Saturday 7th & Sunday 8th November 2015

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 11:31 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Sunday Times running with leaks of government plans re British Bill of Rights ...
The Sunday Times which is behind the paywall so that you have to wait for another paper to pick up the story before you can read it?

Wouldn't it be great if we had a government that believed in following protocol and told the Commons first instead of giving Uncle Rupe the exclusives...

It's only the constitution.

In Ireland they'd have to have a referendum on it.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 11:32 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: Think that's a bit unfair. To take my subject- Classics- you can study it at Oxford without having studied any Latin and Greek at school.

Nonetheless, Gove made a song and dance about state schools not teaching Latin.

Talking of which...

Kent grammar school to drop four subjects after cash shortfall

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-34731719" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The head of a grammar school in Maidstone has said he has had to cut four subjects from the curriculum, because of funding pressures.

From September 2016, Oakwood Park Grammar will no longer offer Latin, German, classical civilisation or computing, at GCSE or A-level.

In a letter to parents, Kevin Moody said the academy school faced a "very bleak financial situation".

It's subjects like that that will be ditched - curriculum narrows because of EBacc and funding.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 12:03 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Talking of educational prejudices, why are Law, Psychology, Economics, Politics, Philosophy etc good enough subjects for Oxbridge degrees, but not good enough for the Ebacc?
Some may get educated above their station. Though not everyone educated at Oxford or Cambridge is part of the Establishment, an Establishment person educated at Oxbridge delights in keeping some subjects exclusive and prevent these subjects taught to the general population. During debates or interviews, an Establishment person will condescendingly sigh with fake regret at the person disagreeing with them.

'You've not studied (choose one) Law, Psychology, Economics, Politics or Philosophy. You can't speak my language so I will stop talking, you're ignorant of what I know.'

The finest day for a member of this Establishment is the morning they find out they're wrong. All the self-loathing falls away and they know they're just as important as everyone else without having to try. Sorry for time lost in ignorance, grateful and joyous they're no longer uneducated, they remain dedicated to alleviating suffering and increasing happiness of others in quiet ways outside mainstream media.
Think that's a bit unfair. To take my subject- Classics- you can study it at Oxford without having studied any Latin and Greek at school.

Nonetheless, Gove made a song and dance about state schools not teaching Latin.

I specifically exempted you.
Not by name, of course, but what does that matter - you know who you are, it's wonderful.
I love a good song and dance.
Any language is fine with me, as long as I can dance to it.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 12:03 am

Indeed.

It strikes me that this has all gone a bit quiet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... laces.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

State school teachers will be trained in Classics in order to help children compete equally with those from private schools for university places, Michael Gove has announced.
Teachers in the state sector who do not specialise in the Classics will receive extra training from academics from the best universities in order to help their pupils get into the best institutions.
The policy was announced by Michael Gove as part of a series of measures to tear down the ‘Berlin Wall’ between state and private schools.
Improvements in teaching and a more rigorous curriculum means Britain is witnessing “the strange death of the sink school”, as failing comprehensives become increasingly rare, he said.
The new teacher training project will be led by Prof Christopher Pelling, Regius Professor of Greek at Christ Church College, Oxford and will help state school students who want to study Latin and Greek at university “compete on equal terms” with the privately educated.

Christopher Pelling is my old university tutor, a very nice man, and not an obvious longterm partner for Gove. He'd have been surprised to hear he was overhauling state education.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 12:05 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Bye bye ECHR ... and how convenient that the ministerial code no longer requires compliance with international law.

I protest.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 12:07 am

I love you all regardless of education or food preferences.
I pledge allegiance to liberty and justice for all.
Goodnight.
love
cJA

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 12:08 am

citizenJA wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
citizenJA wrote: Some may get educated above their station. Though not everyone educated at Oxford or Cambridge is part of the Establishment, an Establishment person educated at Oxbridge delights in keeping some subjects exclusive and prevent these subjects taught to the general population. During debates or interviews, an Establishment person will condescendingly sigh with fake regret at the person disagreeing with them.

'You've not studied (choose one) Law, Psychology, Economics, Politics or Philosophy. You can't speak my language so I will stop talking, you're ignorant of what I know.'

