FlyTheNest

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Sorry if we've already done that I'm a bit Fridayish

refitman wrote:

refitman wrote:

refitman wrote: Challenge accepted. Start your stopwatch.

And it's gone. ~25 minutes.

And now I'm on pre-mod.

letsskiptotheleft wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Sorry if we've already done that I'm a bit Fridayish

Do you think there's a chance of it happening? If it does it makes the Kippers look more cut throat than the Tories, get selected, then you have ''move along old chap, a Tory wants to take your place'' proves all the talk about Farage being an egotistical one man band right?

pk1 wrote:

refitman wrote: And now I'm on pre-mod.

Whoops, that's my fault for suggesting you quote his profile in a post

My apologies.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
A bumper ten local council byelections yesterday - mostly good for UKIP as per the polls:

Bolton - Labour hold a stronghold in recent years with just over half the vote, slightly down on May but little changed on a previous by-election here late last year. UKIP advanced to just over a third of the vote after taking second from the Tories earlier this year, the latter held their share but are a long way away from 2008 when they nearly won here. Greens dropped on May as did the LibDems - down to a new low of 1%, though even that was enough to beat the hapless Independent.

Rutland - two vacancies here had contrasting outcomes, the first was a good Tory hold in a ward that split 1Tory/1Indy in 2011 - Tories up since then, Indies static and LibDems (who won a seat here in 2003) down to under 10%. In the other contest, however, the LibDems took a previously Independent seat in a straight fight with the Tories (who had been elected unopposed in 2007 before losing to the Indy in a by-election the following year)

York - landslide LibDem gain from Labour (though the previous incumbent had defected to the LibDems after her election) with a swing of approaching 25% - this ward had been a LibDem stronghold in 2003 and 2007 before they unexpectedly lost last time (their candidate here was the former council leader) Labours local problems here have been well documented and they had already lost their 2011 majority due to defections and resignations. UKIP not that far behind in 3rd with 13%, Tories slumping to less than 4% and Greens also down - English Democrats last with just 0.2%.

Rossendale DC - Tory hold in a ward that has normally been safe (though Labour ran them close in 2012 when an independent intervened) but their vote dropped to less than half as UKIP stood here for the first time and took over 23%, not that far behind Labour who also saw their share well down on earlier this year - though there was still a small anti-Tory swing overall.

Kingston-upon-Thames - Tory hold in a normally safe ward (only in 2010, with GE level turnout, was it ever really close) with a steady share of just over 40% - though the LibDems narrowed the gap since May with some tactical voting evident - both Labour and then (unusually) UKIP slightly down, whilst the Greens saw their share halved as they fell from 3rd earlier this year to 5th and last now.

Thurrock - Labour hold with a small increase since May to 50% of the vote, despite a big effort from UKIP in one of their target areas. Labour have won every election here since 2006, but the BNP nearly won then and the Tories (who won all three seats in the 2004 all-outs) were close two years later - they have been relegated to a poor third now, though. Which may not bode well for them in the ultra-marginal parliamentary seat here next year......

Conwy - Tory hold, though they took just a quarter of the vote in a seat they won unopposed in 2012 and also easily carried in 2008 and 2004. A Labour candidate got 17%, not that far behind - but an absurdly fragmented field with a plethora of Independents meant they came 4th (two Indies ahead of them, two behind them) UKIP must be kicking themselves at not standing here - especially given their good result in a nearby ward a few weeks ago.

Swale DC - however, this saw a landslide UKIP gain from the Tories with a swing of over 30% and a share of approaching 60%. This had been safely Tory in 2011, but the previous localist "Sheppey First" insurgency (who won here in 2007 and 2008 before promptly vanishing) had illustrated the potential for non-Tory protest. Labour - who haven't won here for over a decade though being competitive at time - were also well down, whilst a surprisingly strong Loony vote in 2011 declined to its usual token level this time.

Fenland DC - Tory hold a ward which they had won comfortably in 2007 and 2011 after being unopposed in 2003; as in other recent by-elections here UKIP did well (over 35% this time round) but not well enough to win in an area which clearly has a stubborn tribal Tory vote. Tories, Labour and LibDems all well down on last time - the last named to just 4%, though that was still enough to beat the Independent (former "continuity Liberal") candidate.

Next week is another busy one, with eight contests.

ohsocynical wrote:Rabih Chaaban ‏@ChaabanRabih 10m10 minutes ago
Labour wins in West Thurrock & South Stifford by-election
-Votes for UKIP & the Conservatives decreased
No Coverage??

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Sorry if we've already done that I'm a bit Fridayish

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:Rabih Chaaban ‏@ChaabanRabih 10m10 minutes ago
Labour wins in West Thurrock & South Stifford by-election
-Votes for UKIP & the Conservatives decreased
No Coverage??

