Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Review : November 30th 2017 and November 201

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited December 1 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Review : November 30th 2017 and November 2017

Maidstone North on Maidstone (Con defence)

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,494
    Thanks Harry!
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 510
    FPT

    OchEye said:

    OchEye said:

    Don't think anyone has twigged yet, but Kalinagrad for goodness sake? Putin is sticking a metaphorical middle finger to the world......

    Königsberg :)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Königsberg
    Suggest you have a look at a map, Kaliningrad! A small Russian satellite state right in the middle of EU states. Then take a look at the other stadiums, Putin is not just putting a middle finger up, he's sticking his fist up....
    The sofascore app has a nice little interactive predictor.

    https://www.sofascore.com/world-cup/

    I reckon we have to come top of the group to dodge Germany in the QF, though instead we get Brazil.

    I am really looking forward to it, I have SF tickets in St Petersburg for me and Fox jr.

    St Petersburg is just lovely, do make time to see the Russian Museum (I'd prioritize it over the Hermitage if you'd be short on time), full of amazing Russian artists that are totally unknown in the West. And if you can afford it, the Grand Hotel Europe is a magical place to stay.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,776
    Newcastle Under Lyme General Election foul up report.

    https://www.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk/sites/default/files/IMCE/News/NBC_News/NBC_Election_Report_November_2017_(2).pdf

    Not a great advert for running an election. 50 votes in it but no re-run.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,049
    RobD said:
    Quite so. There was no escape from this.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,291
    edited December 1
    RobD said:
    Remainers want to be part of this ?

    “In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“


    “He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,546
    Mogg even more of a fool than I took him for....
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,386
    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:
    Remainers want to be part of this ?

    “In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“


    “He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
    Particularly when you read that:

    "His demands do not present major problems for Mrs Merkel personally: she is known to want to give Mr Macron’s proposals a degree of German support."
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,411
    edited December 1
    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:
    Remainers want to be part of this ?

    “In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“


    “He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
    I wonder if that’ll cover corporation tax?

    *innocent face*
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,830
    And PB Tories rate this fool? But then again, his stock may have now gone up with the many right wing loons that live on this blog.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,105
    murali_s said:

    And PB Tories rate this fool? But then again, his stock may have now gone up with the many right wing loons that live on this blog.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg is bit too left wing.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937
    murali_s said:

    And PB Tories rate this fool? But then again, his stock may have now gone up with the many right wing loons that live on this blog.

    So dispense with the mealy-mouthed anonymity, and name (at a minimum) two right wing loons that live on this blog, and two PB Tories who rate JRM.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,105

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:
    Remainers want to be part of this ?

    “In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“


    “He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
    Particularly when you read that:

    "His demands do not present major problems for Mrs Merkel personally: she is known to want to give Mr Macron’s proposals a degree of German support."
    I wonder if German politics will realign around the CSU, FDP, and some of the AFD providing a conservative, eurosceptic alternative.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,411
    Vanilla was down for a moment there...

    *puts away brown paper bag*
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,498
    dr_spyn said:

    Newcastle Under Lyme General Election foul up report.

    https://www.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk/sites/default/files/IMCE/News/NBC_News/NBC_Election_Report_November_2017_(2).pdf

    Not a great advert for running an election. 50 votes in it but no re-run.

    No re-run because the Keele University area would have boosted the Labour majority.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,828
    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:
    Remainers want to be part of this ?

    “In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“


    “He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
    I wonder if that’ll cover corporation tax?

    *innocent face*
    Easy to laugh but the Irish border is tied up with what Barnier calls the 'European model' and 'convergence'.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,828
    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:
    Remainers want to be part of this ?

    “In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“


    “He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
    Particularly when you read that:

    "His demands do not present major problems for Mrs Merkel personally: she is known to want to give Mr Macron’s proposals a degree of German support."
    I wonder if German politics will realign around the CSU, FDP, and some of the AFD providing a conservative, eurosceptic alternative.
    No. The AfD are the only serious Eurosceptic party in the game and will probably remain so for some considerable time because of the German political culture. (Also, with AfD providing the only right-of-centre Euroscepticism, that whole view is tainted by some of the AfD's other policies).
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937
    Ishmael_Z said:

    murali_s said:

    And PB Tories rate this fool? But then again, his stock may have now gone up with the many right wing loons that live on this blog.

    So dispense with the mealy-mouthed anonymity, and name (at a minimum) two right wing loons that live on this blog, and two PB Tories who rate JRM.
    You've had over half an hour. No need to be coy.

    "Blowhard" is a useful word, don't you find?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 1,752
    edited December 1
    The Moggmeister is pure sexytime goodness. If he wants to speak to Steve Bannon let him - going off how horrifically the Tories are doing at communicating these days you'd think a discussion with a leading propagandist would go down well.