The finest day for a member of this Establishment is the morning they find out they're wrong. All the self-loathing falls away and they know they're just as important as everyone else without having to try. Sorry for time lost in ignorance, grateful and joyous they're no longer uneducated, they remain dedicated to alleviating suffering and increasing happiness of others in quiet ways outside mainstream media.
Think that's a bit unfair. To take my subject- Classics- you can study it at Oxford without having studied any Latin and Greek at school.

Nonetheless, Gove made a song and dance about state schools not teaching Latin.
I specifically exempted you.
Not by name, of course, but what does that matter - you know who you are, it's wonderful.
I love a good song and dance.
Any language is fine with me, as long as I can dance to it.

I think you were right- though actual Oxbridge classicists try to broaden access, there's certainly a very annoying snobbery about studying the subject (or acting like you have, as Toby Young does). It isn't healthy, and its not unconnected with people who've been to Oxbridge, like Young has.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 12:53 am

seeingclearly wrote:Paper bags of fried bits from the fish and chip shop, they cost a ha'penny.

Crispies! Our local chippie offers them, now, for 30p

And I still have eggy-bread (the only time I have tomato ketchup with anything!) and the occasional banana sandwich.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 1:35 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Talking of educational prejudices, why are Law, Psychology, Economics, Politics, Philosophy etc good enough subjects for Oxbridge degrees, but not good enough for the Ebacc?

Or Art(s) - including Music - in either Ebacc or that there's a really strong argument that we should be thinking STEAM, not STEM...

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 2:20 am

ephemerid wrote:Under UC, the people most likely to be working for not much money (or none to start with) are the self-employed.

There's another provision that might cause problems, especially for the self employed. "Notional income". From the 2012 guidance to the select committee -

"195. As with capital, there may be circumstances in which a person is to be treated as depriving themselves of an income in order to gain or increase entitlement to Universal Credit. A person who has deprived themselves, or whose employer has arranged for them to be so deprived of income for the purpose of securing entitlement to universal credit or to an increased amount of universal credit is to be treated as possessing that income.

196. If a person provides services for another person and the other person either makes no payment for that service or pays less than would be paid for a comparable service in the same area; and the other person was able to pay the going rate for that service, the service provider is to be treated as having received the remuneration that would be reasonable for the provision of that service....."

Similar rules to para 195 go right back to the 1948 Act. Parliament's intent being that employers should not be encouraged to pay low wages in the expectation that the social security system will pick up the tab. Leaving aside that Family Income Supplement onwards have exactly that effect, it's a very difficult situation to prove and is a rarely used provision. Turns up sometimes if a family member employs a close relative and pays them much less than the going rate for the job and the "employee" claims benefits and that's about it.

Para 196 is very interesting. Let's say I decide to set up as a mobile car mechanic. I do my market research and find out that round here the going rate for the job is, let's say £35/hour. Being a new business I decide that I'll charge less, at least until I get established. I'm also really desperate for work, so I decide to charge £24.99 an hour.

For UC purposes is my income going to be assessed at £24.99/hour or at the local rate for "comparable services" which is £35/hour? Where in this is the space for the all-powerful and undodgeable Gods of the Market to do their magic thing and allow businesses to undercut each other? Will I be expected to charge £35 even if that results in me getting less work and therefore less income - and therefore more benefit?

And what, for heaven's sake, is the "going rate" for any service that can be provided by one or more people but is paid by the job not so much per person? For example, musicians when venues pay an amount per band not per musician? If a pub pays a flat £200 fee for a gig then is the going rate for the service the £50 each of a quartet gets or is it the £100 each a duo would get from the same fee?

It's a mess and has all the indications of a minister who is simply not listening to advice from the civil service or the external organisations and campaigns that can pick this stuff to pieces.

The last time this sort of thing was going on was the dying months of Major's government with Peter Lilley frantically ramming dozens of amendments and regulations and a seriously flawed major fraud act through before the election the Tories would clearly lose. Or the Child Support Act/Agency fiasco.

