Tuesday 30th August 2016
Posted: Tue 30 Aug, 2016 7:10 am
Morning all.
extankie wrote:Hi:)
Anyone heard any news on Police investigating Tory electoral overspend/fraud yet?
Story seems to have been buried...
Have looked, but can't seen much new,extankie wrote:Hi:)
Anyone heard any news on Police investigating Tory electoral overspend/fraud yet?
Story seems to have been buried...
and a new one:"On completion of West Mercia's investigation a report will be presented to the IPCC and a decision will be made whether the case should be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service.
"This investigation is one of a number of similar investigations being undertaken across the country.
"I will issue further updates as and when any relevant information, that I am allowed to disclose by the relevant bodies, becomes available."
A complaint that the electorate was misled over the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner's (PCC) expenses is being investigated by the police watchdog.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said it was looking into a social media post by Katy Bourne during the 2016 PCC election period.
A member of the public complained she stated she had not claimed any expenses during her previous four-year PCC term.
The complaint alleged she had in fact filed expense claims of about £385.
What's all this about? (Genuine question - and yes, I have read the Politics Live blog.)Corbyn promises to 'democratise the internet' (Politics Live, Guardian)
Do we know this letter is real, then? And surely lots of people must go, if they think it okay to randomly find names on Twitter and assume it's the same person as an applicant. McNichol can't be doing it all by himself.AnatolyKasparov wrote:As I said yesterday, last year most appeals against this sort of thing were successful.
The party apparatchiks are relying on people just accepting these increasingly bizarre rulings, so don't go along with them.
And McNicol has got to go.
Just because they can and it's sticking two fingers up at the EU...and not because it's in any way sensible.frightful_oik wrote:In the Torygraph today they're on about bringing back pounds and ounces. The mind reboggles.
Well firstly he is the one ultimately responsible for this. And secondly, others probably need to go with him.Willow904 wrote:Do we know this letter is real, then? And surely lots of people must go, if they think it okay to randomly find names on Twitter and assume it's the same person as an applicant. McNichol can't be doing it all by himself.AnatolyKasparov wrote:As I said yesterday, last year most appeals against this sort of thing were successful.
The party apparatchiks are relying on people just accepting these increasingly bizarre rulings, so don't go along with them.
And McNicol has got to go.
Puuuurge!AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well firstly he is the one ultimately responsible for this. And secondly, others probably need to go with him.Willow904 wrote:Do we know this letter is real, then? And surely lots of people must go, if they think it okay to randomly find names on Twitter and assume it's the same person as an applicant. McNichol can't be doing it all by himself.AnatolyKasparov wrote:As I said yesterday, last year most appeals against this sort of thing were successful.
The party apparatchiks are relying on people just accepting these increasingly bizarre rulings, so don't go along with them.
And McNicol has got to go.
McNicol isn't doing it at all but he's (wrongly) become the focus for McDonnell's rage. I understand the £25 supporters had to supply their email address & twitter ID when they signed up so they should have no complaints if their own words were used in evidence against them. Johanna Baxter reminded everybody of how these decisions were made & sent this tweet when she became under attack againWillow904 wrote:Do we know this letter is real, then? And surely lots of people must go, if they think it okay to randomly find names on Twitter and assume it's the same person as an applicant. McNichol can't be doing it all by himself.AnatolyKasparov wrote:As I said yesterday, last year most appeals against this sort of thing were successful.
The party apparatchiks are relying on people just accepting these increasingly bizarre rulings, so don't go along with them.
And McNicol has got to go.
Yes, sounds a good idea, but it could easily get very complicated, very quickly.StephenDolan wrote:'Programming For Everyone - We will require that all publicly funded software and hardware is released under an Open Source licence.'
That could be interesting.
Well that was fun - I skimmed this translated it into pounds, shillings and pence for some reason and we (mr fedup and me) then spent 10 minutes working out how well we could reconvert. As an exercise in dealing with Labour party political shenanigans, which I had signed in to comment on, I recommend this approach.frightful_oik wrote:In the Torygraph today they're on about bringing back pounds and ounces. The mind reboggles.
Yes, I'm assuming it's initially dealing with code built from scratch for non defence, sensitive IT projects.tinybgoat wrote:Yes, sounds a good idea, but it could easily get very complicated, very quickly.StephenDolan wrote:'Programming For Everyone - We will require that all publicly funded software and hardware is released under an Open Source licence.'
That could be interesting.
I can see security issues with Defence related software/hardware, but also where something isn't completely new, but sharing components with other products.
eg. If public money is funding a development from a commercial supplier who also sells a related product using same parts (software of hardware).
Also a problem with software relying on reusing software libraries, where a different publishing licence is already in use, or hardware using bought in sub components.
There's also a lot of patent trolls out there, who exist purely to extort money out of others work, not sure if they could target a government over something like this.
No, it's because we've got our country back at last.[\sarcasm]RogerOThornhill wrote:Just because they can and it's sticking two fingers up at the EU...and not because it's in any way sensible.frightful_oik wrote:In the Torygraph today they're on about bringing back pounds and ounces. The mind reboggles.
