24-April 2023 : LAB 44% / CON 29% / LDEM 11% / GRN 5%

[Mr Poppy]

New general thread using the latest R&W GB poll:

redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-23-april-2023/

I'm obviously not Mark but I do think a new thread is long overdue and anyone is able to start a new thread

I'll make a suggestion to keep the business of the old thread on the old thread and everyone starts the new thread with a 'clean slate'. I certainly won't be the first to start throwing stones but if this thread descends into the gutter and no one else is bothering to follow the rules then neither shall I.

If anyone hasn't read the 'rules' yet, or wants to refresh their memory, then they can be found on:
ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/thread/5/general-rules-post-read

[Mr Poppy]

Tracker graph for above R&W. As stated on the last thread the 'rule of 4' has restarted with R&W, the first poll since "Raabgate" showing CON giving back some of their recent gains. It is possible that "Abbottgate" had an impact as well but R&W specifically mention "Raab" as event in their tracker and the only notable changes in the R&W poll were a drop in CON'19 loyalty (with RUK VI being the largest beneficiary)

[Danny]

Apr 26, 2023 7:43:56 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Tracker graph for above R&W. As stated on the last thread the 'rule of 4' has restarted with R&W, the first poll since "Raabgate" showing CON giving back some of their recent gains. It is possible that "Abbottgate" had an impact as well but R&W specifically mention "Raab" as event in their tracker and the only notable changes in the R&W poll were a drop in CON'19 loyalty (with RUK VI being the largest beneficiary)

If you believe R&W, then the inflexion point for con was the N. ireland deal. Presumably this was seen as a signal the government was seeking reconciliation with the EU.

Before that, con standing improved noticeably after Truss was deposed. Bearing in mind that pretty much matters are still worse for con than before Johnson was previously deposed. So Sunak is still trying to recover to the situation Johnson enjoyed.

One might wonder whether the people who liked Johnson, and the people who liked reconciliation with the EU, are different blocks.

[Mr Poppy]

Apr 26, 2023 8:30:37 GMT Danny said:

Apr 26, 2023 7:43:56 GMT Mr Poppy said:

If you believe R&W, then the inflexion point for con was the N. ireland deal. Presumably this was seen as a signal the government was seeking reconciliation with the EU.

Before that, con standing improved noticeably after Truss was deposed. Bearing in mind that pretty much matters are still worse for con than before Johnson was previously deposed. So Sunak is still trying to recover to the situation Johnson enjoyed.

One might wonder whether the people who liked Johnson, and the people who liked reconciliation with the EU, are different blocks.

I intend to operate to a 'clean slate' approach on the new thread and you are discussing polling and so I will reply to you/anyone else for as long as the discussion follows the rules of this site and is something of interest (ie I won't reply on subjects that should be in the Issue Specific threads) 

You can wonder what you want but as someone who voted for Boris to become CON leader and then PM (to 'Get Brexit Done' and end the gridlock of HoC 17-19) then I also realised that we had to 'Get Boris Gone' after the 'Owen goal' and 'Partygate' and I am also in favour of what is generally called 'Entente'. 

I see no conflict between the two due in part to the timing difference and 'reality'

EG A once happy marriage that turns into a failing marriage can end via a divorce process. The divorce can be a bitter experience for both parties (and their children) but after a period of time then it is not unusual for a new relationship to become established when shared interests clearly still exist. Whilst no longer married then an 'Entente' is of mutual benefit. 

To coin a phrase:

"We left the EU, we did not leave Europe"

[leftieliberal]

Scottish Government proposing changes to jury trials: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235

I can see sense in Scotland reducing the jury size from 15 to 12 in line with England and Wales, but I am concerned that the end of the "Not Proven" verdict will lead to an increase in miscarriages of justice, especially as only 8 jurors will have to agree to find a defendant guilty (it is 10 out of 12 in England and Wales).

Abolition of jury trials for rape is also likely to be contentious, but as these changes will not have any effect on the rest of the UK, I cannot see Section 35 applying.

