Saturday 18th & Sunday 19th October 2014
Posted: Sat 18 Oct, 2014 8:35 am
Morning all.
Notso is either the worlds most subtle troll, or incredibly naive. Not sure which.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Bonjour tout le monde.
Just read back the final posts of last night, and saw HindleA's link to the Indy piece of the Big Society Network. It reminded me of a conversation I had with Notso a few weeks back, when the Indy published an earlier article on the same subject; apparently despite the fact that the charity was set up to oversee Dave's Big Society dream, was launched by him in Downing Street and received large amounts of public cash the Indy are wrong to claim he has links with BSN. How much benefit of the doubt can one man be given?
He isn't naive, and I don't think he is really a troll. He makes some decent points on occasion, but does have that annoying tendency to paint himself into a corner rather than admit he is wrong on something, used to infuriate me. And despite continuing protestations of non-partisanship, albeit from an admitted right of centre position, he is so Dave's biggest cheerleader; I'm guessing his bedroom wall is covered in posters of Dave pointing meaningfully at things.refitman wrote:Notso is either the worlds most subtle troll, or incredibly naive. Not sure which.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Bonjour tout le monde.
Just read back the final posts of last night, and saw HindleA's link to the Indy piece of the Big Society Network. It reminded me of a conversation I had with Notso a few weeks back, when the Indy published an earlier article on the same subject; apparently despite the fact that the charity was set up to oversee Dave's Big Society dream, was launched by him in Downing Street and received large amounts of public cash the Indy are wrong to claim he has links with BSN. How much benefit of the doubt can one man be given?
Actually I suspect that the "cheerleading" for Cameron may be the "trolling" bit. He lets slip at times he isn't *that* keen on the Tories......TheGrimSqueaker wrote:He isn't naive, and I don't think he is really a troll. He makes some decent points on occasion, but does have that annoying tendency to paint himself into a corner rather than admit he is wrong on something, used to infuriate me. And despite continuing protestations of non-partisanship, albeit from an admitted right of centre position, he is so Dave's biggest cheerleader; I'm guessing his bedroom wall is covered in posters of Dave pointing meaningfully at things.refitman wrote:Notso is either the worlds most subtle troll, or incredibly naive. Not sure which.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Bonjour tout le monde.
Just read back the final posts of last night, and saw HindleA's link to the Indy piece of the Big Society Network. It reminded me of a conversation I had with Notso a few weeks back, when the Indy published an earlier article on the same subject; apparently despite the fact that the charity was set up to oversee Dave's Big Society dream, was launched by him in Downing Street and received large amounts of public cash the Indy are wrong to claim he has links with BSN. How much benefit of the doubt can one man be given?
Staff shock as school’s Ofsted ratings plunge
http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/loca ... F8.twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
They really are the party of amateurs. Once the Conservatives have a big enough toe hold of Tory MPs, they will chew UKIP up, and spit them out.http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/11543 ... MP/?ref=mr
Hereford UKIP branch dissolved amid allegations of "hidden agenda" to oust would-be MP
ohsocynical wrote:@Tubby & Roger
Staff shock as school’s Ofsted ratings plunge
http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/loca ... F8.twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is very common - I've seen this so many times on Ofsted reports - quite often on return inspections when the school still hasn't got one done. It's basically a health check - are you doing your job properly, are you getting the right information, are you asking the right questions and focusing on the right issues.The newly-published report orders an external review of governance to assess how leadership and management at the school can be improved.
Hi Anatoly, that is encouraging to hear. What concerned me was some of the Twitter reaction and some letters from Times readers. The letters a couple of days ago were almost treating Fraud as some sort of victim, and critics of Fraud as enemies. I guess it can be easy to read a few letters here and there and think that they reflect wider public opinion.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Don't worry too much Sticky99, polls confirm that a large majority don't agree with Fraud.
Found the pollSticky99 wrote:Hi Anatoly, that is encouraging to hear. What concerned me was some of the Twitter reaction and some letters from Times readers. The letters a couple of days ago were almost treating Fraud as some sort of victim, and critics of Fraud as enemies. I guess it can be easy to read a few letters here and there and think that they reflect wider public opinion.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Don't worry too much Sticky99, polls confirm that a large majority don't agree with Fraud.
That really is fantastic to read - thank you for posting.AngryAsWell wrote:Found the pollSticky99 wrote:Hi Anatoly, that is encouraging to hear. What concerned me was some of the Twitter reaction and some letters from Times readers. The letters a couple of days ago were almost treating Fraud as some sort of victim, and critics of Fraud as enemies. I guess it can be easy to read a few letters here and there and think that they reflect wider public opinion.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Don't worry too much Sticky99, polls confirm that a large majority don't agree with Fraud.
