titch juicy

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Not an objective analysis, or just not one that > > you want to hear? > > Haven't read the article so can't comment on the > contents. suffice to say from the few reactions so > far it would appear to satisfy the remain mindset Shut your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and ignore what's happening around you.

It's making fascinating listening.

http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3319.html Minister confirms it?s OK for cyclists to ride on pavement Robert Goodwill, road safety minister, has confirmed that cyclists are permitted to ride on the pavement, as long as they do so considerately, according to an article on the road.cc website. Road.cc says the confirmation came in an email sent to the cycle campaigner Donnachadh McCarthy, in which the minister said that original guidance issued by the Home Office 15 years ago when Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) were introduced was still valid. Mr Goodwill said: ?Thank you for bringing the issue of cycling on the pavement around dangerous junctions such as Vauxhall Cross to my attention. ?I agree that the police should be using discretion in enforcing this law and would support Paul Boateng?s original guidance." That guidance from Mr Boateng, issued in 1999, said: ?The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. ?Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.? In response, Donnachadh McCarthy said: ?Fining vulnerable cyclists for cycling responsibly on the pavement at extremely dangerous junctions is a bedroom tax on two-wheels as there is no safe alternative for them to cycle on.?

One Who Does Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Is it better for a politician to attempt to > answer > > a question and get it wrong/fumble about for an > > answer, or to not even attempt to answer a > > question repeatedly and give hackneyed > soundbites > > instead. Even if asked the same question 6 > times? > > Surely that is up to the public to decide. Purely > a subjective matter. Agreed. That's why I'm asking the public.

Is it better for a politician to attempt to answer a question and get it wrong/fumble about for an answer, or to not even attempt to answer a question repeatedly and give hackneyed soundbites instead. Even if asked the same question 6 times?

Poo that size i would reckon it's a dog. Some of the pathetic little fashion pooches you see these days are about rat size.