[Mr Poppy]

Whilst the below YG poll is a week old then the tables are now available should anybody wish to look at those. I'll show the CON'19 x-break (changes v previous week)

CON: 47% (+1)
DK+WNV: 21% + 7% = 28% (+3)
RUK: 10% (+2)
LAB: 8% (-5)

So as we've seen in some other polling the narrowing was due to CON'19 who had moved to LAB VI either 'coming home' or at least moving to DK/WNV (ie not simply a reduction in CON'19 DKs)

FWIW then LAB'19 x-break for DK+WNV = 14% (+2) with that change coming mostly from WNV 5% (+3). However, LAB still have much higher loyalty than CON at 72% (-2) and CON'19 DK+WNV is 2x the level of LAB'19.

?

[Mr Poppy]

A long read but the 'Illegal Immigration Bill' is back in HoC today and the below link covers changes "As amended in Committee, to be considered"*. As mentioned in the press recently then Rishi has attempted to ensure minimal rebellions from CON MPs - from both ends of the spectrum. TBC on the outcome but a lot of 'traps' have been set by Rishi-Braverman for Starmer-LAB to fall into (and Starmer-LAB have attempted a few the other way).

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1153051/Commons_Report_stage_supplementary_ECHR_memo_FINAL.pdf

* Other info can be found with some 'click-thrus' on 'Today's business papers':
commonsbusiness.parliament.uk

[Mr Poppy]

?

[Deleted]

pleased to see this :-

news.sky.com/story/andrew-bridgen-mp-kicked-out-of-tory-party-after-comparing-covid-vaccines-to-holocaust-12866848

[pjw1961]

Trevor, you can't call yourself Mark, that name is already taken by our site admin as you are perfectly well aware.

[Deleted]

These trend lines suggest cross over in July :-

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election


Feasible ?

[Mr Poppy]

Apr 26, 2023 12:55:16 GMT colin said:

These trend lines suggest cross over in July :-

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election


Feasible ?

Anything is feasible and for Rishi and CON then 'the trend is your friend' 

However, my guess would be we'll settle into a new range for a while but with 'downside risk' for LAB as they get into factional infighting and their policies start to come under closer scrutiny WRT to how they'll be funded and/or if they are just sticking plasters and/or copying CON policies. Later in the year then with the near certainty of inflation dropping and hopefully the strikes ending then 'upside potential' for CON.

In terms of what might happen in GE'24 then the recent move in the polling was matched with change in expectations in the bookies. So just FWIW then the implied probability of LAB winning OM is now 45% (down from 65% at the high)

www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.167249195

[Deleted]

Apr 26, 2023 14:20:23 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Apr 26, 2023 12:55:16 GMT colin said:

These trend lines suggest cross over in July :-

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election


Feasible ?

Anything is feasible and for Rishi and CON then 'the trend is your friend' 

However, my guess would be we'll settle into a new range for a while but with 'downside risk' for LAB as they get into factional infighting and their policies start to come under closer scrutiny WRT to how they'll be funded and/or if they are just sticking plasters and/or copying CON policies. Later in the year then with the near certainty of inflation dropping and hopefully the strikes ending then 'upside potential' for CON.

In terms of what might happen in GE'24 then the recent move in the polling was matched with change in expectations in the bookies. So just FWIW then the implied probability of LAB winning OM is now 45% (down from 65% at the high)

www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.167249195

Sam Coates of Sky News ( a consistent Tory critic) was critical of Starmer at PMQ today and said Con interventions on COL were denting his attack on that score. He said KS was struggling to find a punchy narrative,

[Mr Poppy]

Apr 26, 2023 14:24:20 GMT colin said:

Apr 26, 2023 14:20:23 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Anything is feasible and for Rishi and CON then 'the trend is your friend' 

However, my guess would be we'll settle into a new range for a while but with 'downside risk' for LAB as they get into factional infighting and their policies start to come under closer scrutiny WRT to how they'll be funded and/or if they are just sticking plasters and/or copying CON policies. Later in the year then with the near certainty of inflation dropping and hopefully the strikes ending then 'upside potential' for CON.