Its covered in my review, which is just up

No thanks for f***ing Beta, though - did my original piece and it informed me AFTER pressing "submit" that it was over 1000 characters too long; previously you were warned whilst composing your post if you were about to exceed your limit. Had to redo the whole thing pretty much from scratch

SORT IT OUT, GRAUN!!

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:Rabih Chaaban ‏@ChaabanRabih 10m10 minutes ago
Labour wins in West Thurrock & South Stifford by-election
-Votes for UKIP & the Conservatives decreased
No Coverage??

Its covered in my review, which is just up

No thanks for f***ing Beta, though - did my original piece and it informed me AFTER pressing "submit" that it was over 1000 characters too long; previously you were warned whilst composing your post if you were about to exceed your limit. Had to redo the whole thing pretty much from scratch

SORT IT OUT, GRAUN!!

AnatolyKasparov wrote:There is no character limit here? (there was at the old place, of course)

Must admit I am tempted right now - the only thing that keeps me from doing it is the thanks I get (including from AS) at the other place; Beta is so insultingly s***e that my patience is wearing paper thin, though

AnatolyKasparov wrote:There is no character limit here? (there was at the old place, of course)

Must admit I am tempted right now - the only thing that keeps me from doing it is the thanks I get (including from AS) at the other place; Beta is so insultingly s***e that my patience is wearing paper thin, though

mr remarx wrote:Or, you could post it here without a character limit and then leave a link at the Graun, he said sweetly.

ErnstRemarx wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:There is no character limit here? (there was at the old place, of course)

Must admit I am tempted right now - the only thing that keeps me from doing it is the thanks I get (including from AS) at the other place; Beta is so insultingly s***e that my patience is wearing paper thin, though

If there's a limit, I'm not aware of it - Dan may know better. For you to lose your cool is almost unheard of; I suspect the Graun may well have finally pushed you too far!

obm wrote:a long-winded-gobshite

The good times keep on rollin’ today, as Dr. Vernon Coleman eviscerates the GMC in his tremendous Spectator article entitled ‘Meet the bloated, useless General Medical Council’.

I will never tire of seeing dreadful quangos given a pasting in the press; this is no exception.

pk1 wrote:

StephenDolan wrote:The pattern seems to be

Rusty trolls, Roger replies, the reply is removed. Repeat.

You missed out Rusty's friend, the happy chickie. Whenever he's trolling, his chicken friend appears - every. single. time.

It must be one & the same or else they sit on the same desk - it's far too coincidental to be otherwise.

tinyclanger2 wrote:

obm wrote:a long-winded-gobshite

Have reached a point where I don't mind that I make younger people's eyes glaze over. Indeed I fear I find it actively entertaining.

obm wrote:"why use only one word when you could use a perfectly good seventeen-adjective long stream of invective instead?"

onebuttonmonkey wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:There is no character limit here? (there was at the old place, of course)

Must admit I am tempted right now - the only thing that keeps me from doing it is the thanks I get (including from AS) at the other place; Beta is so insultingly s***e that my patience is wearing paper thin, though

If there's a limit, I'm not aware of it - Dan may know better. For you to lose your cool is almost unheard of; I suspect the Graun may well have finally pushed you too far!

There probably is, but I've not encountered it. Given I'm a long-winded-gobshite wordier than a dictionary convention, it can't be a particularly restrictive limit, can it?

Message body:
Enter your message here, it may contain no more than 60,000 characters.

refitman wrote:

onebuttonmonkey wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote: If there's a limit, I'm not aware of it - Dan may know better. For you to lose your cool is almost unheard of; I suspect the Graun may well have finally pushed you too far!

There probably is, but I've not encountered it. Given I'm a long-winded-gobshite wordier than a dictionary convention, it can't be a particularly restrictive limit, can it?

I think you should be okay:

Message body:
Enter your message here, it may contain no more than 60,000 characters.

(From the full editor page)

RogerOThornhill wrote:Rusty managed to make a complete arse of himself.

The good times keep on rollin’ today, as Dr. Vernon Coleman eviscerates the GMC in his tremendous Spectator article entitled ‘Meet the bloated, useless General Medical Council’.

I will never tire of seeing dreadful quangos given a pasting in the press; this is no exception.

Only one problem...the GMC aren't a quango. They're a registered charity.

One thing about trolls - they'll go to extraordinary lengths to avoid admitting that they are wrong...even when presented with such conclusive proof as the list of DoH quangos.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:Rusty managed to make a complete arse of himself.

The good times keep on rollin’ today, as Dr. Vernon Coleman eviscerates the GMC in his tremendous Spectator article entitled ‘Meet the bloated, useless General Medical Council’.

I will never tire of seeing dreadful quangos given a pasting in the press; this is no exception.

Only one problem...the GMC aren't a quango. They're a registered charity.

