Legalising class A drugs ! Not sure this is a vote winner .
Nor am I but is it a vote loser? When was the last time a celebrity was cancelled over drug use? Or politician? Cameron, Osborne, Boris, Gove?
Going for the coked-up footie fan vote?
the whole discussion around drugs by our politicians has been pathetic for decades ever since Labour sacked David Nutt for stating the bleeding obvious
Quite. Taking an honest, realistic, harm based look at drugs is beyond most politicians.
The same should apply to tobacco, instead of instituting a ban by stealth.
"I was dining in a pizza establishment when a young lady with a severe gluten intolerance went into anaphylactic shock. When I rushed over to help she was in a pool of sweat, something I am unfamiliar with, causing me to slip and fall over, at which point my trousers fell down."
"I was dining in a pizza establishment when a young lady with a severe gluten intolerance went into anaphylactic shock. When I rushed over to help she was in a pool of sweat, something I am unfamiliar with, causing me to slip and fall over, at which point my trousers fell down."
I see and hear that a councillor who is a member of an authority for which the elections have been cancelled this May intends to resign, no doubt for self-serving self promotion, and then stand again to be re-elected.
I am puzzled by this because as I remember when the Cumbrian District Elections were cancelled they also stopped holding by-elections for seats where councillors ceased to be. Surely the same will be happening this time ???
Legalising class A drugs ! Not sure this is a vote winner .
Nor am I but is it a vote loser? When was the last time a celebrity was cancelled over drug use? Or politician? Cameron, Osborne, Boris, Gove?
Going for the coked-up footie fan vote?
the whole discussion around drugs by our politicians has been pathetic for decades ever since Labour sacked David Nutt for stating the bleeding obvious
Quite. Taking an honest, realistic, harm based look at drugs is beyond most politicians.
The same should apply to tobacco, instead of instituting a ban by stealth.
Yes, just ban it right now.
Indeed. As well as alcohol
What could possibly go wrong.
A young friend, who has occasional bouts of being a smoker, much to his girl-friends annoyance, tends to buy his cigarettes while on business trips to Europe, due to the cost.
Looking at the Denton byelection Starmer's judgement couldn't have been more flawed. if Burnham had lost the blame would be his alone and Starmer could have enjoyed the next three years. if he'd won it would have killed the threat from the Greens and Starmer and Labour would have the momentum.
"I was dining in a pizza establishment when a young lady with a severe gluten intolerance went into anaphylactic shock. When I rushed over to help she was in a pool of sweat, something I am unfamiliar with, causing me to slip and fall over, at which point my trousers fell down."
P G Wodehouse?
More Evelyn Waugh - Decline And Fall
Indeed. As it happens I am reading that at the moment.
Legalising class A drugs ! Not sure this is a vote winner .
Nor am I but is it a vote loser? When was the last time a celebrity was cancelled over drug use? Or politician? Cameron, Osborne, Boris, Gove?
Going for the coked-up footie fan vote?
the whole discussion around drugs by our politicians has been pathetic for decades ever since Labour sacked David Nutt for stating the bleeding obvious
Quite. Taking an honest, realistic, harm based look at drugs is beyond most politicians.
The same should apply to tobacco, instead of instituting a ban by stealth.
Yes, just ban it right now.
Indeed. As well as alcohol
What could possibly go wrong.
A young friend, who has occasional bouts of being a smoker, much to his girl-friends annoyance, tends to buy his cigarettes while on business trips to Europe, due to the cost.
Indeed and the cheap flights now make money selling spirits and fags to punters either going out or coming back. We came back from Lanzarote mid Jan and plenty of people were taking advantage of the pricing.
"I was dining in a pizza establishment when a young lady with a severe gluten intolerance went into anaphylactic shock. When I rushed over to help she was in a pool of sweat, something I am unfamiliar with, causing me to slip and fall over, at which point my trousers fell down."
P G Wodehouse?
More Evelyn Waugh - Decline And Fall
Indeed. As it happens I am reading that at the moment.
Seems quite topical - especially Pennyfeather’s second “fall”
Looking at the Denton byelection Starmer's judgement couldn't have been more flawed. if Burnham had lost the blame would be his alone and Starmer could have enjoyed the next three years. if he'd won it would have killed the threat from the Greens and Starmer and Labour would have the momentum.
Either way Burnham should have stood and it was only Starmer running scared that prevented it
As you say lose and Starmer is strengthened, win and Starmer is strengthened
Starmer is rubbish at politics and more interested in his own survival
Of course if Reform do win the Gorton and Denton by election with the Greens third it will be those slagging them off eating humble pie not FON.
Have you read the quotes, FON say the poll isn't statistically relevant, they are themselves this poll is utter garbage.
Yes but the "damage" is done - the poll is out there and we and others have been hyper ventiliating over it for two days and the leaflets for the by election write themselves on the back of this poll.
Whatever its merits or otherwise, it has set the agenda and the tone at least for now.
Look at how many by-elections have been "influenced" by late polls showing challengers closing on leaders and I remember Michael Portillo saying his defeat at Enfield Southgate in 1997 was caused by an Observer poll the weekend before showing the level of swing in Conservative seats like his was far greater (was it 15-17%?) than the UNS swing on poll headline numbers which was nearer 10%?
Even in 2024, the swing in some seats was far greater than any national move - in Chippenham the LDs won on a swing of 21%, the national swing from Con to LD was more like 11-12%.
Not sure the last two paragraphs are linked. Was there a local Chippenham poll?
UNS was always an average of a range of swings.
Which was cause and which was effect?
And with boundary changes, the "swing" relies heavily on the notional result being right from the time before.
Notional results can be very suspect. I remember Malcolm Bruce ( Lib) in 1983 achieving a massive swing in Gordon, which totally surpriesed everyone.
1. How addictive is it? Physical or psychological. 2. How damaging is it? Physical or psychological. 3. Should the state intervene? Legal sanctions or health support.
Rank the following addictions against the three questions: 0 = none 5 = extremely
a. cocaine b. liquor c. mindless scrolling d. tobacco e. cannabis f. spending all day on PB g. heroin h. gambling
Looking at the Denton byelection Starmer's judgement couldn't have been more flawed. if Burnham had lost the blame would be his alone and Starmer could have enjoyed the next three years. if he'd won it would have killed the threat from the Greens and Starmer and Labour would have the momentum.
And Reform would have been weakened a bit too.
Good leaders always want their best players in the team, William Hague for example not only allowed Michael Portillo to contest Kensington and Chelsea in the 1999 by election but also made him his Shadow Chancellor.
Even Starmer has now backtracked a bit, saying he would not block Burnham being a Labour candidate at the next general election
Of course if Reform do win the Gorton and Denton by election with the Greens third it will be those slagging them off eating humble pie not FON.
Have you read the quotes, FON say the poll isn't statistically relevant, they are themselves this poll is utter garbage.
Yes but the "damage" is done - the poll is out there and we and others have been hyper ventiliating over it for two days and the leaflets for the by election write themselves on the back of this poll.
Whatever its merits or otherwise, it has set the agenda and the tone at least for now.
