Rishi Sunak - Prime Minister
Discussion
abzmike said:
markh1973 said:
Elysium said:
Blue62 said:
jdw100 said:
Sorry, never put a bet on anything in my life.
He would have lost money on the bet if he had won the bet?
He’d get his stake back on a winning bet. As with Alex Craig, I suspect this is another example of a fun bet to cushion the blow, the sums involved are not exactly life changing and I’d consider those who placed bets on the election date, using inside information, to have been more at fault. Has Rishi suspended him yet? He would have lost money on the bet if he had won the bet?
It might be normal for people to place a bet on their team losing so they get a bit of a commiseration prize. But it’s obviously not OK if your goalkeeper bets that he won’t save any goals.
It is blatantly obvious that the person placing the bet is in direct control of the outcome . A much more direct example of cheating than the potential use of inside information. Particularly when we don’t know if there was inside information or how useful if actually was.
But the bigger issue is that the event this Conservative MP and the Labour candidate who did the same is ‘mucking about’ with is not about them. It is about the electorate. They are making an absolute mockery of our democratic process.
It does not matter if the sums involved are small or if we think it’s unlikely that they would do anything improper. They have already done something improper.
Edited by Elysium on Thursday 27th June 08:44
My issue with this is that it disrespects the electorate.
President Merkin said:
Elysium said:
I have zero political bias on this matter.
yeah that really comes across.Elysium said:
I just don’t understand your thinking. Don’t you see that it is absolutely obvious that someone standing for election can ensure that they lose? They don’t just have inside information on the issue, they can directly control it.
You seem to have decided that this doesn’t matter because it’s unlikely that they would do that. But surely that isn’t the point. We don’t know what they might do.
That’s why this activity is banned by the FA.
This isn't football, so your FA analogy is irrelevant. Your argument Craig would run a lousy campaign in order to lose & cash in falls down on two counts. The guy is a millionaire & doesn't need the cash & there is no evidence he didn't try. And he does not have control, the electorate do.You seem to have decided that this doesn’t matter because it’s unlikely that they would do that. But surely that isn’t the point. We don’t know what they might do.
That’s why this activity is banned by the FA.
You are long on excusing the date guys, oh they might have got a whiff, they might have guessed but you're all over Kevin Craig like a cheap coat. Your predispoisition is visible from space.
The FA rules on this are not an analogy. It’s their response to the exact same issue.
pingu393 said:
anonymoususer said:
In Sir Ed Daveys case he can just go camping for the day and perform some hilarious rib tickling deliberate mistakes when erecting the tent.
I think he's booked to carry a plank and some white paint around a building site.I'm looking forward to it.
https://youtu.be/FN2SKWSOdGM?si=R7GtiFZhYQgbbmUb&a...
Elysium said:
What do you think my political bias is?
The FA rules on this are not an analogy. It’s their response to the exact same issue.
Football being an entirely different ball game as it were. Glad you accept the argument though. I knew you'd see sense in the end.The FA rules on this are not an analogy. It’s their response to the exact same issue.
Edited by President Merkin on Thursday 27th June 12:11
President Merkin said:
Football being an entirely different ball game as it were. Glad you accept the argument though. I knew you'd see sense in the end.
I don’t accept your argument. Candidates betting on themselves to lose is EXACTLY the same issue as footballers betting on themselves to lose.
It is completely unacceptable. If it is not illegal it should be and it is a gross insult to the electorate.
You seem to be excusing it because you are assuming the bet won’t influence what they do. That misses the point.
What was my political bias by the way?
No, it's a matter of influence. Despite the fact that this has been spelt out for you, slowly by several other posters, your entrenched attitude is making a bore of proceedings. But f
k it, once more for the slow child. A footballer can throw a game directly if they choose to do so. A candidate in an election is dependent on the electorate.
All you can do from here is loop back to the unpersuasive argument that they may run a bad campaign in order to lose & on that, you're pretty much the sole voice in here trying it on. HTH.
k it, once more for the slow child. A footballer can throw a game directly if they choose to do so. A candidate in an election is dependent on the electorate.All you can do from here is loop back to the unpersuasive argument that they may run a bad campaign in order to lose & on that, you're pretty much the sole voice in here trying it on. HTH.
President Merkin said:
No, it's a matter of influence. Despite the fact that this has been spelt out for you, slowly by several other posters, your entrenched attitude is making a bore of proceedings. But fk it, once more for the slow child. A footballer can throw a game directly if they choose to do so. A candidate in an election is dependent on the electorate.
All you can do from here is loop back to the unpersuasive argument that they may run a bad campaign in order to lose & on that, you're pretty much the sole voice in here trying it on. HTH.
You are just repeating the same untruth. k it, once more for the slow child. A footballer can throw a game directly if they choose to do so. A candidate in an election is dependent on the electorate.All you can do from here is loop back to the unpersuasive argument that they may run a bad campaign in order to lose & on that, you're pretty much the sole voice in here trying it on. HTH.
It is obvious that a candidate can deliberately lose.
You forgot to say what my political bias was again.
No I didn't, I chose to ignore it because you are draining my life force with the 19th hole, red trousered, barrack room lawyer boomingly dull tedium. Constantly on transmit..
But if pressed, I'd say your political leanings are ludicrous positions on repeat, ad nauseum. But I'm sure I'm wrong and you will be back presently with endless links to proven cases in British elections where candidates have thrown elections for coins. Take your time, no rush.
Yep.
But if pressed, I'd say your political leanings are ludicrous positions on repeat, ad nauseum. But I'm sure I'm wrong and you will be back presently with endless links to proven cases in British elections where candidates have thrown elections for coins. Take your time, no rush.
Yep.
President Merkin said:
All you can do from here is loop back to the unpersuasive argument that they may run a bad campaign in order to lose & on that, you're pretty much the sole voice in here trying it on. HTH.
Edited by President Merkin on Thursday 27th June 14:23
Steve vRS said:
I wonder if the best entertainment will be staying up late to watch the results trickle in or getting up early to absorb the aftermath.
TRiP (or was it News Agents?) reckoned watch the exit polls at 10, then get some kip until about 2am when the results start properly flooding in - unless you want to watch Nowhere-on-Irrelevant hiring young runners to get their boxes into the count 5 seconds quicker so they can get themselves on TV again.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff