politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Maybe Ed Miliband has judged that the Tory press isn’t the

"The issue is these tossers allow their chums to "avoid " tax by not fixing the rules properly. They are happy to assist their chums accountants get round their pathetic legislation but are far more diligent on PAYE and on benefit claimants. It is the rank hypocrisy and assistance of one section of society that people do not like."

Correct. One prosecuion from all the HSBC tax evaders. Benefit claimants are hauled through the courts on a daily basis.

Can any Prime Minister (with the possible exception of Blair) have had a more dodgy record of employing crooks than Cameron?

Re: BBC bias

I found it interesting that the BBC found it added to the story to mention that Stephen Green, "now a Tory peer" was Chairman of HSBC at the time.

It doesn't add anything to the story - which is the (apparently) shameful behaviour of HSBC, but makes it an explicitly political attack

As an aside, where the heck did it go wrong with my industry? So many people have been operating on the wrong side of the line, it's so depressing to think about.

malcolmg said:

felix said:

No individual, in their right mind would choose to pay extra tax than is legally necessary so why do we insist that companies act differently? Fine when people break the law prosecute to the full but all the rest is cant and rank hypocrisy. It's like blaming the banks when people borrow more than they can afford. We really need to get back to people taking responsibility for their actions.

The issue is these tossers allow their chums to "avoid " tax by not fixing the rules properly. They are happy to assist their chums accountants get round their pathetic legislation but are far more diligent on PAYE and on benefit claimants. It is the rank hypocrisy and assistance of one section of society that people do not like.

Morning Malky, nice sunny day ... but I have to agree with you, after wasting a great deal of time trying to work out what happened to the £2 back tax demand my father paid (and will now have paid a second time over).

Charles said:

Re: BBC bias

I found it interesting that the BBC found it added to the story to mention that Stephen Green, "now a Tory peer" was Chairman of HSBC at the time.

It doesn't add anything to the story - which is the (apparently) shameful behaviour of HSBC, but makes it an explicitly political attack

As an aside, where the heck did it go wrong with my industry? So many people have been operating on the wrong side of the line, it's so depressing to think about.

It does add something however, it confirms that Tories will do anything to help their chums, and are unprincipled lying toerags.

PS On your last point , it is unbridled greed assisted by compliant politicians

MikeK said:

From last night:

MikeK said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

They've been coking the books for years.

When scientists use the raw data crirics complain that it is unreliable, when scientists use a subset that is shown to be sound critics claim it is cherry picked, when statistical methods are used to clean up the date to take into account known problems and issues then critics claim it is fiddled.

I remember a few years o when BEST was going to blow the whole AGW conspiracy wide open. Imagine the deniers utter disappointment when it came back saying AGW was happening

Roger said:

MikeK

"Like the Muslim demo in whitehall yesterday, that for the BBC, just didn't exist."

If every gathering of twenty people and four banners is to be a BBC news story they'd need a bigger staff than the NHS

Well they mentioned Farage's - that was 40. This one was 'one thousand', 'several thousand' or 'ten thousand' - take your pick.

Financier said:

Notice Margaret Hodge being hypocritical on R4 this morning when condemning the non-prosecution of "tax dodgers" (her words). Of course the interviewer did not mention Stemcor and her own and familly association with that tax dodging company. Have written to my MP to get him to raise it in the House.

Perhaps Ed might have something to say about the tax arrangements of the owners of the Guardian too?

No? I wonder why not.......

Sean_F said:

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

I wake this morning to universal idiotic calls to police what people say on the Internet.

Where did all this madness start?

Where ?

An all-party committee wants to ban "racists" from using social media.

That's UKIP screwed then.

MonikerDiCanio said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

In the case of the SNP the apparent reliance on one eyed and partisan blogs for "the truth" led to delusions and a belief that they were winning when they were not. I think we see a similar phenomenon with UKIP. That is not to say that these blogs do not have influence, at least in motivating the converted. The irony is that the "free" internet is resulting in more people getting their news from partisan, blinkered and downright false sources than ever before. It is a real challenge for the politicians.

LOL, David you just cannot believe that the SNP are running the country and likely to be even more in command, are very popular and after more than 7 years in power getting even more popular. It is Tories like yourself that are deluded , again the SNP are running the country, and people do not get taken in by the Tory lying press. Get a grip for goodness sake.

