the historical relationship between a party’s vote share in a constituency in one election and the next, given the nationwide and regional picture..."
OK, you've built a model that inputs one or more polls, the estimated polling error and regional swing, and converts that to...an election vote in a region?
"...Finally, we translate these regional results to each constituency [using MRP]...."
OK, got that,
So they have three models.
MODEL 0
Inputs: lots of historical and regional polls up to the last election
Method: Simulation
Output: polling error and regional swing for the next election
MODEL 1
Inputs: Today's poll(s)
Method: Linear regression?
Output: Today's election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
MODEL 2
Input: election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
Method: MRP
Output: Today's election result for each constituency and hence today's election result
In similar vein, Waitrose has just emailed to let me know that I am the top buyer of their rosemary and garlic crackers on the island. Someone in their data-crunching department has too much time on their hands…
The new US national security document seems to be actively hostile towards Europe.
The new 🇺🇸 security strategy proclaims, among other remarkable things, as an aim of 🇺🇸 policy ”cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations.” https://x.com/carlbildt/status/1996855580468674617
At the same time as they are purporting to negotiate our future security, on our behalf, with an actively hostile Russia.
The US, like Russia, has been seeking to undermine European unity for a long time, but they were never so open about it before. Brexit was an absolute triumph for Europe's enemies and competitors.
Democrats haven't, Hillary Clinton and Obama openly opposed Brexit.
The new US national security document seems to be actively hostile towards Europe.
The new 🇺🇸 security strategy proclaims, among other remarkable things, as an aim of 🇺🇸 policy ”cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations.” https://x.com/carlbildt/status/1996855580468674617
At the same time as they are purporting to negotiate our future security, on our behalf, with an actively hostile Russia.
The US, like Russia, has been seeking to undermine European unity for a long time, but they were never so open about it before. Brexit was an absolute triumph for Europe's enemies and competitors.
And yet the UK has been generally very good indeed when it comes to Ukraine, quite unlike countries such as Germany (initially) and Hungary.
And how much more decisive might Europe's response have been if the UK had been inside the tent urging it's fellows on? One thing you can be damn sure of: Putin went to sleep with a smile on his face on 24 June 2016.
The new US national security document seems to be actively hostile towards Europe.
The new 🇺🇸 security strategy proclaims, among other remarkable things, as an aim of 🇺🇸 policy ”cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations.” https://x.com/carlbildt/status/1996855580468674617
At the same time as they are purporting to negotiate our future security, on our behalf, with an actively hostile Russia.
The US, like Russia, has been seeking to undermine European unity for a long time, but they were never so open about it before. Brexit was an absolute triumph for Europe's enemies and competitors.
And yet the UK has been generally very good indeed when it comes to Ukraine, quite unlike countries such as Germany (initially) and Hungary.
And how much more decisive might Europe's response have been if the UK had been inside the tent urging it's fellows on? One thing you can be damn sure of: Putin went to sleep with a smile on his face on 24 June 2016.
Our election model considers what might happen in each of Britain’s 632 constituencies if an election were held today. But rather than giving a single prediction, we fine-tuned our model to show a range of possible outcomes, based on historical trends and the latest opinion polls. As illustrated above, Britain’s electoral system is highly uncertain. We drew on data from the past 80 years of elections to quantify this uncertainty, and estimate how it might unfold in an imaginary election.
"...The starting point for our model is nationwide opinion polling..."
That's your input, but what's your output?
"...We measured the difference between thousands of historical nationwide polls and the subsequent election results to estimate the likely polling error if an election were held today. We found that polling errors often lean towards the last election result (perhaps because undecided voters return to the party they supported last time) and encoded that into our model..."
OK the best predictor of the next election is the last election, but I could have told them that. And they're modelling the polling error (between the poll and the vote?)
"...Next we considered how each region and nation might swing..."
Fair enough, you've added a regional component. I like that. This is presumably a swing in the vote?
"...We fit a regression model to consider the historical relationship between a party’s vote share in a constituency in one election and the next, given the nationwide and regional picture..."
OK, you've built a model that inputs one or more polls, the estimated polling error and regional swing, and converts that to...an election vote in a region?
"...Finally, we translate these regional results to each constituency [using MRP]...."
OK, got that,
So they have three models.
MODEL 0
Inputs: lots of historical and regional polls up to the last election
Method: Simulation
Output: polling error and regional swing for the next election
MODEL 1
Inputs: Today's poll(s)
Method: Linear regression?
Output: Today's election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
MODEL 2
Input: election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
Method: MRP
Output: Today's election result for each constituency and hence today's election result
In similar vein, Waitrose has just emailed to let me know that I am the top buyer of their rosemary and garlic crackers on the island. Someone in their data-crunching department has too much time on their hands…
I know the posh boys here look down on teapigs but I love their breakfast tea. I was the top buyer of this product at my Sainsbury’s according to Nectar a couple of years back 👍
The new US national security document seems to be actively hostile towards Europe.
The new 🇺🇸 security strategy proclaims, among other remarkable things, as an aim of 🇺🇸 policy ”cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations.” https://x.com/carlbildt/status/1996855580468674617
At the same time as they are purporting to negotiate our future security, on our behalf, with an actively hostile Russia.
The US, like Russia, has been seeking to undermine European unity for a long time, but they were never so open about it before. Brexit was an absolute triumph for Europe's enemies and competitors.
And yet the UK has been generally very good indeed when it comes to Ukraine, quite unlike countries such as Germany (initially) and Hungary.
And how much more decisive might Europe's response have been if the UK had been inside the tent urging it's fellows on? One thing you can be damn sure of: Putin went to sleep with a smile on his face on 24 June 2016.
It was a choice by the political class to refuse to engage with the electorate until it was impossible not to. Had Labour held its promised referendum we would've roundly rejected Lisbon - and remained in the EU. It's a cop-out to blame Putin when the fault lies with the UK's political class which failed both to resist ever closer integration and offer a referendum in it.
For wrestling fans this is a worry. Netflix has the WWE which is struggling at the moment with weak ratings and crap booking.
Warner Bros has the far superior AEW.
What will happen remains to be seen. Hopefully AEW will still get a platform.