This is an interesting read, if ultimately a little depressing. http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/06/05/polls-labours-surging-non-london-doorstep-its-a-nuclear-winter-for-labour-somethings-got-to-give/" "Polls: Labour?s surging. Non-London doorstep: It?s a ?nuclear winter for Labour.? Party braces for worst by Atul Hatwal Just over two weeks ago I posted a projection of huge losses for Labour ? over 90 seats ? based on dozens of conversations with activists, candidates and officials who cumulatively had sight of tens of thousands of canvass returns. Since then, I?ve continued those conversations as Labour has apparently surged in the polls. The result is a marked improvement in London but precious little to cheer about outside the capital. The last few weeks have seen a strong rise in Labour promises in key seats across London, although constituencies such as Dagenham and Eltham remain very difficult. But in the West Midlands, Yorkshire, North West and the North East, any improvement has been nugatory. One campaigner from London who spent time in the North East last week described it as a ?nuclear winter for Labour.? The doorstep returns outside of London are saying that Labour is still running substantially below its 2015 vote, that Ukip votes are transferring in huge numbers to the Tories with losses in prospect of the mid-60s to mid-90s and a lingering possibility that the situation could be even worse come Thursday. What on earth is happening? Are the doorstep results wrong? Or is it the polls? In terms of the canvass returns, the data is partial. Labour members and supporters have been knocking doors in core Labour wards, in seats that are under threat. In the last week they?ve been focused specifically on Labour voters. If there was a shift, this could happening out of sight of the canvassers. For example, Labour might be piling up support in safe Labour seats where there is little activity. It?s possible and there is likely to be an element of this but the scale of Labour?s poll surge suggests this should be something bigger than just a safe seat phenomenon. One explanation might be a rise in support among those in a household that don?t normally take part in the doorstep conversation but do answer online polls, such as young voters. The polls themselves indicate that Labour?s rise is being driven by enthusiasm among young electors with a striking proportion saying they are committed to voting. But since the rise in the polls, Uncut has heard various stories about Labour candidates and campaigners scouring their electoral rolls to identify households with voters under 25 ? whether they live in Labour wards or not, whether they or their families have a history of backing Labour or not. The feedback has been that in the overwhelming majority of cases, this pool of voters is neither sizable enough to make a difference nor are the canvass returns from these targeted efforts tallying with the level of rise that the polls are suggesting. So perhaps the problem is with the polls? There has been a debate within the polling community about how turnout, particularly among the young, should be weighted. It?s summarised here but broadly, the higher the turnout for younger voters in poll results, the better things are for Labour. This explains why different pollsters have Labour at different levels but not why Labour has improved in most polls at a rate not reflected in the party?s canvass returns, over the past weeks. James Morris, Ed Miliband?s pollster, tweeted a paragraph on Friday from an article by a US academic just before the Presidential election, which might offer a rationale for why the majority of polls are moving in the same way, out of sync with the doorstep. "James Morris @JamesDMorris Might tweet this every day till next Thurs Ironically, the Rivers of Lauderdale and Rivers quoted above is one Doug Rivers. That would be the Doug Rivers who is now the chief scientist of YouGov, who were the first to report a Labour surge during the campaign and currently have the parties just 4% apart." This would also explain why positive polls for Labour beget further positive polls and momentum builds ? supporters are more and more enthused and respond when polling companies get in touch, while the reverse happens with Tory backers. If the polls are wrong on this basis then that could signal a deep structural problem for the industry. However, there might be another option. A scenario where the canvass returns and the polling methodology are both right: respondents aren?t being straight with the pollsters. This has been mentioned by several Labour officials and candidates as a potential reason for the gap. After the 2015 election, Mark Textor ? Lynton Crosby?s business partner and currently doing the polling for the Tories ? said that the pre-election polls were distorted because public pollsters failed to understand two factors. First, the difference between party preference and desired government outcome. Voters might identify with Labour but they didn?t want an Ed Miliband-led coalition so voted accordingly. Second, that some voters gamed the polls. They used them to signal a protest before reverting to a different choice in the polling booth. It?s worth taking in, what he said, ?We were polling massive numbers of voters every night and assessing how they looked at their choices, so we knew that in normal public-style polls they were saying they preferred Labour ? but at the end of the day the actual outcome they wanted was a David Cameron-led Conservative government, and the only way to do that was to vote Conservative in their local seat,? ?We measured their preferred style of government ? they might say: ?Normally I prefer Labour?, but we asked: ?Which scenario do you want as an outcome???so we knew there were a lot of voters who on traditional voting patterns were Labour voters but had made the tactical decision that the best choice was to vote for David Cameron ? we were measuring outcomes and not just voting preference.? ?They were using polling like a protest vote ? they might think: ?I don?t really want Miliband, but I?ll say I prefer him to tickle up the Conservatives? ? or whomever ? but we knew at the end of the day when we measured their preferred model in government what they really wanted was the outcome of a stable Cameron-led government.? Labour campaigners fear something similar is happening right now. In every seat, canvassers are encountering lifelong Labour supporters who still identify with the party but not Jeremy Corbyn. This group tends to have voted for Ed Miliband reluctantly and are now either sitting out this contest or ready to vote Tory for the first time to prevent a Corbyn premiership. These switchers represent a new generation of shy Tories, located deep inside Labour?s core vote. They are embarrassed at voting Tory, sufficiently so to deny their intent to friends, families and pollsters. Some of the older Labour officials and campaigners have reported familiar doorstep cadences from 1992 ? ?It?s in the eyes,? one said to me. One last point is worth noting in judging what is happening on the ground. The Tories do not look like a party that thinks Labour is threatening a range of their seats in England, which is what the polls suggest. Based on what Mark Textor said after the 2015 election, we know something of what they are doing. Large scale nightly polling, targeted at specific seats, with questioning framed as per the quote above. At this stage in the campaign, postal votes ? which have been sampled over the past 5 days, giving them an idea of actual vote performance ? will also be factored into the mix. This is then used to shape their social media targeting on Facebook, local newspaper ad buys and visit schedule for the cabinet and leader. Last Friday, Theresa May visited Sheffield. Specifically she was in Don Valley, Caroline Flint?s constituency, a seat where Labour led the Tories by 21% in 2015. On Saturday, she was in Penistone and Stockbridge, Angela Smith?s seat, where she won by 14% over the Tories in 2015. Tonight, May was in Bradford South, a seat where Judith Cummins beat her Tory opponent by 17% in 2015. The fear of Labour officials and candidates, particularly in the West Midlands, North East, North West and Yorkshire, is that if the Tories are on course to flip seats like Don Valley, many more could be vulnerable. One official in Yorkshire told Uncut that a string of Morley and Outwoods ? the seat Ed Balls lost in 2015 ? was on the cards for 2017. The polls might be right. There could be a surge of young voters that rewrite general election rules. This could be the first contest in living memory where a party increases its rating by so much during the short campaign. Labour could be about to poll near its 1997 level at the general election. After Corbyn?s triumph in the Labour leadership, Brexit and Trump, the old certainties no longer hold sway. This is certainly the desperate hope of Labour candidates up and down the country. Rarely have so many, who have worked so hard knocking doors, hoped that they?re so wrong. But the evidence from Labour?s own data and the Tories? campaigning choices is compelling and it suggests that they are not."