The SNP are now booming because their most unpopular policy, independence, is now off the agenda for the foreseeable future. A paradox.

Given that the Ashcroft poll ing shows a strong correlation between Yes vote and SNP vote then that seems a very unlikely supposition.

MikeK said:

MarqueeMark said:

felix said:

OblitusSumMe said:

DavidL said:

There is no question that the press does not have the influence it did in most respects but they still get inordinate attention from the 24 hour news channels, not just in their press reviews but in their story lines and talking heads. It may be an indirect and more fragmented influence but it is still there.

Yes, for all the talk of BBC "bias" the BBC mostly takes its editorial lead from the press, and mostly from the Mail (which is understandable given its market-leading position).

The BBC editorials are mist heavily influenced by the Guardian and Independent. Like too many others they sneer at the Mail and its millions of followers.

It raises a sardonic smile whenever a paper with an "awkward" front page never even makes it onto their review of the papers. The notion of Non-persons is alive and well at the Beeb...

Like the Muslim demo in whitehall yesterday, that for the BBC, just didn't exist.

The irony is its organisers will be complaining about being ignored by the same media which proves to their supporters they were right about the anti-muslim bias.

Roger said:

MikeK

"Like the Muslim demo in whitehall yesterday, that for the BBC, just didn't exist."

If every gathering of twenty people and four banners is to be a BBC news story they'd need a bigger staff than the NHS

Just showing yourself up as a one eyed liar now.. There were hundreds possibly over a thousand people there demonstrating as the photos and video in this article show

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2944946/Thousands-British-Muslims-protest-against-Charlie-Hebdo-magazine-publishing-cartoons-Prophet-Mohammed.html

You just don't want to believe what doesn't fit your agenda

MikeK said:

From last night:

MikeK said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

They've been coking the books for years.

If there are errors in the data you would expect scientists to adjust the data to correct for those errors.

It is plausible that most errors would involve recording temperatures that are too high, because they mostly tend to revolve around not protecting the thermometers from heating by the sun.

It is also not unreasonable to expect that observations are generally more accurate now, and so most adjustments will be made to historical data.

Thus it would not be surprising that adjustments will increase the historical trend.

There is no conspiracy.

OblitusSumMe said:

MikeK said:

From last night:

MikeK said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

They've been coking the books for years.

If there are errors in the data you would expect scientists to adjust the data to correct for those errors.

It is plausible that most errors would involve recording temperatures that are too high, because they mostly tend to revolve around not protecting the thermometers from heating by the sun.

It is also not unreasonable to expect that observations are generally more accurate now, and so most adjustments will be made to historical data.

Thus it would not be surprising that adjustments will increase the historical trend.

There is no conspiracy.

It is surprising that the adjustments would create the trend.

I was musing on political correctness the other day and wondered if I meet an unrepresentative bunch of people.

I find that generally the young and/or posh/well-off and/or liberal and/or Metropolitan tend to be PC. The old and/or poor and/or Muslim tend to be politically incorrect. The latter group definitely anti-semitic and homophobic,

I don't claim to meet a representative group of any of them.

But if I'm correct (a big assumption), then it would be likely that many places would have problems like Rotherham with PC. The upper echelons would be where the blind eye was turned.

So a young teacher turned Labour/LD MP living in London would be guaranteed to be so.

Aren't stereotypes great?

Charles

"As an aside, where the heck did it go wrong with my industry? So many people have been operating on the wrong side of the line, it's so depressing to think about."

Greed. Mixed with a bit of the 'masters of the universe' stuff which polished their egos. A pretty ugly combination

Roger said:

"The issue is these tossers allow their chums to "avoid " tax by not fixing the rules properly. They are happy to assist their chums accountants get round their pathetic legislation but are far more diligent on PAYE and on benefit claimants. It is the rank hypocrisy and assistance of one section of society that people do not like."

Correct. One prosecuion from all the HSBC tax evaders. Benefit claimants are hauled through the courts on a daily basis.

Can any Prime Minister (with the possible exception of Blair) have had a more dodgy record of employing crooks than Cameron?

HOLY SHIT

you mean it's not Thatcher ?

Get to the back of the demo Roger, you've lost your lefty moral compass.

