FlyTheNest

PorFavor wrote:Goodnight, everyone.

I repeat:
Goodnight, everyone.

(I thought I'd do it voluntarily.)

HindleA wrote:1.The last Labour Government let welfare spiral out of control.
2.It has taken many years for welfare to get out of control

There is no inconsistency in these statements.

1.The vulnerable will be protected.
2.If they are not protected they are not vulnerable.

“It took many years for welfare spending to spiral so far out of control, and it’s a project of a decade or more to return the system to sanity. Reforming the damaging culture of welfare dependency and ensuring that work pays has been central to our mission to make Britain fit for the future.”

This government was elected with a mandate to implement further savings from the £220bn welfare budget...For a start, we will reduce the benefit cap, and have made clear that we believe we need to make significant savings from other working-age benefits. We will set out in detail all the steps we will take to bring about savings totalling £12bn a year in next month’s budget and at the spending review in the autumn."

- An extract from Chancellor Jeff in a joint article with Iain Duncan Smith in the Times
21 June 2015

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

AngryAsWell wrote:One for CJA..

All choked up: did Britain's dirty air make me dangerously ill?
This year, environment correspondent John Vidal had heart bypass surgery – a wake-up call that prompted him to investigate the state of the air we breathe. With 29,000 UK deaths a year attributed to pollution, is it time we cleaned up our act?

http://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/ ... ity-health" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 wrote:Soft rain in the green green garden now. Makes me think of that Joni Mitchell song / album 'hissing of summer lawns'.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:Soft rain in the green green garden now. Makes me think of that Joni Mitchell song / album 'hissing of summer lawns'.

Lovely album - 1975 was such a great year...Dylan's Blood On the Tracks, first Patti Smith, first Nils Lofgren, John Fogerty and Joni - five of may all-time favourites.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:Soft rain in the green green garden now. Makes me think of that Joni Mitchell song / album 'hissing of summer lawns'.

Lovely album - 1975 was such a great year...Dylan's Blood On the Tracks, first Patti Smith, first Nils Lofgren, John Fogerty and Joni - five of may all-time favourites.

Not forgetting Physical Graffiti and Wish You Were Here for those who liked slightly harder stuff.

I like punk, but it wasn't all a wasteland before it arrived by any means

AnatolyKasparov wrote:HQ by Roy Harper, as well

Talking of punk, was messing around on YouTube the other day (as you do) and stumbled upon a C4 news interview last year (that I had somehow missed at the time) with Viv Albertine - one of my very first crushes. She's remarkably posh tbh, but still very politically sound - and looks pretty great for 60

Her autobiography is well worth reading, apparently......

Ministers are planning a crackdown on Britain’s freedom of information laws in a move critics say undermines David Cameron’s claim to create a “new era of transparency in government”.

Michael Gove, the justice secretary, is considering making it more difficult to procure information from government bodies, including allowing officials to count “thinking time” when calculating how much it costs to retrieve information.

One plan is to make it easier for ministers to veto publication of certain documents, as they tried unsuccessfully to do with the recent release of letters written by Prince Charles to Labour ministers during the past decade.

Another is to change the way the cost of finding information is calculated so that officials can more readily turn down requests.

rebeccariots2 wrote:Soft rain in the green green garden now. Makes me think of that Joni Mitchell song / album 'hissing of summer lawns'.

HindleA wrote:@CJA

Yes attempt at satire.

RogerOThornhill wrote:Surprised? No, not really...
Gove plans freedom of information crackdown

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e10b852-15d2 ... z3djOnJxVY

Ministers are planning a crackdown on Britain’s freedom of information laws in a move critics say undermines David Cameron’s claim to create a “new era of transparency in government”.

Michael Gove, the justice secretary, is considering making it more difficult to procure information from government bodies, including allowing officials to count “thinking time” when calculating how much it costs to retrieve information.

One plan is to make it easier for ministers to veto publication of certain documents, as they tried unsuccessfully to do with the recent release of letters written by Prince Charles to Labour ministers during the past decade.

Another is to change the way the cost of finding information is calculated so that officials can more readily turn down requests.

As the source for this said:
Laura McInerney ‏@miss_mcinerney 52m52 minutes ago
If Gove's going to start complaining about #foi cost he better know the ratio of how much each department spends on marketing vs #foi

Laura McInerney ‏@miss_mcinerney 51m51 minutes ago
Because if you're spending millions on what YOU want to tell ME it's hard to argue against cash for what the public actually *want* to know.

Spot on.

citizenJA wrote:Gove demands civil servants spell out contractions?
Oh, god what a tedious little man.

Jim Pickard retweeted
David Pegg ‏@davidtpegg 1h1 hour ago
2011: Gove told he can't use private email to dodge FOI.

2015: Gove as Justice Minister decides to hamstring FOI.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e10b852-15d2 ... z3djEDqoQp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Chris Williamson ‏@ChriswMP 4m4 minutes ago Derby, England
Murdoch's Times 'newspaper' exposed for pre-election lies. Penalty? They've got to print a post-election correction http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... map=%5B%5D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Press regulator orders front page correction from The Times for 'Labour tax bombshell' splash
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... map=%5B%5D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell wrote:Roger I've just PM you

RogerOThornhill wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:Roger I've just PM you

And replied.