Unfortunately I have little hope that Frank Field will be much use at all in derailing any of Smith's master plans. Field's reputation is largely based on his CPAG work decades ago and being one of the few MPs actually interested in social security policy. So Labour back-benchers seem to just leave it to him to get on with. Trouble is Field has an.... "unusual" view of the world and may not be too unsympathetic to Smith. I hope I'm wrong, but Field's main complaint about Lilley, for example, seemed to be that Lilley's "little list" campaign against single mothers perhaps wasn't quite tough enough.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 2:28 am

Remembrance Sunday will fill our screens with poppy wearing politicians laying wreaths at the cenotaph, whilst our pig fucker generalissamo plans to bomb Syria. Have we really learned so little as a nation in the last century? Have we really learned so little in the last 15 years? I will leave it to a better writer than I to puncture the balloon of jingoism.

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

Wilfrid Owen - Killed in action 4th November 1918.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 3:40 am

A belated hello to TR's ghost ,FWIW I think you are correct about the man that represents the one-eyed city.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 7:08 am

55DegreesNorth wrote:The bits of batter left over were called scranchings in the Toon when I was a kid. I'm tempted to find a choppy and ask for some, to see if the term is still used.

"scranching"
What an excellent word.
Can we redefine it for wider use (and get it in the OED)? Would make a marvellous verb.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 8:09 am

Hi, and Welcome, TRs ghost. Thats a very bleak picture for anyone in less than orthodox employment or with some kind of entrpreneurial hopes. It also sort of predicates that you can charge full whack for services and products of your work without taking into account lack of experience, or even what you are actually being paid for coming somewhere inbetween professional and social help, by this I mean you may be a carer and perform duties that include friendship aspects and a lot of flexibility, and you may also as well as your employer not want to formalise the entireity of the caring transaction to a mere monetary equation. Moreover, for some this could be a very difficult thing to navigate. In less personal situations very similar problems arise, not everything is reducible to a time and money case, you mention musicians, what they can draw in is not really dependent on the work they do but on the ongoing response of their audiences, likewise for artists, actors, street performers and many others. The hours put in don't always reflect the money you earn, this is especially true for young businesses of all kinds.
I remember the inflexibility of the Major years, and the devastating lack of opportunity of the Thatcher years. I don't think people realise just how much difference there was in the approach to work was under Labour, and as you indicated there was flexibility to allow for the human factors then, I benefitted directly from being supported into work, benefits retained for six months and a first contract disregarded as I fell below the tax threshold, not for tax purposes but for the purpose of allowing me to be able to have a realistic business plan. After years of unsupported and utter failure to find work that could sustain anything other than utter poverty and the wrath of the benefits office, under the Conservative years, the support I and many others I know set us on the road to having good careers. It was a far cry from the spurious shunting of people into hairdressing and decorating with no support and thousands of small business failures we'd seen before. The links that advisors had between government and business were instrumental in this, and charity orgs worked with them far better than today. To see the mistakes of former times being imposed again is painful to watch. The end result is and will continue to be more dependent people, and inevitably they will be labelled and blamed for what are government failings.

The inflexibility is a built in aspect of these failings, what I see as failings. As time has passed though, and the excess of savagery in the cuts gains pace I keep thinking we are missing something, all of this is not random, in spite of the apparent buffoonery in the way things are playing out. Its happened incredibly fast this time, and its not just the economics, the law, the fabric of our nationhood, language and meaning, rights and law, even education and health are all been shredded, hollowed out and replaced by this inflexble rigid vacancy where once meaningful structures existed. It beats me that people accept and welcome this, and choose this reality rather than remember that we once had something better. It wasnt perfect, but what is.

-------------------------

Today I will be remembering that my parents, grandparents, and generations of family didn't put their efforts and their lives into building this reality, but the better one they wished us to have and which I hope we will be able to restore. I'm especially remembering my grandfathers, from two very different nations who both served in Mesopotamia and found commonality in their experience there and the hospitality and warmth of the local people. That was what they spoke of, not of war. They valued home and family, the familiar and the loved, and were helped by the hospitality and kindness of ordinary people, so i will also be thinking of people who have lost those things, because that is what they would have wanted me to take from their experience. And of course I will also think of those who never made it through the brutal conflicts of over a century of war.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 8:33 am

The Viz comic have sold this satirical t-shirt for years, it now appears they might be on to something ...

