Monday 11th January 2016

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 6:58 pm

Willow904 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Willow904 wrote: Doughty might have wanted to screw Corbyn over by resigning just as PMQs started, but that doesn't make it acceptable for the BBC to help him. Doughty didn't have a duty to be impartial, but the Daily Politics team did. How did Cameron know about the resignation before Corbyn, that's what the complaint hinges on. If it is ever proven that Cameron was tipped off while Corbyn was deliberately kept in the dark, I think the BBC could and should be in a lot of trouble. If the BBC hadn't interferred Doughty's resignation would have panned out differently and had a different impact. Personally I think it's an easier infringement to prove than bias in opinion and commentary which is subjective and hard to pin down
I don't think it's important really whether the BBC set it up at a time for maximum impact.

Fact is a Labour politician went along with it. Politicians who want to hurt their own side do this. I don't think most people will care about the distinction.

Making a fuss about it is keeping "Labour Shadow Cabinet Divisions Shambles Corbyn" in the news. The last thing anybody should want.

It doesn't have to be bias that you're alleging- even though I just said that it did. There's a trivialization of politics news point. People are interested in stuff like floods more than anonymous briefings. Say that there's too much with everybody, with the reporting of the government too. Lots of Tories will agree.

I think there's bias too, and I don't know what you do about that.
I just don't agree with you on this. Doughty isn't the important element for me. PMQs, a travesty though it may be, is part of our democratic tradition. An impartial public broadcaster shouldn't be interferring to the advantage of one side over the other in a parliamentary debate. If Cameron only knew of Doughty's resignation when he resigned or if he found out from Doughty himself, then you're probably right, it's not an infringement but if the BBC convinced Doughty to delay his resignation whilst leaking it to No 10.......

For me, keeping the pressure on the BBC is more helpful than not to Labour. Everyone's been talking about the BBC's role in Doughty's resignation rather than the resignation itself. From that point of view the stunt backfired. Why sit back and let the BBC turn the conversation back to Labour when you can keep the focus on them and their Tory pals?

Agree....

I think Kuenssberg is feeling the heat as well...her Twitter feed is now under continual reference to her bias and I would hope her bosses are now looking at if she is damaged goods

She is bloody awful and an unpleasant character as well

Mind you her bosses are all Tories

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 7:02 pm

HindleA wrote:http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1370966 ... onfirm-tax

Labour Press
Comment on new DWP guidelines that confirm tax credit recipients face being moved onto Universal Credit if there’s a “change in circumstances”

Same sort of guidelines as for PIP, A.

If you're on DLA and declare a change of circs, you get "invited" to claim PIP. When this happens, your DLA award can stop - the theory being that the change could have affected your DLA anyway - but never mind you can apply for PIP. Yippee!
The you wait for weeks for the forms. Then you wait months for the first assessment. During the wait, DWP can, at any time, call for more evidence, ask for different medical opinions, ask to see x-rays etc. which will be "scrutinised" by the same people who used to work for Atos and by decision makers with zero qualifications in health care. Months after that, you get turned down or lose out significantly.

It would make sense for people to not declare changes of circumstances if they are already on tax credits, wouldn't it?
How to increase fraud in one fell swoop!
People will work cash-in-hand if they know they'll be hammered as soon as they declare extra earnings. I don't think many people realise just how much they are going to lose under Universal Credit.
God help the stay-at-home carers who look after an elderly relation - not many people understand that ALL the household's income is included in the UC calculations.

But, of course, this is the whole idea, isn't it? Housing Benefit will have to be cut, and it might as well be lopped off the incomes of poor households and pensioners, eh?
After all. Baron Gidiot has to find that £20 Billion for his knockdownsinkestatesbuildaffordablehomesplan malarkey, doesn't he? Can't have the profiteers paying for that.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 7:11 pm

yahyah wrote:CyberNat Shelley Detlefsen about the death of David Bowie:

''They say he got diagnosed 18 months ago. Maybe unionism gives you cancer?''

'I was actually a big fan..... but I'm a bit sickened to see a bunch of "nationalists" crying like babies over a foreign unionist's death.''

Not the only one:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... se-7156522

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -2014.html

Cybernats up in arms about the media reporting their sick tweets. Apparently it's all made up by the unionist press.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 7:14 pm

PorFavor wrote:
UK visa policy ‘increasing abuse’ of foreign maids, says damning review

Tied visas that restrict domestic workers to one employer and limit their stay in the UK have left women vulnerable to slavery and abuse, review reveals (Guardian)
Edited to add

The link might come in handy, so here's one I prepared earlier -

http://www.theguardian.com/global-devel ... tied-visas

Yes, I know about this. Current government know exactly what they're doing. They don't care about most people. It's difficult to live with this knowledge. The harm government cause must stop.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 7:17 pm

As we're on the topic again.