I see that Labour's response to accusations of being anti-business is to promise a doubling of paternity leave. I'm sure that will silence the doubters.

antifrank said:

I see that Labour's response to accusations of being anti-business is to promise a doubling of paternity leave. I'm sure that will silence the doubters.

For the good of the Labour crusade, Justine should embark on a breeding frenzy.

CarlottaVance said:

Alistair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Alistair said:

Cyclefree said:

CarlottaVance said:

Alistair said:

Could people explain the mechanism by which stemcor is supposed to have avoided tax? I thought it was simply writing off previous years losses against current profit.

They use "transfer pricing" - something Hodge pilloried Starbucks for doing:

http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/a-roasting-for-starbucks-but-a-grilling-for-hodge/1915

Stemcor statement: http://www.stemcor.com/Response to further allegations of tax avoidance in the UK press.aspx

There are two issues with Ms Hodge: Stemcor and its tax affairs and the family trust from which she and her family benefits, set up by her father.

So there is no evidence they use transfer pricing in the way Amazon, Apple or Starbucks do then?

That was a piece of dreadful innuendo by C4.

There is no evidence that Amazon, Apple or Starbucks use transfer pricing in a different way from Stemcor.

It's a legal practice.

If Ms Hodges objects to it, she should change the law.

Are you being serious? Starbucks UK massiively overpays for its coffee from the Dutch based Starbucks roaster. Apple UK pays ludicrous charges to 'use' Apple intellectual property, liscensed from a Caribbean registered subsidiary..

Links to all those claims please - you wouldn't want to get OGH in trouble with their respective lawyers.....

5 seconds with google gets you hundreds of links.

Alistair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Alistair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Alistair said:

Cyclefree said:

CarlottaVance said:

Alistair said:

Could people explain the mechanism by which stemcor is supposed to have avoided tax? I thought it was simply writing off previous years losses against current profit.

They use "transfer pricing" - something Hodge pilloried Starbucks for doing:

http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/a-roasting-for-starbucks-but-a-grilling-for-hodge/1915

Stemcor statement: http://www.stemcor.com/Response to further allegations of tax avoidance in the UK press.aspx

There are two issues with Ms Hodge: Stemcor and its tax affairs and the family trust from which she and her family benefits, set up by her father.

So there is no evidence they use transfer pricing in the way Amazon, Apple or Starbucks do then?

That was a piece of dreadful innuendo by C4.

There is no evidence that Amazon, Apple or Starbucks use transfer pricing in a different way from Stemcor.

It's a legal practice.

If Ms Hodges objects to it, she should change the law.

Are you being serious? Starbucks UK massiively overpays for its coffee from the Dutch based Starbucks roaster. Apple UK pays ludicrous charges to 'use' Apple intellectual property, liscensed from a Caribbean registered subsidiary..

Links to all those claims please - you wouldn't want to get OGH in trouble with their respective lawyers.....

5 seconds with google gets you hundreds of links.

Post them then - you made the claim - you stand it up.

Financier said:

OblitusSumMe said:

MikeK said:

From last night:

MikeK said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

They've been coking the books for years.

If there are errors in the data you would expect scientists to adjust the data to correct for those errors.

It is plausible that most errors would involve recording temperatures that are too high, because they mostly tend to revolve around not protecting the thermometers from heating by the sun.

It is also not unreasonable to expect that observations are generally more accurate now, and so most adjustments will be made to historical data.

Thus it would not be surprising that adjustments will increase the historical trend.

There is no conspiracy.

There may not be a conspiracy but it is well-known that scientists will selectively use or promote data that fits their pet theory or expectation.

That is why peer-reviewing is used. We do a lot of this and find that we reject many applications for funding due to the author(s) being somewhat myopic at times.

Of course there's no conspiracy. Science is the antidote for conspiracy, as you say peer reviewing roots out any myopia. Shame there isn't peer reviewing for politics.

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 2m2 minutes ago
Reminder of How Britain Works: ex HMRC chief went to work for HSBC back in 2013 (he also went to advise Deloitte too) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270813/Former-UK-tax-chief-Dave-Harnett-lied-MPs-advise-HSBC-bank-honesty.html …

Alistair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Alistair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Alistair said:

Cyclefree said:

CarlottaVance said:

Alistair said:

Could people explain the mechanism by which stemcor is supposed to have avoided tax? I thought it was simply writing off previous years losses against current profit.

