"With Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and the London boroughs among the Labour authorities that will have all out local elections in May 2018, there will be a ripple effect. Selections for those contests will take place in summer 2017. At which time, members who have joined the Labour Party in support of Mr Corbyn over the last two years will be eligible to vote, including those blocked by the High Court in August.
It is for this reason that many moderate Labour leaders are now working on the assumption that they and their cabinets will be deselected. Many other Labour councillors are simply planning to walk away. It will be the Momentum wing of the Labour Party that fills the gap.
Couple that with the political polarisation of the country post-Brexit, lack of information about who runs councils and lack of engagement and turn out for local elections, and it is highly likely that areas with a strong Labour vote will turn out Labour councils anyway.
We could therefore see Corbynites taking over town halls as early as May next year and leading some of our major cities by 2018."
It looks like Labour is going to keep on eviscerating and slowly torturing itself to death for the whole of the rest of this Parliament. There may not be enough Champagne in the country to keep the needs of Tory HQ and the Local Associations supplied by the time this is all over.
I warned about this the other day. Shits and giggles if you're Tory HQ, but rather depressing if a bunch of Trots seize control of your local city council.
Thank sweet jesus for the coalition's education reforms.
On the contrary. If thatcher had not done things like rate capping and abolishing the metropolitan councils the loony left would have ensured a continuous Tory government from then to now.
Not much fun if you live in the Loony Left Wing Borough of Lambeth or wherever but, paraphrasing Lenin some very useful rope to let the useful (to Tories) idiots of the loony left metaphorically play with on the stairs and end up hanging themselves on the bannister.
Allerdyce might have made a really crap English manager, in which the Telegraph would have done everyone a favour by going after him in the way that they did. But as it was, they couldn't wait. Allerdyce might very well have succeeded in the job, and the fact that he might was reason enough for the Telegraph to avoid trying to entrap him at the very first opportunity.
Although I agree it seems unlikely, unfair to bring up Cameron's failure to deliver on Bloomberg.
He didn't even bother, the lazy twat.
Rubbish. He worked really hard on it.
You do realise that if this is true (which I doubt) that makes it even worse. Cameron did his best, and strained every sinew, to produce a "deal" so miserable that he never mentioned it again, during the entire campaign?
He really is shit at politics.
I read the other day that when Cameron first delivered the "deal" to his Cabinet, there was total stony silence, even from his friends and supporters. They knew it was a dud. We knew it was a dud.
Cameron was a dud.
I'm still inclined to bevel that even if his own shortcomings were a significant part of why that deal was so poor, it was also true that a good deal was in fact impossible from the EU at that stage (and of course likely still is) - they did not truly think they needed to offer anything, in fact some reported they felt they offered too much to Cameron. Therefore, odds are no one could have gotten a good deal, even if a better one than we got was possible.
I agree, no one could have got a good deal.
But, why try to sell a poor deal as a good deal?
You play the hands you are dealt - clearly he was not willing to wait, not willing to try again (presumably feeling anti-EU feeling was only going to keep increasing and he needed it out the way quickly), so he tried to sell it.
Plus it's instinctive for politicians to claim their policy/deal is amazing even when its middling at best.
My response would have been to say to the voters "They offered very little. Decide if you want to stay in the EU on these terms."
But Cameron, fatally, was already on record saying this:
Although I agree it seems unlikely, unfair to bring up Cameron's failure to deliver on Bloomberg.
He didn't even bother, the lazy twat.
Rubbish. He worked really hard on it.
You do realise that if this is true (which I doubt) that makes it even worse. Cameron did his best, and strained every sinew, to produce a "deal" so miserable that he never mentioned it again, during the entire campaign?
He really is shit at politics.
I read the other day that when Cameron first delivered the "deal" to his Cabinet, there was total stony silence, even from his friends and supporters. They knew it was a dud. We knew it was a dud.
Cameron was a dud.
I'm still inclined to bevel that even if his own shortcomings were a significant part of why that deal was so poor, it was also true that a good deal was in fact impossible from the EU at that stage (and of course likely still is) - they did not truly think they needed to offer anything, in fact some reported they felt they offered too much to Cameron. Therefore, odds are no one could have gotten a good deal, even if a better one than we got was possible.