Look at how many by-elections have been "influenced" by late polls showing challengers closing on leaders and I remember Michael Portillo saying his defeat at Enfield Southgate in 1997 was caused by an Observer poll the weekend before showing the level of swing in Conservative seats like his was far greater (was it 15-17%?) than the UNS swing on poll headline numbers which was nearer 10%?
Even in 2024, the swing in some seats was far greater than any national move - in Chippenham the LDs won on a swing of 21%, the national swing from Con to LD was more like 11-12%.
Not sure the last two paragraphs are linked. Was there a local Chippenham poll?
UNS was always an average of a range of swings.
Which was cause and which was effect?
And with boundary changes, the "swing" relies heavily on the notional result being right from the time before.
Notional results can be very suspect. I remember Malcolm Bruce ( Lib) in 1983 achieving a massive swing in Gordon, which totally surpriesed everyone.
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
He would have to have known the woman was trafficked, he did not do the trafficking himself, that was Epstein and Maxwell who have already been convicted and jailed (or would have been in the former case)
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
He would have to have known the woman was trafficked, he did not do the trafficking himself, that was Epstein and Maxwell who have already been convicted and jailed (or would have been in the former case)
She was sent by Epstein to him and do not forget she was the second after the late Virginia Giuffre
Can't find any UK sources but US data indicates that it's those in lower socio-economic status neighbourhoods that tend to gamble. So if there is self-selection, you could argue that it was only certain voters in certain parts of G&D that took part. Add to the ethnic/religious mix (do Muslims gamble?) then the poll is about as useful as a Horoscope.
You can check yours here.
It’s good to be confident but don’t overdo it and think you can make a success of something that even experts are reluctant to attempt. If you insist on having a go, be sure to prepare well and have the support of friends. Don’t climb mountains without back-up.
I don't know how much things like postcode lotteries get thought of as gambling (though they are).
It must be hard to adequately sample the young and those religious groups that do not gamble.
Demographic balancing of samples must be a real problem for them.
If my experience in Morocco are any kind of indication, quite a few Muslims drink. A lot.
IIRC the online lottery that FON uses is free, which can be used as an excuse to get round religious prohibitions. See “Vodka is made from potatoes, so isn’t ‘fruit of the grape’”
Muslim *men* as a lady Muslim friend said with disgust.
But yes, free to enter means it's not gambling. The early horseracing meetings in Dubai had no betting, obviously, but there were free competitions to pick all the winners. I do not know what they are like now.
The proposition by which say, William Hill's, make all bets free of stake money but fund themselves and the winning payouts by some other means - attracting advertisers, voluntary donation, corporate sponsorship, state subsidy, a local sales tax - sounds the sort of idea that would commend itself to Ukridge. There is a flaw in it somewhere.
Suddenly court expansion is OK with the GOP after all.
Utah GOP Gov. Spencer Cox has signed a bill allowing him to add two new justices to the Utah Supreme Court, a move that could reshape future rulings on Utah’s congressional maps, including the court-mandated Democratic UT-01 under Prop 4. https://x.com/VoteHub/status/2017653309805384096
While all those who supported expanding SCOTUS in 2021-4 have gone very quiet.
Altogether now:
My court expansion good, your court expansion bad.
I've noticed that it has become common for people (usually Labour fans) to claim that @FindOutNowUK ranks Reform UK as massively higher in polls than every single other pollster.
This is objectively false. It is simply not true. Majority of pollsters have Reform on 30% or above
"I was dining in a pizza establishment when a young lady with a severe gluten intolerance went into anaphylactic shock. When I rushed over to help she was in a pool of sweat, something I am unfamiliar with, causing me to slip and fall over, at which point my trousers fell down."
P G Wodehouse?
Wodehouse is unique. He does farce about sex without getting close to sex in any form and without innuendo. Compared with him Jane Austen does bodice rippers. As someone once said of him: “There is no suggestion that either clubman or girl would recognize a double bed except as so much extra sweat to make an apple-pie of.”
Possible comparisons to Wodehouse in this sense might be Trollope and our great cartoonist Matt.
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
I suppose it depends on where the crime was committed and what the relevant laws are in that jurisdiction. So, for example, a 50 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old in New York is illegal. In London it is only deeply creepy.
I doubt the UK police feel they have much to go on. That said it would be fun to see the US authorities issue a warrent for his arrest.
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
I suppose it depends on where the crime was committed and what the relevant laws are in that jurisdiction. So, for example, a 50 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old in New York is illegal. In London it is only deeply creepy.
I doubt the UK police feel they have much to go on. That said it would be fun to see the US authorities issue a warrent for his arrest.
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
I suppose it depends on where the crime was committed and what the relevant laws are in that jurisdiction. So, for example, a 50 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old in New York is illegal. In London it is only deeply creepy.
I doubt the UK police feel they have much to go on. That said it would be fun to see the US authorities issue a warrent for his arrest.
If the 16 year old was paid, that is illegal
Agreed. But again I assume you would need to prove both knowledge and intent.
But radicalised by the fact of the result, I think.
I'd say from reading that confused and clearly conflicted article that Sir Max was a remainer who hated the EU. It is strange because the leave arguments in that article seem stronger than the remain ones, but the conclusion doesn't really fit the rest of the text. So I suppose in his head he was a leaver, but his heart wouldn't quite let him follow his own logic.
What's also noticeable is that he wrote in the article that if the EU hadn't changed fundamentally back to being a trading block in 10 years, the UK should leave then. Ten years down the road, the EU has evolved into even more of a superstate, so by his own logic back then he should be a leaver now.
Incidentally, I'm not particularly picking on Sir Max for this - many were torn by the question and the conflicting considerations involved, and emotional factors were often as important as an intelligent weighing of the evidence, which was a slippery concept anyway. Boris, who Sir Max clearly despises, wrote two essays setting out the pros and cons before making his decision. So in that at least, Sir Max and he have more in common than one might think.
Andrew is damned by the fact that he paid £12m in damages to Victoria Giuffre. An innocent man would not have done so.
It was a civil settlement, no criminal charges were ever brought in that case
It doesn't matter. For most reasonable people it would indicate some admission of moral, if not legal, guilt
An important point which has got a bit lost in some of the hooh and hah.
Even if the things that happened on Epstein Island were legal, they were still gross and not the sort of thing a gentleman does.
Enough with people wriggling out of bad behaviour on technicalities, I fully agree. The public are pretty good at weighing up when something seems off even if the rules weren’t quite broken
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
I suppose it depends on where the crime was committed and what the relevant laws are in that jurisdiction. So, for example, a 50 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old in New York is illegal. In London it is only deeply creepy.
I doubt the UK police feel they have much to go on. That said it would be fun to see the US authorities issue a warrent for his arrest.
If the 16 year old was paid, that is illegal
New York age of consent is 17 and Giuffre was 17, Andrew would have to have knowingly paid her for sex for it to be illegal in New York
I've noticed that it has become common for people (usually Labour fans) to claim that @FindOutNowUK ranks Reform UK as massively higher in polls than every single other pollster.
This is objectively false. It is simply not true. Majority of pollsters have Reform on 30% or above
Andrew is damned by the fact that he paid £12m in damages to Victoria Giuffre. An innocent man would not have done so.
To be pedantic, he didn’t pay it. Brenda wouldn’t have paid it and Charlie wouldn’t have okayed it if they thought Andrew was innocent.