Pay everyone the same minimum wage, say voters
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/17/pay ... ay-voters/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Prompting for Ukip means lumping them in with the first choices when asking who you would vote for. Yougov for instance only asks Con, Lab, LD in the initial section & lumps Ukip in with the Greens, SNP etc & there is a belief that asking about Ukip as part of the main group will likely affect (increase) their polling figures.AngryAsWell wrote:Can some one explain what "prompting for UKIP" means in a poll? and is this the right thing to do? A bit here.....
....."We have asked people how they intend to vote, and carried out an experiment to test the effect of prompting for UKIP"
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/10/ ... -alert-48/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Using Chrome and Indy not crashed compy ? must try to work out why, as I don't like chrome and hate using it...)
On Friday's "Any Questions" Hesletine continually referred to disabled as "handicapped" I've not heard that term since heaven knows when, yet I not seen or heard anyone condemn him for it. This seems to me to be (quietly) "changing the debate" about how we view disability, with no one objecting.HindleA wrote:@sticky99
Where were the "in context" apologists when Freud was repeating ad infinitum "changing behaviour" in policies directed equally to those too sick/disabled to work and Carers who have no conditionality.They excuse him because they are excusing themselves,cowardness and bullydom are two sides of the same coin.
Thanks pk, thought is seemed a way to bump ukippery higher up the pollspk1 wrote:Prompting for Ukip means lumping them in with the first choices when asking who you would vote for. Yougov for instance only asks Con, Lab, LD in the initial section & lumps Ukip in with the Greens, SNP etc & there is a belief that asking about Ukip as part of the main group will likely affect (increase) their polling figures.AngryAsWell wrote:Can some one explain what "prompting for UKIP" means in a poll? and is this the right thing to do? A bit here.....
....."We have asked people how they intend to vote, and carried out an experiment to test the effect of prompting for UKIP"
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/10/ ... -alert-48/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Using Chrome and Indy not crashed compy ? must try to work out why, as I don't like chrome and hate using it...)
AK would probably explain it much better than I have but that's the essence of it.
I hope I don't offend but I wonder if it's how people 'picture' the two words.AngryAsWell wrote:On Friday's "Any Questions" Hesletine continually referred to disabled as "handicapped" I've not heard that term since heaven knows when, yet I not seen or heard anyone condemn him for it. This seems to me to be (quietly) "changing the debate" about how we view disability, with no one objecting.HindleA wrote:@sticky99
Where were the "in context" apologists when Freud was repeating ad infinitum "changing behaviour" in policies directed equally to those too sick/disabled to work and Carers who have no conditionality.They excuse him because they are excusing themselves,cowardness and bullydom are two sides of the same coin.
Strange times
I think the preferred term is "differently abled" rather than "disabled", but "handicapped" has been a big no no for quite some time.ohsocynical wrote:I hope I don't offend but I wonder if it's how people 'picture' the two words.AngryAsWell wrote:On Friday's "Any Questions" Hesletine continually referred to disabled as "handicapped" I've not heard that term since heaven knows when, yet I not seen or heard anyone condemn him for it. This seems to me to be (quietly) "changing the debate" about how we view disability, with no one objecting.HindleA wrote:@sticky99
Where were the "in context" apologists when Freud was repeating ad infinitum "changing behaviour" in policies directed equally to those too sick/disabled to work and Carers who have no conditionality.They excuse him because they are excusing themselves,cowardness and bullydom are two sides of the same coin.
Strange times
With handicapped I picture something or someone that is held back to a lesser or greater extent but still functional, whereas when I picture disabled I think of something that's been dismantled so that it doesn't work.
I don't think either is particularly suitable.
Danny Alexander vs George Osborne ? Do they think we were all born yesterday & that DA won't be trying to play the 'the LDs are such a minor part of the coalition, those nasty tory boys made us agree to it' whilst then declaring that all the (questionable) good stuff was down to them !letsskiptotheleft wrote:Alexander to be the LibDems spokesman on the economy during any election debates then, fair enough, be a bit difficult to debate Osborne I would have thought, when they have been joined at the hip for the last 4 1/2 years?