I agree, no one could have got a good deal.
But, why try to sell a poor deal as a good deal?
You play the hands you are dealt - clearly he was not willing to wait, not willing to try again (presumably feeling anti-EU feeling was only going to keep increasing and he needed it out the way quickly), so he tried to sell it.
Plus it's instinctive for politicians to claim their policy/deal is amazing even when its middling at best.
My response would have been to say to the voters "They offered very little. Decide if you want to stay in the EU on these terms."
But Cameron, fatally, was already on record saying this:
Allerdyce might have made a really crap English manager, in which the Telegraph would have done everyone a favour by going after him in the way that they did. But as it was, they couldn't wait. Allerdyce might very well have succeeded in the job, and the fact that he might was reason enough for the Telegraph to avoid trying to entrap him at the very first opportunity.
Are you saying corruption should not be ignored because someone *might* be successful, yet alone is so?
He allowed himself to be trapped. If he was honest, he would not have been caught.
Although I agree it seems unlikely, unfair to bring up Cameron's failure to deliver on Bloomberg.
He didn't even bother, the lazy twat.
Rubbish. He worked really hard on it.
You do realise that if this is true (which I doubt) that makes it even worse. Cameron did his best, and strained every sinew, to produce a "deal" so miserable that he never mentioned it again, during the entire campaign?
He really is shit at politics.
I read the other day that when Cameron first delivered the "deal" to his Cabinet, there was total stony silence, even from his friends and supporters. They knew it was a dud. We knew it was a dud.
Cameron was a dud.
I'm still inclined to bevel that even if his own shortcomings were a significant part of why that deal was so poor, it was also true that a good deal was in fact impossible from the EU at that stage (and of course likely still is) - they did not truly think they needed to offer anything, in fact some reported they felt they offered too much to Cameron. Therefore, odds are no one could have gotten a good deal, even if a better one than we got was possible.
I agree, no one could have got a good deal.
But, why try to sell a poor deal as a good deal?
You play the hands you are dealt - clearly he was not willing to wait, not willing to try again (presumably feeling anti-EU feeling was only going to keep increasing and he needed it out the way quickly), so he tried to sell it.
Plus it's instinctive for politicians to claim their policy/deal is amazing even when its middling at best.
My response would have been to say to the voters "They offered very little. Decide if you want to stay in the EU on these terms."
But Cameron, fatally, was already on record saying this:
An appropiate name for an overpriced space coffin.
Although we can save countless of lives if Musk is the first to try his own spaceship.
Tell that to Elcano or the crew of the Pinta. The world would be so much better if they hadn't embarked.
Life without some risk is no life. We all take calculated (and uncalculated) risks: sometimes these risks are how the world progresses.
Avoiding risks means stagnation; doubly so for a society.
Well the earth was already proven to be round by 1492, and portuguese explorers where already on the high seas with ships that could float and sail the distance (a critical difference with Musk's plans).
Colombus was proposing something that could be done with aleady existing and tested technology, Musk is proposing something that can't be done with existing and tested technology.
Musk is simply trying to sell a Star Treck episode to Wall Street, not to actually make a trip to Mars.
Google trends for "registrarse para votar" is certainly intersting when visualised over the last 7 days
Strangely enough it looks like it peaked before the debate?
Google's aggregation is weird for Google trends. If you look at it for the last day rather than 7 days it matches the debate with the biggest spike at the very end.
For me the interesting thing is the states that get the most interest.
Allerdyce might have made a really crap English manager, in which the Telegraph would have done everyone a favour by going after him in the way that they did. But as it was, they couldn't wait. Allerdyce might very well have succeeded in the job, and the fact that he might was reason enough for the Telegraph to avoid trying to entrap him at the very first opportunity.
So misconduct is okay as long as they are good at their job?
A few years ago, Radio 5 had a segment discussing corruption in football. On the panel, they had two agents and a player. They all agreed there was no corruption.
During his meetings with the undercover reporters, Mr Pagliara moaned about a “reformed rogue” of a manager who “used to need the money but he’s had so much now that all of a sudden he’s whiter than white”. He said: “I felt like saying '[X], you’ve had more backhanders than Wimbledon, what are you talking about?’ “You know he’s a wheeler and dealer don’t you?... he gambles 20 grand a day, he needs to make money… he’ll be earning three or four million, he still wants 50 grand in cash.”