Paying to make legal nuisances go away is not that uncommon (and what I mean is that I've seen it twice and IANAL). Even in the criminal world, arguably the American plea deal system works on that basis, as do our incentives to plead guilty or accept a caution.
But radicalised by the fact of the result, I think.
What's also noticeable is that he wrote in the article that if the EU hadn't changed fundamentally back to being a trading block in 10 years, the UK should leave then. Ten years down the road, the EU has evolved into even more of a superstate, so by his own logic back then he should be a leaver.
I suspect the argument would be that it would not have done if we were still in. Perhaps partly true. But only partly.
Andrew is damned by the fact that he paid £12m in damages to Victoria Giuffre. An innocent man would not have done so.
To be pedantic, he didn’t pay it. Brenda wouldn’t have paid it and Charlie wouldn’t have okayed it if they thought Andrew was innocent.
Paying to make legal nuisances go away is not that uncommon (and what I mean is that I've seen it twice and IANAL). Even in the criminal world, arguably the American plea deal system works on that basis, as do our incentives to plead guilty or accept a caution.
Settlement of a civil claim, for which there is a lower burden of proof, is an entirely different matter to whether there is evidence for criminal charges
Can't find any UK sources but US data indicates that it's those in lower socio-economic status neighbourhoods that tend to gamble. So if there is self-selection, you could argue that it was only certain voters in certain parts of G&D that took part. Add to the ethnic/religious mix (do Muslims gamble?) then the poll is about as useful as a Horoscope.
You can check yours here.
It’s good to be confident but don’t overdo it and think you can make a success of something that even experts are reluctant to attempt. If you insist on having a go, be sure to prepare well and have the support of friends. Don’t climb mountains without back-up.
I don't know how much things like postcode lotteries get thought of as gambling (though they are).
It must be hard to adequately sample the young and those religious groups that do not gamble.
Demographic balancing of samples must be a real problem for them.
If my experience in Morocco are any kind of indication, quite a few Muslims drink. A lot.
IIRC the online lottery that FON uses is free, which can be used as an excuse to get round religious prohibitions. See “Vodka is made from potatoes, so isn’t ‘fruit of the grape’”
Muslim *men* as a lady Muslim friend said with disgust.
But yes, free to enter means it's not gambling. The early horseracing meetings in Dubai had no betting, obviously, but there were free competitions to pick all the winners. I do not know what they are like now.
Same nowadays. There’s a ‘competition’ to pick all of the winners, correct answers entered into a raffle at the end of the day with prizes of gold bars and cars.
That, and everyone in the stands trying to get one of those non-physical and non-public connections on their phones, to find more traditional ways of predicting the results…
Andrew is damned by the fact that he paid £12m in damages to Victoria Giuffre. An innocent man would not have done so.
To be pedantic, he didn’t pay it. Brenda wouldn’t have paid it and Charlie wouldn’t have okayed it if they thought Andrew was innocent.
Paying to make legal nuisances go away is not that uncommon (and what I mean is that I've seen it twice and IANAL). Even in the criminal world, arguably the American plea deal system works on that basis, as do our incentives to plead guilty or accept a caution.
Settlement of a civil claim, for which there is a lower burden of proof, is an entirely different matter to whether there is evidence for criminal charges
Different matter to whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
One of our lawyers will be able to say if the actual standard for sufficient evidence is different, rather than just the standard of proof.
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
I suppose it depends on where the crime was committed and what the relevant laws are in that jurisdiction. So, for example, a 50 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old in New York is illegal. In London it is only deeply creepy.
I doubt the UK police feel they have much to go on. That said it would be fun to see the US authorities issue a warrent for his arrest.
If the 16 year old was paid, that is illegal
Agreed. But again I assume you would need to prove both knowledge and intent.
Paying (or rather, having Mummy pay) £12m quid suggests that one or both advised he was on very shaky ground.
Note that the graphic contains the text "...Margin of error is displayed at +/- 4%. All polls are subject to a wide range of potential sources of error. On the basis of the historical record of the polls at recent general elections, there is a 9 in 10 chance that the true value of a party's support lies within 4 points of the estimates provided by this poll, and a 2 in three chance that they lie within 2 points..."
This statement obeys the British Polling Council rules concerning margin of error.
The changes since the last IPSOS poll in November are:
Reform -3 Labour +4 Conservative +3 Green -3 Liberal Democrat nc
A recovery for the duopoly and a big cut in the Reform lead though even on those numbers probably a majority for Mr Farage.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are receding month on month. Add in rampant tactical voting to keep him out and I reckon by the summer his chance has probably already gone.
I admit to a dilemma of sorts on this - there's part of me that says there are only two coherent positions - legalisation or prohibition. In other words, define what drugs are or should be acceptable and legalise them and for all others complete prohibition.
The other side of this is the longer term impacts of drug abuse which seem as cumulative and damage as long term alcohol abuse but nobody suggests we ban alcohol (though I note consumption is falling).
The trouble is the debate gets shut down before it starts but the truth is we cannot resource a wholly prohibitive stance - we know people take illegal substances and become addicted to them. As an aside, there's also the not inconsiderable issue of addiction to prescription medication such as painkillers and tranquillisers which is rarely discussed.
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
I suppose it depends on where the crime was committed and what the relevant laws are in that jurisdiction. So, for example, a 50 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old in New York is illegal. In London it is only deeply creepy.
I doubt the UK police feel they have much to go on. That said it would be fun to see the US authorities issue a warrent for his arrest.
If the 16 year old was paid, that is illegal
Agreed. But again I assume you would need to prove both knowledge and intent.
Paying (or rather, having Mummy pay) £12m quid suggests that one or both advised he was on very shaky ground.
Settling to avoid the publicity of the trial is pretty common. Andrew was definitely guilty of immoral behaviour, even if it wasn’t illegal or actionable behaviour.
I've noticed that it has become common for people (usually Labour fans) to claim that @FindOutNowUK ranks Reform UK as massively higher in polls than every single other pollster.
This is objectively false. It is simply not true. Majority of pollsters have Reform on 30% or above
I admit to a dilemma of sorts on this - there's part of me that says there are only two coherent positions - legalisation or prohibition. In other words, define what drugs are or should be acceptable and legalise them and for all others complete prohibition.
The other side of this is the longer term impacts of drug abuse which seem as cumulative and damage as long term alcohol abuse but nobody suggests we ban alcohol (though I note consumption is falling).
The trouble is the debate gets shut down before it starts but the truth is we cannot resource a wholly prohibitive stance - we know people take illegal substances and become addicted to them. As an aside, there's also the not inconsiderable issue of addiction to prescription medication such as painkillers and tranquillisers which is rarely discussed.
The fall in alcohol drinkers is quite sharp. End of 2024, 19% of Brits hadn't drunk alcohol all year. By the end of last year, that was at 24% - almost 1 in 4 not touching alcohol.
Seems not to be such a big thing with Da Yoof. Although, with his pewter tankard behind the bar of his local, Farage (and his MAGA chums) will probably point to it being proof of the Islamification of Britain...
I admit to a dilemma of sorts on this - there's part of me that says there are only two coherent positions - legalisation or prohibition. In other words, define what drugs are or should be acceptable and legalise them and for all others complete prohibition.