Making the news or breaking it: a unique problem for the BBC
PETER JUKES 11 January 2016
https://opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/peter ... em-for-bbc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 7:17 pm

Rebecca wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Been moved to tears by the special Radio 4 bit they've just done on Bowie.
I've been in tears on and off since 7am.What a sad day.

I saw David Bowie - Glass Spider tour in Southern California - Siouxsie and the Banshees opened

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 7:24 pm

Huw Irranca-Davies Retweeted
Stewart Owadally ‏@sowadally 2m2 minutes ago Cardiff, Wales
Carwyn Jones sums up Farage's case for leaving: "You're making it up as you go along." #IWADebate

I can just hear him saying that.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 7:26 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Rebecca wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Been moved to tears by the special Radio 4 bit they've just done on Bowie.
I've been in tears on and off since 7am.What a sad day.
I saw David Bowie - Glass Spider tour in Southern California - Siouxsie and the Banshees opened

Station to Station in London.In the days when we saw gigs in smaller venues,before Wembley,where you end up watching it on a screen anyway.It was unforgettable.
I went with my first serious boyfriend,who was so beautiful that people truly thought that Bowie was on the tube.
Then Glass Spider at Wembley.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 7:28 pm

ephemerid wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1370966 ... onfirm-tax

Labour Press
Comment on new DWP guidelines that confirm tax credit recipients face being moved onto Universal Credit if there’s a “change in circumstances”
Same sort of guidelines as for PIP, A.

If you're on DLA and declare a change of circs, you get "invited" to claim PIP. When this happens, your DLA award can stop - the theory being that the change could have affected your DLA anyway - but never mind you can apply for PIP. Yippee!
The you wait for weeks for the forms. Then you wait months for the first assessment. During the wait, DWP can, at any time, call for more evidence, ask for different medical opinions, ask to see x-rays etc. which will be "scrutinised" by the same people who used to work for Atos and by decision makers with zero qualifications in health care. Months after that, you get turned down or lose out significantly.

It would make sense for people to not declare changes of circumstances if they are already on tax credits, wouldn't it?
How to increase fraud in one fell swoop!
People will work cash-in-hand if they know they'll be hammered as soon as they declare extra earnings. I don't think many people realise just how much they are going to lose under Universal Credit.
God help the stay-at-home carers who look after an elderly relation - not many people understand that ALL the household's income is included in the UC calculations.

But, of course, this is the whole idea, isn't it? Housing Benefit will have to be cut, and it might as well be lopped off the incomes of poor households and pensioners, eh?
After all. Baron Gidiot has to find that £20 Billion for his knockdownsinkestatesbuildaffordablehomesplan malarkey, doesn't he? Can't have the profiteers paying for that.

Does the story below have to do with that? Am I missing something?

Iain Duncan Smith suffers major defeat as High Court rules benefit cap for carers is unlawful
Judge rules that the Work and Pensions Secretary had discriminated on the grounds of disability
against unpaid carers who look after severely disabled people for more than 35 hours a week

26 November 2015

"Iain Duncan Smith has suffered a major defeat after a High Court judge ruled that his decision to
include unpaid family carers in the benefit cap is unlawful. In a highly significant judgement the
High Court ruled that the Work and Pensions Secretary had discriminated on the grounds of
disability against unpaid carers who look after severely disabled people for more than 35
hours a week."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 50576.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How is Smith getting away with this? I may be misunderstanding something, apologies if so.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 7:29 pm

: Social Connections Are Vitally Important.jpg (54.51 KiB) Viewed 5844 times

Michael Deacon ‏@MichaelPDeacon 25m25 minutes ago
My sketch on David Cameron, who has revealed that "social connections" help people get jobs. http://goo.gl/Vakr4y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 7:32 pm

David Deans ‏@DeansOfCardiff 6m6 minutes ago
This is panto. Nigel Farage starts yelling 'oh no they haven't' at Carwyn Jones' figures on Airbus jobs reliant on the EU

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 7:36 pm

All Governments use "change of circumstances",transitional protection line not withstanding as cover;indeed the last Labour Government ensured effectual reduction in income with no change of circumstances for us in transfer to ESA.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 7:37 pm

HindleA wrote:Radio 2 devoting most of evening to Bowie,for those interested.

