Saturday 18th & Sunday 19th October 2014

Post by **refitman** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 8:35 am

Morning all.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 9:15 am

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?

Post by **refitman** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 9:17 am

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?

Notso is either the worlds most subtle troll, or incredibly naive. Not sure which.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 9:24 am

Morning all

Apologies for starting the day with a sleazy

story....but this is a new investigation I hadn't heard of before...and they've arrested John Whittingdales* half-brother again -

https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/201 ... es-napier/

...and this from 2012 for a bit of background...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pa ... ld-1430365

* Chair of committee looking into some of Uncle Rupert and the Red-haired Harpies' misdeeds/friend of Rebukakah on Facebook

Now....where've me biscuits gone? Anyone seen them?

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 9:28 am

refitman wrote:
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?
Notso is either the worlds most subtle troll, or incredibly naive. Not sure which.

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.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 9:56 am

Good luck to the marchers today! Hope you don't get too wet.

Special offer for the Morning Star's new app

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/subscribe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and never be without the daily miracle!

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 10:47 am

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
refitman wrote:
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?
Notso is either the worlds most subtle troll, or incredibly naive. Not sure which.
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.

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......

Sticky99 · Post by **Sticky99** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 11:00 am

Morning all,

There I was watching Question Time this week and like others, was pretty appalled what I heard about Lord Fraud’s comments about disabled people. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised by a Tory area and their Tory voters, like many areas in the South East, but hearing the debate one could have thought that Angela Eagle said the remarks – not Fraud.

I couldn’t care less about the context of the discussion, no matter how that Tory audience tries to sugar coat the remarks, he insinuated that disabled people are not worth the minimum wage.

There was a man to the left hand side who particularly grated me, he said: “we all know what Fraud meant”. No, speak for yourself, you might have your own view – don’t try and insinuate like your own view is factual or superior to others.

Of course Lord Fraud isn’t the first Tory to make such assertions, Philip Davies said something of similar nature: http://www.channel4.com/news/disabled-p ... ge-tory-mp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If disabled people suddenly weren’t entitled to the minimum wage, it would surely cause a race to the bottom. Long-term opponents of the NMW, like Davies, would then cruelly suggest that other groups in society should be excluded from the minimum wage - the unemployed? IDS doesn’t need a second invitation to depress wages of the low-paid, as workfare does.

Also, the minimum wage is critical for disabled people because of the higher living costs they face. If anything, disabled people need higher wages and more adequate support from social security to handle those higher costs. It is a cliché, but the concept of disabled people working for less than the minimum wage is so incredibly out of touch – remarks almost exclusively made by people who aren’t disabled themselves.

One of the most prominent issues here is the attitudes of employers. I don’t think fiddling with the minimum wage would entice businesses to hire more disabled people. As with a substantial proportion of the private sector, they generally aren’t interested in people with physical disabilities, mental disabilities, people with family commitments, training the youth etc. They don’t value employees for who they are, merely what their output and productivity rate.

If employers don’t want to pay disabled people the minimum wage, there is an issue with the employer – not the disabled person. When one seriously ponders it, how exactly is £6.50 per hour too much in today’s society? People without disabilities already struggle to make ends meet on this, yet sadly people want disabled people to be paid less. Just like the animosity shown towards social security claimants in general, the support for Lord Fraud’s comments illustrates a shift towards a nastier society and almost-hate of the most vulnerable in society.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 11:49 am

@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;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 11:55 am

And there's more:

http://www.herefordtimes.com/NEWS/11542 ... ref=twtrec

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 12:01 pm

And from the Hereford Times.

http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/11543 ... MP/?ref=mr

Hereford UKIP branch dissolved amid allegations of "hidden agenda" to oust would-be MP

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.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 12:11 pm

Morning, folks. On phone, so no links, but was glad to see that UKIP are so desperate for their EU funding that they've approached a German surrealist, and gladder to see that he said he'd only join them if they renamed themselves the "idiots and thieves" group.

Ironically they may now have to forge an alliance with the Poles. As the system is PR based, I don't think something newlike Dan Hannan crossing the floor would be accepted, would it?