The other side of this is the longer term impacts of drug abuse which seem as cumulative and damage as long term alcohol abuse but nobody suggests we ban alcohol (though I note consumption is falling).
The trouble is the debate gets shut down before it starts but the truth is we cannot resource a wholly prohibitive stance - we know people take illegal substances and become addicted to them. As an aside, there's also the not inconsiderable issue of addiction to prescription medication such as painkillers and tranquillisers which is rarely discussed.
The problem is that Western governments don’t take one or other of the coherent positions, they try to take a mushy middle road which is the worst of all worlds.
Either resource a ban properly, as seen in Asia; or sell pretty much anything at pharmacies, produced by reputable companies.
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
I suppose it depends on where the crime was committed and what the relevant laws are in that jurisdiction. So, for example, a 50 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old in New York is illegal. In London it is only deeply creepy.
I doubt the UK police feel they have much to go on. That said it would be fun to see the US authorities issue a warrent for his arrest.
If the 16 year old was paid, that is illegal
Agreed. But again I assume you would need to prove both knowledge and intent.
Paying (or rather, having Mummy pay) £12m quid suggests that one or both advised he was on very shaky ground.
Settling to avoid the publicity of the trial is pretty common. Andrew was definitely guilty of immoral behaviour, even if it wasn’t illegal or actionable behaviour.
Still, the settling to avoid publicity thing worked out really well.
Can't find any UK sources but US data indicates that it's those in lower socio-economic status neighbourhoods that tend to gamble. So if there is self-selection, you could argue that it was only certain voters in certain parts of G&D that took part. Add to the ethnic/religious mix (do Muslims gamble?) then the poll is about as useful as a Horoscope.
You can check yours here.
It’s good to be confident but don’t overdo it and think you can make a success of something that even experts are reluctant to attempt. If you insist on having a go, be sure to prepare well and have the support of friends. Don’t climb mountains without back-up.
I don't know how much things like postcode lotteries get thought of as gambling (though they are).
It must be hard to adequately sample the young and those religious groups that do not gamble.
Demographic balancing of samples must be a real problem for them.
If my experience in Morocco are any kind of indication, quite a few Muslims drink. A lot.
IIRC the online lottery that FON uses is free, which can be used as an excuse to get round religious prohibitions. See “Vodka is made from potatoes, so isn’t ‘fruit of the grape’”
Muslim *men* as a lady Muslim friend said with disgust.
But yes, free to enter means it's not gambling. The early horseracing meetings in Dubai had no betting, obviously, but there were free competitions to pick all the winners. I do not know what they are like now.
Same nowadays. There’s a ‘competition’ to pick all of the winners, correct answers entered into a raffle at the end of the day with prizes of gold bars and cars.
That, and everyone in the stands trying to get one of those non-physical and non-public connections on their phones, to find more traditional ways of predicting the results…
How many people pick all the winners on a race card in one afternoon?
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
I suppose it depends on where the crime was committed and what the relevant laws are in that jurisdiction. So, for example, a 50 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old in New York is illegal. In London it is only deeply creepy.
I doubt the UK police feel they have much to go on. That said it would be fun to see the US authorities issue a warrent for his arrest.
If the 16 year old was paid, that is illegal
Agreed. But again I assume you would need to prove both knowledge and intent.
Paying (or rather, having Mummy pay) £12m quid suggests that one or both advised he was on very shaky ground.
Settling to avoid the publicity of the trial is pretty common. Andrew was definitely guilty of immoral behaviour, even if it wasn’t illegal or actionable behaviour.
We can all have our view on whether his forceful and shaming expulsion from The Firm was based on behaviour that wasn't illegal or actionable.
I fully support the legalisation of cannabis but Class A drugs like heroin shouldn’t be .
I think they should be regulated and controlled but I don't think that they should be illegal. So, for example, heroin should be available on prescription at shooting up centres where their impact can be monitored and any overdose treated immediately. Such prescribed drugs will not have been diluted with poisonous chemicals and all the sh1t of the day. Some of the adulterants used are almost beyond belief.
Alternative medication, health support and help with withdrawal should also be available. In the first 9 months of 2025 there were 898 drug deaths in Scotland, 8% up on the previous year and no doubt the worst in Europe once again.
Keeping them illegal is just not working and the price is too high. We need to find an alternative.
I admit to a dilemma of sorts on this - there's part of me that says there are only two coherent positions - legalisation or prohibition. In other words, define what drugs are or should be acceptable and legalise them and for all others complete prohibition.
The other side of this is the longer term impacts of drug abuse which seem as cumulative and damage as long term alcohol abuse but nobody suggests we ban alcohol (though I note consumption is falling).
The trouble is the debate gets shut down before it starts but the truth is we cannot resource a wholly prohibitive stance - we know people take illegal substances and become addicted to them. As an aside, there's also the not inconsiderable issue of addiction to prescription medication such as painkillers and tranquillisers which is rarely discussed.
We should legalise and then use public health policy to warn about the dangers of drugs and try to reduce usage. As we have seen with alcohol and tobacco, it is perfectly possible to see a sustained reduction in usage of a drug that remains legal.
If drugs were legal (in a controlled pharmacy type way for the harder drugs, not your local Tesco's) then:
- The organised crime in the UK that is largely built around the drug trade would reduce very significantly as so much of the profit comes from drugs. - Existing drug users would have access to safer drugs than the sometimes dangerous crap dealers provide - Public health policy can ensure all such drugs have warning labels akin to Tobacco and can help to monitor and reduce drug usage over time, whereas it all flies under the radar at present. Frequent offering of rehab type help or discouraging new users. - We get meaningful tax revenue on the drugs like we do on tobacco and alcohol.
We don't as a society want harsh prison sentences for someone doing a bit of coke. We also don't more people doing drugs given it's bad for them. What politicians don't seem to have grasped that legalisation can be a means to reduce usage over the medium-term while having other benefits mentioned.
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
I suppose it depends on where the crime was committed and what the relevant laws are in that jurisdiction. So, for example, a 50 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old in New York is illegal. In London it is only deeply creepy.
I doubt the UK police feel they have much to go on. That said it would be fun to see the US authorities issue a warrent for his arrest.
If the 16 year old was paid, that is illegal
Agreed. But again I assume you would need to prove both knowledge and intent.
Paying (or rather, having Mummy pay) £12m quid suggests that one or both advised he was on very shaky ground.
Settling to avoid the publicity of the trial is pretty common. Andrew was definitely guilty of immoral behaviour, even if it wasn’t illegal or actionable behaviour.
Still, the settling to avoid publicity thing worked out really well.
Better than several weeks of front page headlines during a trial, with loads of new information coming out on a daily basis.
The changes since the last IPSOS poll in November are:
Reform -3 Labour +4 Conservative +3 Green -3 Liberal Democrat nc
A recovery for the duopoly and a big cut in the Reform lead though even on those numbers probably a majority for Mr Farage.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are receding month on month. Add in rampant tactical voting to keep him out and I reckon by the summer his chance has probably already gone.
If Farage wins most seats and on that poll he still easily would, he will become PM. Even if the Tories don't give him confidence and supply they won't give it to Labour either.