In terms of what might happen in GE'24 then the recent move in the polling was matched with change in expectations in the bookies. So just FWIW then the implied probability of LAB winning OM is now 45% (down from 65% at the high)

www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.167249195

Sam Coates of Sky News ( a consistent Tory critic) was critical of Starmer at PMQ today and said Con interventions on COL were denting his attack on that score. He said KS was struggling to find a punchy narrative,

Groan Politics Live usually try to put an ABCON (pro LAB) spin on PMQ but all Sparrow could muster today was:

" The exchanges between Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer were particularly grim; often there is an argument of sorts, but today it just felt like a carnival of sloganising and half-truths"

I admit to rarely bothering to waste my time watching it. Rishi won't mind '0-0' every week but that is incredibly boring to watch (IMO). 

The debate on the Illegal Immigration Bill has started with pretty 'feisty' (headline/click bait ready) comments such as "Jenrick says most people arriving on small boats are 'essentially asylum shoppers' as MPs resume debate on migration bill" 

[Mr Poppy]

Once again the majority of people, including plurality in the LAB x-break, agree with Braverman:

?

[Deleted]

Apr 26, 2023 16:02:28 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Once again the majority of people, including plurality in the LAB x-break, agree with Braverman:

?

Don't like this language.

We should be asking simply -why are they coming & do we think it a good reason to let them stay.  Social cohesion is a matter for the totality of our society and all the immigrants in it-not just the undocumented.

Also embarrassed that Braverman offers a "safe" route for Sudanese via UNHCR, which UNHCR says doesn't exist. I agree we need to try and stop this undocumented traffic via criminals. But she has not grasped the other side of the coin. What are our legal routes ? What exists and thats it -or something new ? If the latter lets be hearing about it.

[Mr Poppy]

Another YG finding that some might find surprising.

NB The wording is perhaps again not ideal but I don't write the questions.

[Mr Poppy]

Apr 26, 2023 16:21:24 GMT colin said:

Apr 26, 2023 16:02:28 GMT Mr Poppy said:

...

Don't like this language.

We should be asking simply -why are they coming & do we think it a good reason to let them stay.  Social cohesion is a matter for the totality of our society and all the immigrants in it-not just the undocumented.

Also embarrassed that Braverman offers a "safe" route for Sudanese via UNHCR, which UNHCR says doesn't exist. I agree we need to try and stop this undocumented traffic via criminals. But she has not grasped the other side of the coin. What are our legal routes ? What exists and thats it -or something new ? If the latter lets be hearing about it.

Is that doesn't "currently" exist?

UNHCR mobilizes to help people fleeing Sudan for neighbouring countries
www.unhcr.org/uk/news/unhcr-mobilizes-help-people-fleeing-sudan-neighbouring-countries

I think we agree that more safe and legal routes should be made available, in conjunction with "Stop the Boats". The link gives an idea of the size of the numbers involved. Perhaps in due course we/other countries take in more genuine refugees from UNHCR camps in countries neighbouring Sudan but it does seem that Braverman wants to put the horse ("Stop the Boats") in front of the cart ("more safe, legal routes").

I haven't followed the whole debate in HoC as I got stuck on a call. Various summaries from different outlets tend to be a bit biased in which bits they mention and which bits they leave out but FWIU then some MPs have been asking for a "side deal" (pinky promise) that more safe, legal routes will come once the current problem with 'small boats' is resolved - if it ever is resolved that is. 

[Mr Poppy]

Apr 26, 2023 16:11:28 GMT colin said:

Apr 26, 2023 15:38:59 GMT alec said:

colin - I note that you have expressed your pleasure that Andrew Brigden has been thrown out of the Conservative Party for comparing the mRNA vaccines to the Holocaust. That's good news indeed, as you say, but there is something missing here.

I'm a little bit baffled that you, and all the other RoC posters on here, weren't up in arms about this when he said it, which was weeks ago. It seems it's OK to join the pile on against Diane Abbott, but everything seems so much more muted when someone actually falsely compares the Holocaust if they are no a Labour MP.

Strange.

I actually agreed with Abbott on her central point-that "racism" and "prejudice" are often conflated & aren't the same thing.

Unfortunately she then proceeded to demonstrate that she didn't understand that , at all.