: viz1.jpg (49.46 KiB) Viewed 6927 times

“For decades, the authorities have been warning us how bad butter and lard was. But we have found butter is very, very good for frying purposes and so is lard"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/ ... ef=Default" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

: ScreenShot00946.jpg (75.81 KiB) Viewed 6927 times

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 8:35 am

Eddie Izzard:

"Lard for everyone!"

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 9:07 am

I see QI has decided to try something radical and got someone from Oxbridge to replace someone from Oxbridge.

(old but only just noticed it, sorry)

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 9:20 am

Owen Paterson comes to IDS rescue - 'It is completely unacceptable for the Treasury to try to get out of the tax-credits muddle by wrecking the universal credits benefits reforms which have been one of the Government's great successes.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... forms.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 9:24 am

I notice in that comic that professional troll Simon Dampsuck has written his weekly venom to garner another few grand to his swelling bank account.
I can't be arsed to link it tbh.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 9:29 am

God Morning everyone

'Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori'

Should be the cause of reflection today but it won't be - more interested to see if Corbyn 'looks uncomfortable' and which people have, using free will, decided not wear a poppy

I wish all those posting 'Lest we forget' on Facebook remember also the things that generation left us after 1945 - social housing, NHS. social security and eventually racial and sexual equality....all delivered by the generation that lived through that time. All being thrown away by a generation who all see it as fighting against those foreign chappies!

The problem is, the British have completely forgotten - how many know that Churchill was actually massively defeated at the ballot box by the returning soldiers because they wanted something different?

Marr started as appallingly as normal - turned it off

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 10:01 am

It's not the first time IDS ha threatened to quit, he's a serial toys out of pram thrower http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... again.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yet when Cameron was going to reshuffle him he stamped his foot and said he wasn't going to move.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... women.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 10:08 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:God Morning everyone

'Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori'

Should be the cause of reflection today but it won't be - more interested to see if Corbyn 'looks uncomfortable' and which people have, using free will, decided not wear a poppy

I wish all those posting 'Lest we forget' on Facebook remember also the things that generation left us after 1945 - social housing, NHS. social security and eventually racial and sexual equality....all delivered by the generation that lived through that time. All being thrown away by a generation who all see it as fighting against those foreign chappies!

The problem is, the British have completely forgotten - how many know that Churchill was actually massively defeated at the ballot box by the returning soldiers because they wanted something different?

Marr started as appallingly as normal - turned it off

Morning. I hate to do this, but here's the story you're looking for:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... emony.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or maybe this quote will make your head explode the way it did mine:

'Tom Tugendhat, a Tory MP and former army captain, criticised Labour's decision to publicise Corbyn's poetry reading, saying it "politicises a national struggle and sacrifice".'

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 10:21 am

TobyLatimer wrote:It's not the first time IDS ha threatened to quit, he's a serial toys out of pram thrower http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... again.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yet when Cameron was going to reshuffle him he stamped his foot and said he wasn't going to move.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... women.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's not much for him post-DWP, I wouldn't have thought. I'd be surprised if he went willingly. Of course, if even we know just how badly UC is going, Cameron must know the potential for it falling on its ass and causing mass embarrassment. The numbers on it are still so small, it is possible the IT still isn't working and claims are being processed manually to cover for failure on an apocalyptic level. I imagine they must be weighing up whether to get someone else in to rescue it or find some excuse to dump it. Owen Smith's comment above is rather pointed I think. If UC is such a success story, given the investment in it why would you jeopardise that by destabilising its work incentives to bail out unpopular tax credit cuts? The moment of truth for UC can't be far off now, surely.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 10:40 am

seeingclearly wrote: I remember the inflexibility of the Major years, and the devastating lack of opportunity of the Thatcher years. I don't think people realise just how much difference there was in the approach to work was under Labour, and as you indicated there was flexibility to allow for the human factors then, I benefitted directly from being supported into work, benefits retained for six months and a first contract disregarded as I fell below the tax threshold, not for tax purposes but for the purpose of allowing me to be able to have a realistic business plan. After years of unsupported and utter failure to find work that could sustain anything other than utter poverty and the wrath of the benefits office, under the Conservative years, the support I and many others I know set us on the road to having good careers.

