Re: Friday 10th July 2015
Posted: Fri 10 Jul, 2015 11:43 pm
Snap AAW.
It's getting more flagrant by the minute eh?
It's getting more flagrant by the minute eh?
It is, and I despair, I thought I hated tory's more than any group but I'm actually beginning to hate the (what did Sue call them?) Nialix(?) more. They refused to vote Labour as they weren't left enough. Well guys you dropped so many in the shite with you "principals" I hope you choke on them.rebeccariots2 wrote:Snap AAW.
It's getting more flagrant by the minute eh?
(not greens needless to say, previous Labour voters)AngryAsWell wrote:It is, and I despair, I thought I hated tory's more than any group but I'm actually beginning to hate the (what did Sue call them?) Nialix(?) more. They refused to vote Labour as they weren't left enough. Well guys you dropped so many in the shite with you "principals" I hope you choke on them.rebeccariots2 wrote:Snap AAW.
It's getting more flagrant by the minute eh?
"Narxists" was the doodaa, you know, the thing where you make a new word by crashing two innocent words together...sorry, it's late.AngryAsWell wrote:(not greens needless to say, previous Labour voters)AngryAsWell wrote:It is, and I despair, I thought I hated tory's more than any group but I'm actually beginning to hate the (what did Sue call them?) Nialix(?) more. They refused to vote Labour as they weren't left enough. Well guys you dropped so many in the shite with you "principals" I hope you choke on them.rebeccariots2 wrote:Snap AAW.
It's getting more flagrant by the minute eh?
Every time Osborne or Cameron or IDS or anyone else from the nasty party parrots their One Nation line ... this briefing should be spouted back at them. I don't know why young people aren't rising up in their thousands ... well, sadly I do, they are just utterly beaten down and depressed ... hope they get very angry and active soon.Budget 2015: how young people lose out
George Osborne’s budget has been tough on young Britons, with changes to universal credit deducting benefits faster as they earn more
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... e-lose-out" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Oh yes let's opt back out ofrebeccariots2 wrote:Snap AAW.
It's getting more flagrant by the minute eh?
plus protections for part-time and agency-workers...a maximum 48 hour week and four weeks’ paid holiday per year, plus rules on the number of hours of rest for shift workers.
I must say, rebecca, that I too am bewildered why they don't actively protest more, I'm sure our generation would have. I know I may be speaking to the wrong person, or people in your cases (Mr. & Mrs. Riots), as you're not apathetic types; your badger protection activities for one example. Some of it may be called progress. When I were a lad there was nothing worse than twiddling one's thumbs whereas kids today grow up with hours and hours of twiddling theirs albeit with additional fingers too.rebeccariots2 wrote:Every time Osborne or Cameron or IDS or anyone else from the nasty party parrots their One Nation line ... this briefing should be spouted back at them. I don't know why young people aren't rising up in their thousands ... well, sadly I do, they are just utterly beaten down and depressed ... hope they get very angry and active soon.Budget 2015: how young people lose out
George Osborne’s budget has been tough on young Britons, with changes to universal credit deducting benefits faster as they earn more
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... e-lose-out" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
HindleA wrote:Link to Welfare Reform and Work Bill-absolutely horrific and IDS can do what he likes and giving himself vast scope to do so.
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/201 ... dwork.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yep. All bow down to the Grand PanjandrumThe Secretary of State may by regulations make such amendments and
revocations of subordinate legislation (whenever made) as appear to the
Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision
of this Act.
Sorry that was supposed to be a further edit, not a quote.utopiandreams wrote:Sorry to hark back to my previous topic of conversation, not dwelling on the personal or more unsavoury points but I was thinking of the privatisation of care homes, something that used to be provided by the welfare state. I don't know about hospices as they've always seemed to be charities to my knowledge, but then they're something you don't tend to know of unless at a personal level.
Bed-blocking is what I'm thinking of. I know ephe doesn't post here often nowadays but she may know should she read this. Accepting there are more elderly survivors than once there were, I have often wondered whether bed-blocking is worse since care homes were not provided by the welfare state. Does anybody know? It all seems false economy to me, but then I must be mistaken as it's Tories that are good economically speaking or so I've heard.
Note to our Lord Chancellor for not adhering to formal grammar. Most of my writing is expressed conversationally, whether or not I internally vocalise. However despite my harping on I about this, I do agree with you regarding formal communications. Standards must be observed. 'And on that note, how formal were Mrs. Blurt's emails? We never did get to see any.
Edit: oh yeah, I forgot and meant to mention what reminded me of this. My late wife's care home used to be a cottage hospital in days of yore. The grounds were nice even if the accommodation had seen better days, but then my wife wasn't on her feet or able to sit in a wheelchair and wouldn't have been there had she.
Regarding bed-blocking, I've often wondered the same and how much of a false economy it was to dispose of the convalescent hospitals – although I'm sure their sale earned something for the State and probably turn a pretty penny for their new(ish) owners, whether as private houses, hotels, or private nursing-/retirement-homes.utopiandreams wrote:Sorry to hark back to my previous topic of conversation, not dwelling on the personal or more unsavoury points but I was thinking of the privatisation of care homes, something that used to be provided by the welfare state. I don't know about hospices as they've always seemed to be charities to my knowledge, but then they're something you don't tend to know of unless at a personal level.
Bed-blocking is what I'm thinking of. I know ephe doesn't post here often nowadays but she may know should she read this. Accepting there are more elderly survivors than once there were, I have often wondered whether bed-blocking is worse since care homes were not provided by the welfare state. Does anybody know? It all seems false economy to me, but then I must be mistaken as it's Tories that are good economically speaking or so I've heard.
Note to our Lord Chancellor for not adhering to formal grammar. Most of my writing is expressed conversationally, whether or not I internally vocalise. However despite my harping on I about this, I do agree with you regarding formal communications. Standards must be observed. 'And on that note, how formal were Mrs. Blurt's emails? We never did get to see any.
Edit: oh yeah, I forgot and meant to mention what reminded me of this. My late wife's care home used to be a cottage hospital in days of yore. The grounds were nice even if the accommodation had seen better days, but then my wife wasn't on her feet and wouldn't have been there had she.
Indeed. A loan secured against the property which seems, from the way it's worded, that they could force the sale and take first dibs (before the mortgage company or others) on moneys raised from it. And so much more, in all areas and sections, that make me very worried for a lot of people's futures!HindleA wrote:LC
For my part a gulp was the result of reading his remit of deciding what dates are applicable/what rate of interest to apply for the intended interest bearing loan for homeowners in lieu of SMI and I had forgotten you pay an administration charge on top.
Utopiandream. Just to say,thankyou for your post today