The manager last night denied taking bungs. Another coach who has managed several British clubs was allegedly sacked by one club after being “caught with his fingers in the till”.
Ex-Premier League manager allegedly liked “bungs” in cash or deposited in a Swiss bank account. Pagliara said: “I can call [X] now and all it is with [X] is 'How much, Pino? And will it be the same Swiss bank account?’”
Manager 2
Ex-top flight manager has had “more backhanders than Wimbledon”. Pagliara said: “This is what I hate... the guy that used to need the money but he’s had so much now that all of a sudden he’s whiter than white.”
Manager 3
After managing several British clubs, he was allegedly fired by one for having “his fingers in the till”. Pagliara said he would get involved if “you understand that when we do deals I have to have a carrier bag with some cash”.
Manager 4
Pagliara said of this boss with Premier League experience: “We know him very, very well. We do a transfer, [X] has winked at us and said 'Yeah, I want the player. Is there a little coffee for me, Pino?’ Yeah, course there is.”
Manager 5
Ex-Premier League manager who, said Pagliara, would call him and say “here’s the number”, and give him details of a Swiss account. He said: “It was always numbered accounts.”
Manager 6
A former player who now manages, he allegedly likes extra money to secure deals because he is not on a big salary at his club. Pagliara said: “[X] takes a few [inaudible] because he’s not being paid big money.”
Manager 7
Ex-Premier League manager is another “we can put on the payroll”. If a player was transferred for £10m, “we’ll turn round to [X] and say, listen, if you take this player we’ll look after you. OK? OK, boom.”
Manager 8
Agent Dax Price said this long-serving manager would pick three trusted players and tell them he was paying them an extra £8,000 per month, on condition that they paid him £4,000 per month each.
Allerdyce might have made a really crap English manager, in which the Telegraph would have done everyone a favour by going after him in the way that they did. But as it was, they couldn't wait. Allerdyce might very well have succeeded in the job, and the fact that he might was reason enough for the Telegraph to avoid trying to entrap him at the very first opportunity.
So misconduct is okay as long as they are good at their job?
I wouldn't say he was terrible, Middlesborough normally made the top 10 in the Premier League when he was manager. However it is true that rogues often make the best England managers, Terry Venables being a case in point, Allerdyce too won his first game, so if you do not want the rogues you may not always get the results either
The best England manager of modern times, Sir Bobby Robson, was certainly no rogue.
Venables backwards is "Selbanev", a little-known fact which became a plot-point in one of the better Jennings books.
Google trends for "registrarse para votar" is certainly intersting when visualised over the last 7 days
Strangely enough it looks like it peaked before the debate?
Google's aggregation is weird for Google trends. If you look at it for the last day rather than 7 days it matches the debate with the biggest spike at the very end.
For me the interesting thing is the states that get the most interest.
Interesting, and I always wonder why there isn't an absolute scale on these things.
The same individual, who used to manage a high profile team, had also fixed a game, Mr Pagliara claimed. The manager’s representatives yesterday described the allegations as “completely false”. In several instances, he admitted that he had personally paid the officials “bungs” to secure deals.
I wouldn't say he was terrible, Middlesborough normally made the top 10 in the Premier League when he was manager. However it is true that rogues often make the best England managers, Terry Venables being a case in point, Allerdyce too won his first game, so if you do not want the rogues you may not always get the results either
The best England manager of modern times, Sir Bobby Robson, was certainly no rogue.
Venables backwards is "Selbanev", a little-known fact which became a plot-point in one of the better Jennings books.
An appropiate name for an overpriced space coffin.
Although we can save countless of lives if Musk is the first to try his own spaceship.
Tell that to Elcano or the crew of the Pinta. The world would be so much better if they hadn't embarked.
Life without some risk is no life. We all take calculated (and uncalculated) risks: sometimes these risks are how the world progresses.
Avoiding risks means stagnation; doubly so for a society.
Well the earth was already proven to be round by 1492, and portuguese explorers where already on the high seas with ships that could float and sail the distance (a critical difference with Musk's plans).