"The announcement will send shock waves through Hollywood and the broader media landscape. Netflix is already the world’s largest paid streaming service, with more than 300 million subscribers. Bulking up with Warner Bros. Discovery assets would create a colossus with greater leverage over theater owners and entertainment-industry unions. It could force smaller companies to merge as they scramble to compete."
The new US national security document seems to be actively hostile towards Europe.
The new 🇺🇸 security strategy proclaims, among other remarkable things, as an aim of 🇺🇸 policy ”cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations.” https://x.com/carlbildt/status/1996855580468674617
At the same time as they are purporting to negotiate our future security, on our behalf, with an actively hostile Russia.
The US, like Russia, has been seeking to undermine European unity for a long time, but they were never so open about it before. Brexit was an absolute triumph for Europe's enemies and competitors.
And yet the UK has been generally very good indeed when it comes to Ukraine, quite unlike countries such as Germany (initially) and Hungary.
And how much more decisive might Europe's response have been if the UK had been inside the tent urging it's fellows on? One thing you can be damn sure of: Putin went to sleep with a smile on his face on 24 June 2016.
Or would the UK’s support and decisiveness been watered down or restrained by EU wrangling if inside the tent?
When there are countries inside the tent who seem to be more exercised by what’s going on with Israel/Gaza - Ireland and Spain - and countries who might prefer Russia such as Hungary maybe Ukraine would be better off if there was no EU and Germany, France, and others could act totally freely.
We will never know but suggesting that Brexit held back Europe’s response is a bit unlikely.
The new US national security document seems to be actively hostile towards Europe.
The new 🇺🇸 security strategy proclaims, among other remarkable things, as an aim of 🇺🇸 policy ”cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations.” https://x.com/carlbildt/status/1996855580468674617
At the same time as they are purporting to negotiate our future security, on our behalf, with an actively hostile Russia.
The US, like Russia, has been seeking to undermine European unity for a long time, but they were never so open about it before. Brexit was an absolute triumph for Europe's enemies and competitors.
And yet the UK has been generally very good indeed when it comes to Ukraine, quite unlike countries such as Germany (initially) and Hungary.
And how much more decisive might Europe's response have been if the UK had been inside the tent urging it's fellows on? One thing you can be damn sure of: Putin went to sleep with a smile on his face on 24 June 2016.
Our election model considers what might happen in each of Britain’s 632 constituencies if an election were held today. But rather than giving a single prediction, we fine-tuned our model to show a range of possible outcomes, based on historical trends and the latest opinion polls. As illustrated above, Britain’s electoral system is highly uncertain. We drew on data from the past 80 years of elections to quantify this uncertainty, and estimate how it might unfold in an imaginary election.
"...The starting point for our model is nationwide opinion polling..."
That's your input, but what's your output?
"...We measured the difference between thousands of historical nationwide polls and the subsequent election results to estimate the likely polling error if an election were held today. We found that polling errors often lean towards the last election result (perhaps because undecided voters return to the party they supported last time) and encoded that into our model..."
OK the best predictor of the next election is the last election, but I could have told them that. And they're modelling the polling error (between the poll and the vote?)
"...Next we considered how each region and nation might swing..."
Fair enough, you've added a regional component. I like that. This is presumably a swing in the vote?
"...We fit a regression model to consider the historical relationship between a party’s vote share in a constituency in one election and the next, given the nationwide and regional picture..."
OK, you've built a model that inputs one or more polls, the estimated polling error and regional swing, and converts that to...an election vote in a region?
"...Finally, we translate these regional results to each constituency [using MRP]...."
OK, got that,
So they have three models.
MODEL 0
Inputs: lots of historical and regional polls up to the last election
Method: Simulation
Output: polling error and regional swing for the next election
MODEL 1
Inputs: Today's poll(s)
Method: Linear regression?
Output: Today's election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
MODEL 2
Input: election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
Method: MRP
Output: Today's election result for each constituency and hence today's election result
In similar vein, Waitrose has just emailed to let me know that I am the top buyer of their rosemary and garlic crackers on the island. Someone in their data-crunching department has too much time on their hands…
Apparently I'm one of the biggest buyers of chocolate-coated peanuts. Which I don't even buy for myself, but for a disabled friend I go shopping for.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
It wouldn’t be odd at all to not have any immigrants in the debate
16% of the UK population were born overseas, it would be quite odd if the BBC had to filter them all out from their audiences.
Or say us. PB. If the Mods censored all comments about immigration from posters who weren't born in the UK that wouldn't feel right at all, would it.
I think you'd also have to censor comments about immigration from posters who were born in the UK, but have now emigrated to a different country. They're immigrants too. Plus those with spouses who are immigrants: a clear bias there. Possibly those with parents who were immigrants? Maybe we should extend that to grandparents? Would that satisfy you, @noneoftheabove ?
Tut tut, British people are never immigrants! Only colonists and ex-pats.
I'd have thought it would be obvious that British people abroad are EMigrants
I am wondering how Zia lost the debate last night. He set the stall of Reform and did not back down. There are some people who will agree with it and others who wont. A BBC QT audience is maybe not the most representative of the general population.
The byelections last night suggest that Reform is consolidating its position. Reform got 29% of votes, Labour 7% and Greens 5%. Lib Dens had 31% and Tories 18%. Maybe BBC should rethink inviting minority support parties such as Labour on every week.
I am pleased to see the Tories stabilising their position even though they are still too focussed on the pension vote. Would say 50/50 if they get more seats than Lib Dems. The Lib Dems at risk from being seen as too left wing and losing some of their existing seats rural seats. The Tories risk is Reform taking further bites out of their voter base.
For wrestling fans this is a worry. Netflix has the WWE which is struggling at the moment with weak ratings and crap booking.
Warner Bros has the far superior AEW.
What will happen remains to be seen. Hopefully AEW will still get a platform.
"The announcement will send shock waves through Hollywood and the broader media landscape. Netflix is already the world’s largest paid streaming service, with more than 300 million subscribers. Bulking up with Warner Bros. Discovery assets would create a colossus with greater leverage over theater owners and entertainment-industry unions. It could force smaller companies to merge as they scramble to compete."
NY Times
A lot,of the value in these deals is in the archives that come with it.
When WWF bought WCW for a tiny amount they got the back catalogue and were able to make a fortune from it in the DVD era.
