I don't see the Govt (of every type) doing anything about gambling when it suits them.

Take the National Lottery, for example. Zero safeguards in relation to lottery tickets and scratch cards. Even changed the Law for several years to catch 16 year olds. Shops and Pubs have all sorts of rules top abide by-but pretty much none for scratch card gamblers.

For the vast majority of gamblers, drinkers etc, they are merely choosing to spend some of their own money for enjoyment. And, unless harm is being caused, it should be absolutely no-one else's business.

Here's a simple idea. Not perfect-but a start. Just monitor anyone spending more than £100 a month from a bank account on gambling

Hi enut.

Almost impossible to say the effect of this on crime figures, both in the short and longer-term.

In the short-term, there are clearly effects on certain types of crime. Low level theft and drug dealing are clearly 2 offences where delay causes massive problems. But it is the longer-term that frightens me. Many of the most serious crimes are the result of long-term escalation. A mass murderer may start by hurting animals at a young age. A wife murderer normally has a campaign of escalating abuse, with Police called multiple times.

Most of the Courts have already gone. When I started out in Law, I was (and still am) living in North East Essex. The 2 nearest Criminal Courts were Harwich and Colchester. The nearest Civil Courts were Clacton and Colchester. 3 of those 4 have shut, been sold, and the money not reinvested. The nearest Criminal Court is 20 miles away (Colchester Mags). The nearest Civil Court is Chelmsford-45 miles away. Nearest Crown Court also 45 miles away. No Employment Tribunal in Essex-good luck finding Bury St Edmunds. More Courts in Essex (and England) have shut in the last 40 years than are now open. Same goes for Police Stations.

People struggle to get to Court, particularly witnesses and jurors. Judges have no local knowledge. A friend told me that in Suffolk matters are so bad that Ipswich Crown Court are transferrig hundreds of cases to Cambridge. Delay rewards the Guilty and penalises the Innocent.

[Start]

As per usual there is a load of complete nonsense being written about this topic. Some of it is because the usual news outlets don't actually employ many journalists, and most of the few that still exist just trot out their Party line.

There are also people trying to hide their vested interests behind rampant bollo. From Tories pretending it wasn't their underinvestment that caused the problem, to Criminal Barristers banging on about the "right" to trial by jury, conveniently omitting to mention the massive difference to their potential pay.

I'm a former Solicitor (and, before that, a Barrister-at-Law). I have no vested interest. So here is my version of the reality of this situation.

There are 3 categories of Criminal Offences. Known as (1) Summary-only; (2) Indictment-only; and (3) Either-Way Offences.

The vast majority are (1)-no right to a Jury for those. Only a very few of the most serious offences are (2), which must be heard by a Jury. (3) are the key to change-these offences may carry big prison sentences, but typically do not.

Large amounts of Courts have shut. Because they were not making a "profit". Causing a massive logjam. Currently, if someone were to be formally charged with Rape today, the logjam means the actual Case will not Start until early 2030. That has massive implications. To give 2 obvious examples, large amounts of people will either be in Prison for 4 years for something they didn't do, or large amounts of the Guilty ones will be on the Streets for the next 4 years. Secondly, a considerable number of Guilty people will be found Not Guilty, because Witnesses will die/get dementia, and memories will fade or become less convincing. That's before factoring the marginal cases dropped and/or plea bargains agreed to due to time pressures

It always used to be a close call when advising people facing "either way" offences. On the 1 hand, Juries are more likely to acquit than Judges-simply because they haven't heard the same stories a thousand times before. On the other, people convicted by Juries get harsher Sentences than those convicted by Judges. However, it is now the case that severe delays mean it is more often in the Accused's interest to opt for a Jury Trial. That in turn causes a ripple effect on future cases.

The change is necessary. The Debate should be whether it is a Temporary or Permanent change

Long retired now. But I still find Law interesting. Thought I would give some brief thoughts on the BBC and Panorama/Trump.

1. People seem to have polarised opinions about both the BBC and the Donald. Neither of which are all good or all bad-despite what people would have you believe

2. The BBC desperately tries to be independent. Unlike almost all of its rivals, who just want to push their own narrow agendas to the exclusion of everything else. When was the last time GB News or the Mail. or the Mirror, gave a balanced, reasoned opinion?

