politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » John Curtice on the exit poll

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stereotomy said:

Could somebody give a full list of polls we expect between now and election night?

Yes

3 YouGovs

2 Populus, Tues & Wednesday

1 ICM/Guardian on Wednesday

1 ComRes phone poll on Wednesday

1 Ipsos Mori on Thursday morning

1 Lord Ashcroft poll on Tuesday.

1 Survation either Tuesday or Wednesday

There maybe others, but those are the ones I know about.

Are polls allowed to be published on Thursday (election day)?

Yes

Hmmm.... looks like the final ELBOW of the campaign will include all polls from 1st May to the 7th., not the 6th.

The fieldwork would have ended by the 6th

notme said:

SouthamObserver said:

All our parties believe in equality of the sexes, don't they? Surely it's not just a Labour thing.

Certainly the one that had a woman as party leader for fifteen years does. The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression, which if it was in any other circumstance, they wouldnt hesitate getting on their high horse.

If this was a ukip gathering at a golf club which did not allow full female membership, Harmon would be condemning it out of hand. Could you imagine, the women having to sit in a different part of the club house and listen to Nigel Farage because they werent full members?

Im thinking of the twitter campaigns, the hashtags.

Not sure how that photo shows us the oppression of women. Can you explain?

My guess is that politicians from all major parties have addressed similar meetings. And that's probably why no-one is screaming blue murder.

chestnut said:

Tory win by 4% on Thursday.

Which would probably lead to a minority Tory government, with the Labour frontbench getting to veto as much Tory legislation as they want.

Neil said:

notme said:

The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression

Here is an example of Tory, Lib Dem and UKIP candidates attending an election event that women were banned from (never mind just forced to sit separately at):http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-attends-hustings-in-south-thanet--boycotted-by-greens-and-labour-for-menonly-audience-10000659.html

Feel free to express your outrage here.

I'm surprised that a group like Round Table would invite the canditates to a hustings of their members, they're normally a charity fundraising and community action type group.
I'm surprised that they didn't invite a more balanced audience.
I'm not surprised that some candidates didn't like the idea of an all-men affair
I'm surprised that Hattie didn't find a way to ban Round Table, Lions clubs and other such community action groups during her reign of equlity.

Big poll Thursday - Could understate Labour I hear

RepublicanTory said:

nigel4england said:

RepublicanTory said:

NickPalmer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

bigjohnowls said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

bigjohnowls said:

http://electionforecast.co.uk/

Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

Current price 6.0

Why?

Because Ed is Crap.

I believe it has been mentioned/factored in.

Why is EICIPM odds on?

Because the electoral system favours Labour over the Tories.

I might do another thread on electoral reform to educate/remind PBers.

Not really. It's because the Tories have no plausible allies. The LibDems who they're busy decapitating? The SNP who they're portraying as thieves and who are bound by party policy not to support them? Unless one thinks they could polevault to a majority themselves, it's hard to see any way that Cameron can stay in office.

The people of the UK voting for the Conservatives.

Or have YOU already called the election?

He's so arrogant it is unbelievable.

Further, what does he think he can do to improve the lot of the people of Broxtowe? He prefers Scandinavia to the UK, by his own postings he has no idea how the pension system works, and at one point criticized the DVLA for selling the details of his Great Aunt, when he was part of the government that voted to enable that to happen.

Man is an egotistical idiot, God help the people of Broxtowe.

On a wider point-I am really surprised at the number of Labour MP's -Dismore etc-that had to go in 2010 because of expense scandals and yet they are back in 2015.

Even though the BBC is all over the story these people ........

Th Shadow Cabinet is the same.

Can any party have lost as badly in one election come back 5 years later with so many of the top team in-situ?

Interesting question. Here's some info on Hague's shadow cabinet for comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Cabinet_of_William_Hague

Thing is, it's hard to compare like with like because frequently in the post-war era a defeated government loses a shedload of seats because the opposition comes through to win a majority. So by definition the shadow cabinet is pretty different simply by virtue of only including the survivors. The surprising resilience of Brown/crapness of Cameron means that there's a slighly different dynamic this time.