Colombus was proposing something that could be done with aleady existing and tested technology, Musk is proposing something that can't be done with existing and tested technology.
Musk is simply trying to sell a Star Treck episode to Wall Street, not to actually make a trip to Mars.
Educated people knew the Earth was round in ancient times.
But sailing West was a huge risk in 1492. And, we owe a lot to people who are willing to blow fortunes and/or risk their lives purely in order to satisfy intellectual curiosity.
I wouldn't say he was terrible, Middlesborough normally made the top 10 in the Premier League when he was manager. However it is true that rogues often make the best England managers, Terry Venables being a case in point, Allerdyce too won his first game, so if you do not want the rogues you may not always get the results either
The best England manager of modern times, Sir Bobby Robson, was certainly no rogue.
Venables backwards is "Selbanev", a little-known fact which became a plot-point in one of the better Jennings books.
I wouldn't say he was terrible, Middlesborough normally made the top 10 in the Premier League when he was manager. However it is true that rogues often make the best England managers, Terry Venables being a case in point, Allerdyce too won his first game, so if you do not want the rogues you may not always get the results either
The best England manager of modern times, Sir Bobby Robson, was certainly no rogue.
Venables backwards is "Selbanev", a little-known fact which became a plot-point in one of the better Jennings books.
An appropiate name for an overpriced space coffin.
Although we can save countless of lives if Musk is the first to try his own spaceship.
Tell that to Elcano or the crew of the Pinta. The world would be so much better if they hadn't embarked.
Life without some risk is no life. We all take calculated (and uncalculated) risks: sometimes these risks are how the world progresses.
Avoiding risks means stagnation; doubly so for a society.
Well the earth was already proven to be round by 1492, and portuguese explorers where already on the high seas with ships that could float and sail the distance (a critical difference with Musk's plans).
Colombus was proposing something that could be done with aleady existing and tested technology, Musk is proposing something that can't be done with existing and tested technology.
Musk is simply trying to sell a Star Treck episode to Wall Street, not to actually make a trip to Mars.
"portuguese explorers where already on the high seas with ships that could float and sail the distance"
Someone had to take the risk to prove that they could sail the distance. Someone had to go a little beyond what was already known as possible. Otherwise we wouldn't have progressed out of sight of land - ~3-15 miles.
Columbus was proposing to travel to the east to pick up spices. He failed. But in failing, he found far greater riches, both fiscal and scientific.
I'm a critic of Musk, but there is a coherent plan in everything he does: and that is Mars. I honestly believe that if he end up penniless in the gutter but we have a viable society on Mars, he'd die happy.
An appropiate name for an overpriced space coffin.
Although we can save countless of lives if Musk is the first to try his own spaceship.
Tell that to Elcano or the crew of the Pinta. The world would be so much better if they hadn't embarked.
Life without some risk is no life. We all take calculated (and uncalculated) risks: sometimes these risks are how the world progresses.
Avoiding risks means stagnation; doubly so for a society.
Well the earth was already proven to be round by 1492, and portuguese explorers where already on the high seas with ships that could float and sail the distance (a critical difference with Musk's plans).
Colombus was proposing something that could be done with aleady existing and tested technology, Musk is proposing something that can't be done with existing and tested technology.
Musk is simply trying to sell a Star Treck episode to Wall Street, not to actually make a trip to Mars.
Educated people knew the Earth was round in ancient times.
But sailing West was a huge risk in 1492. And, we owe a lot to people who are willing to blow fortunes and/or risk their lives purely in order to satisfy intellectual curiosity.
Columbus and others thought that they could sail straight over to Asia by sailing west, There was no knowledge of the New World, and Ptolemy (1st cen. AD) underestimated the circumference on his world map.
I wouldn't say he was terrible, Middlesborough normally made the top 10 in the Premier League when he was manager. However it is true that rogues often make the best England managers, Terry Venables being a case in point, Allerdyce too won his first game, so if you do not want the rogues you may not always get the results either
The best England manager of modern times, Sir Bobby Robson, was certainly no rogue.
Venables backwards is "Selbanev", a little-known fact which became a plot-point in one of the better Jennings books.