I can't. Not yet. I'm glad you all are here. My husband didn't know this
morning. He was working on music and didn't find out until he got to work.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 7:38 pm

Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 3m3 minutes ago
Carwyn Jones toe-to-toe with Nigel Farage first of ferocious battles ahead. NF finding it much tougher than against Clegg

ITV are showing the debate tomorrow apparently.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 7:38 pm

HindleA wrote:All Governments use "change of circumstances",transitional protection line not withstanding as cover;indeed the last Labour Government ensured effectual reduction in income with no change of circumstances for us in transfer to ESA.

That's not very nice at all.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 7:38 pm

Willow904 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Willow904 wrote: Doughty might have wanted to screw Corbyn over by resigning just as PMQs started, but that doesn't make it acceptable for the BBC to help him. Doughty didn't have a duty to be impartial, but the Daily Politics team did. How did Cameron know about the resignation before Corbyn, that's what the complaint hinges on. If it is ever proven that Cameron was tipped off while Corbyn was deliberately kept in the dark, I think the BBC could and should be in a lot of trouble. If the BBC hadn't interferred Doughty's resignation would have panned out differently and had a different impact. Personally I think it's an easier infringement to prove than bias in opinion and commentary which is subjective and hard to pin down
I don't think it's important really whether the BBC set it up at a time for maximum impact.

Fact is a Labour politician went along with it. Politicians who want to hurt their own side do this. I don't think most people will care about the distinction.

Making a fuss about it is keeping "Labour Shadow Cabinet Divisions Shambles Corbyn" in the news. The last thing anybody should want.

It doesn't have to be bias that you're alleging- even though I just said that it did. There's a trivialization of politics news point. People are interested in stuff like floods more than anonymous briefings. Say that there's too much with everybody, with the reporting of the government too. Lots of Tories will agree.

I think there's bias too, and I don't know what you do about that.
I just don't agree with you on this. Doughty isn't the important element for me. PMQs, a travesty though it may be, is part of our democratic tradition. An impartial public broadcaster shouldn't be interferring to the advantage of one side over the other in a parliamentary debate. If Cameron only knew of Doughty's resignation when he resigned or if he found out from Doughty himself, then you're probably right, it's not an infringement but if the BBC convinced Doughty to delay his resignation whilst leaking it to No 10.......

For me, keeping the pressure on the BBC is more helpful than not to Labour. Everyone's been talking about the BBC's role in Doughty's resignation rather than the resignation itself. From that point of view the stunt backfired. Why sit back and let the BBC turn the conversation back to Labour when you can keep the focus on them and their Tory pals?

Thinking about the press and media.
Newspapermen have always been hard nosed. We've all read about how they chased stories come hell or high water, so although it'd distasteful, their behaviour is nothing new.
When Edward was courting Mrs Simpson high ups asked the press not to report it, and they didn't although there was plenty in the foriegn press. Newspaper owners rubbing shoulders with, and obliging the elite is nothing new, and Editors doing as they're told shouldn't surprise us.

The Media although a different medium, is no different.

The news was censored during the war.

What is different is that the BBC uses our money to help it exist. Whether rich or poor, there is no dividing line on who pays for it and is therefore entitled to the greatest say. We all do and it shouldn't be allowed to push one groups agenda above anothers.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 7:42 pm

@CJA nothing compared to what would happen now,only relay for information purposes.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 7:56 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/j ... now-cancer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Exit Bowie, discreetly: 'He thought it honourable to become invisible'
The singer treasured his privacy in New York, with even friends and neighbours unaware of the cancer that killed him – ‘He didn’t want a circus’ said one friend

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 8:13 pm

It is the petty vindictiveness of policy they know will do harm,I note that the S of S is giving himself leeway in the removal of housing support for homeowners an obvious recognition of deleterious effects even the extreme Right Wing press is against it,perhaps he should take note of the rag he prefers.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 8:24 pm

Beth Rigby ‏@BethRigby 16m16 minutes ago
Telegraph:"In the light of feedback we have received from staff today, it has been decided to withdraw the under-desk sensors immediately"

Shame that Amazon, Sports Direct and other big employers that monitor the every movement of their employees can't be similarly embarrassed into changing their behaviour.

Vordy · Post by **Vordy** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 8:26 pm

"Cheap-labor conservative" is a moniker they will never shake, and never live down. Because it's exactly what they are. You see, cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America - whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you'll work, and the more power those "corporate lords" have over you. If you are a wealthy elite - or a "wannabe" like most dittoheads - your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.

