Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If we are to have a 2018 general election then the Tories will
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If we are to have a 2018 general election then the Tories will have a significant financial advantage
Tories get more than three times more than Labour in Jan-Mar. Ukip? Not a penny pic.twitter.com/ZKwWx9akz7
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Roseanne Barr blames racist tweet on sleeping pills.
Roseanne Barr has blamed a tweet in which she compared an African American woman to an ape on the influence of sleeping pills.
The TV star, who falsely said that Valerie Jarrett, former advisor to Barack Obama, has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, says her tweet was written after she had taken the prescription sleeping pill Ambien.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/may/30/roseanne-barr-blames-racist-tweet-on-sleeping-pills
https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1001821781555011584
https://twitter.com/Giusepp98749072/status/1001807128917667840
It'd be the greatest betting comeback since Lazarus if he somehow made it !
https://www.ft.com/content/d8db9a2a-6032-11e8-ad91-e01af256df68
And an explanation accordingly floated as to why British productivity is so dismal.
https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2018/05/exclusive-the-conservative-london-mayoral-candidate-selection-will-open-in-june.html
Hopefully this allows for a proper examination of the candidates prior to the selection vote, then gives them 18 months as Khan’s unofficial opposition leader before the election itself.
I wonder if the US Democrats shouldn’t do something similar for their 2020 Presidential candidate?
Not dead after all
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44307611
Jezza will be saying there is absolutely no concrete evidence Russia was involved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FniPiSLut8
Its a long campaign before an election we're scared off. The Tories can outspend us 10 to 1. They don't have any more than a dozen activists. But they have deep pockets.
"The journalist apparently did not tell his wife that the murder had been staged. "Special apologies to my wife," he said."
Have a read of this.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/
Simple truth, his actions could have collapsed the trials, and justice denied to the victims.
Some on the far right have tried that tactic (with the assistance of the defendants) to hopefully incite riots.
Try the Secret Barrister which explains things.
Or my post from the other day:-
TR had a suspended sentence. That means that if you commit another offence during the period of the suspended sentence you go to prison. That is a standard condition of suspended sentences. They are suspended on the basis of your good behaviour. If you misbehave you go to prison which is what you were sentenced to at the time.
- He was explicitly warned by the judge at the time that if he misbehaved he would go straight to prison.
- There are strict contempt of court laws in relation to trials which restrict what can be reported. This is not because we are like East Germany but because we take seriously the process of trial - namely that defendants are innocent until proven guilty and that the jury must decide on the basis of the evidence presented at court not on the basis of ill-informed comment and misinformation by others, amongst other things.
- What TR was doing was breaching this and therefore potentially risking the trial. This would have meant that thousands of pounds of public money would have been wasted, the work done by the prosecution would have been for nothing, the defendants would not have received certainty and the victims would not have got justice. What kind of malicious moron puts all this at risk while claiming to speak for the victims? A moment's thought would make it clear that the victims' suffering would continue if the trial was aborted and/or if they had to go through the ordeal all over again.
TR knew all of this and deliberately waved two fingers at our judicial process while claiming - or allowing his supporters to claim - that he was being silenced because he spoke the truth, or some such bollocks. And it is bollocks because the truth of the allegations are being properly tested in court. Not on the streets. Which makes us very unlike - and better than - East Germany.
Our criminal process is not perfect. But it's better than most. And those who treat it - and the defendants and victims - with contempt rightly suffer the consequences
She will concentrate on being an MP.
Top post Cyclefree!
Fortunately, not many people are as malevolently stupid as Tommy Robinson.
Details: - No Information To Display -
Trial (Part Heard) - Jury retire to consider verdict - 10:32
Obviously they shouldn't be browsing the internet whilst doing so..
http://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/crown-court-daily/33/lists/2018-05-30
All criminal trials in the UK face the same contempt of court laws. All journalists in the UK know what the rules are. There was no gap. The allegations are being rigorously tested in a courtroom on the basis of evidence. If Robinson had any evidence he'd be a bloody witness. But he doesn't. He's a provocateur who is either deliberately seeking to stop a trial or an ignorant moron who thinks his own opinions are more important than evidence.
Once the trial is over and a verdict given people can comment as much as they bloody well like.
And you know why no comment is permitted while the trial is happening. It's because we have this principle here: that people are innocent until proven guilty, even people accused of crimes as vile as these. And that the burden of proof is a heavy one and juries should only convict on the basis of evidence presented and tested in a courtroom not on the basis of the ravings of people outside. And these are bloody good principles because they stop the likes of you or I being imprisoned and losing our liberty on the basis of mob rule, ignorant commentary, prejudice and the rest of it.