One thing about trolls - they'll go to extraordinary lengths to avoid admitting that they are wrong...even when presented with such conclusive proof as the list of DoH quangos.

Vernon Coleman?!

diGriz wrote:

pk1 wrote:

StephenDolan wrote:The pattern seems to be

Rusty trolls, Roger replies, the reply is removed. Repeat.

You missed out Rusty's friend, the happy chickie. Whenever he's trolling, his chicken friend appears - every. single. time.

It must be one & the same or else they sit on the same desk - it's far too coincidental to be otherwise.

Or same PC, different browser. Multiple accounts and abuse of the report button should be a ban.

NUT members have expressed concern that there appears to be only one entrance and exit from the building, through the wooden hoardings on the building site and that there appears to be no area for fire assembly purposes. This is a concern to the NUT for two reasons: potential danger for NUT members who may be working at the school and potential danger for the pupils.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Free schools always surprise you somehow, don't they?

If it were open with no fire safety certificate, that would be quite something.

Russell Brand Hits Back At John Lydon After Being Called A 'Bum Hole'

RogerOThornhill wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Free schools always surprise you somehow, don't they?

If it were open with no fire safety certificate, that would be quite something.

Wonder if they simply have one that went with the building as it was before before the change of use?

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:

diGriz wrote:

pk1 wrote:
You missed out Rusty's friend, the happy chickie. Whenever he's trolling, his chicken friend appears - every. single. time.

It must be one & the same or else they sit on the same desk - it's far too coincidental to be otherwise.

Or same PC, different browser. Multiple accounts and abuse of the report button should be a ban.

According to the community standards it is virtually a capital offence! Multiple accounts and/or returning banned posters are a major no-no, summary closure of the offending account; yet Rusty never even gets a spell on the naughty step, in mark contrast to poor ol' Hugo who tends to last about an hour tops these days. That is why, OneButtonMichael, I question whether something is going on; RingPiece is suspiciously fireproof, especially when you consider the .....erm, robust nature of some of his posts. You genuinely think that is kosher? Blimey.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Free schools always surprise you somehow, don't they?

If it were open with no fire safety certificate, that would be quite something.

Wonder if they simply have one that went with the building as it was before before the change of use?

LadyCentauria wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Free schools always surprise you somehow, don't they?

If it were open with no fire safety certificate, that would be quite something.

Wonder if they simply have one that went with the building as it was before before the change of use?

It wouldn't be valid though, surely?

HindleA wrote:Fresh inquiry will examine public funding of defunct charity with links to PM

The Network, which was launched by the Prime Minister in 2010, was given at least £2.5m of National Lottery funding and public-sector grants


Friday 17 October 2014

The Government’s spending watchdog has opened a fresh investigation into a charity with links to David Cameron that was wound up after allegations that it had misused public funds.


The National Audit office said it would examine whether “systemic problems” had affected the way grants were given to the Big Society Network by the Cabinet Office and the Big Lottery Fund.

The Network, which was launched by the Prime Minister in 2010, was given at least £2.5m of National Lottery funding and public-sector grants despite having no record of charitable activity.

Its charitable arm, the Society Network Foundation, has now been wound up, having used much of the money on projects that came nowhere near achieving their promised objectives.

The new NAO investigation follows an initial report on grants given to the charity, published in July, and further revelations, also published in July, in The Independent and Civil Society News.

Its new report is due to be published by the end of the year and is expected to trigger an inquiry into the charity’s activities by the powerful Public Accounts Committee.

That inquiry is likely to look at links between the charity and senior figures in Downing Street and the Conservative Party, and to find out whether pressure was brought to bear to ensure the network received public funding.

One of the trustees of the charity was close to David Cameron’s former advisor Steve Hilton and another was a significant Conservative donor.

Lisa Nandy, shadow minister for civil society, welcomed the NAO’s decision to open another investigation. “We are still in the dark about how millions of pounds of public money were squandered by an organisation with no track record but strong links to the Conservative Party,” she said.

A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: “The Cabinet Office is aware of the investigation and is co-operating fully with it.”

The trustees of the Society Network Foundation said they were “surprised” by the NAO follow up study as, they said, a recent report had found no evidence that ministers or officials had instructed the charity should be given Government funding.

“We are now seeking clarification to establish the criteria that NAO chose to undertake a review of certain SNF/BSN publicly-funded projects and not others,” they added.

AngryAsWell wrote: Thank you

Night all

RogerOThornhill wrote:Farage using the Express to scaremonger about immigration? Surely not!

https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/5 ... 32/photo/1

1m migrants to flood Britain.

Apparently 1m more immigrants are due to flood into Britain before the EU referendum.

AngryAsWell wrote:The Independent ‏@Independent · 3h3 hours ago
Fresh inquiry will examine the public funding of a defunct charity with links to David Cameron http://ind.pn/1sxjSbz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Can't read this as the indy crashes my computer...