Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Toxic Culture?

2

Comments

  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited January 2020
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    I think there is a fundamental debate about the kind of policing we want - some might like an armed officer on every street corner. Others simply prefer a policeman (or woman) "pounding the beat" instead of going round in groups in vans.

    The closure and sale of so many Police stations under the Coalition and subsequently is, I think, regrettable as the Police station was potentially a place of refuge or safety (the same was true of ticket offices in tube stations - they were of course to be closed to provide "exciting retail opportunities" - more Johnsonian bollocks).

    The disconnection between Police and community may be more obvious in areas of London like mine - Mrs Stodge goes to the Neighbourhood Police meetings and comes back telling me crime is rampant and brandishing reports showing me it isn't.

    A lot of criminality isn't judged to be criminal - personally, I'd hunt down every fare dodger and exterminate them but that's a shade draconian even for this mealy-mouthed wishy-washy liberal. So much of nuisance behaviour falls into the "civil" category - fly-tipping is another huge problem. The death penalty for fly tipping may again be too much for the namby-pamby soft on crime Tories but it's the kind of irritation that irritates (well, it would).

    It's the notion that low-level criminality no longer matters - we had that ludicrous moron Greg Hands pontificating in the Standard this week that we should vote for the useless Shaun Bailey in the London Mayoral election and he would instigate the approach on crime that worked for Giuliani in New York in the 90s.

    Yeah, right. One Tory mayor closes Police stations and cuts Police numbers, the next one will apparently bring in a policy where you'll be arrested for walking on the cracks in the pavement - fine, you can get carted off to the nearest Police station - oh, wait....

    The closure of the police station in the relatively affluent area of southwest London where my mother lives has been devastating for people's feelings of safety and security. You also now can't even speak to the second nearest police station - just "101" and a call centre.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Pulpstar said:

    @Casino_Royale Pay off the mortgage or add it to your pension pot.

    You see, I don’t want to do that.

    First, I’m paying only 2% interest on my mortgage and think I can do better. Also, I lose almost all liquidity when I do that until i remortgage.

    Second, if I add it to my pension pot I can’t touch it (I don’t think) until I’m 55 and I will probably want it before then to fund my kids education.

    I think stocks and shares ISAs are probably the answer.
    You are correct that you can not access until 55, do not believe the ads that say you can they are scammers.

    Also if you are interested in learning how to invest then it is good fun and just like betting enjoyable when you pick a winner especially if you get a 10 bagger or above.

    If you go the fund route check the costs, seeing as computers make most of the decisions nowadays decide whether you want to pay over the odds to perhaps be the next Woodford.

    Along with Vanguard already mentioned another source of low cost funds is iShares (run by Barclays).
    BlackRock bought iShares off Barclays in 2009.
  • Phil said:

    FF43 said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    I always had an idea of investing in a woodland. You would see the trees growing, feel an ownership of it and get some satisfaction from helping the planet in a small way. The wood would be worth something eventually as well.
    I’m not interested in virtue signalling.

    Do you have any serious suggestions?
    Woodland is a perfectly good investment. It’s land that grows stuff that you harvest & sell. What’s not to like?

    But like everything else, you can lose your shirt if you don’t know what you’re doing!
    And you need a 30 to 50 year time horizon!
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    I always had an idea of investing in a woodland. You would see the trees growing, feel an ownership of it and get some satisfaction from helping the planet in a small way. The wood would be worth something eventually as well.
    I’m not interested in virtue signalling.

    Do you have any serious suggestions?
    No. You could either have made some bland and polite response or ignored my comment entirely, but hey.
    I’m not a millionaire. It was obvious I wanted to invest.

    You posted something that you wanted to say something about you instead.

    I make decisions.
    You make mistakes
    He virtue signals

    People do invest in forests, I know someone (a non-millionaire who did).
    Also it wasn't obvious until your second post that you wanted to invest - hence my Tesla suggestion.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    I always had an idea of investing in a woodland. You would see the trees growing, feel an ownership of it and get some satisfaction from helping the planet in a small way. The wood would be worth something eventually as well.
    I’m not interested in virtue signalling.

    Do you have any serious suggestions?
    No. You could either have made some bland and polite response or ignored my comment entirely, but hey.
    I’m not a millionaire. It was obvious I wanted to invest.

    You posted something that you wanted to say something about you instead.

    Cannabis farms
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    On a complete tangent, it appears despite mine and @HYUFD's best efforts, the reductions in Central Line services at the eastern end of the line are coming into effect on January 26th.

    It won't be at all pleasant for commuters coming into town from Epping and the like or on the loop from Hainault and Woodford.

    I get to see the Central Line trains at Mile End at 7.15 each morning and they are already completely full.

    Yet we are building thousands of new homes - where is the additional transport capacity and infrastructure to deal with thousands of new travellers? Why didn't anyone think of us before opening the construction floodgates?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    To be fair, it is not just the British plod that has a toxic culture. Just look at some of the US, or RCMP or Catalonia. Or look at hospitals in Shrewsbury, GOSU or Bury St Edmund's, Fire Services at Grenfell or Manchester Arndale. Not just public services either, such as the recent care home and psychiatric providers. Not forgetting the churches and mosques, or parliament itself.

    The problem is fundamentally about power, and that is intrinsic to the structure of society. Put people in power and some will abuse it.

    I very much agree with that (schools are another example).

    The police, though, possess extraordinary powers over potentially any of us. That such abuses can take place so regularly, blatantly and repetitively, and effectively remain unresolved, ought to be a major political issue.
    The politicians are the issue. The prevailing climate is dictated by them not the police in many of these cases. Officers who do not comply are passed over, sidelined, ostracised and rejected and otherwise penalised.

    Why on earth would police officers ignore hundreds of glaring cases of rape, trafficking and other serious crimes in the North and Midlands otherwise?

    Its blatant intimidation by politicians, who hold all the power and all the cards.
    What had political intimidation or pressure to do with corruption at the SFO; the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad; the Met; Cleveland; etc ?

    And the recently reported Manchester case seems to have been the result of the Chief Constable not giving a damn, rather than any particular political pressure.

    Sure, politicians impose targets which are perhaps unnecessary, or downright counterproductive - and there was undoubtedly a climate of misguided political correctness towards minority cultures which contributed to what happened in Rotherham, Rochdale etc. - but there is an institutional rottenness in the police which is if anything a result of political neglect, not pressure.
    Oh please, please.
    Oliver's testimony says that they were expressly told some communities in the north were effectively untouchable
    Do you really think the chief of any police force would dream up the policy to immunise some communities from any form of sanction by the law whatsoever - -all by his or her lonesome??
    Its a stinking rank political decision by politicians anxious to scapegoat officers for their own decisions.
    You're really not addressing anything I've said.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Hah, I knew I was right to compare the non declaration to prorogation!

    According to Law 15.3, pertaining to declaration and forfeitures, a captain's decision "cannot be changed" once he has notified the opposing captain and the umpires.

    However, an MCC spokesperson told ESPNcricinfo that the "right decision" had been reached, given that the ICC's playing regulations make provision for the use of replays to aid decision-making.

    "One should have some sympathy for Root," the spokesman added, "because it is clear that, had the umpires not made an error in failing to call the no-ball, he would not have declared when he did."

    Although the ICC's playing conditions make no specific reference to erroneous declarations, clause 2.5.4 states that, in the event of a no-ball being called following a check by the third umpire, "the batting side shall benefit from the reversal of the decision, and the one run for the no-ball, but shall not benefit from any runs that may subsequently have accrued."

    In other words, the state of the game resets to the point at which the error was made, therefore rendering the declaration void.


    https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/28502067/right-decision-reached-england-un-declare-no-ball-reprieve
  • stodge said:

    On a complete tangent, it appears despite mine and @HYUFD's best efforts, the reductions in Central Line services at the eastern end of the line are coming into effect on January 26th.

    It won't be at all pleasant for commuters coming into town from Epping and the like or on the loop from Hainault and Woodford.

    I get to see the Central Line trains at Mile End at 7.15 each morning and they are already completely full.