But this is what tickled me, any business debates will be between Cable, Umunna and serial incompetent, but Osborne sycophant Matthew Hancock!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-campaign" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nice to see Sadiq Khan out supporting the marchAngryAsWell wrote:Bambuser - show the world
Coverage of the #BritainNeedsAPayrise! #oct18 London March (happening today)
http://bambuser.com/v/5007446" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Some great pics on the #britainneedsapayrise incl this one:AngryAsWell wrote:Nice to see Sadiq Khan out supporting the marchAngryAsWell wrote:Bambuser - show the world
Coverage of the #BritainNeedsAPayrise! #oct18 London March (happening today)
http://bambuser.com/v/5007446" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Anyone spotted other Labour MP's out with them ?
https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I guess all the bad stuff just stops in HuntWorld.The NHS would be able to afford more nurses if it could deliver safer care, Jeremy Hunt will tell health service staff today.
An independent report, commissioned by the Department of Health, has suggested that unsafe care costs the NHS between £1bn and £2.5bn a year in follow-up treatments.
The Health Secretary will say that more should be “invested in improving patient care rather than wasted on picking up the pieces when things go wrong”.
He will tell nurses that if they play their part in making the NHS “the safest healthcare organisation in the world” then money could be released for additional staff, training and “time to care”.
Even sillier than that. Both parties are trying to claim credit for the Lib Dem bad idea- raising the income tax threshold as an end in itself, which has hammered the public finances.pk1 wrote:Danny Alexander vs George Osborne ? Do they think we were all born yesterday & that DA won't be trying to play the 'the LDs are such a minor part of the coalition, those nasty tory boys made us agree to it' whilst then declaring that all the (questionable) good stuff was down to them !letsskiptotheleft wrote:Alexander to be the LibDems spokesman on the economy during any election debates then, fair enough, be a bit difficult to debate Osborne I would have thought, when they have been joined at the hip for the last 4 1/2 years?
But this is what tickled me, any business debates will be between Cable, Umunna and serial incompetent, but Osborne sycophant Matthew Hancock!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-campaign" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That, I suspect, is the trolling bit.AnatolyKasparov wrote:He lets slip at times he isn't *that* keen on the Tories......
That's using the "research" that Roy Lilley described as drivel...Tubby Isaacs wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 96849.html
Buffoon.
I guess all the bad stuff just stops in HuntWorld.The NHS would be able to afford more nurses if it could deliver safer care, Jeremy Hunt will tell health service staff today.
An independent report, commissioned by the Department of Health, has suggested that unsafe care costs the NHS between £1bn and £2.5bn a year in follow-up treatments.
The Health Secretary will say that more should be “invested in improving patient care rather than wasted on picking up the pieces when things go wrong”.
He will tell nurses that if they play their part in making the NHS “the safest healthcare organisation in the world” then money could be released for additional staff, training and “time to care”.
They are, but O'Donnell is an ex-civil servant isn't he? Mind you, as I said earlier in the week, some have been less than neutral over the past few years, so expect a bit of a culling if/when Labour take office.JustMom wrote:I always thought civil servants were supposed to be neutral.
And that's actually fewer than a third of the minimum kill target they set themselves .... it's even more of a big fail (for them) when viewed against their 'maximum' target.Badger cull set to fail for second year running
Two-thirds of the way through Gloucestershire cull, fewer than a third of required badgers had been shot
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ar-running
Bulgarian's are joining in....ohsocynical wrote:Pay protests: Thousands demonstrate over public sector wage awards
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29672049
That's a bit better!
pk1 wrote:@Ephe if you're looking in, I saw this & thought of you
http://www.tracyscraftshop.co.uk/dragon ... -1441.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
AngryAsWell wrote:On Friday's "Any Questions" Hesletine continually referred to disabled as "handicapped" I've not heard that term since heaven knows when, yet I not seen or heard anyone condemn him for it. This seems to me to be (quietly) "changing the debate" about how we view disability, with no one objecting.HindleA wrote:@sticky99
Where were the "in context" apologists when Freud was repeating ad infinitum "changing behaviour" in policies directed equally to those too sick/disabled to work and Carers who have no conditionality.They excuse him because they are excusing themselves,cowardness and bullydom are two sides of the same coin.
Strange times
Lordy, for a moment I thought it referred to Dan "fucking" Hodges, so Jones' willingness to take no prisoners would make sense, on both counts.letsskiptotheleft wrote:''We cannot trust the DfH and I cannot work with it''
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... th-7956100" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Carwyn Jones taking no prisoners, no one pretends the system is without it's faults, and tbh I can see where Jones is coming from.
If getting employers interested is the sticking point, perhaps the government should set a business employing disabled workers? I bet it would be a popular move. Could call it Remploy or suchlike.ephemerid wrote:pk1 wrote:@Ephe if you're looking in, I saw this & thought of you
http://www.tracyscraftshop.co.uk/dragon ... -1441.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thank you, pk - lovely, but a bit steep at the price.....perhaps I could make one.....