Polruan said:

Danny565 said:

Neil said:

notme said:

The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression

Here is an example of Tory, Lib Dem and UKIP candidates attending an election event that women were banned from (never mind just forced to sit separately at):http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-attends-hustings-in-south-thanet--boycotted-by-greens-and-labour-for-menonly-audience-10000659.html

Feel free to express your outrage here.

I'm struggling to see what the problem with a men-only debate is? We have women-only ones don't we?

I *think* the key problem is that you can't be outraged about Laboursegregationgate unless you also condemn a men-only debate tolerated by other parties. Something like that.

Any such thing should be unacceptable to anyone who is not broken as a human being.

I think Neil may have ended our little debate. Ho, ho.

Pulpstar said:

Big poll Thursday - Could understate Labour I hear

Hear that poll is going to be bad for Tories.

Neil said:

notme said:

The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression

Here is an example of Tory, Lib Dem and UKIP candidates attending an election event that women were banned from (never mind just forced to sit separately at):http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-attends-hustings-in-south-thanet--boycotted-by-greens-and-labour-for-menonly-audience-10000659.html

Feel free to express your outrage here.

Great post PB Tories all gone to bed I presume

SouthamObserver said:

I think Neil may have ended our little debate. Ho, ho.

I first read about that incident when MikeK reported here that the Green party had boycotted that hustings because all the *candidates* were male! It didnt sound right..

All Elbows point to a swing to the Tories - bearing in mind that with Yougov they were about to enter the lead when the methodology changed.

It is pretty incredible that after 5 years 'austerity' (which there wasn't) the Tories are polling (after losses to UKIP) so close to the 2010 levels.

However they need 3% more: 1.5% from Labour and 1.5% from Blue Kippers for coalition 2 to run smoothly. I think they are fully capable of getting it in the quiet of the polling booth, with the voters running scared.

surbiton said:

Neil said:

notme said:

The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression

Here is an example of Tory, Lib Dem and UKIP candidates attending an election event that women were banned from (never mind just forced to sit separately at):http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-attends-hustings-in-south-thanet--boycotted-by-greens-and-labour-for-menonly-audience-10000659.html

Feel free to express your outrage here.

Tories and UKIP, I am not surprised. But the Lib Dems under Clegg have now become Tory pr0stitutes. Pathetic !

Man : between you and Dair, I genuinely think I might be persuaded to vote Libdem.

isam said:

Simon Danczuk (@SimonDanczuk)
03/05/2015 16:09
Such a diverse political culture in #Rochdale - does make elections fun as this rally today shows! pic.twitter.com/Mcrwbx0BUE

Diverse? They are all Asian men except for Mr Danczuk!

SouthamObserver said:

notme said:

SouthamObserver said:

All our parties believe in equality of the sexes, don't they? Surely it's not just a Labour thing.

Certainly the one that had a woman as party leader for fifteen years does. The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression, which if it was in any other circumstance, they wouldnt hesitate getting on their high horse.

If this was a ukip gathering at a golf club which did not allow full female membership, Harmon would be condemning it out of hand. Could you imagine, the women having to sit in a different part of the club house and listen to Nigel Farage because they werent full members?

Im thinking of the twitter campaigns, the hashtags.

Not sure how that photo shows us the oppression of women. Can you explain?

My guess is that politicians from all major parties have addressed similar meetings. And that's probably why no-one is screaming blue murder.

Did you just say that....how about whites at the front of the bus, blacks at the back..oppression?

Neil said:

notme said:

The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression

Here is an example of Tory, Lib Dem and UKIP candidates attending an election event that women were banned from (never mind just forced to sit separately at):http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-attends-hustings-in-south-thanet--boycotted-by-greens-and-labour-for-menonly-audience-10000659.html

Feel free to express your outrage here.