On a broader point I was looking at short money. Do you know Sinn Fein still get it even though they haven'ttaken their seats? This was a Good Friday thing to allow them to round up support for the peace pprocess but I question the wisdom of it being maintained now.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 12:12 pm

Don't worry too much Sticky99, polls confirm that a large majority don't agree with Fraud.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 12:17 pm

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;

The newly-published report orders an external review of governance to assess how leadership and management at the school can be improved.

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.

We were fortunate with ours as we had it done late last year (and all was fine) and got the report back just in time for the Ofsted visit!

Sticky99 · Post by **Sticky99** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 12:29 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Don't worry too much Sticky99, polls confirm that a large majority don't agree with Fraud.

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.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 12:46 pm

Sticky99 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Don't worry too much Sticky99, polls confirm that a large majority don't agree with Fraud.
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.

Found the poll

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;

Sticky99 · Post by **Sticky99** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 12:50 pm

I was amused to see Call me Dave trying to wriggling out of the leader debates. This was a man who eagerly pushed for the leader debates in 2010, because he thought he would wipe the floor with Gordon Brown and Cleggy. Dave thought his big shiny face and PR fluff would entice voters.

That didn’t happen, if anything Dave was underwhelming in the leader debates, and it is for that reason that Crosby doesn’t want Dave in the debates. I think Crosby is particularly scared of Farage, because you can bet your bottom dollar that he will taunt Dave about right-wing issues like immigration, the EU, green tax’s etc.

There is a deluded view amongst Ukippers and right-wing voters that Dave isn’t right-wing enough, and Farage will undoubtedly play on that. Therefore, Dave might well loose more core right wingers after the debates, whilst being too obsessed about a few Tory issues to broadly appeal to the electorate.

It was perhaps even more amusing to see Dave complaining that the Green Party weren’t in the debate proposal from broadcasters. Yeah, like he gives a crap about the Green’s. He’ll use anything to wriggle out of it.

Ed Miliband has a lot to gain from the debates. It will give him a truly national platform to demonstrate to voters that he isn’t weird of spooky like the media have portrayed him; he is a thoughtful person who has real policy direction – and he can communicate an awful lot better than what people think.

I am looking forward to seeing the debate from the Guardian, Torygraph and Youtube. I personally love watching live Youtube streaming for things like motor racing, it works brilliantly and with how many people now view Youtube, perhaps the digital-approach will help engage more people.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 12:56 pm

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...)

Sticky99 · Post by **Sticky99** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 12:57 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
Sticky99 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Don't worry too much Sticky99, polls confirm that a large majority don't agree with Fraud.
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.
Found the poll
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;

That really is fantastic to read - thank you for posting.

There is overwhelming support for the NMW for all sections of society, and at a time when inequality is soaring, the NMW is the bedrock of fairness in our society. Without the NMW we would enter the bad old days of massive wage differences based on physical disability, mental disability, race, nationality, skin colour, religion etc.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 12:59 pm

@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.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 1:03 pm

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...)

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.

AK would probably explain it much better than I have but that's the essence of it.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 1:06 pm

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.

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.
Strange times

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 1:08 pm

pk1 wrote:
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...)
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.

AK would probably explain it much better than I have but that's the essence of it.

Thanks pk, thought is seemed a way to bump ukippery higher up the polls

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 1:14 pm

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;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 1:17 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
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.
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.
Strange times

I hope I don't offend but I wonder if it's how people 'picture' the two words.
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.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 1:19 pm

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;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 1:29 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
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.
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.
Strange times
I hope I don't offend but I wonder if it's how people 'picture' the two words.
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.

I think the preferred term is "differently abled" rather than "disabled", but "handicapped" has been a big no no for quite some time.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 1:30 pm

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;

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 !

I would expect the business debates to be 'won' by Umunna purely because he is well-spoken, intelligent & the least partisan of the three. Handjob will scare the viewers with that relentless stare of his that I honestly believe he is unaware of & Cable lost all credibility when he whinges about what the Cons do but he was the one in charge of the Royal Mail sale.

(sorry for the rant - I've been on UKPR & had one there too today & a Lampard dive in Spurs' penalty box leading to a Man City goal doesn't help my mood so maybe I should go back to bed & try getting up again

)

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 1:34 pm

AngryAsWell 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;

Nice to see Sadiq Khan out supporting the march

Anyone spotted other Labour MP's out with them ?

https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 1:40 pm

@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;

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 1:45 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
AngryAsWell 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;
Nice to see Sadiq Khan out supporting the march
Anyone spotted other Labour MP's out with them ?

https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some great pics on the #britainneedsapayrise incl this one:

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 1:50 pm

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 96849.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Buffoon.