Don't believe me. Well, let's apply this principle, and see how many right-wing positions become instantly understandable.

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like - which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you "over a barrel".

Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.

Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel".

Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about "morality", "virtue", "respect for authority", "hard work" and other "values". Why. So they can blame your being "over a barrel" on your own "immorality", lack of "values" and "poor choices".

Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners.

Source:

http://sideshow.me.uk/annex/defeattheri ... inutes.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 8:47 pm

HindleA wrote:Radio 2 devoting most of evening to Bowie,for those interested.

Good evening. May I recommend this page:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I only heard 45 minutes before work this morning, but am now working through every show. Based on what I heard, and the response on Twitter over the next few hours, this was about as good as radio could possibly get on a day like today.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 8:56 pm

Cheap-labor conservative" is a moniker they will never shake, and never live down. Because it's exactly what they are. You see, cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America - whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is.

Lump of labour fallacy.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 8:57 pm

CitizenJA -

Even when the courts make a judgement in favour of claimants, IDS ether ignores the ruling, changes the law, or appeals. At our cost.

When it became obvious that many tenants would appeal against a bedroom tax decision, IDS ordered all local authorities to inform DWP of every single case - if any tenant pursued their case to tribunal, DWP sent lawyers to counter-appeal.

DWP appeals everything they don't like - there was a FOI request asking progress information reports on Universal Credit made in 2012.
The Information Commissioner ruled that DWP must release this information. They refused.
Between March 2012 and December 2014, DWP went to Tribunal and lost; they asked for leave to appeal to the Upper Tribunal and were refused; they appealed against that; this went on and on, and DWP lost every single time. They have not released the reports.

Of course, if the DWP lawyers keep losing, it doesn't matter. DWP can - and does - spend a fortune on these challenges and appeals; but if IDS decides to apply a ministerial veto that's it. He can do whatever he likes.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 8:59 pm

ephemerid wrote:CitizenJA -

Even when the courts make a judgement in favour of claimants, IDS ether ignores the ruling, changes the law, or appeals. At our cost.

When it became obvious that many tenants would appeal against a bedroom tax decision, IDS ordered all local authorities to inform DWP of every single case - if any tenant pursued their case to tribunal, DWP sent lawyers to counter-appeal.

DWP appeals everything they don't like - there was a FOI request asking progress information reports on Universal Credit made in 2012.
The Information Commissioner ruled that DWP must release this information. They refused.
Between March 2012 and December 2014, DWP went to Tribunal and lost; they asked for leave to appeal to the Upper Tribunal and were refused; they appealed against that; this went on and on, and DWP lost every single time. They have not released the reports.

Of course, if the DWP lawyers keep losing, it doesn't matter. DWP can - and does - spend a fortune on these challenges and appeals; but if IDS decides to apply a ministerial veto that's it. He can do whatever he likes.

I'll never forget this.

I love you, Ephemerid, and everyone here.
I'm going to sleep now.

love,
cJA

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 9:01 pm

Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.

Bill Clinton strongly supported NAFTA too.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/20 ... r-disaster" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nafta 20 Years After: Neither Miracle nor Disaster

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 9:08 pm

@NonOxCol thanks for link.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 9:17 pm

Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.

It's not that rational. The people at the top don't care about abortion, but they took it on (with guns, God and gays) because it was a cheap way of rallying the base. They then lost control of that base.

But I agreed with the rest of it!

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 9:18 pm

Vordy wrote:"Cheap-labor conservative" is a moniker they will never shake, and never live down. Because it's exactly what they are. You see, cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America - whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you'll work, and the more power those "corporate lords" have over you. If you are a wealthy elite - or a "wannabe" like most dittoheads - your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.

Don't believe me. Well, let's apply this principle, and see how many right-wing positions become instantly understandable.

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like - which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you "over a barrel".

Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.

Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel".

Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about "morality", "virtue", "respect for authority", "hard work" and other "values". Why. So they can blame your being "over a barrel" on your own "immorality", lack of "values" and "poor choices".

Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners.

Source:

http://sideshow.me.uk/annex/defeattheri ... inutes.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They're also not bothered about the health of labor [US sp]...They know past 65 and we're just about done. They also don't care if we die sooner. It saves them pension money.

Weird when you think that it's said succesful Conservative business men of the Victorian age realised that a healthy workforce was more productive and many of them gave and also raised money for cottage hospitals where the workers could be treated for free.
They also spent huge amounts of money on parks and libraries. But I'm wondering if that concern for the poor is just a myth. Was it because it made them feel even more powerful, but now they despise us because the welfare State removed our dependence on them?