Good on the Labour and Green candidates for sticking to their principles.

Not sure what the Round Table are getting involved in this in the first place, but hustings should be open to all.

RepublicanTory said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RepublicanTory said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stereotomy said:

Could somebody give a full list of polls we expect between now and election night?

Yes

3 YouGovs

2 Populus, Tues & Wednesday

1 ICM/Guardian on Wednesday

1 ComRes phone poll on Wednesday

1 Ipsos Mori on Thursday morning

1 Lord Ashcroft poll on Tuesday.

1 Survation either Tuesday or Wednesday

There maybe others, but those are the ones I know about.

Thanks TSE

And which ones will YOU be paying most interest to???

I pay attention to all the polls, but probably the phone polls and Ipsos Mori in particular.

Their fieldwork will have ended slightly later than ICM's, so if there's a late swing, Ipsos Mori might be able to pick it up

Thank you

Out of interest how is the canvassing going?

i had a day off today and took my youngest to The Wing-the newly opened battle of Britain visitor centre at Capel-le Ferne near Dover.

(Amazing-so if you are heading to the Continent in the summer come an hour or two earlier and visit!)

Back out tomorrow for a bit.

Still cant tell if Farage will be my MP on Friday-heart says we are catching up but head says we had too much to make up.

Canvassing is going great, if we lose, it won't be through a lack of effort.

Is an odd election, the public really don't seem engaged in the way they have been in the past.

Very few posters up for any party is a prime example.

Dair said:

Polruan said:

Danny565 said:

Neil said:

notme said:

The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression

Here is an example of Tory, Lib Dem and UKIP candidates attending an election event that women were banned from (never mind just forced to sit separately at):http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-attends-hustings-in-south-thanet--boycotted-by-greens-and-labour-for-menonly-audience-10000659.html

Feel free to express your outrage here.

I'm struggling to see what the problem with a men-only debate is? We have women-only ones don't we?

I *think* the key problem is that you can't be outraged about Laboursegregationgate unless you also condemn a men-only debate tolerated by other parties. Something like that.

Any such thing should be unacceptable to anyone who is not broken as a human being.

Dair, you seem very certain about these ethical principles - impressively so. I mean I'm a member of a religion that believes in divine revelation and I'm stll confused as fuck about how you manage the interaction of different moral imperatives.

I'm interested to know where you get these principles and certainties from. For example, you can derive equalities principles from the Christianity underlying a lot of British law, but contained within that strand of Christianity would be a strong respect for the views and practice of others that wouldn't make it a slam dunk to find other opinions "unacceptable" and "broken".

Or you could go the the UN declaration (which kind of flows from Rousseau et al and has more in common with continental secularism). Thing is, there's a massive tension there between Article 1 and Article 18, which between them protect gender equality and also public manifestation of relgious belief in practice and observance.

I reckon most of us roughly buy into both of those principles, but then it gets difficult to work out exactly what you do when they conflict. I don't find it straightforward to condemn anyone who gives some weight to article 18 as "broken as a human being". What's the framework that you're using that makes you so comfortable doing so?

RepublicanTory said:

Neil said:

notme said:

The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression

Here is an example of Tory, Lib Dem and UKIP candidates attending an election event that women were banned from (never mind just forced to sit separately at):http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-attends-hustings-in-south-thanet--boycotted-by-greens-and-labour-for-menonly-audience-10000659.html

Feel free to express your outrage here.

It was NOT women only.

You'd have thought they'd have managed to get that message across to the candidates involved!

As I've managed to go a whole 24 hours without expressing any outrage on the internet I wont start now.

FrancisUrquhart said:

SouthamObserver said:

notme said:

SouthamObserver said:

All our parties believe in equality of the sexes, don't they? Surely it's not just a Labour thing.

Certainly the one that had a woman as party leader for fifteen years does. The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression, which if it was in any other circumstance, they wouldnt hesitate getting on their high horse.