They use "transfer pricing" - something Hodge pilloried Starbucks for doing:

http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/a-roasting-for-starbucks-but-a-grilling-for-hodge/1915

Stemcor statement: http://www.stemcor.com/Response to further allegations of tax avoidance in the UK press.aspx

There are two issues with Ms Hodge: Stemcor and its tax affairs and the family trust from which she and her family benefits, set up by her father.

So there is no evidence they use transfer pricing in the way Amazon, Apple or Starbucks do then?

That was a piece of dreadful innuendo by C4.

There is no evidence that Amazon, Apple or Starbucks use transfer pricing in a different way from Stemcor.

It's a legal practice.

If Ms Hodges objects to it, she should change the law.

Are you being serious? Starbucks UK massiively overpays for its coffee from the Dutch based Starbucks roaster. Apple UK pays ludicrous charges to 'use' Apple intellectual property, liscensed from a Caribbean registered subsidiary..

Links to all those claims please - you wouldn't want to get OGH in trouble with their respective lawyers.....

5 seconds with google gets you hundreds of links.

I always thought any transfer pricing had to be done at an "arm's length" ?

"The UK legislation allows only for a transfer pricing adjustment to increase taxable profits or reduce a tax loss. It is not possible to decrease profits or increase a tax loss."

Antifrank

"I see that Labour's response to accusations of being anti-business is to promise a doubling of paternity leave. I'm sure that will silence the doubters."

Hmmmm. I thought he was on to something. The start of a Labour narrative..... media MOGULS.....MONACO based tax AVOIDERS..........and It all seemed to be going so well

........then I woke this morning to hear Rachel Reeves ......years and years of PATERNITY leave! I thought I was dreaming.....

I can't even imagine it's popular

Roger said:

Felix

"The BBC editorials are mist heavily influenced by the Guardian and Independent. Like too many others they sneer at the Mail and its millions of followers."

.....and the Times and the Telegraph. The BBC are a serious news organization which is fast moving. Of course it can't use stories in the Sun and Mail and the Mirror which are almost certainly sensationalized and usually slanted because that's the nature of red tops and tabloids. It is not part of the BBC remit to publish stories just because a large readership newspaper publishes them

Oh dear roger

"the BBC has learnt" = We see another news outlet has found some actual news but we can't admit that .

@pollycurtis: Is Labour saying men shd get twice as much for paternity leave than women get for maternity leave? @RachelReevesMP

Scott_P said:

@pollycurtis: Is Labour saying men shd get twice as much for paternity leave than women get for maternity leave? @RachelReevesMP

Er, no.

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

"The issue is these tossers allow their chums to "avoid " tax by not fixing the rules properly. They are happy to assist their chums accountants get round their pathetic legislation but are far more diligent on PAYE and on benefit claimants. It is the rank hypocrisy and assistance of one section of society that people do not like."

Correct. One prosecuion from all the HSBC tax evaders. Benefit claimants are hauled through the courts on a daily basis.

Can any Prime Minister (with the possible exception of Blair) have had a more dodgy record of employing crooks than Cameron?

HOLY SHIT

you mean it's not Thatcher ?

Get to the back of the demo Roger, you've lost your lefty moral compass.

Harold Macmillan, perhaps? I've always though Ernest Marples' life would make a good drama -- he had a huge and lasting influence on our lives: he gave us premium bonds and postcodes, and motorways and the Beeching cuts. He was also giving his own company building contracts, and consorting widely with prostitutes (and was probably the man in the mask in the Profumo affair). Then he fled abroad to avoid prosecution for fraud.

Isam

"Just showing yourself up as a one eyed liar now.. There were hundreds possibly over a thousand people there demonstrating as the photos and video in this article show"

Do you think that's a story? A group of people that you'd find at a Sunday village cricket match saying they don't agree with Charlie?

Get a grip!

DecrepitJohnL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

"The issue is these tossers allow their chums to "avoid " tax by not fixing the rules properly. They are happy to assist their chums accountants get round their pathetic legislation but are far more diligent on PAYE and on benefit claimants. It is the rank hypocrisy and assistance of one section of society that people do not like."

