[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[Peteinblack]

I have often wondered what traing this baffling man has had to justify his elevation to Great Office. A little research.....

According to his Wiki page: "He pursued hospitality management studies at Ealing College of Higher Education (now University of West London) graduating with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1991."

Christ

Bloody Mickey Mouse degrees from Mickey Mouse universities!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If he was bettign on himself to win, no big deal really. But by bettign on himself to lose opens himself up to claims he threw it and lost delibrately, cant be doing that.

The thing is, he has been conspicuously working hard to win the seat. The idea that he worked to be selected to be the candidate so he could simply bet on himself to lose, then deliberately f*** up his campaign to guarantee the loss, in effect a carefully planned criminal conspiracy, is patently absurd.

Also to make money on betting on losing the seat he would have needed to be the hot favourite. He wasn't. And yet according to the GetVoting we site labour are now in the lead in his constituency. In which case, if this persists, he would have lost his bet.

I saw him interviewed. It was as others have suggested an 'insurance bet' (I have occasionally bet on the Albion to lose or even be relegated), and he claims (yes we can all 'claim') he would have given the money to charity.

This is hugely different from putting thousands on the exact date of the GE using insider knowledge, to make personal gain. Which is what some Tories and hangers on appear to have done.

All sins are not the same. All politicians are not the same.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Bloody Mickey Mouse degrees from Mickey Mouse universities!

There is nothing wrong with studying hospitality management if you plan to become a hospitality manager.

That the prime minister can think 'this man is the right man to be Home Secretary' is f***ing madness.

His only other qualification appears to be an early Brexiteer (tick). Oh, and he is a longstanding volunteer in the territorial army. Looks like his next job (if the Tories win the GE) will be minister of defense, in charge of surrendering to Putin

 

[Eeyore]

If he was bettign on himself to win, no big deal really. But by bettign on himself to lose opens himself up to claims he threw it and lost delibrately, cant be doing that.

You wouldn't throw a very well paid job for five years with loads of benefits to win a few hundred quid at the bookies. It's basically an insurance bet. In a sensible world I wouldn't have sacked him, just advised him that there is an hysterical media out there and folk don't think rationally about stuff (Or choose not to)

It's not the same as betting on insider information. That's a different level.

 

[Peteinblack]

There is nothing wrong with studying hospitality management if you plan to become a hospitality manager.

That the prime minister can think 'this man is the right man to be Home Secretary' is f***ing madness.

His only other qualification appears to be an early Brexiteer (tick). Oh, and he is a longstanding volunteer in the territorial army. Looks like his next job (if the Tories win the GE) will be minister of defense, in charge of surrendering to Putin

My tongue was very firmly lodged in my cheek - I was parodying the kind of snobbish anti-academic comments Tories spew-out when denigrating degrees which they disapprove of when what they really mean is how dare we offer degrees that students from working-class or other 'non-traditional' social backgrounds might want to study.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

My tongue was very firmly lodged in my cheek - I was parodying the kind of snobbish anti-academic comments Tories spew-out when denigrating degrees which they disapprove of when what they really mean is how dare we offer degrees that students from working-class or other 'non-traditional' social backgrounds might want to study.

I know it was.

But I thought it best that I make clear that I am not denigrating career-specific training.

Do you remember how the Tories used to mock Prescott for his previous career as a ship steward for Cunard? This, despite Prescott having earned a BSc degree in economics and economic history from the University of Hull before he entered parliament. And yet they are now apparently happy with a man without any relevant training, serving as Home secretary.

Anyone would be tempted to think the Tories gave up years ago, and have just been pissing about, populating the ministerial positions with cronies, enriching themselves at our expense, and inventing ridiculous wheezes to dazzle the dumber element of the electorate in the vain hope of getting another 5 years. Who knew?

 

[Stato]

I read that Badenoch has referred to David Tennant as a 'rich, white, lefty' after he criticised her transphobia. Given that she worked for Coutts and her husband currently works for Deutsche Bank, you do wonder what social difficulties the poor woman must have had to face whilst maintining her obvious distaste for rich people.