Allerdyce might have made a really crap English manager, in which the Telegraph would have done everyone a favour by going after him in the way that they did. But as it was, they couldn't wait. Allerdyce might very well have succeeded in the job, and the fact that he might was reason enough for the Telegraph to avoid trying to entrap him at the very first opportunity.
So misconduct is okay as long as they are good at their job?
Kind of how sport is, generally.
Or film making I suppose.
Or banking.
The test of integrity is that people are sacked if in breach of the company values despite being good at their job.
Google trends for "registrarse para votar" is certainly intersting when visualised over the last 7 days
Strangely enough it looks like it peaked before the debate?
Google's aggregation is weird for Google trends. If you look at it for the last day rather than 7 days it matches the debate with the biggest spike at the very end.
For me the interesting thing is the states that get the most interest.
What is interesting in that?
Texas, Florida, California have the largest hispanic populations. You can search back to 2004 in google trends and it's still about the same result with the same states as in 2012.
A few years ago, Radio 5 had a segment discussing corruption in football. On the panel, they had two agents and a player. They all agreed there was no corruption.
An appropiate name for an overpriced space coffin.
Although we can save countless of lives if Musk is the first to try his own spaceship.
Tell that to Elcano or the crew of the Pinta. The world would be so much better if they hadn't embarked.
Life without some risk is no life. We all take calculated (and uncalculated) risks: sometimes these risks are how the world progresses.
Avoiding risks means stagnation; doubly so for a society.
Well the earth was already proven to be round by 1492, and portuguese explorers where already on the high seas with ships that could float and sail the distance (a critical difference with Musk's plans).
Colombus was proposing something that could be done with aleady existing and tested technology, Musk is proposing something that can't be done with existing and tested technology.
Musk is simply trying to sell a Star Treck episode to Wall Street, not to actually make a trip to Mars.
"with ships that could float and sail the distance" - but they didn't know what the distance was so had no way of knowing whether they had enough provisions with them. Musk knows exactly the problems he has to overcome, and in principle how to overcome them.
OTOH if Columbus had known that his destination was a freezing airless and radioactive desert he would probably have had the sense not to bother.
Allerdyce might have made a really crap English manager, in which the Telegraph would have done everyone a favour by going after him in the way that they did. But as it was, they couldn't wait. Allerdyce might very well have succeeded in the job, and the fact that he might was reason enough for the Telegraph to avoid trying to entrap him at the very first opportunity.
People who don't match up to the values of an organisation should be sacked however good they are. That is the test of integrity.
Allerdyce might have made a really crap English manager, in which the Telegraph would have done everyone a favour by going after him in the way that they did. But as it was, they couldn't wait. Allerdyce might very well have succeeded in the job, and the fact that he might was reason enough for the Telegraph to avoid trying to entrap him at the very first opportunity.
Are you saying corruption should not be ignored because someone *might* be successful, yet alone is so?
He allowed himself to be trapped. If he was honest, he would not have been caught.
Is there any possibility that criminal charges could be brought against him based on what has to date been disclosed? No.
Against Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband. And the first time around he couldn't even get a majority.
Besides, he will always be remembered for Brexit. And on his own terms, that's a catastrophe.
Claiming Cameron is good coz he went into Coalition with Clegg is like saying Hitler was good at motorways, if you ignore the whole war and Holocaust thing, towards the end of his career.
No, it really isn't.
And you've Godwinned yourself.
Cameron started from a low base. In 2010 he gained 97 seats. Compare that to his immediate Conservative predecessors. And if you count Labour, Blair only managed 145 gains in 1997 against a divided and tired Conservative party.
The Conservatives had much to do to 'prove' themselves to the public after the Thatcher and Major years. Cameron did that.
Enjoying the Labour conference, not just for obvious reasons, but because it's in Liverpool, which like Glasgow has so reinvented itself. I'm staying out in the sticks in a weird B&B (zero staff - you find your room by looking for a door with a key hanging in it. Breakfast? Forget it.) so have been taking a lot of (very cheap) taxis, and encountering really politicised, well-informed taxi-drivers. Some are spontaneously more enthusiastic pro-Europeans and left-wing than anyone I've met outside Guardian circles - sample tonight (obviously from memory): "Really it was dying - just pubs and drunks and fighting. What saved us was the European Year of Culture, they European poured help into the city, they built the big galleries, they restored the grand old buildings, and then when the year was over it was like we'd got a new fucking life, a fucking second chance, like, and we took it, we had a food festival and a book festival and the giant puppet festival twice and it all took off. We mostly voted to stay in, I think the wankers who didn't were mad." Corbyn? "They say he's left-wing, but what's the fucking point of a Labour Party that isn't? They say he won because he got 300,000 new members, but they don't see that's a success. He's honest, and up here we're tired of people who pretend to us and then forget us."