For many people it's less a matter of forgetting and more a case if simply not knowing how things were better under Labour and how effective they were in helping people into work. Things like cash to buy an outfit for a job interview, for instance, is a small thing but makes a difference. It was probably a loan, I can't remember, but it would have been interest free, I think, more like an advance. This may still exist, but when put alongside the number of people facing sanctions, leaving them without money to eat properly or get a haircut and you consider how that pushes people even further away from work than they were already, it seems like a different world and, as you say, it has happened very quickly.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 10:59 am

Rememberance Sunday today - his detractors will be watching JC like a hawk. I take it he hasn't turned up in a "donkey jacket"?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 11:10 am

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -escalates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Andrew Fisher thing is still rolling, I see. Either Corbyn didn't spot the danger in his fluctating loyalty to Labour, didn't care or had so little choice that he went with him anyway. Either way, he may as well bluff it out. It's an early test of his authority and it will be interesting to see how it pans out. Technically Fisher's in the wrong and I personally dislike his celebrating Balls defeat as it is akin to celebrating a Tory victory, which is just wrong, but overall it's a storm in a teacup. Even if he's expelled from Labour, he can still work for Corbyn and ultimately I suspect few people outside the PLP are likely to care all that much.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 11:10 am

DONKEY JACKET
noun BRITISH
a heavy jacket which has a patch of waterproof leather or plastic across the shoulders, worn typically by building workers.

CAR COAT
noun
a short, square-cut style of coat designed to be worn when driving a car.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 11:11 am

Freud is the only one that knows about UC,IDS is the face. I agree he will not go,it is his God given mission,a legacy of chaotic destruction,probably never recoverable,he won't go until satisfied that is ensured.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 11:13 am

Note the inverted commas above - the idea that is what Foot wore 34 years ago is actually one of the earliest examples of a media creation becoming "fact".

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 11:14 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Rememberance Sunday today - his detractors will be watching JC like a hawk. I take it he hasn't turned up in a "donkey jacket"?

He looked suitably sombre laying his wreath. Cameron looked especially red and puffy, I thought, like a modern day prince regent.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 11:30 am

Further to the Fisher thing, I said technically he was in the wrong, but I have to say if he wasn't expelled at the time (in 2010) over his Green support, I think it would be a bit unfair to expel him now just because he's got a new role. The recent complaint is less clear cut and of course celebrating Ball's defeat isn't against the rules. As I said, Corbyn is much better off sticking it out, it will soon be all forgotten I suspect.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 11:36 am

Even I struggle to get too bothered about Fisher, tbh - it has zero traction outside the "bubble".

One thing to remember more generally is that social media makes it easier for people to make "public" daft statements made in the heat of the moment, that they may regret later. We all need to cut a bit of slack over this, or we are at risk of descending into "tit for tat" over things that aren't actually all that important.

People are already bringing up those who declined to support Ken over Boris in 2012, for example......

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 11:44 am

Zero traction outside the bubble is exactly right. I suppose what worries me is what it reveals about the internal politics of the party, which seem rather strained at the moment. An electoral breakthrough is what's needed, or a really good row with the government, to help unite the party again.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 11:54 am

FFS. I've been having a media / IT free Sunday morning. Log on and this is the first thing I see. It's too early for a brandy - I might have to take the dogs for a long walk...

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 45s45 seconds ago
Jeremy Corbyn Slated For Not Bowing At The Cenotaph - Even Though He Did http://huff.to/1PiMK4W" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't read it. The blurb here says it all.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 12:06 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:FFS. I've been having a media / IT free Sunday morning. Log on and this is the first thing I see. It's too early for a brandy - I might have to take the dogs for a long walk...

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 45s45 seconds ago
Jeremy Corbyn Slated For Not Bowing At The Cenotaph - Even Though He Did http://huff.to/1PiMK4W" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I haven't read it. The blurb here says it all.

He was very dignified.

Unlike the squawking hens on twitter.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 12:12 pm

The utterly ghastly Carole Malone getting a shoeing on Twitter after trying to push this line

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 12:16 pm

Willow904 wrote:
Unlike the squawking hens on twitter.

Twitter has been a marvellous source for the tabloids who simply have to take four adverse comments about something and hey presto you have a "Fury as [insert subject here]" story!

There's one at the Mail about Dr Who and the plane being shot at from yesterday's episode.