( As I explained then, I dislike the word "racist" anyway. Its a lazy catchall with no credible meaning for humans.  "Prejudice" is much more effective. It requires an adjective -like Colour, Religious, Cultural etc -which forces a much more focused and cerebral  examination and critique of the attitude . imo )

Sorry if I missed the Torches and Pitchforks after Bridgen's remark. Very remiss of me . Don't really hang on his every word-whereas Abbott is always good value.

I certainly haven't "join(ed) the pile on against Diane Abbott" but did I miss Diane Abbott being expelled permanently from (LAB) party? I'm aware Starmer is being called Sir Keith Stalin but is now not even bothering with "due process"?

I don't know how long "due process" should take but I do think a process should be followed and that would obviously mean a delay being 'losing the whip' and 'expelled permanently' - not that I'm prejudging* what will happen to Abbott.

Former Tory MP Andrew Bridgen expelled permanently from (CON) party
www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/26/former-tory-mp-andrew-bridgen-expelled-permanently-from-party

* Call me a cynic but the 'timing' of the announcement (the decision was from 12April) might have been a bit naughty. Whether or not making an example of Bridgen puts pressure on Starmer to do the same is TBC - maybe the timing was purely coincidental? I'm 99.9% sure Bridgen had used up all the 'yellow cards' anyone should be given and I'm fairly sure he hasn't apologised (please correct me if I'm wrong) so IMO a 'red card' for Bridgen was the correct outcome for him. LAB not my party but a 'red card' for Abbott would seem overly harsh given what some other LAB MPs have gotten away with. 

[Mark]

*** ADMIN ***

I am once again a little behind, so several things to cover.

Firstly, the new polling thread. This thread. Started by someone other than me.

That is absolutely fine. It ws needed....indeed, it was overdue.

No problem there whatoever. Please can we all use this as the most recent polling thread?

There is a problem, however, in that one member had changed their display name to "Mark".

It had been changed again by the time I got here. There will be no sanction - this time - but, I promise that any repeat of this will lead - at the very least - to a yellow card.

The same goes for changing your display name to the same or similar to an existing member. Do not even begin to think about doing this.

I will repeat what I said before that regular members should keep to the same display name as much as possible, larglely to avoid confusion, but, I do recognise that there can be valid reasons for a username change so will not sanction anyone that does so - except for chaging a display name to appear to be someone else, as covered above.

The second issue is a derogatory word for the gypsy community used in the previous thread. Indeed the whole post was prejudicial.

The term used is completely unacceptable and any future use of such a term WILL be sanctioned. My inbox - and the reaction on the thread itself - tells me that I do not have to spell this out any further, but, finally, as usual, any sanction I take, or don't take, is between myself and the member concerned and will not be made public unless the member concerned decides to make it so.

[Mr Poppy]

Apr 26, 2023 17:07:53 GMT Mark said:

*** ADMIN ***

I am once again a little behind, so several things to cover.

Firstly, the new polling thread. This thread. Started by someone other than me.

That is absolutely fine. It ws needed....indeed, it was overdue.

No problem there whatoever. Please can we all use this as the most recent polling thread?

There is a problem, however, in that one member had changed their display name to "Mark".

It had been changed again by the time I got here. There will be no sanction - this time - but, I promise that any repeat of this will lead - at the very least - to a yellow card.

The same goes for changing your display name to the same or similar to an existing member. Do not even begin to think about doing this.

I will repeat what I said before that regular members should keep to the same display name as much as possible, larglely to avoid confusion, but, I do recognise that there can be valid reasons for a username change so will not sanction anyone that does so - except for chaging a display name to appear to be someone else, as covered above.

The second issue is a derogatory word for the gypsy community used in the previous thread. Indeed the whole post was prejudicial.

The term used is completely unacceptable and any future use of such a term WILL be sanctioned. My inbox - and the reaction on the thread itself - tells me that I do not have to spell this out any further, but, finally, as usual, any sanction I take, or don't take, is between myself and the member concerned and will not be made public unless the member concerned decides to make it so.

Once again (3rd time?) I note you confirm that I didn't break any rules. In fact I followed rule3 to the letter (including the typo). I will later tonight change my name back to "Trevor" as I think the point I wanted to make has been well and truly made.

mercian was possibly already on a 'yellow card' and of course the only person who can make a judgement on sanctions is yourself.