I wouldn't say he was terrible, Middlesborough normally made the top 10 in the Premier League when he was manager. However it is true that rogues often make the best England managers, Terry Venables being a case in point, Allerdyce too won his first game, so if you do not want the rogues you may not always get the results either
The best England manager of modern times, Sir Bobby Robson, was certainly no rogue.
Alf Ramsey was a man of integrity and ourmost successful manager.
Allerdyce might have made a really crap English manager, in which the Telegraph would have done everyone a favour by going after him in the way that they did. But as it was, they couldn't wait. Allerdyce might very well have succeeded in the job, and the fact that he might was reason enough for the Telegraph to avoid trying to entrap him at the very first opportunity.
People who don't match up to the values of an organisation should be sacked however good they are. That is the test of integrity.
Football is corrupt from top to bottom, on a massive scale, starting with the ownership of the clubs. We know it is and going after the small fry will do absolutely nothing to change that, because nothing can.
However, there is plenty that can be done to mess up the already limited chances of the England football team, and that is the contribution that the Telegraph may well have made. They didn't have to go after Allerdyce - that was their choice, and I'm not thanking them for it.
Allerdyce might have made a really crap English manager, in which the Telegraph would have done everyone a favour by going after him in the way that they did. But as it was, they couldn't wait. Allerdyce might very well have succeeded in the job, and the fact that he might was reason enough for the Telegraph to avoid trying to entrap him at the very first opportunity.
People who don't match up to the values of an organisation should be sacked however good they are. That is the test of integrity.
Football is corrupt from top to bottom, on a massive scale, starting with the ownership of the clubs. We know it is and going after the small fry will do absolutely nothing to change that, because nothing can.
However, there is plenty that can be done to mess up the already limited chances of the England football team, and that is the contribution that the Telegraph may well have made. They didn't have to go after Allerdyce - that was their choice, and I'm not thanking them for it.
But Allerdyce stuck by Rooney. When ManU left him on the bench Saturday and were 4-0 by half-time... "Release the tapes...."
Against Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband. And the first time around he couldn't even get a majority.
Besides, he will always be remembered for Brexit. And on his own terms, that's a catastrophe.
Claiming Cameron is good coz he went into Coalition with Clegg is like saying Hitler was good at motorways, if you ignore the whole war and Holocaust thing, towards the end of his career.
SNIP Cameron started from a low base. In 2010 he gained 97 seats. Compare that to his immediate Conservative predecessors. And if you count Labour, Blair only managed 145 gains in 1997 against a divided and tired Conservative party. The Conservatives had much to do to 'prove' themselves to the public after the Thatcher and Major years. Cameron did that.
Cameron had the skills to potentially be a great PM. But his choice in the people close to him was based on mates and not merit. That reduced the talent pool and stopped him firing/moving the failures such as Osborne and his multiple omnishambles budgets. This article sums it up. http://life.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-cameron-chumocracy/ " What made Cameron a good friend also made him a bad politician because he never asked if there was anyone better for the job.’" "Dave had carefully curated a coterie of yes men ever since he was eight years old (which was the last time anyone told him what to do, according to his late father). He was so cut off from the rest of the populace he could not foresee imminent doom: relying not just on the utterly hopeless pollster Andrew Cooper, but all the smug Remainers to whom he later gave gongs."
Comments
Newcastle, Manchester etc, I don't think have one tory councillor.
He allowed himself to be trapped. If he was honest, he would not have been caught.
Colombus was proposing something that could be done with aleady existing and tested technology, Musk is proposing something that can't be done with existing and tested technology.
Musk is simply trying to sell a Star Treck episode to Wall Street, not to actually make a trip to Mars.
For me the interesting thing is the states that get the most interest.
An amazing conclusion.
