|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Sept 24, 2019 7:33:28 GMT
On a personal note, I believe Peter Kemp was one of my nominees when I stood against Martin Trevett. He was getting on a bit by then and not in great health, and didn’t stand for re-election to the parish council. He lived in the area of Occupied Bucks that was added to the ward from Chenies.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 15, 2019 22:13:07 GMT
Anyone know an easy way of turning the 2019 Indices of Deprivation by LSOA into a comparative readout by local government ward?
Specifically in relation to west London.
Asking for a friend (no, really).
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Oct 15, 2019 22:54:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 17, 2019 23:53:43 GMT
Enda Kenny has been both Baby of the Dail and Father of the Dail. Has this happened in any other legislature?
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 18, 2019 0:00:24 GMT
Enda Kenny has been both Baby of the Dail and Father of the Dail. Has this happened in any other legislature? Here in the UK the 6th Earl Winterton (an Irish peerage) was both - Baby of the House (as Viscount Turnour) from the November 1904 Horsham by-election until the 1906 general election and then Father of the House from January 1945 (when David Lloyd George was ennobled) until the 1951 general election.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,235
|
Post by Sibboleth on Oct 18, 2019 0:11:33 GMT
Enda Kenny has been both Baby of the Dail and Father of the Dail. Has this happened in any other legislature? Happened a few times in New Zealand: Keith Holyoake, Warren Freer and Jonathan Hunt.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,531
|
Post by iain on Oct 29, 2019 12:35:47 GMT
When a councillor resigns, what is the shortest timescale for a by-election being called?
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 31, 2019 11:21:21 GMT
Why was Airey Neave's widow called Baroness Airey instead of Baroness Neave?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 31, 2019 15:19:44 GMT
Why was Airey Neave's widow called Baroness Airey instead of Baroness Neave? Good question. I didn't know that was her name until you drew attention to it.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 31, 2019 15:32:47 GMT
Why was Airey Neave's widow called Baroness Airey instead of Baroness Neave? She chose to do this as she said it "made her feel closer to him". So she effectively changed her name to Neave Airey.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 31, 2019 19:16:10 GMT
Why was Airey Neave's widow called Baroness Airey instead of Baroness Neave? Good question. I didn't know that was her name until you drew attention to it. Neither did I until she was mentioned in Charles Moore's book about Margaret Thatcher.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 4, 2019 14:26:26 GMT
Is there any case law about the legal force or wording of notices which say "no leaflets" or "no junk mail" etc.? Usually I ignore the notice and deliver the leaflet anyway. But today I saw a self-important sign which (among other things) said "No leaflets under any circumstances. This will be deemed as trespass" (bla bla). I delivered the leaflet anyway, and my brain laughed at the stupidity if the person who thinks they can define a legal term in any way they pretend to, but I'm wondering what the law says about such things.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 4, 2019 14:29:12 GMT
Is there any case law about the legal force or wording of notices which say "no leaflets" or "no junk mail" etc.? Usually I ignore the notice and deliver the leaflet anyway. But today I saw a self-important sign which (among other things) said "No leaflets under any circumstances. This will be deemed as trespass" (bla bla). I delivered the leaflet anyway, and my brain laughed at the stupidity if the person who thinks they can define a legal term in any way they pretend to, but I'm wondering what the law says about such things. I'm guessing it would be a civil matter and they'd have to sue you personally.
i don't think they could call the police and expect a response, unless you deluged the address with multiple leaflets deliberately in which case you could be done for some variety of harrassment.(or if they had an existing injunction for some reason).
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,637
|
Post by nelson on Nov 4, 2019 15:55:39 GMT
Is there any case law about the legal force or wording of notices which say "no leaflets" or "no junk mail" etc.? Usually I ignore the notice and deliver the leaflet anyway. But today I saw a self-important sign which (among other things) said "No leaflets under any circumstances. This will be deemed as trespass" (bla bla). I delivered the leaflet anyway, and my brain laughed at the stupidity if the person who thinks they can define a legal term in any way they pretend to, but I'm wondering what the law says about such things. Why? No point in annoying people if you hope to get their vote.
|
|
|
Post by erimus58 on Nov 4, 2019 17:23:44 GMT
Not sure if this is the right place for this but here goes.
Would it be possible for the first post in the GE2019 constituency threads to have the candidates (and eventually the results) added so that there is a fairly easily accessed 'go to' place for the information?