Correct. One prosecuion from all the HSBC tax evaders. Benefit claimants are hauled through the courts on a daily basis.

Can any Prime Minister (with the possible exception of Blair) have had a more dodgy record of employing crooks than Cameron?

HOLY SHIT

you mean it's not Thatcher ?

Get to the back of the demo Roger, you've lost your lefty moral compass.

Harold Macmillan, perhaps? I've always though Ernest Marples' life would make a good drama -- he had a huge and lasting influence on our lives: he gave us premium bonds and postcodes, and motorways and the Beeching cuts. He was also giving his own company building contracts, and consorting widely with prostitutes (and was probably the man in the mask in the Profumo affair). Then he fled abroad to avoid prosecution for fraud.

There was for many years a piece of graffiti on an M1 flyover with the words, 'Marples Must Go'.

Patrick said:

logical_song said:

Financier said:

OblitusSumMe said:

MikeK said:

From last night:

MikeK said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

They've been coking the books for years.

If there are errors in the data you would expect scientists to adjust the data to correct for those errors.

It is plausible that most errors would involve recording temperatures that are too high, because they mostly tend to revolve around not protecting the thermometers from heating by the sun.

It is also not unreasonable to expect that observations are generally more accurate now, and so most adjustments will be made to historical data.

Thus it would not be surprising that adjustments will increase the historical trend.

There is no conspiracy.

There may not be a conspiracy but it is well-known that scientists will selectively use or promote data that fits their pet theory or expectation.

That is why peer-reviewing is used. We do a lot of this and find that we reject many applications for funding due to the author(s) being somewhat myopic at times.

Of course there's no conspiracy. Science is the antidote for conspiracy, as you say peer reviewing roots out any myopia. Shame there isn't peer reviewing for politics.

In science or business a theory or a business model is tried out, tested, works or doesn't work and knowledge and understanding evolve. In politics we don't seem to see a willingness to try different approaches or to learn from past mistakes. And I think the reason for that is not that politiicans are stupid but they want to get (re)elected and a brutal honesty, a doing what's right for the country, may not translate to personal objectives or unevolving ideology. How else are we to explain Ed's abject ignorance of how an economy works? Or some of Dave's manifest weak spots.

Politics has no chance of becoming an iterative process, because the electorate may not have the opportunity for the next iteration for as long as five years. In the extreme example of my ninety-four year old Grandad, who was first eligible to vote in the general election of 1945, he has only been able to vote in 18 general elections. Most people will not live for so long.

If we had annual Parliaments then the electorate would have more opportunity to learn from their mistakes.

Roger said:

Charles

"As an aside, where the heck did it go wrong with my industry? So many people have been operating on the wrong side of the line, it's so depressing to think about."

Greed. Mixed with a bit of the 'masters of the universe' stuff which polished their egos. A pretty ugly combination

But that's the point: the finance industry has always been like that (with a few exceptions, the concept of service disappeared a long time ago: there's a reasons why "where are all the customers' yachts?" is a cliche)

But they never behaved like this: what has changed?

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

Charles said:

Re: BBC bias

I found it interesting that the BBC found it added to the story to mention that Stephen Green, "now a Tory peer" was Chairman of HSBC at the time.

It doesn't add anything to the story - which is the (apparently) shameful behaviour of HSBC, but makes it an explicitly political attack

As an aside, where the heck did it go wrong with my industry? So many people have been operating on the wrong side of the line, it's so depressing to think about.

It does add something however, it confirms that Tories will do anything to help their chums, and are unprincipled lying toerags.

PS On your last point , it is unbridled greed assisted by compliant politicians

It's been under the Coalition that HMRC has pursued them - I suspect a lot of settlements rather than prosecutions because tax evaders, by nature, have money: if someone will cough up the full amount owed, plus interest, plus penalties there is little upside in prosecuting them.

On the unbridled greed: I suspect human nature hasn't changed that much! But perhaps it has. If so, not for the better

I'm not sure that cost-benefit analysis is correct. If a few very wealthy people suffer public odium, criminal penalties and exclusion from polite society, it may make tax evasion seem considerably less attractive to others who might contemplate the idea. Short term cost may well lead to long term gain.