Hopefully it won’t end up a dud like the AOL-Time Warner deal.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
It wouldn’t be odd at all to not have any immigrants in the debate
16% of the UK population were born overseas, it would be quite odd if the BBC had to filter them all out from their audiences.
Or say us. PB. If the Mods censored all comments about immigration from posters who weren't born in the UK that wouldn't feel right at all, would it.
I think you'd also have to censor comments about immigration from posters who were born in the UK, but have now emigrated to a different country. They're immigrants too. Plus those with spouses who are immigrants: a clear bias there. Possibly those with parents who were immigrants? Maybe we should extend that to grandparents? Would that satisfy you, @noneoftheabove ?
Tut tut, British people are never immigrants! Only colonists and ex-pats.
I'd have thought it would be obvious that British people abroad are EMigrants
I am wondering how Zia lost the debate last night. He set the stall of Reform and did not back down. There are some people who will agree with it and others who wont. A BBC QT audience is maybe not the most representative of the general population.
The byelections last night suggest that Reform is consolidating its position. Reform got 29% of votes, Labour 7% and Greens 5%. Lib Dens had 31% and Tories 18%. Maybe BBC should rethink inviting minority support parties such as Labour on every week.
I am pleased to see the Tories stabilising their position even though they are still too focussed on the pension vote. Would say 50/50 if they get more seats than Lib Dems. The Lib Dems at risk from being seen as too left wing and losing some of their existing seats rural seats. The Tories risk is Reform taking further bites out of their voter base.
Still, LDs first and Reform second in voteshare on last night's by election results is not great for either the Tories or Labour.
Polanski would also be hoping for more than the 5% the Greens got, Labour at least beat the Greens despite the hype
I almost posted that this morning! The only excuse I can find is that it's linked to a Radio episode, and maybe the episode is good.
There’s alot of that with the Beeb news now, both broadcast and online, also ITV news. They have news ‘articles’ that are little more than plugs for TV shows that usually attract a small amount of viewers. If you’ve seen the five minute segment on the main news why watch the 30 minute show ?
In other news, anyone have any better solutions to completely remove burn marks from a stainless steel pan beyond those I have already tried, being barkeepers friend, elbow grease (both actual and the product), and boiling up water and vinegar?
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
In other news, anyone have any better solutions to completely remove burn marks from a stainless steel pan beyond those I have already tried, being barkeepers friend, elbow grease (both actual and the product), and boiling up water and vinegar?
A cleaning product with phosphoric acid in it?
Like Coke.
Stronger than that. There are a number out there - handle with care!
Our election model considers what might happen in each of Britain’s 632 constituencies if an election were held today. But rather than giving a single prediction, we fine-tuned our model to show a range of possible outcomes, based on historical trends and the latest opinion polls. As illustrated above, Britain’s electoral system is highly uncertain. We drew on data from the past 80 years of elections to quantify this uncertainty, and estimate how it might unfold in an imaginary election.
"...The starting point for our model is nationwide opinion polling..."
That's your input, but what's your output?
"...We measured the difference between thousands of historical nationwide polls and the subsequent election results to estimate the likely polling error if an election were held today. We found that polling errors often lean towards the last election result (perhaps because undecided voters return to the party they supported last time) and encoded that into our model..."
OK the best predictor of the next election is the last election, but I could have told them that. And they're modelling the polling error (between the poll and the vote?)
"...Next we considered how each region and nation might swing..."
Fair enough, you've added a regional component. I like that. This is presumably a swing in the vote?
"...We fit a regression model to consider the historical relationship between a party’s vote share in a constituency in one election and the next, given the nationwide and regional picture..."
OK, you've built a model that inputs one or more polls, the estimated polling error and regional swing, and converts that to...an election vote in a region?
"...Finally, we translate these regional results to each constituency [using MRP]...."
OK, got that,
So they have three models.
MODEL 0
Inputs: lots of historical and regional polls up to the last election
Method: Simulation
Output: polling error and regional swing for the next election
MODEL 1
Inputs: Today's poll(s)
Method: Linear regression?
Output: Today's election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
MODEL 2
Input: election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
Method: MRP
Output: Today's election result for each constituency and hence today's election result
In similar vein, Waitrose has just emailed to let me know that I am the top buyer of their rosemary and garlic crackers on the island. Someone in their data-crunching department has too much time on their hands…
Galling that it's only in a private email, Ian, rather than the local paper.
Our election model considers what might happen in each of Britain’s 632 constituencies if an election were held today. But rather than giving a single prediction, we fine-tuned our model to show a range of possible outcomes, based on historical trends and the latest opinion polls. As illustrated above, Britain’s electoral system is highly uncertain. We drew on data from the past 80 years of elections to quantify this uncertainty, and estimate how it might unfold in an imaginary election.
"...The starting point for our model is nationwide opinion polling..."
That's your input, but what's your output?
"...We measured the difference between thousands of historical nationwide polls and the subsequent election results to estimate the likely polling error if an election were held today. We found that polling errors often lean towards the last election result (perhaps because undecided voters return to the party they supported last time) and encoded that into our model..."
OK the best predictor of the next election is the last election, but I could have told them that. And they're modelling the polling error (between the poll and the vote?)
"...Next we considered how each region and nation might swing..."
Fair enough, you've added a regional component. I like that. This is presumably a swing in the vote?
"...We fit a regression model to consider the historical relationship between a party’s vote share in a constituency in one election and the next, given the nationwide and regional picture..."
OK, you've built a model that inputs one or more polls, the estimated polling error and regional swing, and converts that to...an election vote in a region?
"...Finally, we translate these regional results to each constituency [using MRP]...."
OK, got that,
So they have three models.
MODEL 0
Inputs: lots of historical and regional polls up to the last election
Method: Simulation
Output: polling error and regional swing for the next election
MODEL 1
Inputs: Today's poll(s)
Method: Linear regression?
Output: Today's election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
MODEL 2
Input: election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
Method: MRP
Output: Today's election result for each constituency and hence today's election result
Not to mention their model is based on data from as far back as the 1945 election.
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
In mild defence of Widdecombe, she is on record as wanting to leave the ECHR. So the unlawfulness to her is temporary.
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
This debate is also persistently hampered by a confusion and mingling of two separate thing, sex and gender. The law should be concerned with the former, the latter being merely what an individual chooses to think of themself as.