    Yet we are building thousands of new homes - where is the additional transport capacity and infrastructure to deal with thousands of new travellers? Why didn't anyone think of us before opening the construction floodgates?

    It's almost as though we need Crossrail.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    edited January 2020

    Pulpstar said:

    @Casino_Royale Pay off the mortgage or add it to your pension pot.

    You see, I don’t want to do that.

    First, I’m paying only 2% interest on my mortgage and think I can do better. Also, I lose almost all liquidity when I do that until i remortgage.

    Second, if I add it to my pension pot I can’t touch it (I don’t think) until I’m 55 and I will probably want it before then to fund my kids education.

    I think stocks and shares ISAs are probably the answer.
    Given what you say above, a stocks and shares ISA is the answer assuming you are happy to take the risk. A more cautious approach would be a 5 year fixed rate deposit (for example) (2.5% last time I looked if you take no interest until maturity). The interest would be tax free up to £1000pa as you will have a £1k personal savings allowance (£2k if you are married and happy to split the money). Ignore cash ISAs, the rates are terrible.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    kle4 said:

    Hah, I knew I was right to compare the non declaration to prorogation!

    According to Law 15.3, pertaining to declaration and forfeitures, a captain's decision "cannot be changed" once he has notified the opposing captain and the umpires.

    However, an MCC spokesperson told ESPNcricinfo that the "right decision" had been reached, given that the ICC's playing regulations make provision for the use of replays to aid decision-making.

    "One should have some sympathy for Root," the spokesman added, "because it is clear that, had the umpires not made an error in failing to call the no-ball, he would not have declared when he did."

    Although the ICC's playing conditions make no specific reference to erroneous declarations, clause 2.5.4 states that, in the event of a no-ball being called following a check by the third umpire, "the batting side shall benefit from the reversal of the decision, and the one run for the no-ball, but shall not benefit from any runs that may subsequently have accrued."

    In other words, the state of the game resets to the point at which the error was made, therefore rendering the declaration void.


    https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/28502067/right-decision-reached-england-un-declare-no-ball-reprieve

    "In other words, the state of the game resets to the point at which the error was made, therefore rendering the declaration void."
    That is something of a stretch.

    Still, umpire's decision final, however erroneous, etc - and no doubt a clarification of the rules will be issued in due course.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    edited January 2020

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    Buy a field, turn it into woodland.

    Edit: Just seen that FF43 got there before me. And in a more eloquent manner.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    What actually happened with the declaration for us to declare on such an odd number? I was out at a client lunch so didn’t see it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    What actually happened with the declaration for us to declare on such an odd number? I was out at a client lunch so didn’t see it.

    Just that Wood, who was smacking it about, got out, and they must have decided it wasn't worth sending Broad out just for the effect of reaching 500. They're probably right, people would have criticised them fo rit.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Woodland sounds like the way to go then.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618

    Anorak said:

    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    If you watch Cricket and have OCD, are you ok with the decimal point in the overs bowled figure? Always bugs me that 0.3 is half way through an over, and 0.5 is 5/6ths. My remedy is to replace the decimal point with a comma
    My biggest problem in some older tests there used to be 8 ball overs, so I couldn’t process it.

    As a scorer annoyed me when umpires miscounted too.

    The 100 is going to break me with the final over being ten balls.
    They are all ten-ball overs. Your OCD should be at peace as the decimal point is actually a decimal point!

    You can have two bowlers in each over though, which may cause a breakdown in inself.
    Yeah I knew there was some weirdness.

    One of the reasons I’m boycotting the hundred.
    Why don’t you give it a chance before rejecting it out of hand? It’s the first live cricket on terrestrial TV for 15 years (other than the WC Final) so it’s important it succeeds, as a way of inspiring youngsters into the sport.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949
    edited January 2020
    Phil said:

    nunu2 said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    Let me invest it for you.
    I may regret asking this question..
    The usual answer to this, for the vast majority of people goes as follows:

    Do you need the money in the next 2-3 years? If so, stick it in a savings account & accept a small loss to inflation.

    Otherwise, open a Vanguard ISA, stick £20k in their US/EU/UK stock market tracker. Wait three months for the new tax year. Stick the other £20k in. Walk away and forget about it until you need the money.

    Maybe keep 10% back as play money to invest in silly things if you feel the urge to "manage your own investments".

    Unless you have some personal insight into a particular field (I mean, you are commenting on a betting site...) that makes investing there worthwhile, avoid the temptation to manage your own portfolio at all costs. It ends badly for the majority of people. Even the ones that claim to have won big are often keeping quiet about the investments that didn’t make money (much like the betting world!).
    This is excellent advice. If you want more active (but not necessarily better) options:

    1. Put a sizeable sum on Trump being renominated. It's just shy of 1.10 on Betfair at the moment, but if you got matched at 1.10 after some news story (Republican senator says they are 'Focused on a fair impeachment trial') gives a brief boost then that's almost a 10% return (-2% commission, so 9.8%) tax free in 7 months (if you think this is virtually certain). Even adjusting for risk it's probably 5% expected value return minimum, and annualised that competes well with historic equities returns.

    You genuinely could get that kind of money on Trump too, at 1.10.

    2. Use it as the deposit for a buy-to-let property. 5% rental yield is achievable and you might get capital growth far outstripping that. This has the downsides of being illiquid, having all your eggs in one basket, and involving more ongoing admin than the others. Personally I wouldn't do this over just putting it in shares, but some people find the effort of BTL worth it.
  • Byronic said:

    a place where Scotland would have zero influence, unlike in London.

    Beside myself with excitement at all this influence Scotland has in London.
    Less than 10 years ago ‘Scotland’ provided the PM and the Chancellor, and the transport, health and defence secretary a few years before. The ‘Scottish’ PM was also influential in responding to the global financial crisis through the institutions of the UK, and thereby the world. In the coalition government, is they provided the very influential ‘Scottish’ Chief Secretary of the Treasury, who was one of the core quad of decision makers.

    Scottish MPs helped the government stay in office in the last parliament, and made a great contribution in Westminster. In the present parliament, the Chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster is Scottish and Scottish fishing interests will feature large in the Brexit negotiations.

    True, Scotland isn’t supplying many MPs for all the big offices of state right now - that’s what happens if you vote for separatists - but there’s nothing stopping them changing that in future and becoming very influential again.
    You're obviously one of them thar ethno nats.
    I'm not.
    Astoundingly weak riposte, even for you.
    You made the fatuous suggestion that I should be in some way gratified that idiots like Kirstein Hair and Ross Thomson and the ghastly Gove are/were in parliament on the basis of the accident of where they were born. I'm guessing that kind of insight comes from the same place that was touting 10-15 and 15-20 SCon MPs.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094
    An excellent piece.

    But what is missing here is the "authoritirianising" / broadening of the entire police culture - from Anti-Terrorist Legistation used to check on school attendance to "consent to a DNA sample or we will find a way to arrest you anyway to get one". There is no end of it.

    Question:

    Who hes the last Home Secreratary who did not go native?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    I always had an idea of investing in a woodland. You would see the trees growing, feel an ownership of it and get some satisfaction from helping the planet in a small way. The wood would be worth something eventually as well.
    I’m not interested in virtue signalling.

    Do you have any serious suggestions?
    No. You could either have made some bland and polite response or ignored my comment entirely, but hey.
    I’m not a millionaire. It was obvious I wanted to invest.

    You posted something that you wanted to say something about you instead.

    To be honest I thought your response was needlessly rude, and used a stupid phrase: virtual signalling. Flame away! 🔥
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    Quincel said:

    Phil said:

    nunu2 said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    Let me invest it for you.
    I may regret asking this question..
    The usual answer to this, for the vast majority of people goes as follows:

    Do you need the money in the next 2-3 years? If so, stick it in a savings account & accept a small loss to inflation.

    Otherwise, open a Vanguard ISA, stick £20k in their US/EU/UK stock market tracker. Wait three months for the new tax year. Stick the other £20k in. Walk away and forget about it until you need the money.

    Maybe keep 10% back as play money to invest in silly things if you feel the urge to "manage your own investments".