If this was a ukip gathering at a golf club which did not allow full female membership, Harmon would be condemning it out of hand. Could you imagine, the women having to sit in a different part of the club house and listen to Nigel Farage because they werent full members?

Im thinking of the twitter campaigns, the hashtags.

Not sure how that photo shows us the oppression of women. Can you explain?

My guess is that politicians from all major parties have addressed similar meetings. And that's probably why no-one is screaming blue murder.

Did you just say that....how about whites at the front of the bus, blacks at the back..oppression?

Yes, that's oppression. In segregationist America and apartheid South Africa blacks were also denied the vote and other basic rights. I am not a fan of dividing on grounds of gender, but in the UK women enjoy the same rights as men. If they choose to sit on one side of a room it's up to them. They are there though. Unlike the Round Table event in South Thanet.

Just put £100 on Lab at 6.0 most seats.

All my profit from now sold EICIPM is now on Lab most seats so its B/E at worst massive gain (in my terms) if LAB most seats

Dair said:

isam said:

Simon Danczuk (@SimonDanczuk)
03/05/2015 16:09
Such a diverse political culture in #Rochdale - does make elections fun as this rally today shows! pic.twitter.com/Mcrwbx0BUE

You think Danczuk can win the necessary by-election?

That man is a complete and utter bellend.

Neil said:

RepublicanTory said:

Neil said:

notme said:

The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression

Here is an example of Tory, Lib Dem and UKIP candidates attending an election event that women were banned from (never mind just forced to sit separately at):http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-attends-hustings-in-south-thanet--boycotted-by-greens-and-labour-for-menonly-audience-10000659.html

Feel free to express your outrage here.

It was NOT women only.

You'd have thought they'd have managed to get that message across to the candidates involved!

As I've managed to go a whole 24 hours without expressing any outrage on the internet I wont start now.

Apologies!! Typo

It was not MEN only!!

Point is they had a women only event days later so even if this event had been a men only event it was hardly an outrage.

This type of faux outrage does no good to anyone and Scobie and Driver were booed on the night by both men and women as it came across as sanctimonious rubbish

Danny565 said:

chestnut said:

Tory win by 4% on Thursday.

Which would probably lead to a minority Tory government, with the Labour frontbench getting to veto as much Tory legislation as they want.

Interesting. The speculation would be that Cameron would win his first election by 6 and his second by 4 (having increased his vote share!).
Thatcher won her first by 7. Then of course we had Michael Foot (but her vote share still went down!).
Back in 1979 the SNP did not do terribly well did they. But at least they had 71 seats to stand in.

MP_SE said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Why we all love Winston McKenzie

https://twitter.com/CJTerry/status/594995904869957632

He isn't wrong though.

Without semtex, how will be achieve this goal, though?

Polruan said:

Dair, you seem very certain about these ethical principles - impressively so. I mean I'm a member of a religion that believes in divine revelation and I'm stll confused as fuck about how you manage the interaction of different moral imperatives.

There is no basic difference to any moral imperative. It is a belief system much as any religion is. My belief system is based on equality and freedom. Your's isn't.

The comedy (and thanks for your ridiculousness) is where you try and embody your religious hate into law. Article 18 is a fundamentally broken basis for law. Law based on religion has no basis. It is without rigour or challenge and as such it is not law.

chestnut said:

A 1 point lead on YG is like a 3 with a phone pollster due to methodological change.

Tory win by 4% on Thursday.

I am not sure what excuses the Tories are going to find for their failure on Thursday 10 pm.

Can`t blame the online polls for that!

peter_from_putney said:

Currently, there's > £2,000 available to back Labour most seats with Betfair at 6.0 (or 5/1), whereas the Tories are priced at 1.20 (or 1/4) to be tops.
On the basis of this huge disparity between the odds for the two parties, Betfair punters at least clearly think the Tories are set to win by a country mile ..... I would say by around 30 or more seats. Anything less than 20 seats and the inevitable uncertainty/moe, call it what you will, would force the odds to be very much closer together.
Of course Betfair punters could be proved very wrong!