 

[Peteinblack]

Farage and Reform in a nutshell

 

[Peteinblack]

I read that Badenoch has referred to David Tennant as a 'rich, white, lefty' after he criticised her transphobia. Given that she worked for Coutts and her husband currently works for Deutsche Bank, you do wonder what social difficulties the poor woman must have had to face whilst maintining her obvious distaste for rich people.

The hypocrisy of privileged millionaire Tory Ministers sneering at their critics for being rich is staggering. Although not quite as nauseating as 'advising' the poor how to live on low wages or welfare benefits by shopping and eating more frugally.

 

[dolphins]

If he was bettign on himself to win, no big deal really. But by bettign on himself to lose opens himself up to claims he threw it and lost delibrately, cant be doing that.

Yeah I subsequently realised that. It's of course akin to a footballer betting on his team losing, then doing something iffy to ensure it happens. I typed that original comment pre-coffee!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You wouldn't throw a very well paid job for five years with loads of benefits to win a few hundred quid at the bookies. It's basically an insurance bet. In a sensible world I wouldn't have sacked him, just advised him that there is an hysterical media out there and folk don't think rationally about stuff (Or choose not to)

It's not the same as betting on insider information. That's a different level.

All this.

 

[beorhthelm]

I saw him interviewed. It was as others have suggested an 'insurance bet' (I have occasionally bet on the Albion to lose or even be relegated), and he claims (yes we can all 'claim') he would have given the money to charity.

This is hugely different from putting thousands on the exact date of the GE using insider knowledge, to make personal gain. Which is what some Tories and hangers on appear to have done.

All sins are not the same. All politicians are not the same.

it is different, for the opposite reason you suggest. he could influence the outcome of the bet, it probably consitutes cheating, which is an offense. where as betting on GE date with some knowledge but no input, probably comes under misusing information, which is not an offense.

seems the legislation on gambling doesnt actually consider using insider information an offense, instead giving the Gambling Commission power to void such a bet, nothing further. some further reading that swerves calling insider betting illegal, and sections 42 and 336 are the relevant parts of law.

not that this makes it alright to do so, i see ermerging theme this morning that politicans are very well known to their bookies.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Reading more about not-very 'Cleverly', he's quite a piece of work:

In January 2016, the Labour Party proposed an amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill 2016 that would have required private landlords to make homes which they put up for rent "fit for human habitation". According to Parliament's register of interests, Cleverly was one of 72 Conservative MPs who voted against the amendment and who personally derived an income from renting out property.

In March 2016, Cleverly was asked to step down as patron of Advocacy for All, a charity supporting disadvantaged people in South East England. The charity felt he was no longer a suitable person for the role, given that he had voted to cut Employment and Support Allowance (the benefit paid to disabled people who are unable to work)."

There is plenty more there to show what a 'character' he is, including joking about giving his wife Rohypnol, and if you enjoy horror tales, pile in.

On the other hand: "Cleverly is a fan of the miniature wargame Warhammer 40,000; he has a private YouTube channel dedicated to painting the game's miniatures", which gives me another opportunity to post this:

 

[Bry Nylon]

I read that Badenoch has referred to David Tennant as a 'rich, white, lefty' after he criticised her transphobia. Given that she worked for Coutts and her husband currently works for Deutsche Bank, you do wonder what social difficulties the poor woman must have had to face whilst maintining her obvious distaste for rich people.

Having her constituency home very nearby to me and my kids must hardly fill her day with sunshine, tbf. Probably explains why she's hardly ever here.

 

[dolphins]

Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary said he doesn't know the scale of the Gambling Commission's investigation into the Tories' betting malarkey, telling LBC Radio: "I don't know what the number is, what the number may or may not end up as, or indeed which parties may be involved".

Which parties?! Tricky one...