    Unless you have some personal insight into a particular field (I mean, you are commenting on a betting site...) that makes investing there worthwhile, avoid the temptation to manage your own portfolio at all costs. It ends badly for the majority of people. Even the ones that claim to have won big are often keeping quiet about the investments that didn’t make money (much like the betting world!).
    This is excellent advice. If you want more active (but not necessarily better) options:

    1. Put a sizeable sum on Trump being renominated. It's just shy of 1.10 on Betfair at the moment, but if you got matched at 1.10 after some news story (Republican senator says they are 'Focused on a fair impeachment trial') gives a brief boost then that's almost a 10% return (-2% commission, so 9.8%) tax free in 7 months (if you think this is virtually certain). Even adjusting for risk it's probably 5% expected value return minimum, and annualised that competes well with historic equities returns.

    You genuinely could get that kind of money on Trump too, at 1.10.

    2. Use it as the deposit for a buy-to-let property. 5% rental yield is achievable and you might get capital growth far outstripping that. This has the downsides of being illiquid, having all your eggs in one basket, and involving more ongoing admin than the others. Personally I wouldn't do this over just putting it in shares, but some people find the effort of BTL worth it.
    BTL: penal stamp duty rate + other leach fees + property maintainance costs + costs of borrowing and associated fees + risk of non payment of rent + tenant damage to property + illiquid asset + fees to sell + hastle and worry + capital gains tax + tax on rental income + cost of house insurance = do a stocks and shares ISA.*

    * obvs go down the non-advised route not the advised route.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    Buy a field, turn it into woodland.

    Edit: Just seen that FF43 got there before me. And in a more eloquent manner.
    I'm curious now, I know people literally can do this but is it a popular/smart investment? It's like two people suggested investing in single malt whisky. There is a market in such things but it's an odd thing to suggest to a random person as an investment unless they'd expressed an interest in the area.

    Isn't it? Or am I missing something?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745

    stodge said:

    On a complete tangent, it appears despite mine and @HYUFD's best efforts, the reductions in Central Line services at the eastern end of the line are coming into effect on January 26th.

    It won't be at all pleasant for commuters coming into town from Epping and the like or on the loop from Hainault and Woodford.

    I get to see the Central Line trains at Mile End at 7.15 each morning and they are already completely full.

    Yet we are building thousands of new homes - where is the additional transport capacity and infrastructure to deal with thousands of new travellers? Why didn't anyone think of us before opening the construction floodgates?

    It's almost as though we need Crossrail.
    Yes, now due mid 2021 apparently.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    Byronic said:

    a place where Scotland would have zero influence, unlike in London.

    Beside myself with excitement at all this influence Scotland has in London.
    Less than 10 years ago ‘Scotland’ provided the PM and the Chancellor, and the transport, health and defence secretary a few years before. The ‘Scottish’ PM was also influential in responding to the global financial crisis through the institutions of the UK, and thereby the world. In the coalition government, is they provided the very influential ‘Scottish’ Chief Secretary of the Treasury, who was one of the core quad of decision makers.

    Scottish MPs helped the government stay in office in the last parliament, and made a great contribution in Westminster. In the present parliament, the Chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster is Scottish and Scottish fishing interests will feature large in the Brexit negotiations.

    True, Scotland isn’t supplying many MPs for all the big offices of state right now - that’s what happens if you vote for separatists - but there’s nothing stopping them changing that in future and becoming very influential again.
    You're obviously one of them thar ethno nats.
    I'm not.
    Astoundingly weak riposte, even for you.
    You made the fatuous suggestion that I should be in some way gratified that idiots like Kirstein Hair and Ross Thomson and the ghastly Gove are/were in parliament on the basis of the accident of where they were born. I'm guessing that kind of insight comes from the same place that was touting 10-15 and 15-20 SCon MPs.
    Obviously the wrong kind of Scottish influence.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Excellent if depressing thread header.

    What I have found frustrating in the extreme is the unwillingness of the police to pursue blatant fraudsters and white collar criminals. The number of times I have heard, "oh, that's a civil matter" is uncountable. In many insolvency cases there were also offences in terms of the Bankruptcy Acts. All of the evidence was tied up in a nice neat package but nothing happens. Of course this does not stop people from being prosecuted for comparatively trivial levels of benefit fraud or the truly heinous crime of not having a TV licence.

    Such ineptitude is corrosive of trust. There is one law for the poor and one for the better off (no matter how they became so). As @Cyclefree points out it undermines consent. I wouldn't put this near the truly shameful neglect of vulnerable young girls and boys in terms of seriousness but it is frustrating and aggravating.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Phil said:

    FF43 said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    I always had an idea of investing in a woodland. You would see the trees growing, feel an ownership of it and get some satisfaction from helping the planet in a small way. The wood would be worth something eventually as well.
    I’m not interested in virtue signalling.

    Do you have any serious suggestions?
    Woodland is a perfectly good investment. It’s land that grows stuff that you harvest & sell. What’s not to like?

    But like everything else, you can lose your shirt if you don’t know what you’re doing!
    And you need a 30 to 50 year time horizon!
    By which time god knows what the market is for whatever it is you are growing*, if you haven't been compulsorily purchased for housing and Greta's Law hasn't been passed making it a capital offence to fell a tree.

    *though I believe you can sell cricket bat willows forward for decades.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094

    Byronic said:

    If anyone ever asks Why Brexit, show them this

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/17/eu-eyes-temporary-ban-on-facial-recognition-in-public-places

    Now, this proposed EU law might be good. Or bad. I dunno. But why is this even an EU power anyway? When did we hand this to them? When was our big national debate on giving this unaccountable organisation such huge influence on our lives, in such a crucial area?

    I must have missed it. Or we didn't have one

    And who proposed this new EU law banning face recognition? Where do these ideas for laws come from? They seem to appear like smoke, out of nowhere. They magically materialise, and they pass into EU law, and after that they can never be repealed. And our national debate is zero, and our sense of control is zero, and our input is precisely zero.

    This is why we must get out of the EU, and why Boris must refuse alignment. OUT OUT OUT

    I think you might be making a rather fundamental error there, namely of assuming that getting OUT OUT OUT would mean we're not going to be subject to that sort of EU law. If it comes under citizens' digital rights, which I think it would, then I'd be extremely surprised if we end up not signing up to their regulations: GDPR and all that stuff is simply too important to the 'level playing field'.

    The fact is, the EU is next door to us and it is a regulatory super-power - even powerful enough to impose its regulation on US mega-corporations. Ain't no getting away from that.
    Does the EU have a strategy for dealing with areas where their standards are piss-poor?
  • DavidL said:

    Excellent if depressing thread header.

    What I have found frustrating in the extreme is the unwillingness of the police to pursue blatant fraudsters and white collar criminals. The number of times I have heard, "oh, that's a civil matter" is uncountable. In many insolvency cases there were also offences in terms of the Bankruptcy Acts. All of the evidence was tied up in a nice neat package but nothing happens. Of course this does not stop people from being prosecuted for comparatively trivial levels of benefit fraud or the truly heinous crime of not having a TV licence.

    Such ineptitude is corrosive of trust. There is one law for the poor and one for the better off (no matter how they became so). As @Cyclefree points out it undermines consent. I wouldn't put this near the truly shameful neglect of vulnerable young girls and boys in terms of seriousness but it is frustrating and aggravating.

    I have been told before by the police that a threat to kill was a civil matter (a colleague was thankfully eventually able to convince them otherwise).

    Nothing surprises me any more.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    kle4 said:

    Hah, I knew I was right to compare the non declaration to prorogation!

    According to Law 15.3, pertaining to declaration and forfeitures, a captain's decision "cannot be changed" once he has notified the opposing captain and the umpires.

    However, an MCC spokesperson told ESPNcricinfo that the "right decision" had been reached, given that the ICC's playing regulations make provision for the use of replays to aid decision-making.

    "One should have some sympathy for Root," the spokesman added, "because it is clear that, had the umpires not made an error in failing to call the no-ball, he would not have declared when he did."

    Although the ICC's playing conditions make no specific reference to erroneous declarations, clause 2.5.4 states that, in the event of a no-ball being called following a check by the third umpire, "the batting side shall benefit from the reversal of the decision, and the one run for the no-ball, but shall not benefit from any runs that may subsequently have accrued."