    You may not like Bannon. But you can't argue with his results.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,152
    I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,498
    edited December 1
    Oh dear, the BBC are still whining on about Damian Green's 10 year old computer problems. There are one or two more important things going on in the world right now.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,049
    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:
    Remainers want to be part of this ?

    “In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“


    “He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
    I wonder if that’ll cover corporation tax?

    *innocent face*
    The EU support Eire now, because they both want to make a political point and it's both in their interests.

    But, Eire will be made to tow the EU line on corporation tax as soon as it wants to do so.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    rpjs said:

    FPT

    OchEye said:

    OchEye said:

    Don't think anyone has twigged yet, but Kalinagrad for goodness sake? Putin is sticking a metaphorical middle finger to the world......

    Königsberg :)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Königsberg
    Suggest you have a look at a map, Kaliningrad! A small Russian satellite state right in the middle of EU states. Then take a look at the other stadiums, Putin is not just putting a middle finger up, he's sticking his fist up....
    The sofascore app has a nice little interactive predictor.

    https://www.sofascore.com/world-cup/

    I reckon we have to come top of the group to dodge Germany in the QF, though instead we get Brazil.

    I am really looking forward to it, I have SF tickets in St Petersburg for me and Fox jr.

    St Petersburg is just lovely, do make time to see the Russian Museum (I'd prioritize it over the Hermitage if you'd be short on time), full of amazing Russian artists that are totally unknown in the West. And if you can afford it, the Grand Hotel Europe is a magical place to stay.
    I have four days there and four in Moscow, though didn't get final tickets so will go to the fan park for that.

    I plan to take in some revolutionary sites, but the Russian Museum sounds worth a look. I have booked flights and hotels a couple of months ago, when they were great value. I reckon the St Petersburg SF is Germany vs Spain, but many permutations.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 1,752
    edited December 1
    I dont want to hear any more about Damien Green and his open stash. I don't care that he practices onanism or is a liar. He's a male Tory politician, isnt exactly a shock that he's a wanker...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,049
    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:
    Remainers want to be part of this ?

    “In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“


    “He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
    Particularly when you read that:

    "His demands do not present major problems for Mrs Merkel personally: she is known to want to give Mr Macron’s proposals a degree of German support."
    I wonder if German politics will realign around the CSU, FDP, and some of the AFD providing a conservative, eurosceptic alternative.
    Under the original AfD leadership, perhaps, but not under the current one.

    But, the fires have certainly been stoked in Germany.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,979
    I've just taken the 'Tribes of Europe' test:

    https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

    I didn't come out as a Federalist, somehow.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,359
    Evening all :)

    A very pleasant thread with which to end the working week. 3 LD gains and a solid LD hold is the stuff of moderate contentment.

    No need to get too excited - local contests, very low turnouts and a fortunate juxtaposition of favourable contests for the party in winnable areas in contrast to last week's much more modest performances in much less favourable seats.

    Still, gains are gains and that's how the LD recovery will be - seat by seat, vote by vote, over a number of years.

    Also worth noting the Conservative vote share was down in all four seats (though a better effort than UKIP).
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    edited December 1
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    murali_s said:

    And PB Tories rate this fool? But then again, his stock may have now gone up with the many right wing loons that live on this blog.

    So dispense with the mealy-mouthed anonymity, and name (at a minimum) two right wing loons that live on this blog, and two PB Tories who rate JRM.
    You've had over half an hour. No need to be coy.

    "Blowhard" is a useful word, don't you find?
    I am far from a PB Tory, but rate JRM. Sure he is a caricature, but he is an intelligent, articulate and charming speaker. His views are antediluvian, but he seems to be about the only one left in the Tory party who still believes in Brexit.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328

    I've just taken the 'Tribes of Europe' test:

    https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

    I didn't come out as a Federalist, somehow.

    I did :)

    Anti Europeans only 14% I see.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,315

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:
    Remainers want to be part of this ?

    “In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“


    “He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
    Particularly when you read that:

    "His demands do not present major problems for Mrs Merkel personally: she is known to want to give Mr Macron’s proposals a degree of German support."
    I wonder if German politics will realign around the CSU, FDP, and some of the AFD providing a conservative, eurosceptic alternative.
    Under the original AfD leadership, perhaps, but not under the current one.

    But, the fires have certainly been stoked in Germany.
    I liked the old AfD. The new one, not so much.
  • I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?

    And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,979
    Latest from Rotherham:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-42193781

    Just the 10 on trial this time.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,979

    I've just taken the 'Tribes of Europe' test:

    https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

    I didn't come out as a Federalist, somehow.

    I did :)

    Anti Europeans only 14% I see.
    Physician, cure thyself!
  • Latest from Rotherham:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-42193781

    Just the 10 on trial this time.

    Sarah Champion will have to resign again...
  • I've just taken the 'Tribes of Europe' test:

    https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

    I didn't come out as a Federalist, somehow.