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

it is different, for the opposite reason you suggest. he could influence the outcome of the bet, it probably consitutes cheating, which is an offence. where as betting on date with some knowledge but no input, probably comes under misusing information, which is not an offence.

seems the legislation on gambling doesnt actually consider insider information an offense, instead giving the Gambling Commission power to void such a bet, nothing further. some further reading that swerves calling insider betting illegal, and sections 42 and 336 are the relevant parts of law. not that this makes it alright to do so, i see growing theme that politicans are very well known to their bookies.

Not following why you think I am right for the opposite reason I suggest. You may have omitted some key words in your narrative.

I am not particularly interested in whether insider betting is illegal, albeit when a few MPs and police protection chaps overhear when the election will be and rush off to make a few quid they are presumably defrauding the bookies by betting when they already know the outcome. It is the look of it, the craven venality of it, that stinks

The Labour bloke who bet against himself is completely not an issue as far as I am concerned but as @Eeyore indicated in the current climate he was bound to be for the chop. He was not venal. The Tories and the police involved are certainly venal, and as I said, arguably defrauding the bookies.

Meanwhile, apparently Sunk now has at least 15 folk to deal with. Will he dither? And will he try to drag the Labour vote into the narrative? It seems 'they are all the same' is working as a trope for some (see this thread!). But the aren't the same.

Anyway, anyone still convinced that the Tories are the ones for them are beyond help. Anyone thinking a punt on Farage is the solution is beyond, beyond, help.

 

[Jim in the West]

Not following why you think I am right for the opposite reason I suggest. You may have omitted some key words in your narrative.

I am not particularly interested in whether insider betting is illegal, albeit when a few MPs and police protection chaps overhear when the election will be and rush off to make a few quid they are presumably defrauding the bookies by betting when they already know the outcome. It is the look of it, the craven venality of it, that stinks

The Labour bloke who bet against himself is completely not an issue as far as I am concerned but as @Eeyore indicated in the current climate he was bound to be for the chop. He was not venal. The Tories and the police involved are certainly venal, and as I said, arguably defrauding the bookies.

Meanwhile, apparently Sunk now has at least 15 folk to deal with. Will he dither? And will he try to drag the Labour vote into the narrative? It seems 'they are all the same' is working as a trope for some (see this thread!). But the aren't the same.

Anyway, anyone still convinced that the Tories are the ones for them are beyond help. Anyone thinking a punt on Farage is the solution is beyond, beyond, help.

I think you've summed that up rather well.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out in the TV debate this evening. Will Sunk try (yet again) the failed gambit of hiding behind the Gambling Commission investigation? Would be fascinating to be a fly on the wall in CCHQ and the PM's office this morning, as they try to work out the best damage-limitation strategy.

 

[beorhthelm]

Not following why you think I am right for the opposite reason I suggest. You may have omitted some key words in your narrative.

you're concerned about the dishonesty of their actions, and I agree with that. there is the legality of what's happened too, and seems the case you think is not dishonest may be an offense, while the dishonest actions are not.

i'd say no politican should be gambling on election outcomes, it looks dodgy whatever the outcome. but seems it's rife, they dont even consider it to be a problem.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

you're concerned about the dishonesty of their actions, and I agree with that. there is the legality of what's happened too, and seems the case you think is not dishonest may be an offense, while the dishonest actions are not.

i'd say no politican should be gambling on election outcomes, it looks dodgy whatever the outcome. but seems it's rife, they dont even consider it to be a problem.

I see. Fair enough.

I stand by my assessment that the Labour bloke is a silly arse (sadly many of them are, and I'm a member) whereas the Tory lot are venal which, to me is different. Not sure which is worse, when I think about it to be fair - who would you prefer in charge, a thcky or a crook?

That said neither the Labour thicky nor the Tory venal hoards are going to have their hands anywhere near the seat of power, anytime soon.

 

[Cordwainer]

Having her constituency home very nearby to me and my kids must hardly fill her day with sunshine, tbf. Probably explains why she's hardly ever here.

Keep up the excellent work.