    In other words, the state of the game resets to the point at which the error was made, therefore rendering the declaration void.


    https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/28502067/right-decision-reached-england-un-declare-no-ball-reprieve

    Where is Lady Hale when she is needed for something that matters?

  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    edited January 2020
    I think 4/6 Starmer plus a bit of Ladbrokes "boost" is a cracking bet. Max they allow with boost is £50 per day. I`m betting £50 every day until those odds go.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    Quincel said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    Buy a field, turn it into woodland.

    Edit: Just seen that FF43 got there before me. And in a more eloquent manner.
    I'm curious now, I know people literally can do this but is it a popular/smart investment? It's like two people suggested investing in single malt whisky. There is a market in such things but it's an odd thing to suggest to a random person as an investment unless they'd expressed an interest in the area.

    Isn't it? Or am I missing something?
    When I looked into it some time ago, aware of the constraints other people mentioned here, but thinking it would be an interesting and not totally stupid place to put some money I had, it just seemed kind of difficult, so I never went ahead with it. I mildly regret that, actually. The market seemed to be set up for big players,

    If you are looking strictly for cash returns, Phil's advice is the sensible one, I think.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    edited January 2020

    Pulpstar said:

    @Casino_Royale Pay off the mortgage or add it to your pension pot.

    You see, I don’t want to do that.

    First, I’m paying only 2% interest on my mortgage and think I can do better. Also, I lose almost all liquidity when I do that until i remortgage.

    Second, if I add it to my pension pot I can’t touch it (I don’t think) until I’m 55 and I will probably want it before then to fund my kids education.

    I think stocks and shares ISAs are probably the answer.
    So this is a bit off the wall but something I have been doing for years successfully and more relevant when interest rates are higher and only if you are responsible with credit cards and can tabs on what you are doing (which I suspect you can):

    a) Pay off your mortgage

    OK you are now short of funds that you want in a few years

    b) Take out 0% credit card, when full take out another and so on. Get you wife to do the same. A good time before the free interest rate period expires look out for 0% balance transfer credit cards and transfer if you can get one with a zero transfer fee. If you have to pay one off (ie you couldn't get a free transfer in time) always do so on time. Always keep to the rules. Once full or a balance transfer card file away and never use.

    It takes some managing but I found I could get up to £100K in free credit on a rolling basis and what is more, the more I did the better my credit rating and the higher the credit limit I got each time.

    Always, always ensure you can pay off in time.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    IshmaelZ said:

    Phil said:

    FF43 said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    I always had an idea of investing in a woodland. You would see the trees growing, feel an ownership of it and get some satisfaction from helping the planet in a small way. The wood would be worth something eventually as well.
    I’m not interested in virtue signalling.

    Do you have any serious suggestions?
    Woodland is a perfectly good investment. It’s land that grows stuff that you harvest & sell. What’s not to like?

    But like everything else, you can lose your shirt if you don’t know what you’re doing!
    And you need a 30 to 50 year time horizon!
    By which time god knows what the market is for whatever it is you are growing*, if you haven't been compulsorily purchased for housing and Greta's Law hasn't been passed making it a capital offence to fell a tree.

    *though I believe you can sell cricket bat willows forward for decades.
    In suggest that 'Greta's Law' would be good name for the law which states that the point in time at which cataclysmic global catastrophe is claimed to become unavoidable and irreversible will always and in all circumstances be in the short to medium future and will never be in the past, the present moment, or in the far distant future.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    Pay my tax bill? Can't think of anything more responsible than giving it to HMRC.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    By which time god knows what the market is for whatever it is you are growing*, if you haven't been compulsorily purchased for housing and Greta's Law hasn't been passed making it a capital offence to fell a tree.

    *though I believe you can sell cricket bat willows forward for decades.

    Some years ago when we moved into our current house there were some old trees at the edge of the garden which we wanted to take down. My wife insisted that they were cricket bat willows and we could sell them, a proposition which naturally I dismissed as completely absurd, as one does. But she contacted Gray Nicolls and indeed it turned out that she was right (as she usually is): they were cricket-bat willows, albeit not in very good condition, and Gray Nicolls paid us a small amount for them, rather than us having to pay to get them cut down. They also replanted some more willows in a different location for us, all at no charge.

    Not sure there's much of a market now, though. Aren't bats now all produced in India?
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    edited January 2020

    Byronic said:

    If anyone ever asks Why Brexit, show them this

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/17/eu-eyes-temporary-ban-on-facial-recognition-in-public-places

    Now, this proposed EU law might be good. Or bad. I dunno. But why is this even an EU power anyway? When did we hand this to them? When was our big national debate on giving this unaccountable organisation such huge influence on our lives, in such a crucial area?

    I must have missed it. Or we didn't have one

    And who proposed this new EU law banning face recognition? Where do these ideas for laws come from? They seem to appear like smoke, out of nowhere. They magically materialise, and they pass into EU law, and after that they can never be repealed. And our national debate is zero, and our sense of control is zero, and our input is precisely zero.

    This is why we must get out of the EU, and why Boris must refuse alignment. OUT OUT OUT

    I think you might be making a rather fundamental error there, namely of assuming that getting OUT OUT OUT would mean we're not going to be subject to that sort of EU law. If it comes under citizens' digital rights, which I think it would, then I'd be extremely surprised if we end up not signing up to their regulations: GDPR and all that stuff is simply too important to the 'level playing field'.

    The fact is, the EU is next door to us and it is a regulatory super-power - even powerful enough to impose its regulation on US mega-corporations. Ain't no getting away from that.
    No, you’re wrong. This EU law wants to prevent the nations from using facial recognition tech in their own countries, by cops, companies, etc, thus scuppering some potentially brilliant usage of AI (or stopping 1984, take yer pick)

    If we are outside the EU, this law cannot be imposed on us, and we will be able to allow, or prohibit, this tech inside the UK, as we see fit in the UK.

    This is not like GDPR which - I wholly accept - will intrude on UK internet sites just as it affects US companies.

    The EU is desperate for us to align with their rules (see Leyden and Merkel today in separate speeches and interviews) they are wary of a more liberal competitor, on their doorstep.

    There is no point doing Brexit if we don’t seize the chance to exploit EU rigidities and stupidities. We need quite a hard Brexit, which will definitely hurt.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949
    Stocky said:

    I think 4/6 Starmer plus a bit of Ladbrokes "boost" is a cracking bet. Max they allow with boost is £50 per day. I`m betting £50 every day until those odds go.

    Stupid question: Are the odds better than Betfair (factoring in commission)? I got on at 1.75 with Betfair a couple of days ago. And obviously that allows an easier cashout/hedge option.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    edited January 2020
    kjh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Casino_Royale Pay off the mortgage or add it to your pension pot.

    You see, I don’t want to do that.

    First, I’m paying only 2% interest on my mortgage and think I can do better. Also, I lose almost all liquidity when I do that until i remortgage.

    Second, if I add it to my pension pot I can’t touch it (I don’t think) until I’m 55 and I will probably want it before then to fund my kids education.

    I think stocks and shares ISAs are probably the answer.
    So this is a bit off the wall but something I have been doing for years successfully and more relevant when interest rates are higher and only if you are responsible with credit cards and can tabs on what you are doing (which I suspect you can):

    a) Pay off your mortgage

    OK you are now short of funds that you want in a few years

    b) Take out 0% credit card, when full take out another and so on. Get you wife to do the same. A good time before the free interest rate period expires look out for 0% balance transfer credit cards and transfer if you can get one with a zero transfer fee. If you have to pay one off (ie you couldn't get a free transfer in time) always do so on time. Always keep to the rules. Once full or a balance transfer card file away and never use.

    It takes some managing but I found I could get up to £100K in free credit on a rolling basis and what is more, the more I did the better my credit rating and the higher the credit limit I got each time.

    Always, always ensure you can pay off in time.
    deleted.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    Excellent if depressing thread header.