    I did :)

    Anti Europeans only 14% I see.
    Physician, cure thyself!
    Hesitant European and I would agree
  • Latest from Rotherham:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-42193781

    Just the 10 on trial this time.

    Yet we've had no action taken against any plods, social workers, childrens home mangers, councillors, council officials etc

    Nobody knew anything about anything of course.
  • I've just taken the 'Tribes of Europe' test:

    https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

    I didn't come out as a Federalist, somehow.

    I did :)

    Anti Europeans only 14% I see.
    I'm a 'Hesitant European' and people like me live tend to live in cities, towns and rural areas.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 510

    rpjs said:

    FPT

    OchEye said:

    OchEye said:

    Don't think anyone has twigged yet, but Kalinagrad for goodness sake? Putin is sticking a metaphorical middle finger to the world......

    Königsberg :)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Königsberg
    Suggest you have a look at a map, Kaliningrad! A small Russian satellite state right in the middle of EU states. Then take a look at the other stadiums, Putin is not just putting a middle finger up, he's sticking his fist up....
    The sofascore app has a nice little interactive predictor.

    https://www.sofascore.com/world-cup/

    I reckon we have to come top of the group to dodge Germany in the QF, though instead we get Brazil.

    I am really looking forward to it, I have SF tickets in St Petersburg for me and Fox jr.

    St Petersburg is just lovely, do make time to see the Russian Museum (I'd prioritize it over the Hermitage if you'd be short on time), full of amazing Russian artists that are totally unknown in the West. And if you can afford it, the Grand Hotel Europe is a magical place to stay.
    I have four days there and four in Moscow, though didn't get final tickets so will go to the fan park for that.

    I plan to take in some revolutionary sites, but the Russian Museum sounds worth a look. I have booked flights and hotels a couple of months ago, when they were great value. I reckon the St Petersburg SF is Germany vs Spain, but many permutations.
    Not been to Moscow, but I understand the equiv to the Russian Museum there is the Tretyakov Gallery. Do both and you'll see pretty much every major piece of Russian art.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,190

    I've just taken the 'Tribes of Europe' test:

    https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

    I didn't come out as a Federalist, somehow.

    Contented European. Younger - Hmm, maybe in spirit. Left of Centre - Perhaps. High life satisfaction. That's true. I am even reasonably equanimous about the clusterfuck that is Brexit
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937

    I've just taken the 'Tribes of Europe' test:

    https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

    I didn't come out as a Federalist, somehow.

    I did :)

    Anti Europeans only 14% I see.
    I'm a 'Hesitant European' and people like me live tend to live in cities, towns and rural areas.
    Me too. But I'm going to run it again to see where other sorts of people live, given that cities, towns and rural areas seems to cover most of the options.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,315

    Latest from Rotherham:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-42193781

    Just the 10 on trial this time.

    Yet we've had no action taken against any plods, social workers, childrens home mangers, councillors, council officials etc

    Nobody knew anything about anything of course.
    It's essentially impossible to get a successful prosecution for inaction.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,308

    I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?

    I'd suggest incompetence but I daresay others might suggest alternative reasons
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,152

    I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?

    And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
    All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Latest from Rotherham:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-42193781

    Just the 10 on trial this time.

    Yet we've had no action taken against any plods, social workers, childrens home mangers, councillors, council officials etc

    Nobody knew anything about anything of course.
    It's essentially impossible to get a successful prosecution for inaction.
    Various reports suggest there was rather more than inaction involved in some cases.

    And there's other action that could be taken over inaction - sackings for example.
  • trawltrawl Posts: 72
    JonnyJimmy “I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops”

    What’s the bent bit about them, out of interest?

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,498

    Latest from Rotherham:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-42193781

    Just the 10 on trial this time.

    Why is Damian Green's computer in 2008 more important news than this?
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,152
    There's nothing public interest about this, unless there's going to be a check of all MPs'/public servants' work computers to see if there's been any personal use at all. And we should have cameras in the toilet cubicles to make sure nobody pleasures themselves when they should be working.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,308
    trawl said:

    JonnyJimmy “I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops”

    What’s the bent bit about them, out of interest?

    They're coppers?
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,152
    trawl said:

    JonnyJimmy “I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops”

    What’s the bent bit about them, out of interest?

    They're releasing information that they're forbidden to release.
  • I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?

    And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
    All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
    Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,009

    I've just taken the 'Tribes of Europe' test:

    https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

    I didn't come out as a Federalist, somehow.

    I did :)

    Anti Europeans only 14% I see.
    I'm a 'Hesitant European' and people like me live tend to live in cities, towns and rural areas.
    Same here.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    Anyone reckon we stand a chance in the RL World Cup tommorow? Great odds if so!
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937
    Ishmael_Z said:

    I've just taken the 'Tribes of Europe' test:

    https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

    I didn't come out as a Federalist, somehow.