Reform need to fall from 25-30% to 20-25% for Labour to likely remain in power instead
Can't find any UK sources but US data indicates that it's those in lower socio-economic status neighbourhoods that tend to gamble. So if there is self-selection, you could argue that it was only certain voters in certain parts of G&D that took part. Add to the ethnic/religious mix (do Muslims gamble?) then the poll is about as useful as a Horoscope.
You can check yours here.
It’s good to be confident but don’t overdo it and think you can make a success of something that even experts are reluctant to attempt. If you insist on having a go, be sure to prepare well and have the support of friends. Don’t climb mountains without back-up.
I don't know how much things like postcode lotteries get thought of as gambling (though they are).
It must be hard to adequately sample the young and those religious groups that do not gamble.
Demographic balancing of samples must be a real problem for them.
If my experience in Morocco are any kind of indication, quite a few Muslims drink. A lot.
IIRC the online lottery that FON uses is free, which can be used as an excuse to get round religious prohibitions. See “Vodka is made from potatoes, so isn’t ‘fruit of the grape’”
Muslim *men* as a lady Muslim friend said with disgust.
But yes, free to enter means it's not gambling. The early horseracing meetings in Dubai had no betting, obviously, but there were free competitions to pick all the winners. I do not know what they are like now.
Same nowadays. There’s a ‘competition’ to pick all of the winners, correct answers entered into a raffle at the end of the day with prizes of gold bars and cars.
That, and everyone in the stands trying to get one of those non-physical and non-public connections on their phones, to find more traditional ways of predicting the results…
How many people pick all the winners on a race card in one afternoon?
Good question. They usually have a dozen or so prizes for the big meetings, with 60k or so in attendance for the World Cup.
I’d guess between dozens and hundreds, depending on the results themselves. One shock result could make a considerable difference, compared to all the races going roughly to the form book.
The changes since the last IPSOS poll in November are:
Reform -3 Labour +4 Conservative +3 Green -3 Liberal Democrat nc
A recovery for the duopoly and a big cut in the Reform lead though even on those numbers probably a majority for Mr Farage.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are receding month on month. Add in rampant tactical voting to keep him out and I reckon by the summer his chance has probably already gone.
If Farage wins most seats and on that poll he still easily would, he will become PM. Even if the Tories don't give him confidence and supply they won't give it to Labour either.
Reform need to fall from 25-30% to 20-25% for Labour to likely remain in power instead
If we end up with Reform 25% Con 25% Lab 25% I am going to say bad words.
I admit to a dilemma of sorts on this - there's part of me that says there are only two coherent positions - legalisation or prohibition. In other words, define what drugs are or should be acceptable and legalise them and for all others complete prohibition.
The other side of this is the longer term impacts of drug abuse which seem as cumulative and damage as long term alcohol abuse but nobody suggests we ban alcohol (though I note consumption is falling).
The trouble is the debate gets shut down before it starts but the truth is we cannot resource a wholly prohibitive stance - we know people take illegal substances and become addicted to them. As an aside, there's also the not inconsiderable issue of addiction to prescription medication such as painkillers and tranquillisers which is rarely discussed.
The fall in alcohol drinkers is quite sharp. End of 2024, 19% of Brits hadn't drunk alcohol all year. By the end of last year, that was at 24% - almost 1 in 4 not touching alcohol.
Seems not to be such a big thing with Da Yoof. Although, with his pewter tankard behind the bar of his local, Farage (and his MAGA chums) will probably point to it being proof of the Islamification of Britain...
Annual deaths in the UK:
From smoking 80,000 From alcohol 10,000 From heroin 1,500
The debate on legalising drugs is highly emotional. "Heroin - oh my god!!" That's why, above, I suggested a rational framework.
Professor David Nutt, Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, was fired in 2009 by then Home Secretary Alan Johnson, for taking an evidence-based approach to drug classification.
He published a lecture stating that alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy, and cannabis. He also publicly criticised the government's decision to reclassify cannabis from Class C back to Class B, arguing the move was politically motivated and not supported by scientific evidence.
Finally In a research paper, Nutt compared the risks of taking ecstasy to the risks of horse riding (which he termed "equasy"), arguing that the latter was statistically more dangerous.
Meanwhile cocaine is sniffed in the toilets of parliament. There is a lot of hypocrisy in the debate on legalising drugs. I'm glad that Polanski is up front about it. The more I hear him, the more I admire him.
Looking at the Denton byelection Starmer's judgement couldn't have been more flawed. if Burnham had lost the blame would be his alone and Starmer could have enjoyed the next three years. if he'd won it would have killed the threat from the Greens and Starmer and Labour would have the momentum.
Burnham's whining since last weekend demonstrating he is not the King of the North he thinks he is.
Worst result for the Republicans in a Texas special election seat since 1991.
The problem is, every time one of these happens it gives a further incentive to the Republicans to rig the ballot in November.
In an ideal world the Democrats come up on the inside without the Republicans noticing so that they don't have time to suppress voters or tamper with voting machines.
Here is a link to the Fox News article on the subject:
You will notice that the comments underneath are claiming that there must have been ballot rigging and are calling for ballot suppression measures, in effect.
We know that genuinely democratic election the Republicans would be pounded like one of TSE's favourite metaphors, and and so do they. That is one reason why we should all be very cautious about how many gains the Democrats will make, because the Republicans have every incentive and every indication that they will need to rig the ballots to win and that is what they will do.
Has Starmer really though through his statement that Andrew M-W should assist the US authorities?
Not opposed to this if the US authorities require this.
But if Andrew should answer questions then so should Peter Mandelson who appears to have -
- lied about his knowledge of Epstein's behaviour; - received money from a man involved in and convicted of sex trafficking (why?); - used Epstein as some sort of adviser on government deals (why?), - failed to be transparent about any of this to the relevant Parliamentary and Cabinet bodies
and who for part of this period was a senior member of the government and later U.K. ambassador to the US.
IMO the questions for Mandelson are just as serious and they are ones which ought to be asked by the authorities here. He is still a member of the legislature here.
Well done to SpaceX, for working with the Ukranians to stop Russian drones from using Starlink over Ukrainian airspace, while whitelisting Ukranian military drones.
Has Starmer really though through his statement that Andrew M-W should assist the US authorities?
Not opposed to this if the US authorities require this.
But if Andrew should answer questions then so should Peter Mandelson who appears to have -
- lied about his knowledge of Epstein's behaviour; - received money from a man involved in and convicted of sex trafficking (why?); - used Epstein as some sort of adviser on government deals (why?), - failed to be transparent about any of this to the relevant Parliamentary and Cabinet bodies
and who for part of this period was a senior member of the government and later U.K. ambassador to the US.
IMO the questions for Mandelson are just as serious and they are ones which ought to be asked by the authorities here. He is still a member of the legislature here.
I think it's also fair to say Starmer has some rather awkward questions to answer about Mandelson.
I mean, did the DoJ really not share this material with intelligence agencies? And therefore with us?
Because if they didn't they are negligent but if they did, how on Earth could Starmer think Mandelson was fit to be our Ambassador?
Has Starmer really though through his statement that Andrew M-W should assist the US authorities?
Not opposed to this if the US authorities require this.