    What I have found frustrating in the extreme is the unwillingness of the police to pursue blatant fraudsters and white collar criminals. The number of times I have heard, "oh, that's a civil matter" is uncountable. In many insolvency cases there were also offences in terms of the Bankruptcy Acts. All of the evidence was tied up in a nice neat package but nothing happens. Of course this does not stop people from being prosecuted for comparatively trivial levels of benefit fraud or the truly heinous crime of not having a TV licence.

    Such ineptitude is corrosive of trust. There is one law for the poor and one for the better off (no matter how they became so). As @Cyclefree points out it undermines consent. I wouldn't put this near the truly shameful neglect of vulnerable young girls and boys in terms of seriousness but it is frustrating and aggravating.

    I have been told before by the police that a threat to kill was a civil matter (a colleague was thankfully eventually able to convince them otherwise).

    Nothing surprises me any more.
    That was one idiot. This happens all the time. Policemen are not trained to understand numbers, at all. They just glaze over and try to find ways of getting it off their desk.

    I was once involved in the prosecution of a solicitor for fraud. He had backdated invoices to cover the money he was stealing from the executories so much that the VAT rate was wrong on several of them. I got involved the week before the trial started. No one had noticed. I mean, they knew the invoices were fraudulent. Why had no one looked at what they said? Bah.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    Quincel said:

    Stocky said:

    I think 4/6 Starmer plus a bit of Ladbrokes "boost" is a cracking bet. Max they allow with boost is £50 per day. I`m betting £50 every day until those odds go.

    Stupid question: Are the odds better than Betfair (factoring in commission)? I got on at 1.75 with Betfair a couple of days ago. And obviously that allows an easier cashout/hedge option.
    It depends on the deal you have chosen with Betfair. I`d guess 1.75 is roughly equiv with 4/6 when you factor in BF commissions.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    What actually happened with the declaration for us to declare on such an odd number? I was out at a client lunch so didn’t see it.

    Wood was out.

    Rather more odd was the decision to open the bowling with Curran rather than Wood. Who when he did eventually come on, bowled faster than anyone this match.
    Verging on the bizarre.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    Byronic said:

    a place where Scotland would have zero influence, unlike in London.

    Beside myself with excitement at all this influence Scotland has in London.
    Less than 10 years ago ‘Scotland’ provided the PM and the Chancellor, and the transport, health and defence secretary a few years before. The ‘Scottish’ PM was also influential in responding to the global financial crisis through the institutions of the UK, and thereby the world. In the coalition government, is they provided the very influential ‘Scottish’ Chief Secretary of the Treasury, who was one of the core quad of decision makers.

    Scottish MPs helped the government stay in office in the last parliament, and made a great contribution in Westminster. In the present parliament, the Chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster is Scottish and Scottish fishing interests will feature large in the Brexit negotiations.

    True, Scotland isn’t supplying many MPs for all the big offices of state right now - that’s what happens if you vote for separatists - but there’s nothing stopping them changing that in future and becoming very influential again.
    You're obviously one of them thar ethno nats.
    I'm not.
    Astoundingly weak riposte, even for you.
    You made the fatuous suggestion that I should be in some way gratified that idiots like Kirstein Hair and Ross Thomson and the ghastly Gove are/were in parliament on the basis of the accident of where they were born. I'm guessing that kind of insight comes from the same place that was touting 10-15 and 15-20 SCon MPs.
    Kirstene Hair is not an idiot. She was a very good MP and I hope she will be again.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    IshmaelZ said:

    By which time god knows what the market is for whatever it is you are growing*, if you haven't been compulsorily purchased for housing and Greta's Law hasn't been passed making it a capital offence to fell a tree.

    *though I believe you can sell cricket bat willows forward for decades.

    Some years ago when we moved into our current house there were some old trees at the edge of the garden which we wanted to take down. My wife insisted that they were cricket bat willows and we could sell them, a proposition which naturally I dismissed as completely absurd, as one does. But she contacted Gray Nicolls and indeed it turned out that she was right (as she usually is): they were cricket-bat willows, albeit not in very good condition, and Gray Nicolls paid us a small amount for them, rather than us having to pay to get them cut down. They also replanted some more willows in a different location for us, all at no charge.

    Not sure there's much of a market now, though. Aren't bats now all produced in India?
    No that's batsmen.
  • DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    By which time god knows what the market is for whatever it is you are growing*, if you haven't been compulsorily purchased for housing and Greta's Law hasn't been passed making it a capital offence to fell a tree.

    *though I believe you can sell cricket bat willows forward for decades.

    Some years ago when we moved into our current house there were some old trees at the edge of the garden which we wanted to take down. My wife insisted that they were cricket bat willows and we could sell them, a proposition which naturally I dismissed as completely absurd, as one does. But she contacted Gray Nicolls and indeed it turned out that she was right (as she usually is): they were cricket-bat willows, albeit not in very good condition, and Gray Nicolls paid us a small amount for them, rather than us having to pay to get them cut down. They also replanted some more willows in a different location for us, all at no charge.

    Not sure there's much of a market now, though. Aren't bats now all produced in India?
    No that's batsmen.
    LOL!

    I see that I was wrong on that - Gray Nicolls still uses Sussex willow.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    I think you might be making a rather fundamental error there, namely of assuming that getting OUT OUT OUT would mean we're not going to be subject to that sort of EU law. If it comes under citizens' digital rights, which I think it would, then I'd be extremely surprised if we end up not signing up to their regulations: GDPR and all that stuff is simply too important to the 'level playing field'.

    The fact is, the EU is next door to us and it is a regulatory super-power - even powerful enough to impose its regulation on US mega-corporations. Ain't no getting away from that.
    No, you’re wrong. This EU law wants to prevent the nations from using facial recognition tech in their own countries, by cops, companies, etc, thus scuppering some potentially brilliant usage of AI (or stopping 1984, take yer pick)

    If we are outside the EU, this law cannot be imposed on us, and we will be able to allow, or prohibit, this tech inside the UK, as we see fit in the UK.

    This is not like GDPR which - I wholly accept - will intrude on UK internet sites just as it affects US companies.

    The EU is desperate for us to align with their rules (see Leyden and Merkel today in separate speeches and interviews) they are very scared of a more liberal competitor, on their doorstep.

    There is no point doing Brexit if we don’t seize the chance to exploit EU rigidities and stupidities. We need quite a hard Brexit, which will definitely hurt.
    Interesting point. I think it probably would come in scope for GDPR. The aim of the adequacy assessment is to remove the need to put controls on EU data going to the UK because all data in the UK is handled to EU standards. It may come down to a distinction between the capture of the data (you can have cameras in the UK but not in the EU) and the processing of that captured data (you can have cameras in both places but you can't parse that data for facial recognition). If it's the second, and I think it probably is, I would expect it to be disallowed for UK captured data as well as EU captured data.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Nigelb said:

    What actually happened with the declaration for us to declare on such an odd number? I was out at a client lunch so didn’t see it.

    Wood was out.

    Rather more odd was the decision to open the bowling with Curran rather than Wood. Who when he did eventually come on, bowled faster than anyone this match.
    Verging on the bizarre.
    Both the wickets to fall went to the spinner as did 5 to Maharaj (who was superb). This pitch is death for fast bowlers, so much effort so little reward. I think England were more focused on swing than speed, probably rightly even although it didn't work.
  • DavidL said:

    Byronic said:

    a place where Scotland would have zero influence, unlike in London.

    Beside myself with excitement at all this influence Scotland has in London.
    Less than 10 years ago ‘Scotland’ provided the PM and the Chancellor, and the transport, health and defence secretary a few years before. The ‘Scottish’ PM was also influential in responding to the global financial crisis through the institutions of the UK, and thereby the world. In the coalition government, is they provided the very influential ‘Scottish’ Chief Secretary of the Treasury, who was one of the core quad of decision makers.

    Scottish MPs helped the government stay in office in the last parliament, and made a great contribution in Westminster. In the present parliament, the Chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster is Scottish and Scottish fishing interests will feature large in the Brexit negotiations.