    I did :)

    Anti Europeans only 14% I see.
    I'm a 'Hesitant European' and people like me live tend to live in cities, towns and rural areas.
    Me too. But I'm going to run it again to see where other sorts of people live, given that cities, towns and rural areas seems to cover most of the options.
    Edit: OK all sorts live in cities and towns, it's just that the country is full of hesitaters and refuseniks.

    But the bias is depressing. I am decidedly pro an EU with curtailed powers, which is *not* the same as being "hesitant" (as if I had dipped a toe in the bracing waters of lovely full-fat Eurofederalism but lacked the courage to jump all the way in). It gets worse: it says "Hesitant Europeans need persuading on the EU," which I bloody don't. And I thought Chatham House was meant to be neutral.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,549

    I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?

    And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
    All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
    Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671
    What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328

    trawl said:

    JonnyJimmy “I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops”

    What’s the bent bit about them, out of interest?

    They're releasing information that they're forbidden to release.
    Is that a criminal offence, or merely a disciplinary one?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,498
    Danny565 said:

    I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?

    And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
    All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
    Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671
    What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
    I haven't seen it on any BBC news programmes or heard it on any BBC radio news.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937

    Latest from Rotherham:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-42193781

    Just the 10 on trial this time.

    Yet we've had no action taken against any plods, social workers, childrens home mangers, councillors, council officials etc

    Nobody knew anything about anything of course.
    Let us not underestimate how career-destroying it would have been (and to a great extent, still is) for any of those classes of people to stand up and say that gangs of Pakistani men were in the business of organised child rape. Five years ago I would have expected to be modded, or worse, for posting the preceding sentence on this site.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,291
    murali_s said:

    And PB Tories rate this fool? But then again, his stock may have now gone up with the many right wing loons that live on this blog.

    Wait until Murali finds out who Jezza has met, shared a platform with and supported....
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,549
    AndyJS said:

    Danny565 said:

    I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?

    And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
    All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
    Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671
    What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
    I haven't seen it on any BBC news programmes or heard it on any BBC radio news.
    Did you watch the news or go on the on the BBC news website on the day that story broke?
  • Anyone reckon we stand a chance in the RL World Cup tommorow? Great odds if so!

    About 10/1 would be fair odds IMO.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,970

    There's nothing public interest about this, unless there's going to be a check of all MPs'/public servants' work computers to see if there's been any personal use at all. And we should have cameras in the toilet cubicles to make sure nobody pleasures themselves when they should be working.

    Downloading porn to an office PC would be gross misconduct leading to instant dismissal at the company I work for and, I think, as has been discussed on here before, that would be true for the vast majority of organisations.
  • Danny565 said:

    I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?

    And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
    All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
    Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671
    What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
    And what's happened since ?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937

    trawl said:

    JonnyJimmy “I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops”

    What’s the bent bit about them, out of interest?

    They're releasing information that they're forbidden to release.
    Is that a criminal offence, or merely a disciplinary one?
    It might be a breach of the Data Protection Act, which would be sort of funny.

    I am glad that Lord Carlile has weighed in on behalf of Green; this has hopefully discouraged all but the most moronic trolls (I see one downthread) from taking a yebbut he's a tory MP line.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 847

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    murali_s said:

    And PB Tories rate this fool? But then again, his stock may have now gone up with the many right wing loons that live on this blog.

    So dispense with the mealy-mouthed anonymity, and name (at a minimum) two right wing loons that live on this blog, and two PB Tories who rate JRM.
    You've had over half an hour. No need to be coy.

    "Blowhard" is a useful word, don't you find?
    I am far from a PB Tory, but rate JRM. Sure he is a caricature, but he is an intelligent, articulate and charming speaker. His views are antediluvian, but he seems to be about the only one left in the Tory party who still believes in Brexit.
    Meeting Bannon shows bad judgement IMO.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937
    TGOHF said:

    murali_s said:

    And PB Tories rate this fool? But then again, his stock may have now gone up with the many right wing loons that live on this blog.

    Wait until Murali finds out who Jezza has met, shared a platform with and supported....
    Murali's internet connection must have gone down, because otherwise he would have answered a very straightforward question I asked him an hour ago.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    Ishmael_Z said:

    trawl said:

    JonnyJimmy “I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops”

    What’s the bent bit about them, out of interest?

    They're releasing information that they're forbidden to release.
    Is that a criminal offence, or merely a disciplinary one?
    It might be a breach of the Data Protection Act, which would be sort of funny.

    I am glad that Lord Carlile has weighed in on behalf of Green; this has hopefully discouraged all but the most moronic trolls (I see one downthread) from taking a yebbut he's a tory MP line.
    I see the DPA allows fines, but also public interest defences.

    It would be an interesting trial. Arguably the information is already in the public domain as previously mentioned in parliamentary committee.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,152

    trawl said:

    JonnyJimmy “I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops”

    What’s the bent bit about them, out of interest?