You couldn't put the label philanthropist on many if any of them these days.

It genuinely puzzles me.

ChrisDean · Post by **ChrisDean** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 10:07 pm

Totally agree with you RobertSnozers, the parties involved conspired to make "theatre" out of the resignation and to disadvantage Jeremy Corbyn. In my mind that is an undeniable fact. Disgraceful behaviour.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 10:16 pm

Corbyn plan for Labour members to get say on Trident policy 'against rules'

http://gu.com/p/4fymd" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are we expecting Cameron to have this done June, before September?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 10:17 pm

Peter Juckes has 2 comments on his article all day, and one of those is saying "you wanna see the unionist bias, man".

It's been good to chasten Kuenssberg, and they ought to press for a proper reply from Harding. But it's not really running beyond that, and I don't think it will.

Something more general is needed, as I say. It's been slack on that score so far, just like it was under Miliband.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 10:29 pm

: Public Interest Stories.jpg (54.22 KiB) Viewed 5657 times

Peter Jukes ‏@peterjukes 2h2 hours ago
And two public interest stories still being suppressed because a) Might invoke Leveson legislation b) Subject is exec's close mate. 2/2

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 10:40 pm

Why doesn't Juckes just tell someone else who can break it? I never understand this sort of thing. I'm sure he's not the original source or anything.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 10:44 pm

Sarah Champion MP ‏@SarahChampionMP 1 hr1 hour ago

Here's the debate last year on abuse in UK youth detention centres. Ministers refused to change law to help prevent

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 320s01.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 11:10 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Why doesn't Juckes just tell someone else who can break it? I never understand this sort of thing. I'm sure he's not the original source or anything.

If you look at the full twitter feed he says a full audit trail is needed re the evidence and someone else has that ... and I'm guessing his / others outlets are relatively limited what with the list of press / papers that he says will not come well out of it. But who knows ... I don't ... I'm just reading his feed and am interested by what he's saying.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 11:15 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why I had to change my lyrics for David Cameron

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 11:28 pm

What will Zac Goldsmith's '2-for-1' Housing Bill amendment achieve?
It’s jerry-built legislation that will hurt many Londoners, though parts of the capital and some of its people might gain from the adjustments secured by its Tory MPs
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/dave ... nt-achieve" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... Now to those two big question marks. What sorts of “affordable” home might the required two replacements be? An answer is contained in section 7 of the “Zac amendment”, which relates to the rest of England too. It says that the term “new affordable home” means “a new dwelling that (a) is to be made available for people whose housing needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market or (b) is a starter home.”

The essence of this lies in its imprecision. There is no specification for councils to arrange for the replacement of the social rented homes they will be ordered to sell with new social rented homes from any source. Rather, the type of homes covered by section 7(a) encompasses the full spectrum of “affordable” housing as we have come to know it, taking in shared ownership products aimed at low to middle-income households. ...

That's Goldsmith's 'binding guarantee' rendered completely vacant then. I hope Sadiq Khan will make sure people know this ...

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 11:31 pm

Ian Katz ‏@iankatz1000 13m13 minutes ago
Nine of 14 witnesses in Tory bullying scandal contacted by #newsnight say they won't talk to "independent" inquiry commissioned by party

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 11 Jan, 2016 11:37 pm

I think that's a story that Labour could certainly flag up, and say what about this. There's a victim's family who would be very happy too.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 12 Jan, 2016 12:19 am

Guardian Education ‏@GuardianEdu 21m21 minutes ago
Feminism to be reinstated to A-level politics syllabus, says schools minister http://d.gu.com/DFStsR" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 12 Jan, 2016 12:30 am

Nine Tory bully victims 'will not give evidence to inquiry'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35288335" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... Josh Hitchens, President of Conservative Future, the activist wing of the Conservative Party at the London School of Economics, said he would not give evidence either.
Last month a confidential complaint he had made to the Tory party last year about Mark Clarke was leaked to the media.
He told Newsnight: "At the moment we have a situation where Clifford Chance are gathering the evidence, the witness transcripts and everything else. They are then passing them directly to the Conservative Party board who will make an assessment of them, edit them and then publish a report with them compiled.
"A significant body of that will contain confidential information from people who are making allegations of an extremely private and sexual nature.
"We don't believe that it is an independent inquiry. That very fact that there is a perception of lack of independence and integrity in the process nullifies it because a lot people who have crucial bodies of evidence aren't willing to submit that evidence because they don't believe it is a fair and independent inquiry."...