Just so that you aware then when you 'sanction' someone with a ban then they don't know for how long it will be unless you tell them before you ban them (eg I have no idea how long you banned me - it was certainly at least 24hrs but then I gave up bothering to check my 'blocked' access for a few months as I assumed it was 'permanent')

However, there are clearly numerous breaches of the rules by several "LoCs" on a regular basis (notably rule#2*). There is no evidence that any of them have ever been sanctioned so I hope you can appreciate that it very much appears that there is "one rule no rules for LoCs" and "the actual rules applied to RoCs".

* I can give public examples if you want but I expect that is frowned upon as that would in itself be "trolling" (and arguably "bullying") if I did. However, the rule states:

"2. No flaming or trolling other users. We understand that political discussion can be passionate at times, but, please keep it polite. When there are differences of opinion, argue the point, not the member posting it. Once again, offenders will be warned, repeat offenders will be kicked"

ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/thread/5/general-rules-post-read

[jayblanc]

Apr 26, 2023 17:07:53 GMT Mark said:

*** ADMIN ***

I am once again a little behind, so several things to cover.

Firstly, the new polling thread. This thread. Started by someone other than me.

That is absolutely fine. It ws needed....indeed, it was overdue.

No problem there whatoever. Please can we all use this as the most recent polling thread?

There is a problem, however, in that one member had changed their display name to "Mark".

It had been changed again by the time I got here. There will be no sanction - this time - but, I promise that any repeat of this will lead - at the very least - to a yellow card.

The same goes for changing your display name to the same or similar to an existing member. Do not even begin to think about doing this.

I will repeat what I said before that regular members should keep to the same display name as much as possible, larglely to avoid confusion, but, I do recognise that there can be valid reasons for a username change so will not sanction anyone that does so - except for chaging a display name to appear to be someone else, as covered above.

The second issue is a derogatory word for the gypsy community used in the previous thread. Indeed the whole post was prejudicial.

The term used is completely unacceptable and any future use of such a term WILL be sanctioned. My inbox - and the reaction on the thread itself - tells me that I do not have to spell this out any further, but, finally, as usual, any sanction I take, or don't take, is between myself and the member concerned and will not be made public unless the member concerned decides to make it so.

Sorry, but lack of action in the face of entirely unacceptable behaviour speaks loudly. Bye, enjoy your Nazi Bar.

[steve]

Well that seems a tad excessive from Jay but each to their own.

Meanwhile

Serial liar Suella Braverman "fails to provide data to back her claim about small boat migrants being more likely to be engaged in crime
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, was also asked to justify her claim about people arriving in the UK on small boats being disproprotionately criminal in a briefing with journalists earlier. She replied:

Not in all cases, but it is becoming a notable feature of everyday crime-fighting in England and Wales.

Many people are coming here illegally and they’re getting very quickly involved in the drugs trade, in other forms of exploitation.

Asked whether that claim was based on empirical evidence, she said:

I consider police chiefs experts in their field and authoritative sources of information."



That's interesting as no police chiefs have said asylum seekers are more likely to be involved in crime and given that they are often detained its difficult to see how they could be.

So another groundless and easily disproved xenophobic hate stirring lie from our home Secretary.

With a functional government even a "normal" Tory right wing one she would be out, here the rest of the regime just join in.

[pjw1961]

Apr 26, 2023 17:26:56 GMT steve said:

Well that seems a tad excessive from Jay but each to their own.

Jayblanc has stated he has Roma (as well as Irish)  heritage so Mercian's racist post about gypsies was an understandable sticking point perhaps? 

[Mr Poppy]

Apr 26, 2023 17:36:31 GMT pjw1961 said:

Apr 26, 2023 17:26:56 GMT steve said:

Well that seems a tad excessive from Jay but each to their own.

Jayblanc has stated he has Roma (as well as Irish)  heritage so Mercian's racist post about gypsies was an understandable sticking point perhaps? 

Whilst it is possible that mercian has taken some "time off" then there is another explanation for:

Username: mercian Last Online: yesterday at 12:29am

ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/user/17

As per Mark 's post then

Apr 26, 2023 17:07:53 GMT Mark said:

*** ADMIN ***

....