    True, Scotland isn’t supplying many MPs for all the big offices of state right now - that’s what happens if you vote for separatists - but there’s nothing stopping them changing that in future and becoming very influential again.
    You're obviously one of them thar ethno nats.
    I'm not.
    Astoundingly weak riposte, even for you.
    You made the fatuous suggestion that I should be in some way gratified that idiots like Kirstein Hair and Ross Thomson and the ghastly Gove are/were in parliament on the basis of the accident of where they were born. I'm guessing that kind of insight comes from the same place that was touting 10-15 and 15-20 SCon MPs.
    Kirstene Hair is not an idiot. She was a very good MP and I hope she will be again.
    Which of her contributions to the national discourse d'ye think was her high point?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Quincel said:

    Stocky said:

    I think 4/6 Starmer plus a bit of Ladbrokes "boost" is a cracking bet. Max they allow with boost is £50 per day. I`m betting £50 every day until those odds go.

    Stupid question: Are the odds better than Betfair (factoring in commission)? I got on at 1.75 with Betfair a couple of days ago. And obviously that allows an easier cashout/hedge option.
    Depends if you're on Premium charge or not.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited January 2020
    Pulpstar said:

    Quincel said:

    Stocky said:

    I think 4/6 Starmer plus a bit of Ladbrokes "boost" is a cracking bet. Max they allow with boost is £50 per day. I`m betting £50 every day until those odds go.

    Stupid question: Are the odds better than Betfair (factoring in commission)? I got on at 1.75 with Betfair a couple of days ago. And obviously that allows an easier cashout/hedge option.
    Depends if you're on Premium charge or not.
    Big move to Keir in the last half hour

    There's been a YouGov and he beats her 63/37
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    By which time god knows what the market is for whatever it is you are growing*, if you haven't been compulsorily purchased for housing and Greta's Law hasn't been passed making it a capital offence to fell a tree.

    *though I believe you can sell cricket bat willows forward for decades.

    Some years ago when we moved into our current house there were some old trees at the edge of the garden which we wanted to take down. My wife insisted that they were cricket bat willows and we could sell them, a proposition which naturally I dismissed as completely absurd, as one does. But she contacted Gray Nicolls and indeed it turned out that she was right (as she usually is): they were cricket-bat willows, albeit not in very good condition, and Gray Nicolls paid us a small amount for them, rather than us having to pay to get them cut down. They also replanted some more willows in a different location for us, all at no charge.

    Not sure there's much of a market now, though. Aren't bats now all produced in India?
    No that's batsmen.
    LOL!

    I see that I was wrong on that - Gray Nicolls still uses Sussex willow.
    What happens with most leather tack (for horses) you buy here is it says ENGLISH LEATHER like that and made in india like that - they ship it out to be worked, then ship it back. I suspect cricket bats may be the same system.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    Nigelb said:

    What actually happened with the declaration for us to declare on such an odd number? I was out at a client lunch so didn’t see it.

    Wood was out.

    Rather more odd was the decision to open the bowling with Curran rather than Wood. Who when he did eventually come on, bowled faster than anyone this match.
    Verging on the bizarre.
    Bonkers. That’s twice we’ve opened with Curran this series. Really odd thinking.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    FF43 said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    I think you might be making a rather fundamental error there, namely of assuming that getting OUT OUT OUT would mean we're not going to be subject to that sort of EU law. If it comes under citizens' digital rights, which I think it would, then I'd be extremely surprised if we end up not signing up to their regulations: GDPR and all that stuff is simply too important to the 'level playing field'.

    The fact is, the EU is next door to us and it is a regulatory super-power - even powerful enough to impose its regulation on US mega-corporations. Ain't no getting away from that.
    No, you’re wrong. This EU law wants to prevent the nations from using facial recognition tech in their own countries, by cops, companies, etc, thus scuppering some potentially brilliant usage of AI (or stopping 1984, take yer pick)

    If we are outside the EU, this law cannot be imposed on us, and we will be able to allow, or prohibit, this tech inside the UK, as we see fit in the UK.

    This is not like GDPR which - I wholly accept - will intrude on UK internet sites just as it affects US companies.

    The EU is desperate for us to align with their rules (see Leyden and Merkel today in separate speeches and interviews) they are very scared of a more liberal competitor, on their doorstep.

    There is no point doing Brexit if we don’t seize the chance to exploit EU rigidities and stupidities. We need quite a hard Brexit, which will definitely hurt.
    Interesting point. I think it probably would come in scope for GDPR. The aim of the adequacy assessment is to remove the need to put controls on EU data going to the UK because all data in the UK is handled to EU standards. It may come down to a distinction between the capture of the data (you can have cameras in the UK but not in the EU) and the processing of that captured data (you can have cameras in both places but you can't parse that data for facial recognition). If it's the second, and I think it probably is, I would expect it to be disallowed for UK captured data as well as EU captured data.
    No, it really wouldn’t. The UK is going for a Canada type deal with the EU. Or even lighter than that,

    Will the EU be able to force Canada to turn off face recog tech used in Canada by Canadians on Canadians? No, of course not.

    The EU is a “regulatory superpower” but it isn’t an omnipotent global hegemon
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    DavidL said:

    Excellent if depressing thread header.

    What I have found frustrating in the extreme is the unwillingness of the police to pursue blatant fraudsters and white collar criminals. The number of times I have heard, "oh, that's a civil matter" is uncountable. In many insolvency cases there were also offences in terms of the Bankruptcy Acts. All of the evidence was tied up in a nice neat package but nothing happens. Of course this does not stop people from being prosecuted for comparatively trivial levels of benefit fraud or the truly heinous crime of not having a TV licence.

    Such ineptitude is corrosive of trust. There is one law for the poor and one for the better off (no matter how they became so). As @Cyclefree points out it undermines consent. I wouldn't put this near the truly shameful neglect of vulnerable young girls and boys in terms of seriousness but it is frustrating and aggravating.

    Fraud, IMO, is a violent crime against the person. Destroys lives. I would rather be punched in the nose so hard as to require surgery than to have all my money stolen.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    How do Phillips and Nandy get in with a chance? They've had reasonably high profile launches and some positive buzz, but unless they seize the chance it could be an embarrasing final total for them.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960
    kle4 said:

    What actually happened with the declaration for us to declare on such an odd number? I was out at a client lunch so didn’t see it.

    Just that Wood, who was smacking it about, got out, and they must have decided it wasn't worth sending Broad out just for the effect of reaching 500. They're probably right, people would have criticised them fo rit.
    Unless "people" had backed them to get 500+.....
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949
    Pulpstar said:

    Quincel said:

    Stocky said:

    I think 4/6 Starmer plus a bit of Ladbrokes "boost" is a cracking bet. Max they allow with boost is £50 per day. I`m betting £50 every day until those odds go.

    Stupid question: Are the odds better than Betfair (factoring in commission)? I got on at 1.75 with Betfair a couple of days ago. And obviously that allows an easier cashout/hedge option.
    Depends if you're on Premium charge or not.
    I'm screwed if I ever do that well. Migrating to BF for most betting last year thanks to bookies turning me away reaching a tipping point.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    Looks like Nandyites are over-represented on PB.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    By which time god knows what the market is for whatever it is you are growing*, if you haven't been compulsorily purchased for housing and Greta's Law hasn't been passed making it a capital offence to fell a tree.

    *though I believe you can sell cricket bat willows forward for decades.

    Some years ago when we moved into our current house there were some old trees at the edge of the garden which we wanted to take down. My wife insisted that they were cricket bat willows and we could sell them, a proposition which naturally I dismissed as completely absurd, as one does. But she contacted Gray Nicolls and indeed it turned out that she was right (as she usually is): they were cricket-bat willows, albeit not in very good condition, and Gray Nicolls paid us a small amount for them, rather than us having to pay to get them cut down. They also replanted some more willows in a different location for us, all at no charge.

    Not sure there's much of a market now, though. Aren't bats now all produced in India?
    No that's batsmen.
    LOL!

    I see that I was wrong on that - Gray Nicolls still uses Sussex willow.
    What happens with most leather tack (for horses) you buy here is it says ENGLISH LEATHER like that and made in india like that - they ship it out to be worked, then ship it back. I suspect cricket bats may be the same system.
    Similar applies to much of the product of fine old English shoemakers Loake and Barker.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,022
    Stocky said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Casino_Royale Pay off the mortgage or add it to your pension pot.