If HSBC have been aiding and abetting criminal offences, then they need to have the book thrown at them.

At last something positive to say about Ed!

He doesn't feel the need to wear a stab vest when out and about in Peckham :-)

BenM said:

MarqueeMark said:

BenM said:

LOL @ rightwing press

So, here's your opportunity to condemn the left-wing Mirror Group for doing what right-wing Newscorp was doing on phone hacking.

A chance to be a bigger man than Ed Miliband.

I utterly condemn the British press of whatever political persuasion snooping on a free people via their mobile phones. Justice is coming.

My laugh was at the dwindling power of the rightwing press. You can see it with the almost twin leader articles in the Telegraph and Sun on Saturday morning.

Having done so much to give birth and succour to the UKIP movement, here were two newspapers realising far too late that it has meant a fratcuring of the rump of voters believing in their wrongheaded version of the world, and therefore weakening, probably terminally, their ability to get the Tories elected as a majority administration.

BenM said:

MarqueeMark said:

BenM said:

LOL @ rightwing press

So, here's your opportunity to condemn the left-wing Mirror Group for doing what right-wing Newscorp was doing on phone hacking.

A chance to be a bigger man than Ed Miliband.

I utterly condemn the British press of whatever political persuasion snooping on a free people via their mobile phones. Justice is coming.

My laugh was at the dwindling power of the rightwing press. You can see it with the almost twin leader articles in the Telegraph and Sun on Saturday morning.

Having done so much to give birth and succour to the UKIP movement, here were two newspapers realising far too late that it has meant a fratcuring of the rump of voters believing in their wrongheaded version of the world, and therefore weakening, probably terminally, their ability to get the Tories elected as a majority administration.

Kudos to you for condemning all papers for phone hacking. I suspect yours will be a rather solitary voice on the left....

BenM said:

Er, no.

Ummm...

@SophyRidgeSky: Seems men would receive more paternity pay (£260 a week) under Labour plans than women receive after first 6 weeks https://t.co/YsGJtwPQXn

Re Paternity leave. A really stupid policy. It alienates very small businesses and reminds voters how fiddly Labour governments can be. Very disappointing

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

Alistair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Alistair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Alistair said:

Cyclefree said:

CarlottaVance said:

Alistair said:

Could people explain the mechanism by which stemcor is supposed to have avoided tax? I thought it was simply writing off previous years losses against current profit.

They use "transfer pricing" - something Hodge pilloried Starbucks for doing:

http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/a-roasting-for-starbucks-but-a-grilling-for-hodge/1915

Stemcor statement: http://www.stemcor.com/Response to further allegations of tax avoidance in the UK press.aspx

There are two issues with Ms Hodge: Stemcor and its tax affairs and the family trust from which she and her family benefits, set up by her father.

So there is no evidence they use transfer pricing in the way Amazon, Apple or Starbucks do then?

That was a piece of dreadful innuendo by C4.

There is no evidence that Amazon, Apple or Starbucks use transfer pricing in a different way from Stemcor.

It's a legal practice.

If Ms Hodges objects to it, she should change the law.

Are you being serious? Starbucks UK massiively overpays for its coffee from the Dutch based Starbucks roaster. Apple UK pays ludicrous charges to 'use' Apple intellectual property, liscensed from a Caribbean registered subsidiary..

Links to all those claims please - you wouldn't want to get OGH in trouble with their respective lawyers.....

5 seconds with google gets you hundreds of links.

Post them then - you made the claim - you stand it up.

OOOOOOOOOOH Matron, are you running the site nowadays then

Preferable to having the Moderator remove comments which are potentially libellous, doncha think?

MonikerDiCanio said:

antifrank said:

I see that Labour's response to accusations of being anti-business is to promise a doubling of paternity leave. I'm sure that will silence the doubters.

For the good of the Labour crusade, Justine should embark on a breeding frenzy.

Best not, Ed probably to busy to get his name put on the birth certificate.

Alistair said:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-14/starbucks-dutch-tax-deal-clashes-with-global-rules-eu

Amusingly this is one going in the other direction. Paying bollocks fee for roasting patent between UK and Netherlands.

Not amusing for OGH if Starbucks or Apple lawyers decide he's let unsubstantiated claims stand on his blog....