But if Andrew should answer questions then so should Peter Mandelson who appears to have -
- lied about his knowledge of Epstein's behaviour; - received money from a man involved in and convicted of sex trafficking (why?); - used Epstein as some sort of adviser on government deals (why?), - failed to be transparent about any of this to the relevant Parliamentary and Cabinet bodies
and who for part of this period was a senior member of the government and later U.K. ambassador to the US.
IMO the questions for Mandelson are just as serious and they are ones which ought to be asked by the authorities here. He is still a member of the legislature here.
I think it's also fair to say Starmer has some rather awkward questions to answer about Mandelson.
I mean, did the DoJ really not share this material with intelligence agencies? And therefore with us?
Because if they didn't they are negligent but if they did, how on Earth could Starmer think Mandelson was fit to be our Ambassador?
Can't find any UK sources but US data indicates that it's those in lower socio-economic status neighbourhoods that tend to gamble. So if there is self-selection, you could argue that it was only certain voters in certain parts of G&D that took part. Add to the ethnic/religious mix (do Muslims gamble?) then the poll is about as useful as a Horoscope.
You can check yours here.
It’s good to be confident but don’t overdo it and think you can make a success of something that even experts are reluctant to attempt. If you insist on having a go, be sure to prepare well and have the support of friends. Don’t climb mountains without back-up.
I don't know how much things like postcode lotteries get thought of as gambling (though they are).
It must be hard to adequately sample the young and those religious groups that do not gamble.
Demographic balancing of samples must be a real problem for them.
If my experience in Morocco are any kind of indication, quite a few Muslims drink. A lot.
IIRC the online lottery that FON uses is free, which can be used as an excuse to get round religious prohibitions. See “Vodka is made from potatoes, so isn’t ‘fruit of the grape’”
Muslim *men* as a lady Muslim friend said with disgust.
But yes, free to enter means it's not gambling. The early horseracing meetings in Dubai had no betting, obviously, but there were free competitions to pick all the winners. I do not know what they are like now.
The proposition by which say, William Hill's, make all bets free of stake money but fund themselves and the winning payouts by some other means - attracting advertisers, voluntary donation, corporate sponsorship, state subsidy, a local sales tax - sounds the sort of idea that would commend itself to Ukridge. There is a flaw in it somewhere.
The changes since the last IPSOS poll in November are:
Reform -3 Labour +4 Conservative +3 Green -3 Liberal Democrat nc
A recovery for the duopoly and a big cut in the Reform lead though even on those numbers probably a majority for Mr Farage.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are receding month on month. Add in rampant tactical voting to keep him out and I reckon by the summer his chance has probably already gone.
Reading tea leaves in poll changes like this… given the error bars.
Has Starmer really though through his statement that Andrew M-W should assist the US authorities?
Not opposed to this if the US authorities require this.
But if Andrew should answer questions then so should Peter Mandelson who appears to have -
- lied about his knowledge of Epstein's behaviour; - received money from a man involved in and convicted of sex trafficking (why?); - used Epstein as some sort of adviser on government deals (why?), - failed to be transparent about any of this to the relevant Parliamentary and Cabinet bodies
and who for part of this period was a senior member of the government and later U.K. ambassador to the US.
IMO the questions for Mandelson are just as serious and they are ones which ought to be asked by the authorities here. He is still a member of the legislature here.
I think it's also fair to say Starmer has some rather awkward questions to answer about Mandelson.
I mean, did the DoJ really not share this material with intelligence agencies? And therefore with us?
Because if they didn't they are negligent but if they did, how on Earth could Starmer think Mandelson was fit to be our Ambassador?
The most striking thing about this clip from 2024 where Starmer says he knows nothing is how much more youthful he sounds.
Has Starmer really though through his statement that Andrew M-W should assist the US authorities?
Not opposed to this if the US authorities require this.
But if Andrew should answer questions then so should Peter Mandelson who appears to have -
- lied about his knowledge of Epstein's behaviour; - received money from a man involved in and convicted of sex trafficking (why?); - used Epstein as some sort of adviser on government deals (why?), - failed to be transparent about any of this to the relevant Parliamentary and Cabinet bodies
and who for part of this period was a senior member of the government and later U.K. ambassador to the US.
IMO the questions for Mandelson are just as serious and they are ones which ought to be asked by the authorities here. He is still a member of the legislature here.
And was bought back into government. Has anyone ever really answered who knew what in the vetting process for the Ambassadorship? Or did someone say “Mandy is a Sound Chap. One of Us. No need”?
Has Starmer really though through his statement that Andrew M-W should assist the US authorities?
Not opposed to this if the US authorities require this.
But if Andrew should answer questions then so should Peter Mandelson who appears to have -
- lied about his knowledge of Epstein's behaviour; - received money from a man involved in and convicted of sex trafficking (why?); - used Epstein as some sort of adviser on government deals (why?), - failed to be transparent about any of this to the relevant Parliamentary and Cabinet bodies
and who for part of this period was a senior member of the government and later U.K. ambassador to the US.
IMO the questions for Mandelson are just as serious and they are ones which ought to be asked by the authorities here. He is still a member of the legislature here.
I think it's also fair to say Starmer has some rather awkward questions to answer about Mandelson.
I mean, did the DoJ really not share this material with intelligence agencies? And therefore with us?
Because if they didn't they are negligent but if they did, how on Earth could Starmer think Mandelson was fit to be our Ambassador?
The most striking thing about this clip from 2024 where Starmer says he knows nothing is how much more youthful he sounds.
Has Starmer really though through his statement that Andrew M-W should assist the US authorities?
Not opposed to this if the US authorities require this.
But if Andrew should answer questions then so should Peter Mandelson who appears to have -
- lied about his knowledge of Epstein's behaviour; - received money from a man involved in and convicted of sex trafficking (why?); - used Epstein as some sort of adviser on government deals (why?), - failed to be transparent about any of this to the relevant Parliamentary and Cabinet bodies
and who for part of this period was a senior member of the government and later U.K. ambassador to the US.
IMO the questions for Mandelson are just as serious and they are ones which ought to be asked by the authorities here. He is still a member of the legislature here.
I think distinction is that the DOJ and Congress have requested information/interview with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor but they haven't for Lord Mandelson.
Djokovic still only equal with Margaret Court's 24 major/grand slam wins.
Has his time finally passed?
It was always a tough ask to beat the world 1 and 2 in two consecutive 5-set games. The next major is a clay court, which surely favours Alcaraz. After that, he will be 39 and time stands still for no one.
I think hes had a remarkable career, and will continue to trouble the top players for a year, or maybe two yet, before retiring. What he has done is surely highlight to players that you don't need to retire in your early 30s, and you can keep going til your body says no. If we see more veterans in sport challenging at the top end. thats a good thing
It would be extremely ironic if the best chance he had of adding to his slam total, was the year he was denied entry to Oz for not getting vaxed
Churchwarden linked to foreign-born billionaire is behind £200k Reform gift
The man whose firm made the donations will not discuss where the money came from, nor his ties to wealthy Farage allies who may not hold citizenship
A churchwarden from Potters Bar who works for the family of a highly secretive, Kazakhstan-born billionaire can be revealed as the man behind £200,000 of donations to Reform UK.