Anyway. On Freud.....
I have been posting over at the G to try to explain to the righties why Freud is being more than a tad disingenuous re. pay etc. and why he is the embodiment of what the Tories actually think about people who have disabilities....especially the "mentally damaged".
Freud was asked by Blair in 2006 to do an independent review of the social security system as it was then. He went way beyond his brief. From claiming to know absolutely noting about it, his plans for reform were presented within just three weeks.
He was very keen to encourage Purnell to continue with what Peter Lilley had started with Unum, and we all know what came of that.
By 2009, he was so annoyed that his ideas were not being taken up in their entirety and stated his view that Labour would not go far enough, that he left to join the Conservatives and has been the mastermind behind making IDS's ideology happen.
If he knew anything about social security provision for disabled people - and, more to the point, how and why it all came about - he would know why paying disabled people less than the able-bodied/minded is so repugnant and why certain legislation exists.
Most of you probably know all this, but this is what Freud clearly doesn't know or chooses to ignore -
Major's government passed the Disability Discrimination Act in 2005, which abolished the old Disabled Persons Register.
The DPR included the Green Card system in which companies of a certain size were required to employ disabled people.
This was a quota system, and the employer was compensated for any demonstrable loss of productivity by percentage.
It was abolished in favour of positive discrimination by which employers were required by law to interview a disabled candidate if they had the qualifications for the job; Access To Work was brought in so employers could adapt the workplace as necessary.
This did not result in more people with disabilities being employed.
Major's government introduced IB in 1995, with the system of Permitted Work for those able to do odd bits now and then.
IB/PW allowed for people to earn £15 with no penalty; more than that and IB was reduced pro-rata.
Freud's ideas helped set the parameters of ESA, and it was that which included the abolition of IB and Permitted Work.
People who used to do bits of work for pocket money (like the man in the recent row) could do so and keep their benefits.
People with fluctuating conditions could work as and when able, but keep their claims open if that was less than 2 weeks.
A lot of people with learning difficulties did voluntary work to keep busy; many charity shops would not cope without them.
Remploy factories began to be closed, and Remploy itself told to concentrate on being a sort of employment agency.
Since 2011, DWP has continued with the abolition of IB and the Permitted Work system has not been replaced.
JSA and ESA claimants are now forbidden from organising their own voluntary work or skills training.
They can only "volunteer" via the jobcentre and a Work Programme provider; once they have done so, their placement becomes mandatory after 1 week and if they leave or miss a day they will be sanctioned.
Remploy factories are being closed in much larger numbers, and most of those laid off are still claiming JSA.
The land and assets are being sold off commercially. Even factories which made a profit are going.
The abolition of the Independent Living Fund, with un-ringfenced local provision which has been devolved by central government with a funding drop of 20%, means that those who the ILF enables to work may not be able to work at all.
There is plenty more of this - but Freud has been instrumental in removing the very things that help disabled people to work, and he also knows that employers are reluctant to employ disabled people or people who have long-term sickness.
What he seems to be suggesting now is that an employer can pay £2 an hour rather than the £6.50 an hour NMW, and the Universal Credit will top up the loss of wages. This is not possible under the current legislation and guidance for UC.
If someone went self-employed on their £2 an hour, under UC they would get nothing - because the assumption for UC is that self-employed people are earning the equivalent of 35 hours a week at NMW as a starting point.
If he thinks that it would be OK for an employer to pay £2 an hour to disabled people, how long would it be before employers started to ask for reduced wages for older people (not too quick, are they?) or single mums (unreliable?) or youngsters (no experience?)
Whilst I agree that if Worker A takes an hour to make widget, and Worker B takes two, it might make sense to compensate a willing employer for the loss of productivity - and back to the quota system we go. Personally, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
But that's not what he seems to be saying. And from a man who calls people like me "stock", and who has systematically removed support from sick and disabled people, including children, he has no interest in making life better for disabled people.
Now, now Ernst (doing my best Windsor Davies impression) I'd never link anything by DFH, I have, but he's so 1998!ErnstRemarx wrote:Lordy, for a moment I thought it referred to Dan "fucking" Hodges, so Jones' willingness to take no prisoners would make sense, on both counts.letsskiptotheleft wrote:''We cannot trust the DfH and I cannot work with it''
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... th-7956100" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Carwyn Jones taking no prisoners, no one pretends the system is without it's faults, and tbh I can see where Jones is coming from.