Beth Rigby ‏@BethRigby 4m4 minutes ago
Cameron urged to reveal EU renegotiation plan > Eurosceptics demand the details by tory conference http://on.ft.com/1GB0VvI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 wrote:2015 really was a dirty dirty election ...

Chris Williamson ‏@ChriswMP 4m4 minutes ago Derby, England
Murdoch's Times 'newspaper' exposed for pre-election lies. Penalty? They've got to print a post-election correction http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... map=%5B%5D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Press regulator orders front page correction from The Times for 'Labour tax bombshell' splash
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... map=%5B%5D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 wrote:2015 really was a dirty dirty election ...

Chris Williamson ‏@ChriswMP 4m4 minutes ago Derby, England
Murdoch's Times 'newspaper' exposed for pre-election lies. Penalty? They've got to print a post-election correction http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... map=%5B%5D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Press regulator orders front page correction from The Times for 'Labour tax bombshell' splash
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... map=%5B%5D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RogerOThornhill wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:2015 really was a dirty dirty election ...

Chris Williamson ‏@ChriswMP 4m4 minutes ago Derby, England
Murdoch's Times 'newspaper' exposed for pre-election lies. Penalty? They've got to print a post-election correction http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... map=%5B%5D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Press regulator orders front page correction from The Times for 'Labour tax bombshell' splash
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... map=%5B%5D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Was this the story where the Times quoted "internal Treasury figures show..." where it was clear that Osborne had simply asked his officials to come up with something and forget all that 'being in purdah' nonsense?

Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour 3m3 minutes ago
The Ipso ruling on The Times error and what to do about it. A test case. https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/rulings/IPS ... tml?id=165" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

7. The complainant was satisfied with the text of the correction, but not with its prominence. He said that the appropriate placement was the same as the original, inaccurate article. The newspaper should publish the headline “Correction: Labour’s £1,000 tax on families” on its front page in the same font size as the original headline, with the text of the correction below.

"However, all this is to miss the point, or to make light of it for the sake of comedy. There are two clues as to what is really going on. The one in plain sight is his job: however sidelined he may be from the actual levers of power, or from David Cameron’s cosy clique, Gove is, in his own eyes at least, and relative to us, an Important Person. The clue that is tucked away in his instructions is his insistence that when his civil servants refer to rising court fees, a fact due entirely to his party’s policies, they must mention “the need to tackle the economic situation that the government has inherited”.'

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

rebeccariots2 wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:2015 really was a dirty dirty election ...

Was this the story where the Times quoted "internal Treasury figures show..." where it was clear that Osborne had simply asked his officials to come up with something and forget all that 'being in purdah' nonsense?

Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour 3m3 minutes ago
The Ipso ruling on The Times error and what to do about it. A test case. https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/rulings/IPS ... tml?id=165" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

and from that ruling (which is very straightforward)

7. The complainant was satisfied with the text of the correction, but not with its prominence. He said that the appropriate placement was the same as the original, inaccurate article. The newspaper should publish the headline “Correction: Labour’s £1,000 tax on families” on its front page in the same font size as the original headline, with the text of the correction below.

The complainant is Jonathan Portes.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:2015 really was a dirty dirty election ...

Was this the story where the Times quoted "internal Treasury figures show..." where it was clear that Osborne had simply asked his officials to come up with something and forget all that 'being in purdah' nonsense?

Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour 3m3 minutes ago
The Ipso ruling on The Times error and what to do about it. A test case. https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/rulings/IPS ... tml?id=165" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

and from that ruling (which is very straightforward)

7. The complainant was satisfied with the text of the correction, but not with its prominence. He said that the appropriate placement was the same as the original, inaccurate article. The newspaper should publish the headline “Correction: Labour’s £1,000 tax on families” on its front page in the same font size as the original headline, with the text of the correction below.

The complainant is Jonathan Portes.

On 24 April, two weeks before the general election, the paper’s print edition ran the front page headline ‘Labour’s £1,000 tax on families’.

The Times has now published the correction on the front page of its website, where it is set to remain for 48 hours.

Hobiejoe wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:
Was this the story where the Times quoted "internal Treasury figures show..." where it was clear that Osborne had simply asked his officials to come up with something and forget all that 'being in purdah' nonsense?

Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour 3m3 minutes ago
The Ipso ruling on The Times error and what to do about it. A test case. https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/rulings/IPS ... tml?id=165" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

and from that ruling (which is very straightforward)

7. The complainant was satisfied with the text of the correction, but not with its prominence. He said that the appropriate placement was the same as the original, inaccurate article. The newspaper should publish the headline “Correction: Labour’s £1,000 tax on families” on its front page in the same font size as the original headline, with the text of the correction below.

The complainant is Jonathan Portes.

Except it's not quite like-for-like. From the article:

On 24 April, two weeks before the general election, the paper’s print edition ran the front page headline ‘Labour’s £1,000 tax on families’.

And

The Times has now published the correction on the front page of its website, where it is set to remain for 48 hours.

So the definintion of "front page" seems to be a somewhat elastic one. Quelle effing surprise.