The other day Con Maj crashed without Con Most Seats changing. Today the reverse happened - though Con Maj is catching up a little now.

All very curious.

Dair said:

Polruan said:

Dair, you seem very certain about these ethical principles - impressively so. I mean I'm a member of a religion that believes in divine revelation and I'm stll confused as fuck about how you manage the interaction of different moral imperatives.

There is no basic difference to any moral imperative. It is a belief system much as any religion is. My belief system is based on equality and freedom. Your's isn't.

The comedy (and thanks for your ridiculousness) is where you try and embody your religious hate into law. Article 18 is a fundamentally broken basis for law. Law based on religion has no basis. It is without rigour or challenge and as such it is not law.

OK, fair enough, so essentially you prioritise gender equality and reject freedom of religion. You seem to have gone long on the insults and short on reasons for that choice, but I'm happy to respect your beliefs. I don't quite get the bit where you throw around accusations of ridiculousness or the assertion that law cannot be based on religion (given that it has been for much of the last two millennia).

As a genuine question, do you think that law based on your belief system, i.e. equality and freedom, has any basis? It seems that you probably wouldn't based on your later comments, but I guess I find that quite surprising.

rcs1000 said:

MP_SE said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Why we all love Winston McKenzie

https://twitter.com/CJTerry/status/594995904869957632

He isn't wrong though.

Without semtex, how will be achieve this goal, though?

I think with the new Westfield development and good rail links it will improve. But not anytime soon.

SMukesh said:

chestnut said:

A 1 point lead on YG is like a 3 with a phone pollster due to methodological change.

Tory win by 4% on Thursday.

I am not sure what excuses the Tories are going to find for their failure on Thursday 10 pm.

Can`t blame the online polls for that!

"I blame the voters" - The Gold Standard of PB Hodge excuses.

Polruan said:

Dair said:

Polruan said:

As a genuine question, do you think that law based on your belief system, i.e. equality and freedom, has any basis?

Yes.

More than any of yours.

Right. So what baseless belief system for lawmaking are you attributing to me personally?

None.

MP_SE said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Why we all love Winston McKenzie

https://twitter.com/CJTerry/status/594995904869957632

He isn't wrong though.

Refreshingly frank infact.

Philip_Thompson said:

Happy Star Wars Day

May 4th be with you!

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stereotomy said:

Could somebody give a full list of polls we expect between now and election night?

Yes

3 YouGovs

2 Populus, Tues & Wednesday

1 ICM/Guardian on Wednesday

1 ComRes phone poll on Wednesday

1 Ipsos Mori on Thursday morning

1 Lord Ashcroft poll on Tuesday.

1 Survation either Tuesday or Wednesday

There maybe others, but those are the ones I know about.

Are polls allowed to be published on Thursday (election day)?

Yes

Hmmm.... looks like the final ELBOW of the campaign will include all polls from 1st May to the 7th., not the 6th.

The fieldwork would have ended by the 6th

Ah yes, of course!

@surbiton

'Tories and UKIP, I am not surprised. But the Lib Dems under Clegg have now become Tory pr0stitutes. Pathetic !'

Any particular reason why as the day has progressed your posts have become more & more frantic and every sentence needs an exclamation mark?

Is it Ed's Duffy / Elvis moment courtesy of his ridiculed tombstone?

isam said:

peter_from_putney said:

Currently, there's > £2,000 available to back Labour most seats with Betfair at 6.0 (or 5/1), whereas the Tories are priced at 1.20 (or 1/4) to be tops.
On the basis of this huge disparity between the odds for the two parties, Betfair punters at least clearly think the Tories are set to win by a country mile ..... I would say by around 30 or more seats. Anything less than 20 seats and the inevitable uncertainty/moe, call it what you will, would force the odds to be very much closer together.
Of course Betfair punters could be proved very wrong!