The Land of Oz (and lbs).frightful_oik wrote:No, it's because we've got our country back at last.[\sarcasm]RogerOThornhill wrote:Just because they can and it's sticking two fingers up at the EU...and not because it's in any way sensible.frightful_oik wrote:In the Torygraph today they're on about bringing back pounds and ounces. The mind reboggles.
Tim Oates warns of a 'genuine problem' about testing primary children on subordinate clauses and fronted adverbials
One of the main architects of England’s national curriculum has urged ministers to rethink “really demanding” grammar content after problems with this year’s Sats for 11-year-olds.
Tim Oates, who chaired a government-commissioned review that led to the introduction of the new curriculum from 2014, told TES there was a “genuine problem about undue complexity in demand” in the content that formed the basis of this year’s spelling, punctuation and grammar (Spag) test.
He made his comments as headteachers’ leaders warned that heads could boycott Sats next year unless significant changes to primary assessment begin in the next few weeks.
Thanks for this, but I'm still confused. The above pictured letter seems to refer to someone who has applied to be a member, rather than a registered supporter. Are prospective members asked for Twitter usernames as well, these days? And what's to stop someone simply not providing one, after all lots of people aren't on social media. What's the point of picking on the honest people, it hardly helps with infiltration. And if McNichol is in charge of running the party, he's in charge of this and is responsible whether he knows about it or not. On the other hand, I know nothing about the sources of these allegations, so have no idea if they are even true. I didn't have any trouble when joining Labour myself, but then I volunteer in a local project set up by one of our local county councillors, who popped round to my house to welcome me to the Labour party personally. Everyone still knows everyone where I live. Which brings me back to whether or not the person in the letter was reported by a local member who knew more about their allegiances than we are aware of. I just don't have the evidence to know what is true and what isn't, so I'll reserve judgement for now, although I'm glad the Twitter accounts being trawled were provided by applicants, I was beginning to think Labour staff had really lost the plot.pk1 wrote:McNicol isn't doing it at all but he's (wrongly) become the focus for McDonnell's rage. I understand the £25 supporters had to supply their email address & twitter ID when they signed up so they should have no complaints if their own words were used in evidence against them. Johanna Baxter reminded everybody of how these decisions were made & sent this tweet when she became under attack againWillow904 wrote:Do we know this letter is real, then? And surely lots of people must go, if they think it okay to randomly find names on Twitter and assume it's the same person as an applicant. McNichol can't be doing it all by himself.AnatolyKasparov wrote:As I said yesterday, last year most appeals against this sort of thing were successful.
The party apparatchiks are relying on people just accepting these increasingly bizarre rulings, so don't go along with them.
And McNicol has got to go.
PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.
I've, unusually, been reading the comments on Politics Live in the (vain) hope of gaining some intelligent insight into the digital stuff announced by Jeremy Corbyn.
Apparently, the ideas are either brilliant because Jeremy Corbyn is behind them or rubbish because Jeremy Corbyn is behind them. Oh well. Foolish of me to think it might have been otherwise.
I don't think any of the digital stuff was that bad, but I did find it was an awful lot of vague and varied ideas covering a huge amount of very different areas and must confess that although, like Porfavor, I read the live blog on it, I didn't take much in. From a getting people to notice and respond point of view, I suspect a few clear and practical policies to get broadband to all those places that don't have it and better mobile coverage in far flung places might speak more directly to people's concerns. It's possible Corbyn's digital strategy may address these things, but if so, I missed it. (I do have a migraine at the moment, though, and am having trouble processing information, so apologies if it's sat there staring me in the face ).SpinningHugo wrote:PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.
I've, unusually, been reading the comments on Politics Live in the (vain) hope of gaining some intelligent insight into the digital stuff announced by Jeremy Corbyn.
Apparently, the ideas are either brilliant because Jeremy Corbyn is behind them or rubbish because Jeremy Corbyn is behind them. Oh well. Foolish of me to think it might have been otherwise.
This seems well informed
https://storify.com/pauloCanning/corbyn ... #publicize" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Interesting about Momentum being made up more of older, returning Labour members. I wonder if there's any solid evidence for this beyond the anecdotal.StephenDolan wrote:Labour & Liverpool: young people and the party
http://www.theguardian.com/membership/2 ... ide-corbyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Still desperate to get the "intimidation" angle in. The piece finishes with :-
'I have been wandering around Merseyside for two months now and have still to talk to someone who has been a victim of intimidation and bullying. If there is anyone who has, could they get in touch? I would like to write a piece about this.
If you have experienced intimidation or bulling because of your involvement with the Labour party, please let us know in the comments or via this form. Your information will be kept confidential. '
Maybe Momentum in Liverpool isn't typical of the rest of the country, there could be a lot of people who were affected by problems with Militant.Willow904 wrote:Interesting about Momentum being made up more of older, returning Labour members. I wonder if there's any solid evidence for this beyond the anecdotal.StephenDolan wrote:Labour & Liverpool: young people and the party
http://www.theguardian.com/membership/2 ... ide-corbyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Still desperate to get the "intimidation" angle in. The piece finishes with :-
'I have been wandering around Merseyside for two months now and have still to talk to someone who has been a victim of intimidation and bullying. If there is anyone who has, could they get in touch? I would like to write a piece about this.