3. Doesn't mean that the BBC always succeeds, or that there are not people within it with their own biases. That Panorama mash-up was terrible. Unlike various other things that its critics try to lump in with it

4. The timing of the Trump threats are very deliberate. This happened 13 months ago. The time limit for an English Defamation action is 1 year. An English Company, funded by the British Taxpayer, broadcast a potentially Defamatory programme in the UK (not America) 13 months ago. The timing is deliberate-designed to prevent any action being heard where it should have been-here. What is known in the trade as "forum shopping"

5. I don't claim to be a Floridan Law expert. But the Donald faces 2 massive hurdles:-

(1) He needs to show reputational damage (in England, that is "lowered in the estimation of right-thinking people"). For most of us, that would be easy. But this is the most marmite character in history. His fans follow him regardless. Likewise his detractors. This is a man who won the votes of the US electorate, twice, regardless of massive bad publicity-far, far bigger than anything the BBC may have done. His reputation seems remarkably resilient

(2) In Floridan Law Defamation needs to include "malice". Trying to prove that someone defames deliberately, rather than stupidly, is a minefield

6. Why is this action not in the UK? Simple. Damages would be in the tens of thousands, not hundreds of millions. And Defamation actions in England stop if the Claimant dies. This sort of action in England would likely outlast a man who is 80 next June

Is Tikay the one at the back?

Happy birthday. So nice to see you enjoying retirement.

The Rock was one of the first people I watched. Saw him play many Single Table Tournaments. Tight aggressive style in those days-incredibly tight. Which worked when most of the rest of the table were incredibly loose, many of whom had no idea how to play.

How times have changed.

Both the M-word and the S-word have been common terms of abuse for at least 50 years.

It is true to say that the term "spastic" was a common medical term until the 1990s. It is also true to say that, at the time Scope chose to change its name to The Spastic Society it was medically proved that a considerable majority of CP people did not meet that definition. It is also true to say that in 1984, some 10 years before Scope got around to changing their name, their magazine made the choice to remove the name "spastic" from their name.

The last Charity report for Scope makes interesting reading. Full of stuff about how well they are doing in difficult times. And how they have rewarded their 7 Senior Executives (CEO, CFO and 5 Directors) with pay rises, meaning their combined pay (18 months ago) was roughly £1 million.

Fast forward to 2025. Announce that they are closing 90% of their shops. Placing 33% of jobs at risk. Intend to make 20% of jobs redundant this month. Together with lots of volunteers. Freely admit that many disabled people will lose their jobs.

I have in the past carried out lots of these sorts of reviews. Made thousands of people Redundant. But surprisingly few CEOs, CFOs, or Heads of HR (in this case someone who has been promoted from Head of HR to "Executive Director of People").

Charities are marvellous things. Sadly all too often run by less marvellous people. Who might care to sort out their own shortcomings rather than picking on an uneducated Actor.

Not strictly a politician, but wanted to highlight the stupid pronouncement of some senior official at Scope, the Charity.

He has been referring to the suspension and then dismissal of the Eastenders actor, Jamie Borthwick. Who has been dismissed for the one-off use of the offensive ableist word "mongoloid". Regardless of the fact that not only was it a one-off, it was not in any way connected to his employment as an actor on Eastenders.

If we are all liable to summary dismissal for using one unwise word, not sure how many people would be in employment. But language changes over time. Words that were once in common usage are now deeply offensive. Which, IMHO, requires education. Not dismissal. But it was the attitude of Scope that particularly rankled. The quote started with:-

"Attitudes and language like this are never acceptable".

So. A word that once had medical connotations relating to Down syndrome. That, over time, became synonymous with an offensive slur that it ceased to be acceptable. Something that not everybody always appreciates.

If only I could think of another word referring to people with Down syndrome. That, similarly, is now no longer acceptable. Which, presumably, that man at Scope believes "are never acceptable".

Scope. Known for 90 years as the Spastic Society. Might have hoped for a little more understanding.

We live in a time where we are far too quick to judge. And to hold others to standards which we would never maintain ourselves.

Rayner? Definitely unlucky.

Starmer as PM? Certainly not made a good start. But when the Daily Torygraph praises his reshuffle, then he must be doing something right.

There have been plenty of good PMs in recent times. It's just been that our terrible Press have always sought to undermine them.

To sum up the most recent PMs:-

Cameron. Very good. Effectively forced out by the Right Wing of his own Party
May. Like Gordon Brown, an effective Politician. But not a good PM. Appointed at the nut worst time-when we most needed a diplomatic PM
Johnson. Good abroad. But at home one of the worst PMs of all time
Truss. Rival to Johnson in the buffoonery stakes
Sunak. A safe pair of hands. Suspect that if he had succeeded Cameron, the World would be a better place. Not given the credit he was due for reversing the terrible immigration policies in relation to legal migration under Johnson
Starmer. Too early to be sure. He is going to be better than Johnson or Truss. I suspect history is going to mark him (like Sunak) as a bit average. His big advantage is that, if that tw@t Farage is the next PM, people will long for the good old days under Starmer and Sunak.

Amorim reminds me a bit of Postecoglu. Only worse.

