Thursday 29th January 2015

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 8:45 pm

And here's another shambles.

http://order-order.com/2015/01/29/torie ... is-busted/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 8:47 pm

Ian Lucas retweeted
David Aaronovitch ‏@DAaronovitch 9h9 hours ago
@spectator Line I wish I'd written: "No one but the Greens could want to decriminalise hard drugs and yet outlaw pâté." @TheGreenParty

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 8:49 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Yeah but Alan Milburn
And little Nicky Robinson says Ed Miliband wants to weaponise the NHS.

- So Nick, the wrangle between hospitals and the government can't be good for the NHS.

- There are wrangles and wrangles, Peter. Hospitals are basically a vested interested so you'd expect that. The argument that really matters is between Alan Milburn and Andy Burnham.

- Vested interests there too, Nick?

- Absolutely. Andy Burnham wants to win votes and be in the government.

- But Alan Milburn, some have said he's got business interests in private healthcare.

- No-one's said that on here.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 9:00 pm

ohsocynical wrote:And here's another shambles.

http://order-order.com/2015/01/29/torie ... is-busted/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't trust current government at all.
I doubt they want me to trust them.

"Tories Admit New Voter Software is Busted"

Current government & the Tory supporters think democracy, housing, the NHS, clean water & air cost too much to be used by non-Tories.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 9:06 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Ian Lucas retweeted
David Aaronovitch ‏@DAaronovitch 9h9 hours ago
@spectator Line I wish I'd written: "No one but the Greens could want to decriminalise hard drugs and yet outlaw pâté." @TheGreenParty

There were some very valid points in that Spectator article, so quite why Aaronovitch chose to single out that line I don't know. There is at least an argument for looking at the status of drugs (as Russell Brand has pointed out), but I can't think of any reason why a foodstuff like foie gras, produced in such a barbaric fashion, should not be banned. The isn't about being Green, it is about being humane and civilised.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 9:07 pm

- Nick, you've also been in the news yourself, I gather.

- Yes, I was very pleased to be mentioned by the PM.

- But you broke a confidence of Ed Miliband. Should you have done that?

- Dermot, journalism is all about reporting stuff the powerful don't want you to know.

- Have you broken any confidences of the PM.

- Journalism is all about protecting your sources.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 9:21 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Ian Lucas retweeted
David Aaronovitch ‏@DAaronovitch 9h9 hours ago
@spectator Line I wish I'd written: "No one but the Greens could want to decriminalise hard drugs and yet outlaw pâté." @TheGreenParty
There were some very valid points in that Spectator article, so quite why Aaronovitch chose to single out that line I don't know. There is at least an argument for looking at the status of drugs (as Russell Brand has pointed out), but I can't think of any reason why a foodstuff like foie gras, produced in such a barbaric fashion, should not be banned. The isn't about being Green, it is about being humane and civilised.

Thought it was a very strange line ... and not sure what Aaronovitch's position is - although he seems pretty dismissive from that.

Foie gras is barbaric - you're absolutely right on that. Is that what he means by pate?

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 9:23 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:- Nick, you've also been in the news yourself, I gather.

- Yes, I was very pleased to be mentioned by the PM.

- But you broke a confidence of Ed Miliband. Should you have done that?

- Dermot, journalism is all about reporting stuff the powerful don't want you to know.

- Have you broken any confidences of the PM.

- Journalism is all about protecting your sources.

That deserves a wider audience Tubby

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 9:26 pm

Is everyone's twitter broken or just mine?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 9:27 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Is everyone's twitter broken or just mine?

Mine seems to be okay...

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 9:28 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
There were some very valid points in that Spectator article, so quite why Aaronovitch chose to single out that line I don't know. There is at least an argument for looking at the status of drugs (as Russell Brand has pointed out), but I can't think of any reason why a foodstuff like foie gras, produced in such a barbaric fashion, should not be banned. The isn't about being Green, it is about being humane and civilised.
Thought it was a very strange line ... and not sure what Aaronovitch's position is - although he seems pretty dismissive from that.