If you have experienced intimidation or bulling because of your involvement with the Labour party, please let us know in the comments or via this form. Your information will be kept confidential. '
I found this article useful in separating out the various strands that Corbyn's digital speech touched on. As I said above, it covered quite a diverse range of things, some of which were pretty vague. A commitment to ensure a minimum universal broadband coverage is good, if not unique.The good, the bad, and the meaningless: Jeremy Corbyn’s “digital democracy” decoded
The Labour leader has promised to “democratise the internet” but which parts of his manifesto would actually work?
It's an independent not a free school...think the EFA, for all their faults, would have picked up on the missing accounts by now.55DegreesNorth wrote:Afternoon folks,
Financial mismanagement in a Free School? Well, I'm shocked.
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/nor ... e-11816689" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Her cut in pay will be hard for her to come to terms with.StephenDolan wrote:Southern Health NHS Trust boss Katrina Percy resigns - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37221250" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No cut. Her pay will stay the same for her new, advisory role.PorFavor wrote:Her cut in pay will be hard for her to come to terms with.StephenDolan wrote:Southern Health NHS Trust boss Katrina Percy resigns - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37221250" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Er - yes, I know! That was my attempt at humour . . .StephenDolan wrote:No cut. Her pay will stay the same for her new, advisory role.PorFavor wrote:Her cut in pay will be hard for her to come to terms with.StephenDolan wrote:Southern Health NHS Trust boss Katrina Percy resigns - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37221250" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
All of which is why the whole idea is a non-starter.tinybgoat wrote:Yes, sounds a good idea, but it could easily get very complicated, very quickly.StephenDolan wrote:'Programming For Everyone - We will require that all publicly funded software and hardware is released under an Open Source licence.'
That could be interesting.
I can see security issues with Defence related software/hardware, but also where something isn't completely new, but sharing components with other products.
eg. If public money is funding a development from a commercial supplier who also sells a related product using same parts (software of hardware).
Also a problem with software relying on reusing software libraries, where a different publishing licence is already in use, or hardware using bought in sub components.
There's also a lot of patent trolls out there, who exist purely to extort money out of others work, not sure if they could target a government over something like this.
[youtube]FCpR_DlIr80[/youtube]frightful_oik wrote:In the Torygraph today they're on about bringing back pounds and ounces. The mind reboggles.
Is there an address I can send an email to or number I can call?AnatolyKasparov wrote:Again, they should appeal ASAP. I'm sure at least a few of these are cock-ups, mistaken identity or whatever.
danesclose wrote:Is there an address I can send an email to or number I can call?AnatolyKasparov wrote:Again, they should appeal ASAP. I'm sure at least a few of these are cock-ups, mistaken identity or whatever.
My wife received hers a while ago, but I've not received anything.
Perhaps it was because I posted those "Male Online" here
Thanks. I am a full member (as is Mrs DC) so should have received bothWillow904 wrote:danesclose wrote:Is there an address I can send an email to or number I can call?AnatolyKasparov wrote:Again, they should appeal ASAP. I'm sure at least a few of these are cock-ups, mistaken identity or whatever.
My wife received hers a while ago, but I've not received anything.
Perhaps it was because I posted those "Male Online" here
There are details on the Labour website. All ballots should have been received by the end of August. If you haven't had one you can enquire at the following from Sept 1st onwards:
http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/leadership/info" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
My husband is an affiliated union supporter so just had an e-mail. You won't get a paper ballot unless you're full member.
That does look like an oversight then. Labour admin has been a bit rubbish lately. They forgot to ask me if I wanted to renew my membership. The first I realised was when they took the payment from my card, which was a bit poor, though I had intended to renew fortunately. Did you get the "you'll soon be getting your ballot papers" e-mail or letter?danesclose wrote:Thanks. I am a full member (as is Mrs DC) so should have received bothWillow904 wrote:danesclose wrote: Is there an address I can send an email to or number I can call?
My wife received hers a while ago, but I've not received anything.
Perhaps it was because I posted those "Male Online" here
There are details on the Labour website. All ballots should have been received by the end of August. If you haven't had one you can enquire at the following from Sept 1st onwards:
http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/leadership/info" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
My husband is an affiliated union supporter so just had an e-mail. You won't get a paper ballot unless you're full member.
Nope. Not a dicky birdWillow904 wrote: Did you get the "you'll soon be getting your ballot papers" e-mail or letter?
That's not encouraging.danesclose wrote:Nope. Not a dicky birdWillow904 wrote: Did you get the "you'll soon be getting your ballot papers" e-mail or letter?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -incidentsCare firm [Care UK] criticised for promoting 'exciting' prison self-harm incidents
Comment in recruitment video attacked as ill-judged and offensive at a time when prison suicide rates are at record high (Guardian)