Our election model considers what might happen in each of Britain’s 632 constituencies if an election were held today. But rather than giving a single prediction, we fine-tuned our model to show a range of possible outcomes, based on historical trends and the latest opinion polls. As illustrated above, Britain’s electoral system is highly uncertain. We drew on data from the past 80 years of elections to quantify this uncertainty, and estimate how it might unfold in an imaginary election.
"...The starting point for our model is nationwide opinion polling..."
That's your input, but what's your output?
"...We measured the difference between thousands of historical nationwide polls and the subsequent election results to estimate the likely polling error if an election were held today. We found that polling errors often lean towards the last election result (perhaps because undecided voters return to the party they supported last time) and encoded that into our model..."
OK the best predictor of the next election is the last election, but I could have told them that. And they're modelling the polling error (between the poll and the vote?)
"...Next we considered how each region and nation might swing..."
Fair enough, you've added a regional component. I like that. This is presumably a swing in the vote?
"...We fit a regression model to consider the historical relationship between a party’s vote share in a constituency in one election and the next, given the nationwide and regional picture..."
OK, you've built a model that inputs one or more polls, the estimated polling error and regional swing, and converts that to...an election vote in a region?
"...Finally, we translate these regional results to each constituency [using MRP]...."
OK, got that,
So they have three models.
MODEL 0
Inputs: lots of historical and regional polls up to the last election
Method: Simulation
Output: polling error and regional swing for the next election
MODEL 1
Inputs: Today's poll(s)
Method: Linear regression?
Output: Today's election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
MODEL 2
Input: election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
Method: MRP
Output: Today's election result for each constituency and hence today's election result
In similar vein, Waitrose has just emailed to let me know that I am the top buyer of their rosemary and garlic crackers on the island. Someone in their data-crunching department has too much time on their hands…
Galling that it's only in a private email, Ian, rather than the local paper.
I hope they screened for category. "Dear Frank, you are the top buyer of Anusol" etc etc.
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
This debate is also persistently hampered by a confusion and mingling of two separate thing, sex and gender. The law should be concerned with the former, the latter being merely what an individual chooses to think of themself as.
I think we should wait for viewcode to post the header (which has clearly taken considerable preparation) before debating bits of it here.
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
Out of interest, if it weren't unlawful (i.e. if the law or the ECHR in this case were changed), would you personally be happy with such a condition for recognising a change in gender in law?
I ask because I suspect many would agree with such a condition.
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
Joke mode on.
Only consider anyone a woman if they can multi-task - as no man can.
Only consider anyone a man if they can parallel park - an no woman can.
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
This debate is also persistently hampered by a confusion and mingling of two separate thing, sex and gender. The law should be concerned with the former, the latter being merely what an individual chooses to think of themself as.
I think we should wait for viewcode to post the header (which has clearly taken considerable preparation) before debating bits of it here.
Don't worry. When VC eventually does produce The Mangina Monologues there will be no shortage of obsessives willing to discuss "loos" for days on end. I hope we get some advance notice of its publication so I can sell my computer on Facebook Marketplace the day before.
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
This debate is also persistently hampered by a confusion and mingling of two separate thing, sex and gender. The law should be concerned with the former, the latter being merely what an individual chooses to think of themself as.
I think we should wait for viewcode to post the header (which has clearly taken considerable preparation) before debating bits of it here.
Don't worry. When VC eventually does produce The Mangina Monologues there will be no shortage of obsessives willing to discuss "loos" for days on end. I hope we get some advance notice of its publication so I can sell my computer on Facebook Marketplace the day before.
If it’s anything,like our local,FB market place you’ll get someone expecting it for free and you need to deliver to them.
For reasons I shouldn't really go into I've just downloaded a journal article from 'Deviant Behaviour'. Never knew said journal existed until this morning!
The new US national security document seems to be actively hostile towards Europe.
The new 🇺🇸 security strategy proclaims, among other remarkable things, as an aim of 🇺🇸 policy ”cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations.” https://x.com/carlbildt/status/1996855580468674617
At the same time as they are purporting to negotiate our future security, on our behalf, with an actively hostile Russia.
The US, like Russia, has been seeking to undermine European unity for a long time, but they were never so open about it before. Brexit was an absolute triumph for Europe's enemies and competitors.
And yet the UK has been generally very good indeed when it comes to Ukraine, quite unlike countries such as Germany (initially) and Hungary.
And how much more decisive might Europe's response have been if the UK had been inside the tent urging it's fellows on? One thing you can be damn sure of: Putin went to sleep with a smile on his face on 24 June 2016.
It was a choice by the political class to refuse to engage with the electorate until it was impossible not to. Had Labour held its promised referendum we would've roundly rejected Lisbon - and remained in the EU. It's a cop-out to blame Putin when the fault lies with the UK's political class which failed both to resist ever closer integration and offer a referendum in it.
I've recently read Between The Waves by Tom McTague. It's about the UK/Europe relationship from WW2 through to Brexit. Your point is well represented in the book. But tldr it was one of many factors.
"Blame" isn't such a great prism to view Brexit imo. It was a culmination of events and ideas over a 70 year period with people largely acting rationally in pursuit of their agendas.
Still, it's fair comment (and surely food for thought) that Brexit was a welcome development for foreign actors hostile to us, the prime example being Vladimir Putin.
For reasons I shouldn't really go into I've just downloaded a journal article from 'Deviant Behaviour'. Never knew said journal existed until this morning!
Our election model considers what might happen in each of Britain’s 632 constituencies if an election were held today. But rather than giving a single prediction, we fine-tuned our model to show a range of possible outcomes, based on historical trends and the latest opinion polls. As illustrated above, Britain’s electoral system is highly uncertain. We drew on data from the past 80 years of elections to quantify this uncertainty, and estimate how it might unfold in an imaginary election.
Do they have any findings/conclusions? I can't read the article.
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
I suspect you may be right in North Dorset, and HYUFD in Essex.
This is a map (credit J Swarbrick originally, I believe) of local by-election winners since May..those Vikings who settled here would appear to have a lot to answer for...
2000 years in the making, the forthcoming great Watling Street liberal/Reform divide of British politics.