Foie gras is barbaric - you're absolutely right on that. Is that what he means by pate?

Yes, the Greens have been campaigning against it for years and I'm 100% with them on this policy at least.

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 9:29 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Is everyone's twitter broken or just mine?

It seems very slow at loading pages, i just had a white screen declaring 'no data received'

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 9:29 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Is everyone's twitter broken or just mine?
Mine seems to be okay...

Mine's just come back - thank you

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 9:33 pm

: 16227_823740407687748_7078860446155698747_n.jpg (118.02 KiB) Viewed 11819 times

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 9:34 pm

http://www.sochealth.co.uk/2015/01/29/l ... alth-care/

Labour’s Ten Year Plan for Health and Care
by Andy Burnham
January 29, 2015

I don't think the content posted above is simply Burnham's speech; I think he's written more detail. Apologies if I've misunderstood.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 9:55 pm

Toby Latimer wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Is everyone's twitter broken or just mine?
It seems very slow at loading pages, i just had a white screen declaring 'no data received'

That's what I was getting ...all back up and fine now

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 9:57 pm

Most pitiful collection of commenters I've seen outside UKIP.

Yes, it's the SNP.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/azeem-i ... 10.html?ut" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's all there- focussing on Cameron, the Smith Commission, Red Tories, anything but accepting the hole in iScotland's finances.

But it was never about oil, apparently.

The personal insults- "garbage", "lies" (with no explanation)- are very UKIP.

Also a strange bit of pseudo-intellectual stuff. "Oil companies are committed to further exploration" (as if that means they'll find anything worth pulling out the ground), and "Scotland's tax structure would be very different", which either means alchemy or raising taxes to make up for the oil and risking flight to England.

This circus can't go on for much longer, surely?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 9:59 pm

citizenJA wrote:http://www.sochealth.co.uk/2015/01/29/l ... alth-care/

Labour’s Ten Year Plan for Health and Care
by Andy Burnham
January 29, 2015

I don't think the content posted above is simply Burnham's speech; I think he's written more detail. Apologies if I've misunderstood.

I put it in the file section (Features & Analysis) here
http://flythenest.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=379" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And here the direct link to it

http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/e ... S_Plan.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:08 pm

Night all xx

Post by **refitman** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:09 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Night all xx

Night AAW.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:10 pm

Night AAW

thatchersorphan · Post by **thatchersorphan** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:10 pm

The government will not reveal the full cost of its troubled Universal Credit system until after the general election in May 2015, Computer Weekly has learned. The last time it calculated an official cost estimate for the whole project, in 2012, it was £12.85bn. But while the cost is said to have since burgeoned, with the project now running two years behind its original schedule and with problems having complicated its development, the government has not updated the official estimate for more than two years. Source : http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240 ... l-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:10 pm

Night AAW.

And Por Favor for earlier.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:16 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Most pitiful collection of commenters I've seen outside UKIP.

Yes, it's the SNP.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/azeem-i ... 10.html?ut" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's all there- focussing on Cameron, the Smith Commission, Red Tories, anything but accepting the hole in iScotland's finances.

But it was never about oil, apparently.

The personal insults- "garbage", "lies" (with no explanation)- are very UKIP.

Also a strange bit of pseudo-intellectual stuff. "Oil companies are committed to further exploration" (as if that means they'll find anything worth pulling out the ground), and "Scotland's tax structure would be very different", which either means alchemy or raising taxes to make up for the oil and risking flight to England.

This circus can't go on for much longer, surely?

I'm beginning to get the impression that the Labour Party are intent on throwing away their support in Scotland.
We have Ed Miliband sidestepping the question of a Lab/Nat agreement (although Ed Balls has been more outspoken):
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/ed-mili ... -1-3672944
Then we have a pledge of a 'home rule bill' within 100 days of the election (if Labour wins):
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3672824
They don't seem to accept that the majority of Scottish voters voted to stay an equal part of the union, any more than the SNP accept that they lost. The desperate scramble to get 'yes' voters to vote Labour may well have the effect of losing their existing supporters.