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As well as those of you who have spent the last > year slagging off Jezza and now appear to have had > a road to Damascus moment about him and are > praying he becomes PM. It's about removing the tories

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Each of you middle class lefties and keyboard > warriors should put your money where your mouth > is. I'm particularly talking about those of you > who over the last few days have been whipping > yourselves into something resembling teenage > schoolboy arousal about the 'closing' of the gap > in the polls. Always name calling from the right wing. Delightful.

Borky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > a free market does not trump basic maths Yes, and irrespective of how things work, basic maths shows that bookies odds are right more often than not.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- "....the blue rinse brigade will turn out and revert to form, forgetting about the 'dementia tax' stuff" Excellent!!

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > jaywalker Wrote: > > ---------------------------- > > > > Helen Hayes is a bloody good MP. > > > > > > Agreed. > > > Do not know much about her. Never heard of her > until the Silvester Road issue. > Seems an approachable pleasant person. > > I would vote for her on a Local basis but despite > being a Labour supporter all my life > and a former paid up member of the Dulwich branch > of the Labour Party, I cannot bring > myself to vote for Labour with Jeromy Corbyn at > the helm. > > Corbyn is a conceited , self opinionated arse who > refuses to listen to the views of others. > I would think he must be a very difficult person > to work with. > > DulwichFox I have similar views about Corbyn Foxy. However; my view is that there's no way Labour will get a majority and the best we can hope for is a hung parliament, which may well mean a coalition involving some very competent MPs that may be able to exert influence.

Some tiny encouraging signs this morning at work. Means nothing in the bigger picture but made me smile. Our Director of Economic Research (worth noting that I work for a $280bn asset manager) is voting Labour as he can't stand the thought of a one party nation and a girl who is the under 30s Conservative representative for her constituency, is voting against the party and voting Labour (reasons: sick of not being listened to in the party, tuition fees, national security).

Borky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well its bollocks isn't it. we are a pitiful > shithole of a country , seemingly entirely > populated by miserable keyboard warriors with > hypertension and erectile problems and utterly > furious about everything. I am looking forward to > the breakup of this construct of artifice so > called UK and the resultant civil war that will > likely lead to the easing of pressure on the NHS > as a massive swathe of red faced over 50s are > removed from the demographic.London will daclare > itself a Britcity1, build a wall along the M25 and > the rest of so called ingerland will resemble the > cursed earth. > > good morning Haha!

First Toblerone, now Weetabix, next Marmite. Bloody Brexit.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's probably the most patronisingly worst bit > trait of the ever so politically motivated urban > elite, the way they feel obliged to make political > statements by sticking party political sneers on > menu boards outside pubs, or slogans/party posters > in the windows of businesses. You should remain > politically neutral, and people of my generation > and before rarely discussed who we voted for, you > just didn't do it. Walking down wealthy London > high streets seeing all this guff is offensive and > stinks of desperation. > > Louisa. Absolutely wrong. It shows that people have become more politicised and want to express their views and try and influence others. It shows that people actually care enough about the future to make an effort.