Well, the sack of Lindisfarne was in 793AD, so more like 1223 years or so, if you mark the start of this period of politics to the Brexit referendum.
There's no evidence of a Roman Brexit campaign ever being mooted; those Romano-Britons had a lot more sense.
Er ... Carausius and Allectus did a Brexit. (Admittedly including a chunk of northern Gallia, but that was pretty British anyway - Bretagne and all that).
As per the Rosemary Sutcliff novel The Silver Branch.
The thing about this bet is that it's almost entirely about Reform, and not the Tories or Lib Dems.
If Reform at least double their vote share at the next GE then the Tories will lose dozens more seats. But the Lib Dems are not so vulnerable to a Reform surge. So the Lib Dems would expect to win more seats than the Tories without winning any extra seats themselves.
It's therefore worth comparing the odds for this bet with odds on Reform most seats, or first place in vote share, as they're likely to be related contingencies.
Reform most seats at 11/10 looks like a better bet than the Lib Dems to win more seats than the Tories at 8/11, and similarly Labour most seats at 27/10 is more attractive than the Tories to win more seats than the Lib Dems at 1/1.
Also, I think Lib Dem voters are in general more averse to Reform than average, probably the most averse overall. It's just a gut feel, it would be interesting to see if polling evidence supported that.
The point being, if I am right the stronger Reform are the more likely LDs are to gain seats. Our North Dorset seat last time was Con 37%, LD 34%, Reform 16%. Yesterday's projection had N Dorset going to Reform, and it may well do but it's not likely to be the LD voters switching imo.
More Con voters would tactically vote Reform than LD but more LD voters would tactically vote Con to beat Reform than would tactically vote Reform
No, I really don't think so. Not round here anyway.
I could be wrong though (and I know you never are 😉) so as I said it would be good to see some polling. Is there something around 2024 vote switchers that would show this?
I suspect you may be right in North Dorset, and HYUFD in Essex.
This is a map (credit J Swarbrick originally, I believe) of local by-election winners since May..those Vikings who settled here would appear to have a lot to answer for...
2000 years in the making, the forthcoming great Watling Street liberal/Reform divide of British politics.
Well, the sack of Lindisfarne was in 793AD, so more like 1223 years or so, if you mark the start of this period of politics to the Brexit referendum.
There's no evidence of a Roman Brexit campaign ever being mooted; those Romano-Britons had a lot more sense.
Er ... Carausius and Allectus did a Brexit. (Admittedly including a chunk of northern Gallia, but that was pretty British anyway - Bretagne and all that).
As per the Rosemary Sutcliff novel The Silver Branch.
PS: coin of one of them found at Dover: where else?
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
Joke mode on.
Only consider anyone a woman if they can multi-task - as no man can.
Only consider anyone a man if they can parallel park - an no woman can.
Joke mode off, and dives behind the sofa.
I'm so bad at parallel parking - I'm clearly a women...
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
Joke mode on.
Only consider anyone a woman if they can multi-task - as no man can.
Only consider anyone a man if they can parallel park - an no woman can.
Our election model considers what might happen in each of Britain’s 632 constituencies if an election were held today. But rather than giving a single prediction, we fine-tuned our model to show a range of possible outcomes, based on historical trends and the latest opinion polls. As illustrated above, Britain’s electoral system is highly uncertain. We drew on data from the past 80 years of elections to quantify this uncertainty, and estimate how it might unfold in an imaginary election.
"...The starting point for our model is nationwide opinion polling..."
That's your input, but what's your output?
"...We measured the difference between thousands of historical nationwide polls and the subsequent election results to estimate the likely polling error if an election were held today. We found that polling errors often lean towards the last election result (perhaps because undecided voters return to the party they supported last time) and encoded that into our model..."
OK the best predictor of the next election is the last election, but I could have told them that. And they're modelling the polling error (between the poll and the vote?)
"...Next we considered how each region and nation might swing..."
Fair enough, you've added a regional component. I like that. This is presumably a swing in the vote?
"...We fit a regression model to consider the historical relationship between a party’s vote share in a constituency in one election and the next, given the nationwide and regional picture..."
OK, you've built a model that inputs one or more polls, the estimated polling error and regional swing, and converts that to...an election vote in a region?
"...Finally, we translate these regional results to each constituency [using MRP]...."
OK, got that,
So they have three models.
MODEL 0
Inputs: lots of historical and regional polls up to the last election
Method: Simulation
Output: polling error and regional swing for the next election
MODEL 1
Inputs: Today's poll(s)
Method: Linear regression?
Output: Today's election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
MODEL 2
Input: election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
Method: MRP
Output: Today's election result for each constituency and hence today's election result
In similar vein, Waitrose has just emailed to let me know that I am the top buyer of their rosemary and garlic crackers on the island. Someone in their data-crunching department has too much time on their hands…
I managed second biggest buyer of frozen spinach from Sainsbury's in 2024.
Got to say the BBC putting illegal immigrants in the audience allows him to focus on something else - attacking the BBC for pulling that stunt.
They were not illegal immigrants, they were successful asylum seekers with ILR, so by definition not illegal.
Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. It wasn't these that gave Zia a hard time (indeed both came over fairly poorly) it was the white British in the audience that were giving him a hard time.
Credit to Polanski and Cooper for winning that audience.
"Having a debate on immigration without any immigrants having a say would be rather odd. "
Would it? It would be odder to include voices on an issue who had a vested interest, a bias, in one direction.
Also a little odd to include people who can't (yet) vote in national elections, where immigration policy is decided. Though I suppose it does no harm.
Next Question Time is a law 'n' order special. Let's fill the seats with ex-cons.
(Actually, that ain't a bad idea...)
27% of working age adults have a criminal record. There will be plenty of ex-cons.
Gosh. I’d have guessed less than 5%.
It is the most surprising stat I have learnt on here. For men it is 33%.
This report is a bit lower but official at 22-23%. 27% was from Personnel Today quoting another MoJ report I can't quickly find.
Obvs people are discreet about it, but AFAIK none of my close acquaintances have a criminal record.
How do you know? Especially if spent, speeding, not paying a train fare, careless driving, drink driving, forgetting to pay for something in a shop, not paying enough tax, smoking cannabis, taking cocaine etc can all be criminal offences
You've changed "shoplifting" into "forgetting to pay for something in a shop"! Do you have something to hide??