John Richard Simpson is a 59-year-old conveyancer whose parish website describes him as an “experienced” and “dedicated” Anglican lay leader.
He is the owner of Interior Architecture Landscape Limited, which made seven payments to Nigel Farage’s party last summer. The firm, which was originally owned via a trust in the British Virgin Islands, is so small it does not have to file professionally audited accounts. It did not display any contact details until recently and was almost wound up by HMRC after a tax dispute last year.
Simpson, known locally as Bill, “does conveyancing, but is not a fully qualified solicitor”, according to a Facebook post by a neighbour in the Hertfordshire town. There is no evidence he has any background in interior design. He has no known political affiliation or background in activism.
He would not discuss the source of the funds donated to Reform last week.
Has Starmer really though through his statement that Andrew M-W should assist the US authorities?
Not opposed to this if the US authorities require this.
But if Andrew should answer questions then so should Peter Mandelson who appears to have -
- lied about his knowledge of Epstein's behaviour; - received money from a man involved in and convicted of sex trafficking (why?); - used Epstein as some sort of adviser on government deals (why?), - failed to be transparent about any of this to the relevant Parliamentary and Cabinet bodies
and who for part of this period was a senior member of the government and later U.K. ambassador to the US.
IMO the questions for Mandelson are just as serious and they are ones which ought to be asked by the authorities here. He is still a member of the legislature here.
I think distinction is that the DOJ and Congress have requested information/interview with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor but they haven't for Lord Mandelson.
I'm genuinely surprised that Mandelson has enough money to come to an arrangement with the DoJ but Andy doesn't.
I admit to a dilemma of sorts on this - there's part of me that says there are only two coherent positions - legalisation or prohibition. In other words, define what drugs are or should be acceptable and legalise them and for all others complete prohibition.
The other side of this is the longer term impacts of drug abuse which seem as cumulative and damage as long term alcohol abuse but nobody suggests we ban alcohol (though I note consumption is falling).
The trouble is the debate gets shut down before it starts but the truth is we cannot resource a wholly prohibitive stance - we know people take illegal substances and become addicted to them. As an aside, there's also the not inconsiderable issue of addiction to prescription medication such as painkillers and tranquillisers which is rarely discussed.
The fall in alcohol drinkers is quite sharp. End of 2024, 19% of Brits hadn't drunk alcohol all year. By the end of last year, that was at 24% - almost 1 in 4 not touching alcohol.
Seems not to be such a big thing with Da Yoof. Although, with his pewter tankard behind the bar of his local, Farage (and his MAGA chums) will probably point to it being proof of the Islamification of Britain...
Annual deaths in the UK:
From smoking 80,000 From alcohol 10,000 From heroin 1,500
The debate on legalising drugs is highly emotional. "Heroin - oh my god!!" That's why, above, I suggested a rational framework.
Professor David Nutt, Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, was fired in 2009 by then Home Secretary Alan Johnson, for taking an evidence-based approach to drug classification.
He published a lecture stating that alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy, and cannabis. He also publicly criticised the government's decision to reclassify cannabis from Class C back to Class B, arguing the move was politically motivated and not supported by scientific evidence.
Finally In a research paper, Nutt compared the risks of taking ecstasy to the risks of horse riding (which he termed "equasy"), arguing that the latter was statistically more dangerous.
Meanwhile cocaine is sniffed in the toilets of parliament. There is a lot of hypocrisy in the debate on legalising drugs. I'm glad that Polanski is up front about it. The more I hear him, the more I admire him.
Thanks for the figures Barnesian. You would think the death rates from smoking are on a time lag, given the significant drop off of smokers in the last 20 years. The big thing now is vaping, very popular amongst under 35s. Parts of Europe (Italy, eastern Europe) its still the traditional fag among the younger generation
Comments
What could possibly go wrong.
I see and hear that a councillor who is a member of an authority for which the elections have been cancelled this May intends to resign, no doubt for self-serving self promotion, and then stand again to be re-elected.
I am puzzled by this because as I remember when the Cumbrian District Elections were cancelled they also stopped holding by-elections for seats where councillors ceased to be. Surely the same will be happening this time ???
https://x.com/i/status/2017908333223493762
As you say lose and Starmer is strengthened, win and Starmer is strengthened
Starmer is rubbish at politics and more interested in his own survival
📊Reform UK +8-point lead over Labour – down from +15 in Nov 2025
📊The Green’s vote share of 12% is down from 15% in Nov 2025
📊Both Labour and Conservatives up from Nov 2025 – Labour +4, Conservatives +3
https://x.com/ipsos_in_the_uk/status/2017908333223493762?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
1. How addictive is it? Physical or psychological.
2. How damaging is it? Physical or psychological.
3. Should the state intervene? Legal sanctions or health support.
Rank the following addictions against the three questions:
0 = none 5 = extremely
a. cocaine
b. liquor
c. mindless scrolling
d. tobacco
e. cannabis
f. spending all day on PB
g. heroin
h. gambling
Reform 30 (-3)
Labour 22 (+4)
Conservative 19 (+3)
Green 12 (-3)
Lib Dem 12 (n/c)
Other 5 (-1?)
(Change from 30 Oct – 5 Nov)
Good leaders always want their best players in the team, William Hague for example not only allowed Michael Portillo to contest Kensington and Chelsea in the 1999 by election but also made him his Shadow Chancellor.
Even Starmer has now backtracked a bit, saying he would not block Burnham being a Labour candidate at the next general election
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
If the girl was 20, she was an adult. Was she bound and gagged or drugged to get her on the aeroplane? Was she paid?
Has his time finally passed?
You do seem to be an Andrew apologist
Altogether now:
My court expansion good, your court expansion bad.
This is objectively false. It is simply not true. Majority of pollsters have Reform on 30% or above
https://x.com/leftiestats/status/2017608672680214559?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
“There is no suggestion that either clubman or girl would recognize a double bed except as so much extra sweat to make an apple-pie of.”
Possible comparisons to Wodehouse in this sense might be Trollope and our great cartoonist Matt.
I doubt the UK police feel they have much to go on. That said it would be fun to see the US authorities issue a warrent for his arrest.
Brenda wouldn’t have paid it and Charlie wouldn’t have okayed it if they thought Andrew was innocent.
The Grand Old Duke of Yours,
He paid 12 million quid,
To someone whom he'd never met
For something he never did!
Even if the things that happened on Epstein Island were legal, they were still gross and not the sort of thing a gentleman does.
Andrew does no royal duties and has no royal titles anyway so what public opinion thinks of him now is irrelevant
What's also noticeable is that he wrote in the article that if the EU hadn't changed fundamentally back to being a trading block in 10 years, the UK should leave then. Ten years down the road, the EU has evolved into even more of a superstate, so by his own logic back then he should be a leaver now.
Incidentally, I'm not particularly picking on Sir Max for this - many were torn by the question and the conflicting considerations involved, and emotional factors were often as important as an intelligent weighing of the evidence, which was a slippery concept anyway. Boris, who Sir Max clearly despises, wrote two essays setting out the pros and cons before making his decision. So in that at least, Sir Max and he have more in common than one might think.