"Look, we're offended and we think you should be too" from the same crowd that bang on about "political correctness" and "can't say anything any longer because someone takes offence"

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 12:33 pm

I thought Doctor Who, after a little bit of a doldrums, was back to its best last night with a very brave allegory of the Isis situation. The question of what kind of world would the insurgents want to live in once they won - a world where they went to work or school, on holiday - was a good one. What is it that they want, that is so very different from what they have now, that justifies so much bloodshed. It reminded my husband of an old Twilight zone episode where a family are offered a million pounds if they press a button that will kill a single family. After agonizing, they press the button, and are then told the button will now be given to another family which will face the same dilemma, with the family which faces death being them! I find it encouraging that we are being presented with sci-fi that encourages us to think rather than merely react once again. It could be a good sign that people are ready to question the staus quo. I hope they learn to ignore the squawking hens and come to their own conclusions.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 12:37 pm

Unusually I did watch until a few minutes ago, and like others can confirm that Corbyn did indeed bow. Cameron did not look his best, he had what I've come to think of as his fibbers face, and I wondered why. The most moving bit was the march past which won't be over yet, I don't really do pomp and ceremony much, had far too much of it as a kid, but people are something else, proud, loyal, determined, and sometimes even funny and a tad pompous, they bring a lump to my throat. I was glad to watch the Gurkhas going past, and wondered whether a friends son-in-law was among them. He was the first to marry an English girl and remain in service, it was only about 10 years ago, and it reminded me of my fathers determination in marrying my mother all those years ago. Anyway for one reason and another I wound up remembering Giselle and some of our other missing, and hope they are still fighting the good fight and are well.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 12:43 pm

Good-afternoon, everyone.

This thread is particularly wonderful and I'm glad many good friends have come to post. Your writing creates a rare and invaluable gift. Everyone contributing to this diverse collection, I thank you. Exceptionally well-written, funny as hell, evocative, moving and authentic.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 1:04 pm

Willow904 wrote:
seeingclearly wrote: I remember the inflexibility of the Major years, and the devastating lack of opportunity of the Thatcher years. I don't think people realise just how much difference there was in the approach to work was under Labour, and as you indicated there was flexibility to allow for the human factors then, I benefitted directly from being supported into work, benefits retained for six months and a first contract disregarded as I fell below the tax threshold, not for tax purposes but for the purpose of allowing me to be able to have a realistic business plan. After years of unsupported and utter failure to find work that could sustain anything other than utter poverty and the wrath of the benefits office, under the Conservative years, the support I and many others I know set us on the road to having good careers.
For many people it's less a matter of forgetting and more a case if simply not knowing how things were better under Labour and how effective they were in helping people into work. Things like cash to buy an outfit for a job interview, for instance, is a small thing but makes a difference. It was probably a loan, I can't remember, but it would have been interest free, I think, more like an advance. This may still exist, but when put alongside the number of people facing sanctions, leaving them without money to eat properly or get a haircut and you consider how that pushes people even further away from work than they were already, it seems like a different world and, as you say, it has happened very quickly.

Those loans from the Social fund dont exist any more though I think there is a small one off amount that people can access for a set of interview clothes. It would just about cover the cost of a pair of shoes, iirc. It never made sense to me taking those loans away, because they were guaranteed to be paid back, they started deducting the repayments almost immediately. I've often wondered whether it was done so that sanctioned people couldn't use it to survive, they would still have been eligible to apply for one. There are funds they can access, but the sods don't tell them that. Thatcher/Major combined took five times as long to inflict a lot less damage.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 1:15 pm

I find Remembrance Day very tricky philosophically

The issue is that it has become a blanket support of the military and, despite having members in the services, I cannot do that.

The original meaning, if I remember correctly, was to commemorate those that died during the first industrial war. The scale and speed of the killing was immense and conscription mean it touched every corner of the country, including those that didn't support it. The was itself and the causes are one still for debate - in effect it was, as with virtually all wars, been based on power and little to do with actual humanitarianism.

I can see how this then caught up the Second World War with the fight against the evil of fascism but again the position of those in power was not quite as clean as we would like to believe and there was not the downright condemnation from the powers that be that the media would have us believe.

