FlyTheNest

Morning

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... om-day-one" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow mentioned evidenced based policy:-

"Women do the vast majority of unpaid care"

Absolute piffle.

A particular time of extreme amount of political/commentators broad descriptive creating of past and present unreality,if it or you don't fit you are marginalised or made to disappear in a puff of ideology.Your experience must be imaginary

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pers ... 30380435db" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Persimmon faces loss of Help to Buy homes contract
Anger as Persimmon set to post £1bn profit

(Will post further,by request)

Mashed diked guava is one of three Cabinet ministers proposing Brexit delay (5,5).

This does appear to be good news to me. Can they engineer something so a delay vote is binding?

Much binding in the marsh,I believe.

HindleA wrote:Much binding in the marsh,I believe.

Is that a clue?

OK so Clark Gauke Rudd are perhaps saying they will vote for the Cooper device. Ruling out no deal enforces delay or revoke I guess?

Mister Warpath explodes calling Theresa May the "death star of British politics" (7,6).

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:OK so Clark Gauke Rudd are perhaps saying they will vote for the Cooper device. Ruling out no deal enforces delay or revoke I guess?

This is Peston's interpretation too.

Tee-hee

So er Chloe Westley temporarily changed her twitter handle and some genius has jumped in and swiped the old one. Round of applause @LowTaxChloe

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes very sharp

Morning all.

On the face of it, appointing Charlie Falconer to report back on how Labour has dealt with anti-Semitism complaints is a smart move - already a Peer, and definitely no Corbynite.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... or-workers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

On the face of it, appointing Charlie Falconer to report back on how Labour has dealt with anti-Semitism complaints is a smart move - already a Peer, and definitely no Corbynite.

Somebody trusted by both "sides" to an extent.

Good-afternoon, everyone

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... or-workers

From a care home manager quoted in the article

“General practice is for agencies/recruitment companies to charge 10%-12% of salary for a staff member who leaves them to work for a client so I’d typically expect to pay up to £1,500 for a care assistant or £2,000-3,000 for a nurse. However, Newcross charges a fixed fee of £3,000 for a care assistant or £6,000 for a nurse.... Their terms and conditions even try to hold clients responsible for this fee if they recommend a member of Newcross’s staff to a third-party employer who subsequently employs them …

My feeling is that they simply want to make it as difficult as possible for their staff to leave without some kind of compensation for the subsequent loss of income.”

I'm staggered - absolutely outrageous
How is it permissible or justifiable that money is taken off staff and the people cared for? Are there legitimate costs an agency has justifying these rates?

HindleA wrote:Morning

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... om-day-one" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow mentioned evidenced based policy:-

"Women do the vast majority of unpaid care"

Absolute piffle.

In terms of the ratio of stay at home dads to stay at home mums, I think there is indeed evidence that shows women are far more likely to be caring for children. I've also seen research that suggests daughters put in more hours looking after elderly parents than sons, but it's American, not British, so maybe not applicable.

What's the goal in these proposals, though? To me it reads as though the goal is to get carers into paid work or working more. As opposed to say, raising them out of poverty or reducing the caring responsibilities they face. Do carers simply want more paid work on top of everything else or do they want a more balanced life, with less poverty, more help and thus the opportunity to do more things for themselves such as work, but perhaps not restricted to paid work. Studying, volunteering or joining a new hobby group, perhaps. Why is getting people into paid work or more paid work always assumed to be the panacea for all life's ills? I mean I'm not saying it isn't often a good thing, but should it be an end in itself rather than one of several means to a happy and fulfilled life?

Please see my later post.

@HindleA
I don't fully understand your comment below your initial post
Please write more

citizenJA wrote:@HindleA
I don't fully understand your comment below your initial post
Please write more

Something which could quite often be said.

(and I mean that in a good way)

I dislike the burden schtick equally applied to your own children.Perhaps I part knee jerked in the continued false portrayal but my salient point still stands IMHO.

Ignoring inconvenient facts that contravene your views and as a consequence ignoring/underplaying peoples' experience(s),in effect negating for the continuing ploughing of narrative.Simplifying the far more complex,nuanced reality.

Starting the wrong way around making the facts satisfy the view ,even if they don't,certainly as outlined.

What was burdensome was the frustration of accounting for circumstances in the best way possible amidst the hurdles and attempts at politico manipulation,not the actual activity(ies)

Not one for playing the oppressed martyr or sufficiently pathetic for the benefit of others,something we both shared

I doubt anyone posting here will deny documented evidence

Could yourself lucky you only get excerpts,I've got to try and make sense of myself full time.

citizenJA wrote:@HindleA
I don't fully understand your comment below your initial post
Please write more

More

I saw what you did there.......

HindleA wrote:

citizenJA wrote:@HindleA
I don't fully understand your comment below your initial post
Please write more

More

Here you go - have a crap song! Best I could do, I'm afraid. Sorry.

[youtube]73RYirgeLV4[/youtube]

So you should be.

Constance contacting her solicitor re divorce.Although not strictly married.

And certainly not dancing.

HindleA wrote:

citizenJA wrote:@HindleA
I don't fully understand your comment below your initial post
Please write more

More

@Willow,to me family comes first and will not compromise on that,my disdain for the giving up theme can not be exaggerated,it is absolutely repulsive bordering on fascistic to reduce someone to the level of an inconvenient burden.Other views are available.I am at one with you on the varied ways of contribution and fullfillment life,indeed I(we)were far more contributory via minimal investment (return of)than at any time.I work 60 hours a week,my current contribution barely registers in comparison.Equally,the sitting at home misrepresentation of the sick/disabled is a travesty of the truth,many charities/community groups would fold without it .There is no coincidence of direct correllation of level of volunteering and receipt.Of course,like most recent reforms borne of false portrayal over the last decade this is resulting in the self fullment route of creating the very situation presented which didn't exist as we spiral into binaryfuckation..

A sane system provides flexibility,accounts for the particularities given each situation is different and changeable.It was attempting to.

There is no inconsistency in having the right to work/participate otherwise ,given that changeability,indeed continued working aided the priority,a necessary backstop,beyond the wit of politicod,seemingly ,is that you haven't necessarily a scooby do how events will unfold.

As to poverty,make contributions mean something bereft of a means to deny,increase extra costs allowances,return the particularities,rid the mindset of safety net(free loans to those on £100,000 plus a year is a particular pisstake hypocrisy rather gives the disingenuity away)otherwise)to the most vulnerable/who need it guff,first of all abolish the DWP.


That's enough guff from me.

All spelling and grammatikal errors are intentional to keep PF "happy"( )

Literally

Constance doing her weight training

My mind is a maelstrom of random thoughts with one consistency.

Bloody Tories

PF with a flower pot on her head and standing on one leg.Not sure on the reference.

Not doing the turnover page thing.No way.

Isn't in my renegotiated contract for one thing.

Deliberations went well into the early hours.

Tempers got a bit frayed.ACAS were involved.

Or it might have been a cat

Specifically have to leave it to someone else .