If your fractional odds were right it would be biggest bet in the history of betting

!.20 is 1/5 not 1/4 that would be 1.25
All regular users of Betfair will know that 1.01 shots get beaten quite regularly and that 1000 shots sometimes come in.

@nigel4england

'You said all this a few months ago and nothing has come out, which with an imminent GE surely it would have done by now?'

Yes, but it makes him feel important.

GeoffM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Law should not be based on religion. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.

Nobody should, within reason, be prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. But nobody should be compelled by law based on a religion that they don't share.

Yet people *are* prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. Being forced to photograph or provide cakes for Gibraltarian weddings under threat of legal sanction is a good example; being unable to turn away unwanted Gibraltarians in guest houses and so on.

Freedom of choice remains a chimera in the UK and we are all the poorer for that.

GeoffM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Law should not be based on religion. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.

Nobody should, within reason, be prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. But nobody should be compelled by law based on a religion that they don't share.

Yet people *are* prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. Being forced to photograph or provide cakes for gay weddings under threat of legal sanction is a good example; being unable to turn away unwanted custom in guest houses and so on.

Freedom of choice remains a chimera in the UK and we are all the poorer for that.

There was a case recently in Indiana, where a pizza joint run by very Christian folks said that while they had no objection serving gays in their store, which is a simple commercial transaction, catering a gay wedding involves them directly as a facilitator of something with which they disagree vehemently.

The place closed with all the resulting outrage, but I believe has subsequently re-opened.

Tim_B said:

GeoffM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Law should not be based on religion. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.

Nobody should, within reason, be prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. But nobody should be compelled by law based on a religion that they don't share.

Yet people *are* prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. Being forced to photograph or provide cakes for gay weddings under threat of legal sanction is a good example; being unable to turn away unwanted custom in guest houses and so on.

Freedom of choice remains a chimera in the UK and we are all the poorer for that.

There was a case recently in Indiana, where a pizza joint run by very Christian folks said that while they had no objection serving gays in their store, which is a simple commercial transaction, catering a gay wedding involves them directly as a facilitator of something with which they disagree vehemently.

The place closed with all the resulting outrage, but I believe has subsequently re-opened.

Frankly the happy couple should have had their gay cards revoked for asking a pizza joint to cater their wedding in the first place.

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

GeoffM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Law should not be based on religion. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.

Nobody should, within reason, be prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. But nobody should be compelled by law based on a religion that they don't share.

Yet people *are* prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. Being forced to photograph or provide cakes for gay weddings under threat of legal sanction is a good example; being unable to turn away unwanted custom in guest houses and so on.

Freedom of choice remains a chimera in the UK and we are all the poorer for that.

Tough. Religion is subservient to the law not superior to it. That's why I said you should be free within reason to act on your own principles. Breaking the law is outside of those limits. If you want to discriminate illegally then don't run a company that isn't allowed to.

Does that mean that a mosque should be obliged to hold a gay wedding?

Should the Catholic church be obliged to ordain female priests?

Neil said:

Tim_B said:

GeoffM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Law should not be based on religion. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.

Nobody should, within reason, be prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. But nobody should be compelled by law based on a religion that they don't share.

Yet people *are* prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. Being forced to photograph or provide cakes for gay weddings under threat of legal sanction is a good example; being unable to turn away unwanted custom in guest houses and so on.

Freedom of choice remains a chimera in the UK and we are all the poorer for that.

There was a case recently in Indiana, where a pizza joint run by very Christian folks said that while they had no objection serving gays in their store, which is a simple commercial transaction, catering a gay wedding involves them directly as a facilitator of something with which they disagree vehemently.

The place closed with all the resulting outrage, but I believe has subsequently re-opened.

Frankly the happy couple should have had their gay cards revoked for asking a pizza joint to cater their wedding in the first place.

It was the legal point rather than the tastes of the hypothetical couple which was at issue.

This was not really a statement by the pizza joint owners, but they were essentially trapped by a series of hypothetical questions from a reporter. They just wanted to be left alone to run their business.