Those were two exceptional conflicts and the nature of the scale would suggest a remembrance is worthwhile

What seems to have happened is that the militarism seems to be the part celebrated and not the real legacy of those conflicts. The demand for universal franchise, the end of colonialism, the real start of the welfare state and the NHS - the post-war consensus was born out of these conflicts and to me that it how we should celebrate the people who fought

Instead the people who are the absolute antithesis of that legacy are the ones who have taken over. The ones that benefit from conflict, that believe in the western superiority, who want to destroy the social state that was born out of the first half of the century

I do not support militarism, I do not think every soldier is a hero, I do not believe in the monarchy, I do not support many of the conflicts that we have been involved in, I do not support spending money on nuclear weapons - I actually want to remember that this country lost a lot of people fighting against totalitarianism, fascism, racism and who, as their reward, wanted the state to provide for them and theirs in their hours of need - not just when they had to be the cannon fodder for the powers that be

There are precious few who actually fought those battles who are still alive and once they die then this mawkish celebration of militarism (and that is what it is) should die and the focus be on the legacy that that generation gave us!

Unfortunately, many of those that wear a poppy today and shout loudest about it are only too happy to spit on the graves of those who died considering what they actually wanted to be their legacy. Would those who survive and voted in massive numbers for a social state be happy to trade that for a few paper poppies and crocodile tears?

I am sorry this is a bit of a rant but I am feeling a bit soiled by what I have seen today.....

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 1:42 pm

If any question why we died,
Tell them, because our fathers lied. - Rudyard Kipling

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 1:42 pm

Three anti-Corbyn headers topping the G post Cenotaph is a bit much.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 1:42 pm

Tem - thank you for reminding me just how good Wilfred Own's poems are.
When I was doing my EngLit A-level (1974!), we studied the war poets; we also went to visit a veteran's home and heard the stories from the (even then) very few old Tommies left from the Great War. One of my favourite books at the time was Robert Graves' "Goodbye to all that" - although some of it did nothing more than show up his snobbery, the passages about his time in the trenches are really moving. And horrifying.

On IDS and his (PLEASE!!!!!) resignation if Gidiot raids his failing project.....
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this whole performance is a way of obscuring the end of Nosferatu's grandiose attempt to reform social security. UC is not working; there are real problems in all the areas where it's being implemented; the numbers claiming it are well short of what was expected by now; it is costing a king's ransom......if Osborne does something that will scupper the (perceived) benefits of UC, the project can be shelved and IDS can flounce off saying that it would have worked if only he'd been able to have it the way he wanted......

Meanwhile, the government's "Exporting Is Great" ad campaign, launched in November 2013 at a cost of £2.4 Million, is being re-run on UK TV.
The pensions ads with the monster (thanks, Ros Altman) will cost £8.5 Million.
Plenty of money to spend to get some messages across, eh?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 1:59 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... edit-calls" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“In 2014-15, HMRC responded to just 72.5% of calls and over the first half of 2015 this had fallen to 50%,” said the committee.

How long can these obvious signs of complete and total incompetence go on before people start to notice that not only are the Tories nasty, they're ruddy useless as well. Given the shambles of the Major government and serial botching of the econony, I struggle to understand why people keep thinking the Tories are better at managing stuff.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 2:00 pm

Hijacking the remembering of the fallen,again.How ###king low can THEY stoop.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 2:03 pm

HindleA wrote:Hijacking the remembering of the fallen,again.How ###king low can THEY stoop.

They are scum, but we knew that already

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 2:14 pm

The mysterious Fords Farm knitter has struck again, this time in honour of Remembrance Sunday

Outside Kennet Valley School passers-by found a "load" of knitted poppies each with the name of a service man or woman who had been killed in action free for anyone to take.

getreading was sent a photo of one of these poppies showing the name of Captain David Patten of the parachute regiment attached.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/readin ... e-10405117

Sometimes you have to skip the bad stuff and fill your heart with the good.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 2:15 pm

Willow904 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... edit-calls
“In 2014-15, HMRC responded to just 72.5% of calls and over the first half of 2015 this had fallen to 50%,” said the committee.
How long can these obvious signs of complete and total incompetence go on before people start to notice that not only are the Tories nasty, they're ruddy useless as well. Given the shambles of the Major government and serial botching of the econony, I struggle to understand why people keep thinking the Tories are better at managing stuff.

They must have forgotten.