    You see, I don’t want to do that.

    First, I’m paying only 2% interest on my mortgage and think I can do better. Also, I lose almost all liquidity when I do that until i remortgage.

    Second, if I add it to my pension pot I can’t touch it (I don’t think) until I’m 55 and I will probably want it before then to fund my kids education.

    I think stocks and shares ISAs are probably the answer.
    Given what you say above, a stocks and shares ISA is the answer assuming you are happy to take the risk. A more cautious approach would be a 5 year fixed rate deposit (for example) (2.5% last time I looked if you take no interest until maturity). The interest would be tax free up to £1000pa as you will have a £1k personal savings allowance (£2k if you are married and happy to split the money). Ignore cash ISAs, the rates are terrible.
    Thanks. That’s helpful.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949
    edited January 2020
    Change on first poll (some MPs now out of the race):

    Starmer: +10
    RLB: +9
    Phillips: -1
    Nandy: -1
    Thornberry: -4

    Looking very difficult for anyone else to break through the top 2.

    Poll has kicked Starmer into 1/2 on Betfair, should be 1/4 imho. This is a big lead which grows as 2nd prefs allocate in a two-horse race where other data (Unions/CLP) point in the same direction. He's not just 'the favourite', it's his to lose.

    EDIT: There are 20% of votes going to non Starmer/RLB candidates. They split 15%-5% to him in the final round! And he leads 14% before that!

    OK, YouGov could simply be wrong. Or things could change considerably. But they didn't in 2016 nor (massively) in 2015 even. Corbyn always led big with the members.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Looks like Nandyites are over-represented on PB.
    Her pitch is 'we got it wrong', of course she isn't making much headway - that's the kind of pitch you need to be much more well known or popular to get away with, the way Boris could get away with things May could not.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,022
    kjh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Casino_Royale Pay off the mortgage or add it to your pension pot.

    You see, I don’t want to do that.

    First, I’m paying only 2% interest on my mortgage and think I can do better. Also, I lose almost all liquidity when I do that until i remortgage.

    Second, if I add it to my pension pot I can’t touch it (I don’t think) until I’m 55 and I will probably want it before then to fund my kids education.

    I think stocks and shares ISAs are probably the answer.
    So this is a bit off the wall but something I have been doing for years successfully and more relevant when interest rates are higher and only if you are responsible with credit cards and can tabs on what you are doing (which I suspect you can):

    a) Pay off your mortgage

    OK you are now short of funds that you want in a few years

    b) Take out 0% credit card, when full take out another and so on. Get you wife to do the same. A good time before the free interest rate period expires look out for 0% balance transfer credit cards and transfer if you can get one with a zero transfer fee. If you have to pay one off (ie you couldn't get a free transfer in time) always do so on time. Always keep to the rules. Once full or a balance transfer card file away and never use.

    It takes some managing but I found I could get up to £100K in free credit on a rolling basis and what is more, the more I did the better my credit rating and the higher the credit limit I got each time.

    Always, always ensure you can pay off in time.
    Interesting idea. Thanks!
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Quincel said:

    Stocky said:

    I think 4/6 Starmer plus a bit of Ladbrokes "boost" is a cracking bet. Max they allow with boost is £50 per day. I`m betting £50 every day until those odds go.

    Stupid question: Are the odds better than Betfair (factoring in commission)? I got on at 1.75 with Betfair a couple of days ago. And obviously that allows an easier cashout/hedge option.
    Depends if you're on Premium charge or not.
    Big move to Keir in the last half hour

    There's been a YouGov and he beats her 63/37
    Good spot. Poll incoming?
  • Looks like Nandyites are over-represented on PB.
    I think most of the Nandy advocates are Tories who would rather Labour did not have a prime ministerial leader. They are the same ones who say Starmer is boring.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    The poll moves Betfair - Starmer 1.48 (from around 1.7) in last few mins.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Quincel said:

    Stocky said:

    I think 4/6 Starmer plus a bit of Ladbrokes "boost" is a cracking bet. Max they allow with boost is £50 per day. I`m betting £50 every day until those odds go.

    Stupid question: Are the odds better than Betfair (factoring in commission)? I got on at 1.75 with Betfair a couple of days ago. And obviously that allows an easier cashout/hedge option.
    Depends if you're on Premium charge or not.
    Big move to Keir in the last half hour

    There's been a YouGov and he beats her 63/37
    Good spot. Poll incoming?
    Edit. I see it’s been posted.

    Time to back Rebecca?
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Quincel said:

    Change on first poll (some MPs now out of the race):

    Starmer: +10
    RLB: +9
    Phillips: -1
    Nandy: -1
    Thornberry: -4

    Looking very difficult for anyone else to break through the top 2.

    Poll has kicked Starmer into 1/2 on Betfair, should be 1/4 imho. This is a big lead which grows as 2nd prefs allocate in a two-horse race where other data (Unions/CLP) point in the same direction. He's not just 'the favourite', it's his to lose.

    EDIT: There are 20% of votes going to non Starmer/RLB candidates. They split 15%-5% to him in the final round! And he leads 14% before that!

    OK, YouGov could simply be wrong. Or things could change considerably. But they didn't in 2016 nor (massively) in 2015 even. Corbyn always led big with the members.

    A lot of firms still 4/6 which means he should bounce back a bit as people lay off maybe?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,022

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    I always had an idea of investing in a woodland. You would see the trees growing, feel an ownership of it and get some satisfaction from helping the planet in a small way. The wood would be worth something eventually as well.
    I’m not interested in virtue signalling.

    Do you have any serious suggestions?
    No. You could either have made some bland and polite response or ignored my comment entirely, but hey.
    I’m not a millionaire. It was obvious I wanted to invest.

    You posted something that you wanted to say something about you instead.

    To be honest I thought your response was needlessly rude, and used a stupid phrase: virtual signalling. Flame away! 🔥
    Not at all. I would have been perfectly fine with a well-argued suggestion to invest in woodland, with a recommended investment strategy and returns.

    But he didn’t post that. Instead he wanted to signal “I’m more concerned about climate change than money, and a better person than you.”

    I dealt with that post as it deserved to be dealt with. I wasn’t signalling anything. I’ve been very transparent that I’m trying to invest.

    It’s a surprise he didn’t suggest I donate to save the kittens.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    I think most of the Nandy advocates are Tories who would rather Labour did not have a prime ministerial leader. They are the same ones who say Starmer is boring.

    I have put that to them but they deny it. I suppose "Mandy" applies.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    YOUGOV DEPUTY LEADERSHIP - 1st prefs:

    Rayner 57
    Burgon 15

    (Others not reported by Times)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Quincel said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Quincel said:

    Stocky said:

    I think 4/6 Starmer plus a bit of Ladbrokes "boost" is a cracking bet. Max they allow with boost is £50 per day. I`m betting £50 every day until those odds go.

    Stupid question: Are the odds better than Betfair (factoring in commission)? I got on at 1.75 with Betfair a couple of days ago. And obviously that allows an easier cashout/hedge option.
    Depends if you're on Premium charge or not.
    I'm screwed if I ever do that well. Migrating to BF for most betting last year thanks to bookies turning me away reaching a tipping point.
    I'm at 5.2% commission on Gross p&L at 11k lifetime - so it's sticking for the foreseeable unless Bloomberg wins.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Surely Nandy is a massive lay at 14/1 now? Can she possibly win?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,022
    MikeL said:

    The poll moves Betfair - Starmer 1.48 (from around 1.7) in last few mins.

    I said yesterday that the Labour List poll gave voodoo a bad name and it was a great opportunity to lay RLB.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Not sure of buying the complete argument, but this piece on Trumps' erratic foreign policy approach perhaps accidentally having some good effects was interesting.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/01/donald-trump-qassem-soleimani-iran-escalation/605053/
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Quincel said:

    Stocky said:

    I think 4/6 Starmer plus a bit of Ladbrokes "boost" is a cracking bet. Max they allow with boost is £50 per day. I`m betting £50 every day until those odds go.