On a lighter note, the Labour supporter who lives in the USA, supported 'yes' and voiced an SNP pro-independence commercial has ... 'defected' to the SNP.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/celebrity/ ... -1-3672788

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:26 pm

John Woodcock ‏@JWoodcockMP 14m14 minutes ago
On @BBCNewsnight shortly to talk about the health rumpus this week and Labour's plans for investment with radical reform.

Let's hope it's a decent interview which actually tries to look at the substance of what Labour is proposing .... James O'Brien in the chair, fingers crossed.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:29 pm

Yes, it's funny how "Devo Max" wasn't even voted upon, but it's what Scotland's going to get anyway.

They're very scared of the "London branch office" stuff, and think they have to devolve, and then have to adopt distinct positions from UK Labour. It gets silly.

Of course the great irony is that the SNP would shit themselves if they got fiscal autonomy tomorrow.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:31 pm

Latest YouGov poll (28 - 29 Jan):
CON - 34% (+1)
LAB - 34% (+1)
UKIP - 14% (-2)
GRN - 7% (-)
LDEM - 6% (-)

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:32 pm

This Newsnight is gobsmackingly biased shite.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:35 pm

Jeez.

http://schoolsimprovement.net/poor-chil ... ted-claims" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The TES is reporting that Ofsted has criticised some schools for grouping disadvantaged children together on so-called “pupil premium tables” in classrooms…

I've some sympathy for the schools here, sort of.

They have to show they're spending this premium on the FSM children, IIRC. Easiest way is to separate them and gives them some special resource.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:38 pm

We now have, er, the chair of Progress up against Sarah Wollaston.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:38 pm

NonOxCol wrote:This Newsnight is gobsmackingly biased shite.

You mean Ian Katz isn't a hard leftist who would give his Tory bosses the run around?

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:44 pm

Duplicate post.

I blame Beta.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:44 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
NonOxCol wrote:This Newsnight is gobsmackingly biased shite.
You mean Ian Katz isn't a hard leftist who would give his Tory bosses the run around?

The Stratton package was truly shocking, but this Woodcock guy really shouldn't be out in public. Whose idea was it to put him on TV?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:44 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Jeez.

http://schoolsimprovement.net/poor-chil ... ted-claims" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The TES is reporting that Ofsted has criticised some schools for grouping disadvantaged children together on so-called “pupil premium tables” in classrooms…
I've some sympathy for the schools here, sort of.

They have to show they're spending this premium on the FSM children, IIRC. Easiest way is to separate them and gives them some special resource.

No, that's a terrible way of doing it - talk about stigmatizing them.

Pupil premium is a bit of a blunt instrument since, although there is a correlation between children from families on benefits and pupil attainment, it isn't exact and there can easily be pupils attracting PP that have no need of any intervention.

The way we do it is to look at every child's need whether they attract PP or not and tailor support to them based on a specific action plan. Separately we look at how much we get in PP and work out as a desktop exercise what it was spent on.

It is almost like two separate exercise - trying to work out for every PP child how much has been spent on them is almost impossible. So long as you can show (i) rise in attainment for those children and (ii) how PP was spent, Ofsted are happy...the fact that you can't link them is almost irrelevant.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:44 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Yes, it's funny how "Devo Max" wasn't even voted upon, but it's what Scotland's going to get anyway.

They're very scared of the "London branch office" stuff, and think they have to devolve, and then have to adopt distinct positions from UK Labour. It gets silly.

Of course the great irony is that the SNP would shit themselves if they got fiscal autonomy tomorrow.

And, of course, the revenue raised will be deducted from the block grant, the Barnett formula will have to be scrapped and Scottish taxes would have to rise to make up for the loss. (and/or more cuts to public services). Higher taxes in Scotland = jobs relocated to E/W/NI = less tax collected = higher taxes or cuts ad infinitum.