One of FON’s many problems is that they have Labour much lower than other pollsters.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/12/07/spot-the-outlier/
The masterminds of this were Epstein and Maxwell both of whom were charged and Maxwell is now in jail for it and Epstein died in jail
The changes since the last IPSOS poll in November are:
Reform -3
Labour +4
Conservative +3
Green -3
Liberal Democrat nc
A recovery for the duopoly and a big cut in the Reform lead though even on those numbers probably a majority for Mr Farage.
That, and everyone in the stands trying to get one of those non-physical and non-public connections on their phones, to find more traditional ways of predicting the results…
One of our lawyers will be able to say if the actual standard for sufficient evidence is different, rather than just the standard of proof.
This statement obeys the British Polling Council rules concerning margin of error.
https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/rules-of-disclosure/
https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/objects-and-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8g7ymq959o
I admit to a dilemma of sorts on this - there's part of me that says there are only two coherent positions - legalisation or prohibition. In other words, define what drugs are or should be acceptable and legalise them and for all others complete prohibition.
The other side of this is the longer term impacts of drug abuse which seem as cumulative and damage as long term alcohol abuse but nobody suggests we ban alcohol (though I note consumption is falling).
The trouble is the debate gets shut down before it starts but the truth is we cannot resource a wholly prohibitive stance - we know people take illegal substances and become addicted to them. As an aside, there's also the not inconsiderable issue of addiction to prescription medication such as painkillers and tranquillisers which is rarely discussed.
Seems not to be such a big thing with Da Yoof. Although, with his pewter tankard behind the bar of his local, Farage (and his MAGA chums) will probably point to it being proof of the Islamification of Britain...
Either resource a ban properly, as seen in Asia; or sell pretty much anything at pharmacies, produced by reputable companies.
Alternative medication, health support and help with withdrawal should also be available. In the first 9 months of 2025 there were 898 drug deaths in Scotland, 8% up on the previous year and no doubt the worst in Europe once again.
Keeping them illegal is just not working and the price is too high. We need to find an alternative.
If drugs were legal (in a controlled pharmacy type way for the harder drugs, not your local Tesco's) then:
- The organised crime in the UK that is largely built around the drug trade would reduce very significantly as so much of the profit comes from drugs.
- Existing drug users would have access to safer drugs than the sometimes dangerous crap dealers provide
- Public health policy can ensure all such drugs have warning labels akin to Tobacco and can help to monitor and reduce drug usage over time, whereas it all flies under the radar at present. Frequent offering of rehab type help or discouraging new users.
- We get meaningful tax revenue on the drugs like we do on tobacco and alcohol.
We don't as a society want harsh prison sentences for someone doing a bit of coke. We also don't more people doing drugs given it's bad for them. What politicians don't seem to have grasped that legalisation can be a means to reduce usage over the medium-term while having other benefits mentioned.
Reform need to fall from 25-30% to 20-25% for Labour to likely remain in power instead
I’d guess between dozens and hundreds, depending on the results themselves. One shock result could make a considerable difference, compared to all the races going roughly to the form book.
From smoking 80,000
From alcohol 10,000
From heroin 1,500
The debate on legalising drugs is highly emotional. "Heroin - oh my god!!" That's why, above, I suggested a rational framework.
Professor David Nutt, Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, was fired in 2009 by then Home Secretary Alan Johnson, for taking an evidence-based approach to drug classification.
He published a lecture stating that alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy, and cannabis. He also publicly criticised the government's decision to reclassify cannabis from Class C back to Class B, arguing the move was politically motivated and not supported by scientific evidence.
Finally In a research paper, Nutt compared the risks of taking ecstasy to the risks of horse riding (which he termed "equasy"), arguing that the latter was statistically more dangerous.
Meanwhile cocaine is sniffed in the toilets of parliament.
There is a lot of hypocrisy in the debate on legalising drugs.
I'm glad that Polanski is up front about it. The more I hear him, the more I admire him.
In an ideal world the Democrats come up on the inside without the Republicans noticing so that they don't have time to suppress voters or tamper with voting machines.
Here is a link to the Fox News article on the subject:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-score-big-typically-red-texas-district-trump-easily-won-2024
You will notice that the comments underneath are claiming that there must have been ballot rigging and are calling for ballot suppression measures, in effect.
We know that genuinely democratic election the Republicans would be pounded like one of TSE's favourite metaphors, and and so do they. That is one reason why we should all be very cautious about how many gains the Democrats will make, because the Republicans have every incentive and every indication that they will need to rig the ballots to win and that is what they will do.
Not opposed to this if the US authorities require this.
But if Andrew should answer questions then so should Peter Mandelson who appears to have -
- lied about his knowledge of Epstein's behaviour;
- received money from a man involved in and convicted of sex trafficking (why?);
- used Epstein as some sort of adviser on government deals (why?),
- failed to be transparent about any of this to the relevant Parliamentary and Cabinet bodies
and who for part of this period was a senior member of the government and later U.K. ambassador to the US.
IMO the questions for Mandelson are just as serious and they are ones which ought to be asked by the authorities here. He is still a member of the legislature here.
https://x.com/fedorovmykhailo/status/2017882773759955059
https://x.com/tendar/status/2017934388156092797
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2017868971479818599
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/democrat-taylor-rehmet-wins-reliably-republican-texas-state-129747013
I mean, did the DoJ really not share this material with intelligence agencies? And therefore with us?
Because if they didn't they are negligent but if they did, how on Earth could Starmer think Mandelson was fit to be our Ambassador?
https://x.com/SaulStaniforth/status/2017875398969758101
I predicted that within weeks/months of leaving the EU the UK would experience a massive recession, see unemployment spike, and see borrowing explode.
I was right, but for all the wrong reasons.
See when on those rare occasions I'm wrong, I'm usually right.
I think hes had a remarkable career, and will continue to trouble the top players for a year, or maybe two yet, before retiring. What he has done is surely highlight to players that you don't need to retire in your early 30s, and you can keep going til your body says no. If we see more veterans in sport challenging at the top end. thats a good thing
It would be extremely ironic if the best chance he had of adding to his slam total, was the year he was denied entry to Oz for not getting vaxed
Churchwarden linked to foreign-born billionaire is behind £200k Reform gift
The man whose firm made the donations will not discuss where the money came from, nor his ties to wealthy Farage allies who may not hold citizenship
A churchwarden from Potters Bar who works for the family of a highly secretive, Kazakhstan-born billionaire can be revealed as the man behind £200,000 of donations to Reform UK.
John Richard Simpson is a 59-year-old conveyancer whose parish website describes him as an “experienced” and “dedicated” Anglican lay leader.
He is the owner of Interior Architecture Landscape Limited, which made seven payments to Nigel Farage’s party last summer. The firm, which was originally owned via a trust in the British Virgin Islands, is so small it does not have to file professionally audited accounts. It did not display any contact details until recently and was almost wound up by HMRC after a tax dispute last year.
Simpson, known locally as Bill, “does conveyancing, but is not a fully qualified solicitor”, according to a Facebook post by a neighbour in the Hertfordshire town. There is no evidence he has any background in interior design. He has no known political affiliation or background in activism.
He would not discuss the source of the funds donated to Reform last week.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/churchwarden-linked-to-foreign-born-billionaire-is-behind-200k-reform-gift-j06pb7w82