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”.

I guess all the bad stuff just stops in HuntWorld.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 1:52 pm

pk1 wrote:
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;
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 !

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.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 1:53 pm

I had such a crush on Nena at 14.

Sorry just wanted to share.

[youtube]yRFyKRlPfEg[/youtube]

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 2:05 pm

Reading BC Unison retweeted
UNISON Aneurin Bevan ‏@UnisonABH 13m13 minutes ago
And today we marched with.... ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 2:05 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:He lets slip at times he isn't *that* keen on the Tories......

That, I suspect, is the trolling bit.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 2:08 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 96849.html

Buffoon.

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”.
I guess all the bad stuff just stops in HuntWorld.

That's using the "research" that Roy Lilley described as drivel...

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Give ... ui2EIhnFBM

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 2:18 pm

Gus O'Donnell involved, I see.

Glad such thorough people have been running the country.

JustMom · Post by **JustMom** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 2:21 pm

I always thought civil servants were supposed to be neutral.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 2:27 pm

Pay protests: Thousands demonstrate over public sector wage awards

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29672049

That's a bit better!

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 2:41 pm

JustMom wrote:I always thought civil servants were supposed to be neutral.

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.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 2:54 pm

I'm BaaaaaACK. (Sorry, that's how my nephew used to announce / shout he had arrived back in the house when he was all of 2 years old.) Not sure for how long as we may need to rush off again.

Ooooh the tales I'd like to tell you .... but sadly can't.

I'll post this instead as no-one else seems to have done the honours.

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

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.

Of course the government and cull companies are going to declare it a success - it doesn't matter how badly it has gone it will still have to be declared as a rip roaring success. They simply can't countenance admitting failure and rowing back on an issue that is supposed to get the farmers' vote - so it will be a success.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 3:01 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Pay protests: Thousands demonstrate over public sector wage awards

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29672049

That's a bit better!

Bulgarian's are joining in....
Bulgarian police officers, firefighters, rescue workers and prison guards gather to protest on October 18: unionist

http://www.focus-fen.net/news/2014/10/1 ... onist.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 3:56 pm

I had a feeling that the march would be very well supported. We generally go if Unite have chartered a train (they usually do) and we'd expected to travel down this time on said train. It was actually over a week ago that we found out that the train was already fully booked up, preventing us going (otherwise it's too bloody expensive). If it was full over a week ago (it generally doesn't fill up that fast) it should give you an idea of how many people were there.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 4:02 pm

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.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 4:02 pm

''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.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 4:04 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
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.
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.
Strange times

Handicapped is the term used in NA, the US and Canada both use it. Also used by airlines sometimes. I hadn't heard it used for decades till I landed in Montreal and had the assistance helper and a taxi driver argue over my head calling me handicapped. Which is by way of explaining everything that is wrong with the term, it's a label that can be substituted for the person, and allows people to do that kind of stuff, argue as it you have no voice of your own.*

It's been frowned on for a long time here, it's just impolite and backward looking. If anyone has a time and date reference for me I'll be more than happy to draw attention to it.

*(Having said that it was this end at which I found some of the most awful treatment of disabled people, often large numbers and some of them very frail and elderly, dumped at various very unsuitable collection points while in transit sometimes for hours at a time, and only picked up with minutes to go before check-in (think no loos, no drinks or food, no assistance, and surly adolescent security workers) , a real eye-opener only mitigated by the decency of a single assistance worker who breached all the rules by wheeling me from one terminal to another rather than leaving me alone at a pickup point in the abysmal and bitterly cold dawn. The wait had been estimated at ninety minutes, his own experience said a possible two hours! No driver on site and the one due was being supplied by our friendly airport security company, no prizes offered.)

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 4:08 pm

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.

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.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 4:10 pm

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.

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.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sat 18 Oct, 2014 4:16 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:
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.
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.

Now, now Ernst (doing my best Windsor Davies impression) I'd never link anything by DFH, I have, but he's so 1998!