Devolution of 'domestic' issues - law, education, health etc - is fair enough (it was always the remit of the Scottish Office and not the corresponding UK departments, pre-devolution).

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:46 pm

NonOxCol wrote:This Newsnight is gobsmackingly biased shite.

Absolutely crap - and providing nothing more to the slanging match. No good information - no good analysis.

Woodcock not good for Labour ... O'Brien constantly interrupting him ... Wollaston saying same old stuff.

O'Brien has gone right down in my estimation for that.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:48 pm

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 20m20 minutes ago London, England
Just heard fine speech by Ed Miliband at the Westminster Correspondents' Dinner: funny, moving and human.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:49 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
NonOxCol wrote:This Newsnight is gobsmackingly biased shite.
Absolutely crap - and providing nothing more to the slanging match. No good information - no good analysis.

Woodcock not good for Labour ... O'Brien constantly interrupting him ... Wollaston saying same old stuff.

O'Brien has gone right down in my estimation for that.

And needless to say, there was not a single mention of Milburn's interests in private health.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:50 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
NonOxCol wrote:This Newsnight is gobsmackingly biased shite.
Absolutely crap - and providing nothing more to the slanging match. No good information - no good analysis.

Woodcock not good for Labour ... O'Brien constantly interrupting him ... Wollaston saying same old stuff.

O'Brien has gone right down in my estimation for that.

Nobody watches Newsnight.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 10:57 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
NonOxCol wrote:This Newsnight is gobsmackingly biased shite.
Absolutely crap - and providing nothing more to the slanging match. No good information - no good analysis.

Woodcock not good for Labour ... O'Brien constantly interrupting him ... Wollaston saying same old stuff.

O'Brien has gone right down in my estimation for that.
Nobody watches Newsnight.

Well, how about Question Time then? They've started that with an attack on the NHS in Wales apparently. The NHS, which Question Time never discussed once in the month the Health and Social Care Act was passed.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 11:01 pm

NonOxCol wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: Absolutely crap - and providing nothing more to the slanging match. No good information - no good analysis.

Woodcock not good for Labour ... O'Brien constantly interrupting him ... Wollaston saying same old stuff.

O'Brien has gone right down in my estimation for that.
Nobody watches Newsnight.
Well, how about Question Time then? They've started that with an attack on the NHS in Wales apparently. The NHS, which Question Time never discussed once in the month the Health and Social Care Act was passed.

Yep, nobody watches Question time either.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 11:01 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Jeez.

http://schoolsimprovement.net/poor-chil ... ted-claims" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The TES is reporting that Ofsted has criticised some schools for grouping disadvantaged children together on so-called “pupil premium tables” in classrooms…
I've some sympathy for the schools here, sort of.

They have to show they're spending this premium on the FSM children, IIRC. Easiest way is to separate them and gives them some special resource.
No, that's a terrible way of doing it - talk about stigmatizing them.

Pupil premium is a bit of a blunt instrument since, although there is a correlation between children from families on benefits and pupil attainment, it isn't exact and there can easily be pupils attracting PP that have no need of any intervention.

The way we do it is to look at every child's need whether they attract PP or not and tailor support to them based on a specific action plan. Separately we look at how much we get in PP and work out as a desktop exercise what it was spent on.

It is almost like two separate exercise - trying to work out for every PP child how much has been spent on them is almost impossible. So long as you can show (i) rise in attainment for those children and (ii) how PP was spent, Ofsted are happy...the fact that you can't link them is almost irrelevant.

Oh yes, it's a terrible way of doing it, completely stigmatizing.

But I can see how they might be panicked by Ofsted, because of the problems you identify with it.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 11:05 pm

John Woodcock (who I like despite the fact he is rather right wing) has had well documented personal problems in the past few years.

Not sure whose bright idea it was to have him on tonight, tbh.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 11:06 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Jeez.

http://schoolsimprovement.net/poor-chil ... ted-claims" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I've some sympathy for the schools here, sort of.