You could just as easily have said "forgetting to buy a train ticket, failing to see a speed limit sign, getting your maths wrong on your tax form...."
Well shoplifiting could be forgetting to pay for something in a shop.
It could and I'm sure it happens, but it isn't. Forgetting to pay for something isn't shoplifting. It is an honest mistake. Obviously you may have to convince someone of that.
We joke that my wife is a thief. Several days after being at a restaurant she found a knife from the restaurant in her bag. She has no idea how it got there (so she says).
Having said that I take @hyufd's point. It is easy to have had a minor offence. I think I am completely clean, but I have had one speeding offence sometime ago from a camera. Does that count? I don't think it does.
Good morning
Last week when I returned to my car with my shopping I discovered an item that I had overlooked
I immediately returned and paid for it
That is the first time in my 81 years I have made that error
I do not accept shoplifting is forgetting to pay, it is a deliberate act to steal
Indeed but had you not returned it straight away though BigG and the supermarket raised the alarm to PC Plod you could have been charged with theft and the prosecution would try and prove you stole it with intent even if you didn't have that intent
If I knowingly did not return and pay for it then that is shoplifting
Deeply shocking to see HYUFD minimising and hand-waving away the seriousness of crime. His fellow Tories will be wondering if he's a social worker (or at least what they imagine a social worker is, which isn't the same thing).
You changed that very quickly after you realised you were committing a contempt of court! You need to be more careful with keyboards and supermarket checkouts.
Hardly given those were all linked reports from established news organisations posted without comment beyond mentioning the arrest and charge and of course in the latter 2 cases also a conviction has already been given.
In any case I personally believe once a conviction is spent you should be able to move on from it whatever walk of life you are in and criminal records should be irrelevant from that point (except in a few cases like working with children where obviously they remain relevant and offences still need to be disclosed)
You only gave one case and one report in your original post and made it clear what you thought was the situation - which was a contempt. Stop changing the text and claiming you only ever wrote version two. It's a bad habit and makes you go blind, etc.
Your para 2 is even worse as it assumes actual conviction.
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
Joke mode on.
Only consider anyone a woman if they can multi-task - as no man can.
Only consider anyone a man if they can parallel park - an no woman can.
Joke mode off, and dives behind the sofa.
I'm so bad at parallel parking - I'm clearly a women...
There you go. Make sure you use the appropriate toilet.
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
Joke mode on.
Only consider anyone a woman if they can multi-task - as no man can.
Only consider anyone a man if they can parallel park - an no woman can.
Our election model considers what might happen in each of Britain’s 632 constituencies if an election were held today. But rather than giving a single prediction, we fine-tuned our model to show a range of possible outcomes, based on historical trends and the latest opinion polls. As illustrated above, Britain’s electoral system is highly uncertain. We drew on data from the past 80 years of elections to quantify this uncertainty, and estimate how it might unfold in an imaginary election.
"...The starting point for our model is nationwide opinion polling..."
That's your input, but what's your output?
"...We measured the difference between thousands of historical nationwide polls and the subsequent election results to estimate the likely polling error if an election were held today. We found that polling errors often lean towards the last election result (perhaps because undecided voters return to the party they supported last time) and encoded that into our model..."
OK the best predictor of the next election is the last election, but I could have told them that. And they're modelling the polling error (between the poll and the vote?)
"...Next we considered how each region and nation might swing..."
Fair enough, you've added a regional component. I like that. This is presumably a swing in the vote?
"...We fit a regression model to consider the historical relationship between a party’s vote share in a constituency in one election and the next, given the nationwide and regional picture..."
OK, you've built a model that inputs one or more polls, the estimated polling error and regional swing, and converts that to...an election vote in a region?
"...Finally, we translate these regional results to each constituency [using MRP]...."
OK, got that,
So they have three models.
MODEL 0
Inputs: lots of historical and regional polls up to the last election
Method: Simulation
Output: polling error and regional swing for the next election
MODEL 1
Inputs: Today's poll(s)
Method: Linear regression?
Output: Today's election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
MODEL 2
Input: election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
Method: MRP
Output: Today's election result for each constituency and hence today's election result
In similar vein, Waitrose has just emailed to let me know that I am the top buyer of their rosemary and garlic crackers on the island. Someone in their data-crunching department has too much time on their hands…
I managed second biggest buyer of frozen spinach from Sainsbury's in 2024.
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
Joke mode on.
Only consider anyone a woman if they can multi-task - as no man can.
Only consider anyone a man if they can parallel park - an no woman can.
Joke mode off, and dives behind the sofa.
I'm so bad at parallel parking - I'm clearly a women...
There you go. Make sure you use the appropriate toilet.
The way things are going, some folk will have to use the corner of the car park. Which can't be intended. Or can it?
It looks like Labour have found their soul and have made reducing child poverty a key mission in this parliament.
A government needs a narrative and needs the public to see a purpose . Regardless of whether people agree with lifting the two child benefit cap Labour no child should live in poverty .
It looks like Labour have found their soul and have made reducing child poverty a key mission in this parliament.
A government needs a narrative and needs the public to see a purpose . Regardless of whether people agree with lifting the two child benefit cap Labour no child should live in poverty .
Surely the best way to reduce child poverty is not to have any
Our election model considers what might happen in each of Britain’s 632 constituencies if an election were held today. But rather than giving a single prediction, we fine-tuned our model to show a range of possible outcomes, based on historical trends and the latest opinion polls. As illustrated above, Britain’s electoral system is highly uncertain. We drew on data from the past 80 years of elections to quantify this uncertainty, and estimate how it might unfold in an imaginary election.
"...The starting point for our model is nationwide opinion polling..."
That's your input, but what's your output?
"...We measured the difference between thousands of historical nationwide polls and the subsequent election results to estimate the likely polling error if an election were held today. We found that polling errors often lean towards the last election result (perhaps because undecided voters return to the party they supported last time) and encoded that into our model..."
OK the best predictor of the next election is the last election, but I could have told them that. And they're modelling the polling error (between the poll and the vote?)
"...Next we considered how each region and nation might swing..."
Fair enough, you've added a regional component. I like that. This is presumably a swing in the vote?
