FlyTheNest

rebeccariots2 wrote:

HindleA wrote:Written evidence from the DWP to the select committee inquiry into benefit sanctions which has its evidence session on Wednesday for those interested.



http://data.parliament.uk/writteneviden ... 16558.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's exactly what I would expect of them.

That chilled my fucking blood.

Fall into the hands of those cold-hearted, cold-blooded amoral and dishonest lizards? I'd rather take a Kalashnikov to them.

I see that the Graun's gone Beta - perhaps forever. RIP the Society section, as it's nowhere to be seen on the menus. I can get there, but increasingly I don't bother for obvious reasons.

However, this:

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-29 ... KsnFXs0-g1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm loving that image.



That's pretty cool.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

HindleA wrote:Written evidence from the DWP to the select committee inquiry into benefit sanctions which has its evidence session on Wednesday for those interested.



http://data.parliament.uk/writteneviden ... 16558.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's exactly what I would expect of them.

Cracker off there.It is a mistake to see sanctions as a punitive measure or seek to consider them in isolation of the broader system in which they sit. Sanctions form part of a wider framework of policy designed to support and encourage claimants to return to work.

That must be why they weren't even measuring how many people on one of their schemes were doing into work.

ErnstRemarx wrote:I see that the Graun's gone Beta - perhaps forever. RIP the Society section, as it's nowhere to be seen on the menus. I can get there, but increasingly I don't bother for obvious reasons.

However, this:

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-29 ... KsnFXs0-g1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm loving that image.



That's pretty cool.

Graun still the 'good' version for me.

ErnstRemarx wrote:I see that the Graun's gone Beta - perhaps forever. RIP the Society section, as it's nowhere to be seen on the menus. I can get there, but increasingly I don't bother for obvious reasons.

However, this:

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-29 ... KsnFXs0-g1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm loving that image.



That's pretty cool.

The Guardian is still normal for me, check you aren't on the mobile s(h)ite.

It was normal for me a few minutes ago...but now it's gone beta.

If you want the non-Beat there's this...which I'm bookmarking.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk?view=classic

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:Interesting.

http://academiesweek.co.uk/government-p ... -policies/

The Liberal Democrats distanced themselves from the costings. A Lib Dem spokesperson described them as “private advice” produced for the Conservatives, and said they had not been signed off his party, as would generally be the case with government documents.

Quite simply they're not government documents and should be anywhere near the government website.

I've said it before, rules don't apply to this crew. Part of the ongoing politicisation of the Civil Service, something else that Labour will have to address after the Election.

Night all

Night.

A v important point, for those of us still here.

Is it an anorak point? Or a vote winner? Could get Lib and Lab attacking Con together?

Having a bit of Twitter with some people calling for councillors to defy the government etc.

These are anti-Greens though, Ernst.

ErnstRemarx wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

HindleA wrote:Written evidence from the DWP to the select committee inquiry into benefit sanctions which has its evidence session on Wednesday for those interested.



http://data.parliament.uk/writteneviden ... 16558.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's exactly what I would expect of them.

That chilled my fucking blood.

Fall into the hands of those cold-hearted, cold-blooded amoral and dishonest lizards? I'd rather take a Kalashnikov to them.

Shall we say the default position is to punish ,particularly evil in relationship to the sick/disabled and those with caring responsibilities.The shite about a horde of people being written off ,pulls my chain to no end as my better half employs two people and ignores other contributions,including permitted work and genuine volunteering .This forum has not a few,despite severe disabilities/illness furnishing expert knowledge and support to others.NB necessary rooms are deemed spare and penalised even if clearly needed,there would of course be no need to have to apply for DHP's -a supposed safeguard which is parole for good behaviour if you will.The supposed safeguards in "tailoring to individual circumstances"is clearly bollocks -sanction first rather than last resort is the default position ;blind people repeatedly sent letters that were not in the form they could read-the basic of basics accounting for circumstances so they cannot possibly comply .Guilty until proven innocent ,no scratch that guilty to varying degrees of punishment.Bastards.

@TubbyIsaacs no,not an anorak point.