He, like Ange, has a Plan A. and no Plan B. Except he doesn't have the players (even when fit) to carry out that Plan A. And, unlike Ange, he throws his players under the bus-those he hasn't already forced out. One of those Managers that take the credit in victory, and blame the players in defeat. And spent squillions. Can't keep hiding behind a squad that is very much now his choice.

Worst of all. he hid during the Penalty shoot-out. Shameful. Lead. Or go.

For any Man Ure fans out there, I vividly recall the last shock result for Grimsby. When they beat Spurs. And, strangely, it helped us a great deal. Cos we threw on a kid while losing. Aaron Lennon. Hope he is keeping well. On a similar note, hope Andy Sinton is recovering.

Man Utd, even with their current squad, should be 6th-10th. And will be. Once they get a decent Manager in.

Yes. That's the one.

The one who was promised a bigger role when Citeh came sniffing.

Signed that contract. Hasn't started yet and plays in the same role as Eze

Dowman genuinely looks exciting.

But, before you get carried away:-

Last season, the young Lewis-Skelly looked to be the real deal. Now-out of the team, and looks fragile
Season before, Nwaneri looked the real deal. Out of the Team, rumoured to be looking to leave

1 thing brought it home to me the other day. Because I still think of Celtic as a massive club. And, of course (and I include Rangers in this) in various senses still are

Celtic's record signing is (I believe) £11 Million.

The 3 teams that have just been promoted to the Premier League are all predicted to go straight back down. And, this Summer alone, have between them signed 13 players for more than that amount.

[would]

I get that you don't understand why I am trying to explain my point. It could of course be that I just like the sound of my own voice. Or it could be that you don't understand the point I am trying to make. But please feel free to be confident that you know better than me what point I am trying to make.

With regard to you disagreeing about the make up of the Top 4, that's perfectly fine. I would expect more people to agree with you on that-just not 35 out of 35 out of people who are paid to be pundits.

In relation to the probability, you are completely correct. In reality, the bookies make profit via the Probability exceeding 1 by a considerable margin. Typically, using my 35 number, the total would be about 50/35. Which, as you rightly say, makes the Probability of the Top 4 being the 4 favourites considerably less likely (although still more likely than anything else).

The question posed to these 35 experts was not who is most likely to be Top 4. It was who, on their opinion, would be Top 4. Which is a different question. With a much more individual answer. If 20, even 25, pundits said those 4, completely understandable. 35 is just plain wrong.

The question of Top 4 is, of itself, highly misleading. Financially, for years it was the be-all and end-all. Not now. 5th gets Champions League, too-which is why Newcastle are there. And for the 17th-placed Spurs who, with Man Utd gave up on the League with several games left. Which I detest-but that is the new financial reality

If you look at the Odds for Top 5, rather than Top 4, they are massively different. Let me give 2 examples.

Chelsea are 1/3 to be Top 5, rather than 4/6 Top 4. Why? 3 reasons. Firstly, no-one will care whether they are 4th or 5th-any more than they used to care whether they were 3rd or 4th. Secondly, a deep run in Europe may mean incentive for league position will drop. Thirdly, Chelsea face a really tough run-in. Their last 11 games include Arsenal, Villa and Liverpool away, and Newcastle Man City Man Utd and Spurs at Home. Because those odds of 4/6 and 1/3 would normally make no sense together. But the Bookies clearly feel it likely that Chelsea may well ease up in the League at the end.

Man Utd are best priced at 5/4 to be Top 5. Not odds I would touch. But for none of those 35 to take a punt on a Top 4 prediction is bizarre. And I know football should not be tribal. But when, for example, Rooney won't say Man U could be Top 4, Shearer won't say Newcastle will, and Walcott tips Liverpool to win the League, it just seems a bit sad.

Let me try and explain.

We can all see the likeliest Top 4. We can go on to various sites, like Oddschecker, and see that. For free.

The BBC has used our money to pay 35 experts to provide an opinion. To provide insight via their professional knowledge and contacts. To provide supposedly informed opinion. Not to read Oddschecker and charge me for the privilege.

You provide informed comment about Tennis. You give opinions. You don't just decide who is going to win based on the odds. Similarly, if 35 Tennis experts were asked to provide their 4 tips for likeliest Winners at Wimbledon, I expect you would be pretty p1ssed off if all 35 just picked the Number 1-4 seeds.

The bookmakers odds seem clear to me. Roughly speaking-

Liverpool have a 33/35 chance of being Top 4.
Arsenal have a 29/35 chance.
Man City have a 28/35 chance.
Chelsea have a 21/35 chance.

Which means the other teams, between them, have a 29/35 chance. Which is a lot more than 0.

When Leicester won the Prem, number of experts predicting Top 4? 0
2 years ago, Aston Villa? 2.