    They're releasing information that they're forbidden to release.
    Is that a criminal offence, or merely a disciplinary one?
    I don't know. I'm just bloody angry with the BBC for doing this interview. They should have said 'no, you're not allowed to do this' and reported him to the police. Instead they've spread this around the world. It should be a criminal offence if isn't, though I've no idea how I'd define a law to make it one.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,828

    There's nothing public interest about this, unless there's going to be a check of all MPs'/public servants' work computers to see if there's been any personal use at all. And we should have cameras in the toilet cubicles to make sure nobody pleasures themselves when they should be working.

    Downloading porn to an office PC would be gross misconduct leading to instant dismissal at the company I work for and, I think, as has been discussed on here before, that would be true for the vast majority of organisations.
    MPs are not normal employees.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328

    trawl said:

    JonnyJimmy “I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops”

    What’s the bent bit about them, out of interest?

    They're releasing information that they're forbidden to release.
    Is that a criminal offence, or merely a disciplinary one?
    I don't know. I'm just bloody angry with the BBC for doing this interview. They should have said 'no, you're not allowed to do this' and reported him to the police. Instead they've spread this around the world. It should be a criminal offence if isn't, though I've no idea how I'd define a law to make it one.
    Bearing in mind that the Paradise Papers is all about stolen information, and as I recall the original parliamentary expenses scandal too, should all that disseminated those also be prosecuted?
  • nielhnielh Posts: 847

    There's nothing public interest about this, unless there's going to be a check of all MPs'/public servants' work computers to see if there's been any personal use at all. And we should have cameras in the toilet cubicles to make sure nobody pleasures themselves when they should be working.

    Downloading porn to an office PC would be gross misconduct leading to instant dismissal at the company I work for and, I think, as has been discussed on here before, that would be true for the vast majority of organisations.
    The only misconduct in public office going on here is on the part of the ex police officers involved in this nonsense. It is the moral equivalent of slander and defamation. There should be laws against it.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,386
    Completely OT. Sky Arts is by far and away the best channel on TV at the moment.

    Just this evening they have had three brilliant documentaries, two ongoing series - 'The Seventies' followed by "The History of Rolling Stone Magazine" - and now a film on the history of Tower Records. All utterly enthralling.

    Just fantastic television.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,549
    edited December 1

    Danny565 said:

    I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?

    And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
    All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
    Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671
    What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
    And what's happened since ?
    I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,828

    trawl said:

    JonnyJimmy “I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops”

    What’s the bent bit about them, out of interest?

    They're releasing information that they're forbidden to release.
    Is that a criminal offence, or merely a disciplinary one?
    I don't know. I'm just bloody angry with the BBC for doing this interview. They should have said 'no, you're not allowed to do this' and reported him to the police. Instead they've spread this around the world. It should be a criminal offence if isn't, though I've no idea how I'd define a law to make it one.
    Bearing in mind that the Paradise Papers is all about stolen information, and as I recall the original parliamentary expenses scandal too, should all that disseminated those also be prosecuted?
    The public interest is a defence in law (and rightly so). Publishing the expenses story was certainly in the public interest. This isn't.

    I suspect that the ex-coppers may well be guilty of a breach (or several breaches) of the DPA.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,152

    There's nothing public interest about this, unless there's going to be a check of all MPs'/public servants' work computers to see if there's been any personal use at all. And we should have cameras in the toilet cubicles to make sure nobody pleasures themselves when they should be working.

    Downloading porn to an office PC would be gross misconduct leading to instant dismissal at the company I work for and, I think, as has been discussed on here before, that would be true for the vast majority of organisations.
    So would drinking on the job. They have different rules, which is weird, but they do have to spend weird times doing their jobs. Do we need a no self-pleasuring law for all of parliament? Or a no personal use of work computer law there? Also, do any of our IT pros think they could make someone's computer look like they'd been looking at loads of porn to the satisfaction of a police IT 'expert' with a memory stick and a few minutes at a computer? I could do that if I knew it was what I wanted the cop to find. Or if I was the cop.
  • Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?

    And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
    All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
    Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671
    What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
    And what's happened since ?
    I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
    I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
  • There's nothing public interest about this, unless there's going to be a check of all MPs'/public servants' work computers to see if there's been any personal use at all. And we should have cameras in the toilet cubicles to make sure nobody pleasures themselves when they should be working.

    Downloading porn to an office PC would be gross misconduct leading to instant dismissal at the company I work for and, I think, as has been discussed on here before, that would be true for the vast majority of organisations.
    So would drinking on the job. They have different rules, which is weird, but they do have to spend weird times doing their jobs. Do we need a no self-pleasuring law for all of parliament? Or a no personal use of work computer law there? Also, do any of our IT pros think they could make someone's computer look like they'd been looking at loads of porn to the satisfaction of a police IT 'expert' with a memory stick and a few minutes at a computer? I could do that if I knew it was what I wanted the cop to find. Or if I was the cop.
    I wonder how many plod computers would be found to have porn on them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,546
    Interesting commentary on the Flynn deal - noteworthy is the discussion of what a good deal Flynn received, which suggests his testimony must have been of great significance for the investigation... Mueller has been around the block enough times not to give something away for nothing:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/01/what-michael-flynns-plea-deal-means-215995?lo=ap_d1
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937

    There's nothing public interest about this, unless there's going to be a check of all MPs'/public servants' work computers to see if there's been any personal use at all. And we should have cameras in the toilet cubicles to make sure nobody pleasures themselves when they should be working.

    Downloading porn to an office PC would be gross misconduct leading to instant dismissal at the company I work for and, I think, as has been discussed on here before, that would be true for the vast majority of organisations.
    Well, it would be if there were evidence enough of it to satisfy an employment tribunal. You may well want to think that he is obviously guilty in spite of any legalistic quibbles of that kind, but then it was obvious to everyone that Saddam had wmds and obvious to that awful Bercow woman that all the stories about Lord Mcalpine were true. Process matters.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073

    I've just taken the 'Tribes of Europe' test:

    https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

    I didn't come out as a Federalist, somehow.

    I got 'Hesitant European'
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,549
    edited December 1



    I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).

    Again, I can't understand how you would be struck by it? Something only gets onto the daily news if there's something new to report. There clearly was something new to report about Damian Green today (and btw, today was the first time in weeks that I can recall the BBC reporting on the Green case, again because nothing new had really happened before today since the original copper came forward to make the first allegation about it).

    By contrast, there's been nothing new to report about the Bex Bailey case since the original story came out - the lady understandably doesn't want to give more interviews, the guilty parties (those who were responsible for both the assault itself and responsible for the cover-up) haven't been identified yet, no details of Labour's inquiry into it has got into the public domain (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think even the likes of Guido Fawkes have obtained any leaked information about it, so it's not like there's new developments out there which the BBC are just deciding to bury). So I ask again, what exactly do you think there is for the News to say about the Bex Bailey case that wasn't already said when the story first broke?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,546
    Has D Davis threatened to resign if Green is sacked ?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42197309
  • Am I the only one to detect a contrast between the 'more branch closures as normal' actual bank job losses which happens in prole towns and the 'end of days' wailing of possible City bank job losses ?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42192641
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,152
    Every public servant's work Internet search history should be publicly available information. Anything not work related should require disciplinary action. Anything morally questionable should result in dismissal. Seems to be some people's idea of the precedent that should be set in the current bent copper case. Even if the public servant might have been set up by the bent coppers.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?

    And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
    All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
    Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671
    What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
    And what's happened since ?
    I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
    I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
    The Bex Bailey allegation was that an individual party worker advised her to take the report no further, as I recall it was not an allegation of a systemic cover up.

    I am happy to wait for the proper Cabinet Office report on Green, but he is Deputy PM, so the porno and sexual harrassment allegations are legitimate for the public interest defence.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 756

    Every public servant's work Internet search history should be publicly available information. Anything not work related should require disciplinary action. Anything morally questionable should result in dismissal. Seems to be some people's idea of the precedent that should be set in the current bent copper case. Even if the public servant might have been set up by the bent coppers.

    Care to reveal your internet search history to us all, if you have nothing to hide?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,828

    Every public servant's work Internet search history should be publicly available information. Anything not work related should require disciplinary action. Anything morally questionable should result in dismissal. Seems to be some people's idea of the precedent that should be set in the current bent copper case. Even if the public servant might have been set up by the bent coppers.

    Firstly, that's far too draconian. People couldn't even log onto pbc under that rule (!)

    But more seriously, the only people who should be able to dismiss a politician from office are his or her electorate or the courts (in practice, his or her party too, though they could still stand as an independent or for another party in that case).
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,411
    edited December 1
    Danny565 said:



    I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).

    Again, I can't understand how you would be struck by it? Something only gets onto the daily news if there's something new to report. There clearly was something new to report about Damian Green today (and btw, today was the first time in weeks that I can recall the BBC reporting on the Green case, again because nothing new had really happened before today since the original copper came forward to make the first allegation about it).

    By contrast, there's been nothing new to report about the Bex Bailey case since the original story came out - the lady understandably doesn't want to give more interviews, the guilty parties (those who were responsible for both the assault itself and responsible for the cover-up) haven't been identified yet, no details of Labour's inquiry into it has got into the public domain (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think even the likes of Guido Fawkes have obtained any leaked information about it, so it's not like there's new developments out there which the BBC are just deciding to bury). So I ask again, what exactly do you think there is for the News to say about the Bex Bailey case that wasn't already said when the story first broke?
    The allegation is incredibly serious (rape at a party event, followed by party-inspired cover-up).

    Perhaps many of us are a little sceptical that an internal party inquiry is the right vehicle.

    The Labour Party is investigating itself, and traditionally when an organisation investigates itself, it finds it did no wrong.