They have to show they're spending this premium on the FSM children, IIRC. Easiest way is to separate them and gives them some special resource.
No, that's a terrible way of doing it - talk about stigmatizing them.

Pupil premium is a bit of a blunt instrument since, although there is a correlation between children from families on benefits and pupil attainment, it isn't exact and there can easily be pupils attracting PP that have no need of any intervention.

The way we do it is to look at every child's need whether they attract PP or not and tailor support to them based on a specific action plan. Separately we look at how much we get in PP and work out as a desktop exercise what it was spent on.

It is almost like two separate exercise - trying to work out for every PP child how much has been spent on them is almost impossible. So long as you can show (i) rise in attainment for those children and (ii) how PP was spent, Ofsted are happy...the fact that you can't link them is almost irrelevant.
Oh yes, it's a terrible way of doing it, completely stigmatizing.

But I can see how they might be panicked by Ofsted, because of the problems you identify with it.

We had a long discussion on PP at a meeting a month or so back and one of our governors couldn't get her head round the fact that we couldn't show what we spent on each child that attracts PP.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 11:06 pm

NonOxCol wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
NonOxCol wrote:This Newsnight is gobsmackingly biased shite.
Absolutely crap - and providing nothing more to the slanging match. No good information - no good analysis.

Woodcock not good for Labour ... O'Brien constantly interrupting him ... Wollaston saying same old stuff.

O'Brien has gone right down in my estimation for that.
And needless to say, there was not a single mention of Milburn's interests in private health.

Ian Katz tweeting out the opinion of Julian Legrand, an "ex-Labour advisor". He's been knighted by the Coalition, so not quite the lefty they made him sound.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 11:09 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
We had a long discussion on PP at a meeting a month or so back and one of our governors couldn't get her head round the fact that we couldn't show what we spent on each child that attracts PP.

I suppose if you don't have a numerate person on the governors, it could be very difficult to work out what you could show and what you couldn't.

I was imagining some poor sods without that numeracy and thinking "Shit, we have to do them altogether!"

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 11:12 pm

Even in the days when the Graun was a recognisably centre-left paper, Katz never really came across as such.

Far quicker to sneer rather than constructively criticise, the John Crace of his day.

For me he passed the point of no return after the Syria war vote, when on Twitter he drooled over David Aaronovitch's hysterical toys out of pram and then some anti-Miliband rant in the Times the following day as "devastating". Newsnight did little else that week but pump out crude pro-war propaganda.

Watched some early (1980s) editions of it on YouTube recently - utterly unrecognisable as the same programme (ie vastly superior in every concievable aspect, of course)

Ugh.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 11:12 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
NonOxCol wrote:This Newsnight is gobsmackingly biased shite.
Absolutely crap - and providing nothing more to the slanging match. No good information - no good analysis.

Woodcock not good for Labour ... O'Brien constantly interrupting him ... Wollaston saying same old stuff.

O'Brien has gone right down in my estimation for that.

I turned it off after 90 seconds.

The intro was practically the same as for Wark/Burnham the other night. Lefty BBC eh.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 11:14 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
NonOxCol wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: Absolutely crap - and providing nothing more to the slanging match. No good information - no good analysis.

Woodcock not good for Labour ... O'Brien constantly interrupting him ... Wollaston saying same old stuff.

O'Brien has gone right down in my estimation for that.
And needless to say, there was not a single mention of Milburn's interests in private health.
Ian Katz tweeting out the opinion of Julian Legrand, an "ex-Labour advisor". He's been knighted by the Coalition, so not quite the lefty they made him sound.

The only people that Stratton went to for her piece were disaffected Blairites.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 29 Jan, 2015 11:16 pm

Barry Sheerman MP ‏@BarrySheerman 26m26 minutes ago
Is there a dread fear in the Beeb they'll lose the licence fee? Desperate to damage Labour on NHS digging up people I thought were dead!