PandG Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anyone experienced Zip cars leaving cars > locally in their road as ours has limited parking > - I thought they had to be left in allocated bays > but for over a week we had a Zip car parked and > left without moving then yesterday it was taken > away and another one was left in its place. I had > phoned and then emailed them and the change in > vehicles seemed to happen after that. But no > response so far to my second complaint. > > Does anyone know what there policy is for parking > on residential streets? > > P Could it be that someone has hired it for a period of time and is parking in their street?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I notice the Standard has been putting a Labour > headline on the early edition and a Tory one on > the later edition > > Probably George playing games. He can't support Corbyn and he hates May for the cabinet snub. He's having a right laugh at the whole thing!

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Haven't the Telegraph been fairly critical of > May > > in recent days, or did I imagine that? > > > > Also, do the polls allow for the silent Tory > > voters. That's historically a thing isn't it? > Tory > > voters who won't admit to being so until > marking > > the ballot paper? > > The Telgraph is a joke. take a look. It's > basically a conservative campaign pamphlet. I know traditionally it is, but i've definitely seen pieces recently that made me look twice. But of course, now i want them I can't put my finger on them. I expected them to be in full on attack mode, but I think they've been surprisingly a little benign. I found this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/31/theresa-may-social-media-roasts-prime-minister-not-turning-bbc/

Huggers my old buddy, not to belittle your complaint, it's very valid, but this exact subject has been covered on here on a fair few occasions.

Haven't the Telegraph been fairly critical of May in recent days, or did I imagine that? Also, do the polls allow for the silent Tory voters. That's historically a thing isn't it? Tory voters who won't admit to being so until marking the ballot paper?

I have absolutely no faith in any polls right now. There's such a wide range of possible outcomes. The seat predictions here haven't altered a huge amount. Still an increased Tory majority. How this can be so wildly different to the poll that showed the tories falling 16 seats short is a mystery to me! http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > My first was '81. It's why I support Tottenham. > > Glory hunter!..:) Ha! So, full early football memories: First match I remember seeing on TV was the 81 Cup Final. It's why I'm a Tottenham fan today. The following season (81/82) my dad took me to the Lane for the first and second times. Notts County and Sunderland. I think it was that season that my friend's dad took us to an England U21 match at Brisbane Road. I think against Poland. And I remember the England keeper making a penalty save. Same season, I also remember being in the car coming home from somewhere with my Dad, listening to the second leg of the Cup Winners Cup semi-final against Barcelona on the radio. We lost. Same season again, I remember being disappointed that I couldn't watch the League Cup Final against Liverpool on TV as it was a friend's birthday party. My Mum picked me up afterwards and said, "I've got bad news... Tottenham 1.....(i thought she meant 'won' and cheered)...Liverpool 3. sad.gif Sad times. Same season again, I remember Hoddle scoring in the FA Cup Final and then Terry Fenwick equalising late, before beating them in the Thursday night replay. That was a good season. Fourth in the league, above Arsenal on goal difference, an FA Cup Win, League Cup Final and Cup Winners Cup Semi. Actually, 1982 was also the first World Cup I can recall watching. I remember sitting on the sofa with the decorators and my Dad watching the Italy 3 Brazil 2 Paolo Rossi hat-trick game.

My first was '81. It's why I support Tottenham. The morning after, I told my friend at primary school that Spurs had won the cup. He said, "no they didn't, Tottenham did". I put the silly little blighter right.

Re- brexit. I like the potential Labour negotiating team of Starmer, Thorberry and Gardiner. Gardiner particularly has been impressive in recent weeks. But, has Corbyn made a big balls up today insisting that he won't do deals, coalitions, agreements with any other parties? Does he really think he's going to win a majority with 7 days left. There's just the merest glimmer of hope for a hung parliament and surely his comments are ill-advised in that case? Someone please correct me if i'm missing something. Edit: I've been corrected. he was talking about now, not post-election.