"...We fit a regression model to consider the historical relationship between a party’s vote share in a constituency in one election and the next, given the nationwide and regional picture..."
OK, you've built a model that inputs one or more polls, the estimated polling error and regional swing, and converts that to...an election vote in a region?
"...Finally, we translate these regional results to each constituency [using MRP]...."
OK, got that,
So they have three models.
MODEL 0
Inputs: lots of historical and regional polls up to the last election
Method: Simulation
Output: polling error and regional swing for the next election
MODEL 1
Inputs: Today's poll(s)
Method: Linear regression?
Output: Today's election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
MODEL 2
Input: election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
Method: MRP
Output: Today's election result for each constituency and hence today's election result
In similar vein, Waitrose has just emailed to let me know that I am the top buyer of their rosemary and garlic crackers on the island. Someone in their data-crunching department has too much time on their hands…
If you get an email like that you're not likely to rush out and buy more. You'll be thinking, do I need to see someone about my rosemary and garlic cracker dependency?
It looks like Labour have found their soul and have made reducing child poverty a key mission in this parliament.
A government needs a narrative and needs the public to see a purpose . Regardless of whether people agree with lifting the two child benefit cap Labour no child should live in poverty .
No person should live in poverty but what is poverty in this day and age ? An arbitrary figure based on median income. Yeah, right 😂
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
Joke mode on.
Only consider anyone a woman if they can multi-task - as no man can.
Only consider anyone a man if they can parallel park - an no woman can.
It looks like Labour have found their soul and have made reducing child poverty a key mission in this parliament.
A government needs a narrative and needs the public to see a purpose . Regardless of whether people agree with lifting the two child benefit cap Labour no child should live in poverty .
No person should live in poverty but what is poverty in this day and age ? An arbitrary figure based on median income. Yeah, right 😂
That’s not the point . Labour have been drifting along aimlessly. This gives them a purpose of being in government.
(* TBF, Swalwell entering the race will likely winnow the field fairly soon.)
How would that affect you ?
Why would you care ? Do you live there ?
The world superpower is shifting from 80 years of being close allies to an antagonistic rival at best. Of course we should care about current US politics, even at the local level as that is an indicator of where the national path will follow.
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
Joke mode on.
Only consider anyone a woman if they can multi-task - as no man can.
Only consider anyone a man if they can parallel park - an no woman can.
Joke mode off, and dives behind the sofa.
I'm so bad at parallel parking - I'm clearly a women...
There you go. Make sure you use the appropriate toilet.
Our election model considers what might happen in each of Britain’s 632 constituencies if an election were held today. But rather than giving a single prediction, we fine-tuned our model to show a range of possible outcomes, based on historical trends and the latest opinion polls. As illustrated above, Britain’s electoral system is highly uncertain. We drew on data from the past 80 years of elections to quantify this uncertainty, and estimate how it might unfold in an imaginary election.
"...The starting point for our model is nationwide opinion polling..."
That's your input, but what's your output?
"...We measured the difference between thousands of historical nationwide polls and the subsequent election results to estimate the likely polling error if an election were held today. We found that polling errors often lean towards the last election result (perhaps because undecided voters return to the party they supported last time) and encoded that into our model..."
OK the best predictor of the next election is the last election, but I could have told them that. And they're modelling the polling error (between the poll and the vote?)
"...Next we considered how each region and nation might swing..."
Fair enough, you've added a regional component. I like that. This is presumably a swing in the vote?
"...We fit a regression model to consider the historical relationship between a party’s vote share in a constituency in one election and the next, given the nationwide and regional picture..."
OK, you've built a model that inputs one or more polls, the estimated polling error and regional swing, and converts that to...an election vote in a region?
"...Finally, we translate these regional results to each constituency [using MRP]...."
OK, got that,
So they have three models.
MODEL 0
Inputs: lots of historical and regional polls up to the last election
Method: Simulation
Output: polling error and regional swing for the next election
MODEL 1
Inputs: Today's poll(s)
Method: Linear regression?
Output: Today's election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
MODEL 2
Input: election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
Method: MRP
Output: Today's election result for each constituency and hence today's election result
In similar vein, Waitrose has just emailed to let me know that I am the top buyer of their rosemary and garlic crackers on the island. Someone in their data-crunching department has too much time on their hands…
If you get an email like that you're not likely to rush out and buy more. You'll be thinking, do I need to see someone about my rosemary and garlic cracker dependency?
Or the opposite. If you're the competitive type you could be spurred to do whatever it takes to stay top dog.
The other day at the NATO Leaders' summit, oine of \trump's mushrooms popped up to rebuke Europe for buying fewer weapons from the USA.
But then Trump & Co are weird.
Truth, meet consequences.
Entirely consistent. The demand is both Europe buys weapons from the US (often that the US maintains control over when they can be used) and that Europe replaces US forces in conventional defence of Europe.
From a fairness point of view the second part is actually completely fine. From a protecting the peaceful legacy we have enjoyed under NATO for decades to come point of view however, it is a clear escalation in risk, that ultimately benefits Putin the most.
It looks like Labour have found their soul and have made reducing child poverty a key mission in this parliament.
A government needs a narrative and needs the public to see a purpose . Regardless of whether people agree with lifting the two child benefit cap Labour no child should live in poverty .
No person should live in poverty but what is poverty in this day and age ? An arbitrary figure based on median income. Yeah, right 😂
There are clearly some people who are living in poverty, so lets focus on that rather than getting too excited about metrics.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/05/agriculture-revolution-soil-farming-earth-rover-program
Unfortunately he didn't return to the opening of the article to say whether their soil seismology had answered the questions about why Tolly's farming methods had not been universally replicable.
Whilst Reform are around the Tories simply won't be able to punch enough votes, but I still expect some to come back because Labour are hitting affluent voters hard.
By no means as happy after day two!
Grandson Two is currently working in a bar near Brisbane; I must try and get him to tell the state of mind, cricket-wise, of his customers.
You would have to ensure it was very well wrapped and packaged to avoid being questioned by the police
The LDs have opposed the family farm and business tax, the employers NI rise, the income tax threshold freeze and even opposed the Mansion Tax on properties over £2 million anyway. Hence I expect next to no Tory gains from the LDs at the next GE and Godalming etc might even go LD which the Tories held in 2024. Where the Tories make gains they will be almost entirely in Labour held seats which went Remain in 2016 or are very soft Leave and so unlikely to go Reform.