Tsipras sounded defiant today on the radio this morning seeking WWII reparations from the German's

Financier said:

OblitusSumMe said:

MikeK said:

From last night:

MikeK said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

They've been coking the books for years.

If there are errors in the data you would expect scientists to adjust the data to correct for those errors.

It is plausible that most errors would involve recording temperatures that are too high, because they mostly tend to revolve around not protecting the thermometers from heating by the sun.

It is also not unreasonable to expect that observations are generally more accurate now, and so most adjustments will be made to historical data.

Thus it would not be surprising that adjustments will increase the historical trend.

There is no conspiracy.

There may not be a conspiracy but it is well-known that scientists will selectively use or promote data that fits their pet theory or expectation.

That is why peer-reviewing is used. We do a lot of this and find that we reject many applications for funding due to the author(s) being somewhat myopic at times.

Scientists are humans too!

Thus they also suffer, as individuals, from well-known psychological biases, such as confirmation bias. Even peer review itself is not a perfect defence, and you will find that papers get published that do not stand the test of time. That is the true test.

If a paper says something new and interesting then it will lead to other scientists trying to build on that work, replicate it or test it from a different angle. One of two things then happens to the paper. It may be found to be contradicted by further work, generating a bit of [relative] excitement in a few conferences, to then be largely forgotten. Or, it will become the Ur-paper of a new micro-branch of its area of science. The paper that all other subsequent papers in that area reference.

One of the frustrating things is that negative results are very hard to get published. So, for example, I tried to apply an analysis method used for one purpose for another closely related purpose - a step hinted at in the original paper, but not followed up on by any subsequent papers. After many months of frustrating work I was eventually forced to conclude that it was not going to work, but of course that meant I had no results to write up in a paper, and so no way to communicate to future scientists that following up on the hint is not worthwhile.

Charles

"But they never behaved like this: what has changed?"

Thatcher! (Alanbrooke take note). She encouraged greed and 'get rich quick' with her privatizations and lauding the unacceptable face of capitalism. Inviting the likes of Hanson into her inner circle. She even presided over the corruption of lawyers once as respected as doctors. Now the only professions that have remained unscathed are ones in the public services

logical_song said:

OK, so politics is a lost cause.
I just hope the MikeK and other Climate Change Deniers come to realise that the scientific method is aimed at finding out the truth. There will be mistakes made by individual scientists but peer reviewing will find these out. Science unlike politics isn't really something where you can simply rely on belief or opinion.

Correct - so all the more worrying that the current argument seems to be "the science is settled" together with a figure of e.g. "97% of scientists". You don't vote on science, you make hypotheses and conduct experiments.

Also, appropriating the term "denier" to describe sceptics is utterly inappropriate, and smacks of a [nasty] PR campaign than an attempt to "find truth". It's politicising science, in a process sense.

I write all the above as someone who thinks that AGW is probably happening.

DecrepitJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

@anotherDave

With The Telegraph, you can set Chrome so it doesn't allow The Telegraph to store cookies... and therefore never need to delete them

Allegedly.

I paid the £20 when Plato was spamming pb with Telegraph links but the site seemed unwilling to accept my renewal. It does not seem worth the hassle now.

*whistles nonchalantly*

http://en.kioskea.net/faq/10002-firefox-block-cookies-for-a-particular-website

The most important stats about climate change today.

@Andrew_ComRes: ATTENTION SINGLE MEN: Almost 1 in 4 women less likely to go on date w/someone who doesn't think climate change needs tackling #showthelove

@Andrew_ComRes: 26% of women less likely to marry someone who doesn't believe climate change needs tackling #showthelove

@bbcnickrobinson: What's new in HSBC story is bank aided & abetted tax evasion. Leak of data known in '07. Content known by taxman in '10. We learnt today

Roger said:

Charles

"But they never behaved like this: what has changed?"

Thatcher! (Alanbrooke take note). She encouraged greed and 'get rich quick' with her privatizations and lauding the unacceptable face of capitalism. Inviting the likes of Hanson into her inner circle. She even presided over the corruption of lawyers once as respected as doctors. Now the only professions that have remained unscathed are ones in the public services

The change happened in the mid 90s onwards, in my experience. In 1992 there were still a lot of people who thought it was somehow "wrong" to try to break the pound