    Stupid question: Are the odds better than Betfair (factoring in commission)? I got on at 1.75 with Betfair a couple of days ago. And obviously that allows an easier cashout/hedge option.
    Depends if you're on Premium charge or not.
    Big move to Keir in the last half hour

    There's been a YouGov and he beats her 63/37
    Good spot. Poll incoming?
    Edit. I see it’s been posted.

    Time to back Rebecca?
    No.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    Looks like Nandyites are over-represented on PB.
    I think most of the Nandy advocates are Tories who would rather Labour did not have a prime ministerial leader. They are the same ones who say Starmer is boring.
    Me and Big John Owls now PB Tories!

    Just messing.

    It would be interesting to have a tally of how PBers who actually have a vote will be casting their ballot.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Warren's presidential odds are too long and her nomination too short if anyone fancies a quick book tweak.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    MikeL said:

    YOUGOV DEPUTY LEADERSHIP - 1st prefs:

    Rayner 57
    Burgon 15

    (Others not reported by Times)

    Blimey, Ian Murray's popularity seems to be confined entirely to the square footage of Edinburgh South and not a bit outside it.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    I see according to YouGov Nandy’s 2nd preferences give 1% to Phillips, 2% to RLB and 4% to Starmer.

    Hmm...
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    edited January 2020
    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Quincel said:

    Stocky said:

    I think 4/6 Starmer plus a bit of Ladbrokes "boost" is a cracking bet. Max they allow with boost is £50 per day. I`m betting £50 every day until those odds go.

    Stupid question: Are the odds better than Betfair (factoring in commission)? I got on at 1.75 with Betfair a couple of days ago. And obviously that allows an easier cashout/hedge option.
    Depends if you're on Premium charge or not.
    Big move to Keir in the last half hour

    There's been a YouGov and he beats her 63/37
    Thanks for that isam - I sneaked in fast and got another £150 on at 4/6 just in time.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    Looks like Nandyites are over-represented on PB.

    Yes. And RLB surely cannot win. Think it's time (if you're that sort of bettor) to go all-in on Starmer.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949
    That Jess Phillips 2nd pref (12% Starmer, 2% RLB) is quite something. Not surprising, but still very stark.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Looks like Nandyites are over-represented on PB.
    I think most of the Nandy advocates are Tories who would rather Labour did not have a prime ministerial leader. They are the same ones who say Starmer is boring.
    Well given some number of Labour supporters do back Nandy I don't see why its impossible for others to think she would be best, even if by being outsiders their perception of what would be best may be skewed.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,022
    isam said:

    Surely Nandy is a massive lay at 14/1 now? Can she possibly win?

    She’s starting to look that way.

    I think she’s been tarnished with the Liz Kendall “right wing” and “pro Brexit” brush, even though she isn’t.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401



    MikeL said:

    The poll moves Betfair - Starmer 1.48 (from around 1.7) in last few mins.

    I said yesterday that the Labour List poll gave voodoo a bad name and it was a great opportunity to lay RLB.
    So that's where you got your £40k from!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited January 2020
    del duplicate
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960

    Looks like Nandyites are over-represented on PB.
    Because we can spot a winner. It's why we were on Boris.

    Don't blame us when Keith Stormer gets the majorities up in Islington but doesn't shift Stoke one percent. You'll be doing it all again before Boris goes to the polls....
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    edited January 2020
    kle4 said:

    MikeL said:

    YOUGOV DEPUTY LEADERSHIP - 1st prefs:

    Rayner 57
    Burgon 15

    (Others not reported by Times)

    Blimey, Ian Murray's popularity seems to be confined entirely to the square footage of Edinburgh South and not a bit outside it.
    If only SLDs and SCons could vote in the Deputy Leadership election...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    I think most of the Nandy advocates are Tories who would rather Labour did not have a prime ministerial leader. They are the same ones who say Starmer is boring.

    I have put that to them but they deny it. I suppose "Mandy" applies.
    There is a lot of idiot cunning, and not much else, in that kind of claim, because who seriously seeks to influence national outcomes by publishing random musings on here? I say Starmer is boring because I think he is boring.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    I think most of the Nandy advocates are Tories who would rather Labour did not have a prime ministerial leader. They are the same ones who say Starmer is boring.

    I have put that to them but they deny it. I suppose "Mandy" applies.
    There is a lot of idiot cunning, and not much else, in that kind of claim, because who seriously seeks to influence national outcomes by publishing random musings on here? I say Starmer is boring because I think he is boring
    And I don't think he is, particularly, but agree what would be the point of being false like that?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,022

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Quincel said:

    Stocky said:

    I think 4/6 Starmer plus a bit of Ladbrokes "boost" is a cracking bet. Max they allow with boost is £50 per day. I`m betting £50 every day until those odds go.

    Stupid question: Are the odds better than Betfair (factoring in commission)? I got on at 1.75 with Betfair a couple of days ago. And obviously that allows an easier cashout/hedge option.
    Depends if you're on Premium charge or not.
    Big move to Keir in the last half hour

    There's been a YouGov and he beats her 63/37
    Good spot. Poll incoming?
    Edit. I see it’s been posted.

    Time to back Rebecca?
    I wouldn’t be interested in backing her at anything less than 6/1.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    edited January 2020
    Vanilla is messing me about a bit, but I’d like to go back to the original topic. How does the record of the English-police in this ‘area of activity’ compare with the Welsh......and there were a couple of lulus there, .... the Scottish and any West European force?
    I realise that police investigation under otherWest European Systems works under somewhat different rules.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    If SKS wins hopefully he gives Nandy a high profile role.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    RLB goes from 32% in Round 1 to 37% in Round 4.

    So to win she is going to need approx 45% in Round 1 - and maybe more - because if she goes up in R1 then there are fewer votes to reallocate from the others.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,759
    @TSE

    I would respond to your earlier aspersions on my punning, but after a long day’s teaching I’m just a little horse.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949
    edited January 2020
    Well I've had a few hundred on odds averaging 1.45. Now I'm nicely positioned for a panic when another poll comes out or Starmer is caught on camera saying the miners were pussies.

    Up to a little over £800 green on Starmer, a little over £900 red on RLB. Slightly more ref on Nandy, and barely red on Phillips thanks to some ill-advised punts at 20s.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    edited January 2020
    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:


    Interesting point. I think it probably would come in scope for GDPR. The aim of the adequacy assessment is to remove the need to put controls on EU data going to the UK because all data in the UK is handled to EU standards. It may come down to a distinction between the capture of the data (you can have cameras in the UK but not in the EU) and the processing of that captured data (you can have cameras in both places but you can't parse that data for facial recognition). If it's the second, and I think it probably is, I would expect it to be disallowed for UK captured data as well as EU captured data.

    No, it really wouldn’t. The UK is going for a Canada type deal with the EU. Or even lighter than that,

    Will the EU be able to force Canada to turn off face recog tech used in Canada by Canadians on Canadians? No, of course not.

    The EU is a “regulatory superpower” but it isn’t an omnipotent global hegemon
    To explain a bit more. (This is related to my day job). The key thing for the EU is that individuals can sue organisations that break the rules. So the Berlin Council operates CCTV cameras and gets a German company to do some (we suppose) illegal facial recognition on people passing by. Someone affected by this can then sue both Berlin Council and the processor company. Suppose Berlin Council ships the data to a company in fully Brexited Britain. That individual can't sue the British company because it didn't do anything illegal under UK law. The EU therefore requires a "Standard Contractual Clause" (SCC) to be in place before that data gets shipped to Britain in any form at all. The SCC sets out precisely what the UK company will do and makes the company liable to the individual for any breach.

    Problems with SCCs are that they are expensive (I have seen £10000 per SCC suggested) and inflexible: you need new ones for any change of purpose, the UK company can't pass the data onto a subcontractor, Stuttgart, Paris need their own SCCs etc. Much better if your country can get a data adequacy assessment then data can flow freely to it. But you are obliged to fully meet EU DP standards. Canada, which has strict DP regs does have an EU data adequacy agreement, which in theory would mean Toronto Council couldn't send data any more freely to the UK than Berlin can.
This discussion has been closed.