The new 🇺🇸 security strategy proclaims, among other remarkable things, as an aim of 🇺🇸 policy ”cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations.”
https://x.com/carlbildt/status/1996855580468674617
At the same time as they are purporting to negotiate our future security, on our behalf, with an actively hostile Russia.
- having 2 bladed items in the boot of his car. Both tools
- his justification for having them was that he worked in bulk newspaper handling facility and they were his tools
The real story was that he was a ex-con. The police lifted him to question him, and the tools were what they found. Since they wanted to put him away, they used that.
So yes, if you take your domestic toolbox for a drive, they can do you for that.
Here are my initial thoughts
"...The starting point for our model is nationwide opinion polling..."
- That's your input, but what's your output?
"...We measured the difference between thousands of historical nationwide polls and the subsequent election results to estimate the likely polling error if an election were held today. We found that polling errors often lean towards the last election result (perhaps because undecided voters return to the party they supported last time) and encoded that into our model..."- OK the best predictor of the next election is the last election, but I could have told them that. And they're modelling the polling error (between the poll and the vote?)
"...Next we considered how each region and nation might swing..."- Fair enough, you've added a regional component. I like that. This is presumably a swing in the vote?
"...We fit a regression model to consider the historical relationship between a party’s vote share in a constituency in one election and the next, given the nationwide and regional picture..."OK, you've built a model that inputs one or more polls, the estimated polling error and regional swing, and converts that to...an election vote in a region?
"...Finally, we translate these regional results to each constituency [using MRP]...."
- OK, got that,
So they have three models.MODEL 0
- Inputs: lots of historical and regional polls up to the last election
- Method: Simulation
- Output: polling error and regional swing for the next election
MODEL 1- Inputs: Today's poll(s)
- Method: Linear regression?
- Output: Today's election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
MODEL 2In the case I mentioned above, the courts ruled “I had my work tools in the boot of my car. But I wasn’t travelling to and from work.” not to be a valid reason.
Also don't be black.
For wrestling fans this is a worry. Netflix has the WWE which is struggling at the moment with weak ratings and crap booking.
Warner Bros has the far superior AEW.
What will happen remains to be seen. Hopefully AEW will still get a platform.
A big change from my youth when carrying a penknife just in case it was useful was regarded as fairly normal.
Only Republicans like Trump backed Brexit
[into intercom] Fire at will, Mr. Starmer!
"The announcement will send shock waves through Hollywood and the broader media landscape. Netflix is already the world’s largest paid streaming service, with more than 300 million subscribers. Bulking up with Warner Bros. Discovery assets would create a colossus with greater leverage over theater owners and entertainment-industry unions. It could force smaller companies to merge as they scramble to compete."
NY Times
‘ Why I'm terrified of motorways even though I've been driving for 20 years’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ylnw9g994o
When there are countries inside the tent who seem to be more exercised by what’s going on with Israel/Gaza - Ireland and Spain - and countries who might prefer Russia such as Hungary maybe Ukraine would be better off if there was no EU and Germany, France, and others could act totally freely.
We will never know but suggesting that Brexit held back Europe’s response is a bit unlikely.
I am wondering how Zia lost the debate last night. He set the stall of Reform and did not back down. There are some people who will agree with it and others who wont. A BBC QT audience is maybe not the most representative of the general population.
The byelections last night suggest that Reform is consolidating its position. Reform got 29% of votes, Labour 7% and Greens 5%. Lib Dens had 31% and Tories 18%. Maybe BBC should rethink inviting minority support parties such as Labour on every week.
I am pleased to see the Tories stabilising their position even though they are still too focussed on the pension vote. Would say 50/50 if they get more seats than Lib Dems. The Lib Dems at risk from being seen as too left wing and losing some of their existing seats rural seats. The Tories risk is Reform taking further bites out of their voter base.
Finally we will hear the Truth!!!
When WWF bought WCW for a tiny amount they got the back catalogue and were able to make a fortune from it in the DVD era.
Hopefully it won’t end up a dud like the AOL-Time Warner deal.
https://x.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/1996899432588365984
Polanski would also be hoping for more than the 5% the Greens got, Labour at least beat the Greens despite the hype
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
I ask because I suspect many would agree with such a condition.
Only consider anyone a woman if they can multi-task - as no man can.
Only consider anyone a man if they can parallel park - an no woman can.
Joke mode off, and dives behind the sofa.
"Blame" isn't such a great prism to view Brexit imo. It was a culmination of events and ideas over a 70 year period with people largely acting rationally in pursuit of their agendas.
Still, it's fair comment (and surely food for thought) that Brexit was a welcome development for foreign actors hostile to us, the prime example being Vladimir Putin.
As per the Rosemary Sutcliff novel The Silver Branch.
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dover/news/killer-emperor-coin-bought-for-half-a-million-206134/
Your para 2 is even worse as it assumes actual conviction.
Ref 29.3%
Lab 20.5%
Con 20.0%
LD 12.5%
Grn 12.2%
SNP 2.6%
https://electionmaps.uk/polling/vi
A government needs a narrative and needs the public to see a purpose . Regardless of whether people agree with lifting the two child benefit cap Labour no child should live in poverty .
California - Governor Polling:
🔴 Bianco: 13%
🔴 Hilton 12%
🔵 Swalwell: 12%
🔵 Porter: 11%
🔵 Villaraigosa 5%
🔵 Steyer: 4%
🔵 Becerra: 4%
🔵 Yee: 2%
🔵 Thurmond: 2%
Emerson / Dec 2, 2025
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1996623483812626485
(* TBF, Swalwell entering the race will likely winnow the field fairly soon.)
Why would you care ? Do you live there ?
The other day at the NATO Leaders' summit, oine of \trump's mushrooms popped up to rebuke Europe for buying fewer weapons from the USA.
But then Trump & Co are weird.
Truth, meet consequences.
https://x.com/kwuchu/status/1996647272927613166
From a fairness point of view the second part is actually completely fine. From a protecting the peaceful legacy we have enjoyed under NATO for decades to come point of view however, it is a clear escalation in risk, that ultimately benefits Putin the most.