    Given the gravity of the accusations, this needed an independent inquiry. What are the police not investigating? I expect accusations of rape to be looked into by the police.

    Curiously, the hapless Mr Green (who may or may not have downloaded porn) is getting an independent inquiry. And the police (or ex-coppers) have been more than assiduous to add their pennyworth in what is not even a crime.
  • Danny565 said:



    I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).

    Again, I can't understand how you would be struck by it? Something only gets onto the daily news if there's something new to report. There clearly was something new to report about Damian Green today (and btw, today was the first time in weeks that I can recall the BBC reporting on the Green case, again because nothing new had really happened before today since the original copper came forward to make the first allegation about it).

    By contrast, there's been nothing new to report about the Bex Bailey case since the original story came out - the lady understandably doesn't want to give more interviews, the guilty parties (those who were responsible for both the assault itself and responsible for the cover-up) haven't been identified yet, no details of Labour's inquiry into it has got into the public domain (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think even the likes of Guido Fawkes have obtained any leaked information about it, so it's not like there's new developments out there which the BBC are just deciding to bury). So I ask again, what exactly do you think there is for the News to say about the Bex Bailey case that wasn't already said when the story first broke?
    Because the Green story should be a non-story - indeed if there is a story there it should be about the action of the plods attempting to damage him. All the more so after what happened to Andrew Mitchell.

    Whereas the Labour rape and cover up is about a serious allegation which is now being investigated or 'investigated' by the same organisation which is alleged to have done the cover up.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,642
    edited December 1

    Anyone reckon we stand a chance in the RL World Cup tommorow? Great odds if so!

    Was at the first game in Melbourne.We dominated for long periods of the 2nd Half at 10-4 down. And came agonisingly close to scoring at least 3 times. I reckon if we'd scored then we'd have won. The 14 point margin really flattered them (even the Aussies agreed).

    If you can get on at 7-1 it would be worth a few quid (but expect to lose).

    I still expect an Aussie win. This is a poor Aussie team though by their standards.

    We match up well up front and in the 3/4s, but it is at half back, and i paticular their kicking game which has the edge.

    Reckon 3 or 4 to 1 would be accurate.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 847
    Ishmael_Z said:

    There's nothing public interest about this, unless there's going to be a check of all MPs'/public servants' work computers to see if there's been any personal use at all. And we should have cameras in the toilet cubicles to make sure nobody pleasures themselves when they should be working.

    Downloading porn to an office PC would be gross misconduct leading to instant dismissal at the company I work for and, I think, as has been discussed on here before, that would be true for the vast majority of organisations.
    Well, it would be if there were evidence enough of it to satisfy an employment tribunal. You may well want to think that he is obviously guilty in spite of any legalistic quibbles of that kind, but then it was obvious to everyone that Saddam had wmds and obvious to that awful Bercow woman that all the stories about Lord Mcalpine were true. Process matters.
    Agreed.

    MP's shouldn't be watching porn on work computers. They should know better. But this is not a police matter. If I was accused of something and the police took my computer away, found I had done nothing wrong, but then published an article in the local newspaper/facebook page saying that they dont have any actual evidence but they think I was watching adult pornography ten years ago. then it would be ridiculous. It would be totally insane. Its a nothing at all to do with fighting crime, and a total joke. Its seriously defamatory. Damien Green should sue them.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,411

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?

    And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
    All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
    Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671
    What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
    And what's happened since ?
    I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
    I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
    The Bex Bailey allegation was that an individual party worker advised her to take the report no further, as I recall it was not an allegation of a systemic cover up.

    I am happy to wait for the proper Cabinet Office report on Green, but he is Deputy PM, so the porno and sexual harrassment allegations are legitimate for the public interest defence.
    No that is incorrect. Bailey was reported as saying it was a Senior Party official.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,546

    Every public servant's work Internet search history should be publicly available information. Anything not work related should require disciplinary action. Anything morally questionable should result in dismissal. Seems to be some people's idea of the precedent that should be set in the current bent copper case. Even if the public servant might have been set up by the bent coppers.

    Firstly, that's far too draconian. People couldn't even log onto pbc under that rule (!)

    But more seriously, the only people who should be able to dismiss a politician from office are his or her electorate or the courts (in practice, his or her party too, though they could still stand as an independent or for another party in that case).
    I think you might have missed a bit of irony there ?

    Meantime, is the EU really planning to tear up the WTO ?
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/brussels-punishment-clause-uk-trade-deal-regulatory-standards-brexit
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,411

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?

    And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
    All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
    Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671
    What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
    And what's happened since ?
    I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
    I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
    The Bex Bailey allegation was that an individual party worker advised her to take the report no further, as I recall it was not an allegation of a systemic cover up.