There is no gap. Just a demand for patience while the trial happens so that comment can be made on the basis of facts. I know that's like asking for the moon in these demented times when people open mouth before engaging brain. But it matters. As does respect for the rule of law.
Grr.....
From the point of view of those who have had the courage to come to court as witnesses it looks and smells very good indeed that some malicious oik is not allowed to derail the process and risk forcing them - if the trial has to be aborted - to go through the whole painful process again.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/30/roseanne-barr-ambien-racism-611648
'Racism is not a known side effect of Ambien'....
He got everything he deserved.
on the wider issue - Skripal, Babchenko - is it that the Russian secret services are now totally blasé about killing people or theyre just crap at it ?
Italy on the other hand...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/trump-i-wish-i-had-picked-someone-other-than-sessions-for-attorney-general.html?
May: "I wish I'd picked a different Chancellor/Foreign/Trade/Defence Secretary/Cabinet..."
Electorate: "...
The Russian Secret Services have gone downhill since they stopped recruiting people from the finest university in the world.
They now target former polys FFS.
Why ?
She appears to be making an entirely reasonable point.
Do we think Tommy Robinson and his supporters were at this grooming trial, filming away?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/edl-english-defence-league-leigh-mcmillan-jailed-paedophile-old-bailey-a8231231.html
Now theyre interviewing Andy Burnham I can see it's not all bad.
And in any event, PR really isn't what judges are supposed to be good at.
Mr. Brooke, as I mentioned last thread, their line dividing north and south is ridiculous (effectively east from the southern tip of the Welsh border). Be interesting to know the stats if the line were higher.
Another possible reason for such restrictions is that both the complainants and jurors are at risk of being threatened.
I used to think that Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter were just the other side of the coin to Michael Moore and the like. But it's hard not worry about their - and they are supposed to be the thoughtful ones - willingness to spread the gravest of libels.
People just need to be adult not start foaming at the idea of cover ups because a lot of ignorant bloggers, some from the US (I note) from the sorts of people who think that Britain is about to turn into a part of the caliphate or some such nonsense and some with agendas, start talking ill-informed rubbish.
It's almost as if some people would much rather talk about how the establishment is covering up Muslim rape gangs and persecuting those brave individuals speaking up about them (sarcasm alert) than actually do anything about catching and convicting the perpetrators.
I'm sure I remember seeing salacious allegations in the press all the time (Apologies if I'm misremembering) about Ched Evans, even when his trial was ongoing !
The future is bleak if we can't pull back from all this madness.
PB and many other news organisations decided not to allow any comments BTL on those trials, that’s how strict they were.
It is not clear to me why, if Griffin had evidence about grooming, he did not raise it with the authorities rather than make speeches about it.
Of course the authorities should have investigated. They should have done so in 2002 when Ann Cryer MP first raised concerns. This was before Griffin raised anything. Indeed it was as a result of Ann Cryer going public that Griffin stood against her in her constituency to make political capital out of what she had said.
The secrecy here is to protect the main trial.
As far as I'm aware, the "comments" on Youtube (presumably comments by him, on tape) that got him into trouble haven't been identified - and it would probably be a contempt to identify them. But if someone can stomach watching all the material it might be possible to make a good guess at what they were.
I'm wondering whether we will EVER get to know what the comments were, even once the main trial has concluded (or once all the trials have - I think there may be three).
UKIP's line in defending Robinson is detestable but it's probably thoroughly rational.
UKIP voteshare in general elections:
1997 0.3%
2001 1.5%
2005 2.2%
2010 3.1%
2015 12.6%
2017 1.8%
EU elections:
1999 6.5%
2004 15.6%
2009 16.0%
2014 26.6%
2nd Brexit referendum:
(2016 51.9%)
Given that most people's reason for supporting Brexit was their negative feeling about the consequences of immigration, a feeling they experienced as having had no "decent" channel for output for about 40-50 years, UKIP should be able to improve on 1.8% in the next GE if they play on how that feeling still isn't being addressed by the political class. Before then, after what seems to many of their past voters to have been an unsuccessful referendum, race riots might be considered useful. I noticed Milo Yiannopoulos was backing Robinson too.
Otherwise, you are just unaware of what mad, post-truth nonsense they are spreading around before they go and vote.
Put restrictions on the reporting of his arrest, as they did, and the usual nutjobs will spread FUD and conspiracy theories to further their ends.
Don't put restrictions on the reporting of his arrest, and the usual nutjobs will spread FUD and conspiracy theories about his arrest and further publicise what he was saying and doing, possibly damaging the trial.
The problem appears not to be the authorities, but Robinson and his followers who sadly appear more interested in publicising an ongoing trial (and assuming the guilt of the defendants) rather than in the truth of what is going on, or even justice.
And they certainly care f'all about the victims.