The manager last night denied taking bungs. Another coach who has managed several British clubs was allegedly sacked by one club after being “caught with his fingers in the till”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/27/exclusive-eight-premier-league-managers-took-transfer-bungs-clai/
Manager 1
Ex-Premier League manager allegedly liked “bungs” in cash or deposited in a Swiss bank account. Pagliara said: “I can call [X] now and all it is with [X] is 'How much, Pino? And will it be the same Swiss bank account?’”
Manager 2
Ex-top flight manager has had “more backhanders than Wimbledon”. Pagliara said: “This is what I hate... the guy that used to need the money but he’s had so much now that all of a sudden he’s whiter than white.”
Manager 3
After managing several British clubs, he was allegedly fired by one for having “his fingers in the till”. Pagliara said he would get involved if “you understand that when we do deals I have to have a carrier bag with some cash”.
Manager 4
Pagliara said of this boss with Premier League experience: “We know him very, very well. We do a transfer, [X] has winked at us and said 'Yeah, I want the player. Is there a little coffee for me, Pino?’ Yeah, course there is.”
Manager 5
Ex-Premier League manager who, said Pagliara, would call him and say “here’s the number”, and give him details of a Swiss account. He said: “It was always numbered accounts.”
Manager 6
A former player who now manages, he allegedly likes extra money to secure deals because he is not on a big salary at his club. Pagliara said: “[X] takes a few [inaudible] because he’s not being paid big money.”
Manager 7
Ex-Premier League manager is another “we can put on the payroll”. If a player was transferred for £10m, “we’ll turn round to [X] and say, listen, if you take this player we’ll look after you. OK? OK, boom.”
Manager 8
Agent Dax Price said this long-serving manager would pick three trusted players and tell them he was paying them an extra £8,000 per month, on condition that they paid him £4,000 per month each.
Or film making I suppose.
The same individual, who used to manage a high profile team, had also fixed a game, Mr Pagliara claimed. The manager’s representatives yesterday described the allegations as “completely false”. In several instances, he admitted that he had personally paid the officials “bungs” to secure deals.
But sailing West was a huge risk in 1492. And, we owe a lot to people who are willing to blow fortunes and/or risk their lives purely in order to satisfy intellectual curiosity.
Seltaeb
Someone had to take the risk to prove that they could sail the distance. Someone had to go a little beyond what was already known as possible. Otherwise we wouldn't have progressed out of sight of land - ~3-15 miles.
Columbus was proposing to travel to the east to pick up spices. He failed. But in failing, he found far greater riches, both fiscal and scientific.
I'm a critic of Musk, but there is a coherent plan in everything he does: and that is Mars. I honestly believe that if he end up penniless in the gutter but we have a viable society on Mars, he'd die happy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
The test of integrity is that people are sacked if in breach of the company values despite being good at their job.
NEW THREAD
Corruption?
Never!
(/sarcasm)
Texas, Florida, California have the largest hispanic populations.
You can search back to 2004 in google trends and it's still about the same result with the same states as in 2012.
OTOH if Columbus had known that his destination was a freezing airless and radioactive desert he would probably have had the sense not to bother.
People who don't match up to the values of an organisation should be sacked however good they are. That is the test of integrity.
And you've Godwinned yourself.
Cameron started from a low base. In 2010 he gained 97 seats. Compare that to his immediate Conservative predecessors. And if you count Labour, Blair only managed 145 gains in 1997 against a divided and tired Conservative party.
The Conservatives had much to do to 'prove' themselves to the public after the Thatcher and Major years. Cameron did that.
However, there is plenty that can be done to mess up the already limited chances of the England football team, and that is the contribution that the Telegraph may well have made. They didn't have to go after Allerdyce - that was their choice, and I'm not thanking them for it.
This article sums it up.
http://life.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-cameron-chumocracy/
" What made Cameron a good friend also made him a bad politician because he never asked if there was anyone better for the job.’"
"Dave had carefully curated a coterie of yes men ever since he was eight years old (which was the last time anyone told him what to do, according to his late father). He was so cut off from the rest of the populace he could not foresee imminent doom: relying not just on the utterly hopeless pollster Andrew Cooper, but all the smug Remainers to whom he later gave gongs."