The second issue is a derogatory word for the gypsy community used in the previous thread. Indeed the whole post was prejudicial.

The term used is completely unacceptable and any future use of such a term WILL be sanctioned. My inbox - and the reaction on the thread itself - tells me that I do not have to spell this out any further, but, finally, as usual, any sanction I take, or don't take, is between myself and the member concerned and will not be made public unless the member concerned decides to make it so.

So mercian can perhaps state if any sanction has, or has not, been taken against him. mercian's choice of course (assuming he can access his account and is allowed to post) but I would encourage him to make full disclosure (ie "decides to make it so")

I would also encourage anyone else who has had sanctions applied to them to give full disclosure of the circumstances - that would then end what is possibly just an RoC 'myth' about "no rules for LoCs".

[neilj]

The stark facts make grim reading
Thatcher's legacy writ large

[Mark]

*** ADMIN ***

As once again stated, any sanction taken against any member, short of a temporary or permanant ban will stay between me and said member unless said member CHOOSES to make it public.

Members should *** NOT *** be encouraged or cajoled into revealing such details.

For the record, yes, I have sanctioned both LOC and ROC members in our time here. I would guess that slightly more LOC members have been sanctioned, but, could not swear to this without going back through all my communication.

In the event of a ban, the member concerned is told exactly why and if temproary, for how long.

[pjw1961]

On altogether less fraught matters, there is one local government by-election tomorrow, but even less exciting than last week's. It is Swansea UA, Penderry ward. The result when it was last contested (2022) was: Lab 1022, 1019, 967; Con 269 - so a very safe Labour seat (Lab 79.2%, Con 20.8%).

All major parties are standing - Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and Plaid Cymru. Obviously, with more candidate the Labour vote share will fall - potentially by a lot - but it would still be a major surprise if they lost the seat.

[oldnat]

The Scotland crossbreak from YG is the first real sign that the travails of the SNP may be having a dire effect on their VI.

SLab 23% : DK 20% : WNV 13% : SCon 13% : SNP 12% : SLD 8% : SGP 7% : Other 2% : REFUK 1%

[Mr Poppy]

Apr 26, 2023 18:09:53 GMT Mark said:

*** ADMIN ***

1. As once again stated, any sanction taken against any member, short of a temporary or permanant ban will stay between me and said member unless said member CHOOSES to make it public.

2. Members should *** NOT *** be encouraged or cajoled into revealing such details.

3. For the record, yes, I have sanctioned both LOC and ROC members in our time here. I would guess that slightly more LOC members have been sanctioned, but, could not swear to this without going back through all my communication.

4. In the event of a ban, the member concerned is told exactly why and if temproary, for how long.

Firstly given that the issue of "quoting" was not fully resolved then I hope you don't mind me breaking down the above into 4 points to make it easier to reply to each point. I've just added numbers in red, no other changes. 

1. I'm confused. So if mercian (being the current example) was banned then you would a/ make that info public OR b/ it would stay between you and mercian ?

2. Is that a new rule that I can repost onto the 'General Rules' thread to keep all the rules in one place? Will sanctions be applied if any encouragement or cajoling applies (and would that apply to various other examples that I can provide of other 'cajoling')?

3. You say "for the record" which usually means there is a "record" that can be can checked and verified. Given you don't want #2 and noting #1 then can you at least appreciate why there is a "perception" of moderator bias. 

4. Again, is that new? It didn't apply to me (the one person that we all know was banned*). As I have already stated then if you ban someone then they can no longer access 'pro boards' (and not just this forum, the whole of proboards) so they will not know how long you have banned them for. You never told me how long you would ban me for in advance of banning me but perhaps you now do?

* By all means ban me again. It is your site, your rules, with you as judge, jury and executioner. 

PS IMO "rules" and "clarity" are important. I'm quite happy to use whatever actual rules are in place and as per my comments WRT to "Raabgate" then when there is a lack of clarity in the rules then clarity should (IMO) be given by those making the rules. I also think "examples" of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour are useful (and English law is based on "case" law as not every possible situation can be 'imagined' until someone tests the existing laws/rules and "precedents" are then available)