    I am happy to wait for the proper Cabinet Office report on Green, but he is Deputy PM, so the porno and sexual harrassment allegations are legitimate for the public interest defence.
    No that is incorrect. Bailey was reported as saying it was a Senior Party official.
    Also, the alleged rape happened at a Labour Party event.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 865
    kyf_100 said:

    Every public servant's work Internet search history should be publicly available information. Anything not work related should require disciplinary action. Anything morally questionable should result in dismissal. Seems to be some people's idea of the precedent that should be set in the current bent copper case. Even if the public servant might have been set up by the bent coppers.

    Care to reveal your internet search history to us all, if you have nothing to hide?
    Difference between home and work, when people worked for me, one of the first rules they were told, is that so long as what happened in their bedroom, if it was legal and between consenting adults it was none of my business. However, if it was brought to my attention, such as say, on the front page of a Sunday newspaper, then I would be annoyed... If anything happened at work, it was instant dismissal....
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328

    Danny565 said:



    I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).

    Again, I can't understand how you would be struck by it? Something only gets onto the daily news if there's something new to report. There clearly was something new to report about Damian Green today (and btw, today was the first time in weeks that I can recall the BBC reporting on the Green case, again because nothing new had really happened before today since the original copper came forward to make the first allegation about it).

    By contrastfor the News to say about the Bex Bailey case that wasn't already said when the story first broke?
    The allegation is incredibly serious (rape at a party event, followed by party-inspired cover-up).

    Perhaps many of us are a little sceptical that an internal party inquiry is the right vehicle.

    The Labour Party is investigating itself, and traditionally when an organisation investigates itself, it finds it did no wrong.

    Given the gravity of the accusations, this needed an independent inquiry. What are the police not investigating? I expect accusations of rape to be looked into by the police.

    Curiously, the hapless Mr Green (who may or may not have downloaded porn) is getting an independent inquiry. And the police (or ex-coppers) have been more than assiduous to add their pennyworth in what is not even a crime.
    I think the Bex Bailwy allegation is very serious, but it was reported two years later, and from what I have seen in her interviews, was reported to a single person, who advised wrongly to take it no further. I dont think that there was an allegation odf anyone else being part of a cover up.

    Labour have suspended a few people for suspected sexual impropriety (? possibly related) and there are allegedly a couple of deaths as a result. Certainly the Welsh one was all over the news for days.

    Members of both parties have been pilloried in the press, so it seems to me that the press interest in these allegations has been fairly evenly balanced.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,549
    edited December 1

    Danny565 said:



    I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).

    Again, I can't understand how you would be struck by it? Something only gets onto the daily news if there's something new to report. There clearly was something new to report about Damian Green today (and btw, today was the first time in weeks that I can recall the BBC reporting on the Green case, again because nothing new had really happened before today since the original copper came forward to make the first allegation about it).

    By contrast, there's been nothing new to report about the Bex Bailey case since the original story came out - the lady understandably doesn't want to give more interviews, the guilty parties (those who were responsible for both the assault itself and responsible for the cover-up) haven't been identified yet, no details of Labour's inquiry into it has got into the public domain (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think even the likes of Guido Fawkes have obtained any leaked information about it, so it's not like there's new developments out there which the BBC are just deciding to bury). So I ask again, what exactly do you think there is for the News to say about the Bex Bailey case that wasn't already said when the story first broke?
    Because the Green story should be a non-story - indeed if there is a story there it should be about the action of the plods attempting to damage him. All the more so after what happened to Andrew Mitchell.

    Whereas the Labour rape and cover up is about a serious allegation which is now being investigated or 'investigated' by the same organisation which is alleged to have done the cover up.
    I'm still not understanding what your point is. What new developments in the Bex Bailey story have there been since the story first broke? The news isn't a moral, campaigning crusade - it operates on having new information to report that they haven't already reported.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,828
    Nigelb said:

    Every public servant's work Internet search history should be publicly available information. Anything not work related should require disciplinary action. Anything morally questionable should result in dismissal. Seems to be some people's idea of the precedent that should be set in the current bent copper case. Even if the public servant might have been set up by the bent coppers.

    Firstly, that's far too draconian. People couldn't even log onto pbc under that rule (!)

    But more seriously, the only people who should be able to dismiss a politician from office are his or her electorate or the courts (in practice, his or her party too, though they could still stand as an independent or for another party in that case).
    I think you might have missed a bit of irony there ?
    Probably.
  • Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:


    And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?

    All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
    Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671
    What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
    And what's happened since ?
    I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
    I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
    The Bex Bailey allegation was that an individual party worker advised her to take the report no further, as I recall it was not an allegation of a systemic cover up.

    I am happy to wait for the proper Cabinet Office report on Green, but he is Deputy PM, so the porno and sexual harrassment allegations are legitimate for the public interest defence.
    The BBC report gives the description 'senior Labour official' not 'individual party worker'.

    Although to be fair to Labour their spokesman said this - "We would strongly recommend that the police investigate the allegations of criminal actions that Bex Bailey has made."

    I wonder if plod will do so with the level of commitment they have had regarding Green's computer.
This discussion has been closed.