I realise that this may be a lot of work to achieve so I'll quite understand if it is not possible.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 4, 2019 19:23:59 GMT
Not sure if this is the right place for this but here goes. Would it be possible for the first post in the GE2019 constituency threads to have the candidates (and eventually the results) added so that there is a fairly easily accessed 'go to' place for the information? I realise that this may be a lot of work to achieve so I'll quite understand if it is not possible. It would be a lot of work that could only be done by people with administrator or moderator privileges over the General Election section, so is almost certainly not possible.
|
|
|
Post by froome on Nov 4, 2019 20:20:53 GMT
Is there any case law about the legal force or wording of notices which say "no leaflets" or "no junk mail" etc.? Usually I ignore the notice and deliver the leaflet anyway. But today I saw a self-important sign which (among other things) said "No leaflets under any circumstances. This will be deemed as trespass" (bla bla). I delivered the leaflet anyway, and my brain laughed at the stupidity if the person who thinks they can define a legal term in any way they pretend to, but I'm wondering what the law says about such things. A few years ago, in the local elections, I received an email about an hour after having delivered a leaflet to an address, threatening me (as candidate) with legal action for having delivered there. It was written with much legal terminology and sounded quite threatening, and I replied with an apology and said we would note not to deliver there in the future. I then thought I would check to see if they had any notice there (I usually don't deliver if there is a notice specifying they don't want any leaflets or to be canvassed), and found that not only was there no notice on their front door, but that their front door was shared with 6 other flats and had only one letter box, and I knew that I wouldn't have delivered as many leaflets as there were separate flats.
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Nov 5, 2019 19:45:06 GMT
This follows on from the discussion in the Enfield North thread. What is the longest consecutive run of three of the same candidates facing off against each other?
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 5, 2019 21:07:15 GMT
Is there any case law about the legal force or wording of notices which say "no leaflets" or "no junk mail" etc.? Usually I ignore the notice and deliver the leaflet anyway. But today I saw a self-important sign which (among other things) said "No leaflets under any circumstances. This will be deemed as trespass" (bla bla). I delivered the leaflet anyway, and my brain laughed at the stupidity if the person who thinks they can define a legal term in any way they pretend to, but I'm wondering what the law says about such things. Why? No point in annoying people if you hope to get their vote. I tend to assume (and this has been confirmed by anecdotes from other leaflet-deliverers) that a sign which says "No leaflets" is usually intended to refer to adverts, junk, pizza leaflets etc, and that the householder usually isn't thinking about election material. Some of my colleagues have reported conversations with people who simultaneously demand "no leaflets", and complain about never being contacted by politicians. The practical bit of me says that a net one more leaflet is net more likely to gain a vote rather than to deter it. The legal bit of me resents the impertinence of the sign, which has no legal force and which signifies that the householder rejects interaction with society in general. Yesterday I saw one which said "No leaflets or flyers under any circumstances. Infringement will be deemed as trespass". I laughed at the thought that the householder was presuming to invent his own laws, and to define what the word "trespass" means in law.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 6, 2019 0:58:17 GMT
Why? No point in annoying people if you hope to get their vote. I tend to assume (and this has been confirmed by anecdotes from other leaflet-deliverers) that a sign which says "No leaflets" is usually intended to refer to adverts, junk, pizza leaflets etc, and that the householder usually isn't thinking about election material. Some of my colleagues have reported conversations with people who simultaneously demand "no leaflets", and complain about never being contacted by politicians. The practical bit of me says that a net one more leaflet is net more likely to gain a vote rather than to deter it. The legal bit of me resents the impertinence of the sign, which has no legal force and which signifies that the householder rejects interaction with society in general. Yesterday I saw one which said "No leaflets or flyers under any circumstances. Infringement will be deemed as trespass". I laughed at the thought that the householder was presuming to invent his own laws, and to define what the word "trespass" means in law. Indeed. Unless the sign says "addressed mail only" or specifically refers to political literature, I'll usually assume that the sign is referring to pizza leaflets and the like rather than election material. That said, I've had a couple of cases where the householder has specifically objected in person, and in such cases I usually update our leaflet rounds with a "do not deliver" note for that particular address.
My suspicion is that those who genuinely object to election literature are habitual non-voters anyway.
|
|