FlyTheNest

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Eric_WLothian wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Hang on though. Remember Salmond (who I don't like btw but have some grudging admiration for) wanted Devo Max not independence. It was sodding Cameron who forced the either / or question on Scotland.

Do you really think Salmond and Sturgeon want full independence?

What Salmond and Sturgeon want is power. They don't really care about how it is achieved, but independence would be their ultimate power grab.
Devo-max was never a realistic option for a Scotland-only referendum. (This is one, and possibly the only, correct decision by Cameron imo). It's perfectly acceptable for Scotland to vote on leaving the UK 'club' but it would not, I think, be acceptable to vote on changing the rules of the club unless all the members had a say.

The SNP gained their (slim) majority in Holyrood as a result of the defection of the LibDems to the Tories in Westminster the year before. Even then, they only polled 46% on a roughly 50% turnout. Since they have been in power they have frozen council tax, leaving LAs dependent on Holyrood; centralised control over the police (and fire service); tried (ongoing) to remove the requirement for corroborative evidence in court; overturned local planning decisions; taken over the committee system in Holyrood (and put in place their own presiding officer)... I could go on! Are these the actions of a socialist-leaning party or tartan Tories?

The constant carping about how Scotland should have more of everything fails to acknowledge that if they get their demands, other parts of the UK will be worse off.

This is my view, expressed with less of my heat.

I'd add what actually happened with the police too. Manic stop and search.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... h-scotland" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Check this out for a defence of it.

MacAskill said: "It's not rocket science, it's not happen-chance that there's a clear correlation. It's about being proactive, about preventing crime happening in the first place [and] it's reasonable and proportionate. I don't accept that it's discriminatory. It's quite clear and self-evident that crime is disproportionately perpetrated by young people."

Yeah, you, you're young, you look like a criminal.

[Police Scotland] Officers carried out 2,912 searches on children in that age group [8 to 12] between April and December 2013.

and in totak:

...The force said a total of 640,699 searches were carried out across the 12 months to the end of March.

The figure is three times higher than the 222,315 searches conducted by London's Metropolitan force, which polices a population greater than that of Scotland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27627154

Dear me, Sarah Woolaston is trying to claim that having Stephen Green as a business adviser (presumably one of the team of people) is just the same as giving him a peerage and making him a minister.



Oh, and then rolling her eyes and accusing Bryant of making party political points.

They should admit defeat and throw him to the wolves - wait until the Treasury Select Committee gets hold of him.

That Mail front page is disgraceful.

Eric_WLothian wrote:The constant carping about how Scotland should have more of everything fails to acknowledge that if they get their demands, other parts of the UK will be worse off.

Not so much that it fails to acknowledge it, more that they don't care. I lost count of the number of times I heard variations on "we can't be responsible for you any more/carry you lot any longer" during the run up to Indyref; ironically, in more than one case, it was being posted by people who didn't even live in Scotland any longer and weren't eligible to vote. To them you and Giselle have lost the right to call yourself Scottish - the SNP ARE Scotland, and anybody who denies that is a traitor. Utter twaddle of course, but I think they lost contact with Planet Reality many months ago and have now succumbed to a quasi religious hysteria.

As I said earlier, I have no particular issue with Sturgeon or, come to that, with Salmond; like all politicians they are after power, although what they want to achieve with that power may be a little opaque. But, as others have suggested, things may not be entirely under their control any more; the best analogy I can think of is that the two of them are like black hat cowboys from some dodgy black & white Saturday afternoon western, who prodded the herd to get it to move in the direction they wanted but inadvertently caused a stampede & are simply hanging on for dear life.

Oh FFS!

A question about the pink bus?

Yeah, like that's really a worthwhile question with so much going on.

Does Crosby choose the questions?

@frightful_oik nothing is beneath them.

Police Scotland, making Boris Johnson's Met look like liberal softies.

Crikes ... people clapping a QT questioner suggesting people should have to pay for themselves if they go to A & E with some 'self inflicted' ailment.

We are becoming such a divisive society.

@RR2 until it is applied to them

frightful_oik wrote:That Mail front page is disgraceful.

Yes, it is. And will Nick Robinson still be in a job at the BBC tomorrow?

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:

Eric_WLothian wrote:The constant carping about how Scotland should have more of everything fails to acknowledge that if they get their demands, other parts of the UK will be worse off.

Not so much that it fails to acknowledge it, more that they don't care. I lost count of the number of times I heard variations on "we can't be responsible for you any more/carry you lot any longer" during the run up to Indyref; ironically, in more than one case, it was being posted by people who didn't even live in Scotland any longer and weren't eligible to vote. To them you and Giselle have lost the right to call yourself Scottish - the SNP ARE Scotland, and anybody who denies that is a traitor. Utter twaddle of course, but I think they lost contact with Planet Reality many months ago and have now succumbed to a quasi religious hysteria.

As I said earlier, I have no particular issue with Sturgeon or, come to that, with Salmond; like all politicians they are after power, although what they want to achieve with that power may be a little opaque. But, as others have suggested, things may not be entirely under their control any more; the best analogy I can think of is that the two of them are like black hat cowboys from some dodgy black & white Saturday afternoon western, who prodded the herd to get it to move in the direction they wanted but inadvertently caused a stampede & are simply hanging on for dear life.

I'm not sure about Sturgeon (or whether she is really in charge). From her background, I would have expected her to be more left-wing than Salmond. However, the traditional SNP-supporting areas have usually been rural - areas which, in the rest of the UK, might be assumed to be largely Tory.
I will admit to a slight bias - I was born in Yorkshire but have lived, studied and worked in Scotland for 45+ years.

giselle97 wrote:

frightful_oik wrote:That Mail front page is disgraceful.

Yes, it is. And will Nick Robinson still be in a job at the BBC tomorrow?

Sadly yes. But I fervently hope that Miliband, Labour and the Dowlers take this further, both with the Mail and with Robinson; Dacre must be getting desperate if he is reduced to this kind of stunt which is more likely to blow up in his face than in Miliband's. And that poor family should not have been used in this fashion, not after all they have suffered.

RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh FFS!

A question about the pink bus?

Yeah, like that's really a worthwhile question with so much going on.

Does Crosby choose the questions?

Yougov Daily App asking how big a gaffe the pink van is.

Currently showing a response total of 15% of 3982 say it’s ‘massively damaging’ as opposed to 22% who say ‘not a gaffe at all’

Whoops, that doesn't fit the Tory narrative does it !

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:And that poor family should not have been used in this fashion, not after all they have suffered.

And that's precisely why Robinson needs to make a public apology both to the Dowler's & to Ed/Labour. He needs to do it tomorrow (should have done it today) and mean every damn word ! A promise not to repeat stuff said by a politician that he can't directly quote is never going to be forthcoming but wouldn't it be great if just one journo had the balls to say "no off the record chat, it's all named stuff from me" ?

pk1 wrote:

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:And that poor family should not have been used in this fashion, not after all they have suffered.

And that's precisely why Robinson needs to make a public apology both to the Dowler's & to Ed/Labour. He needs to do it tomorrow (should have done it today) and mean every damn word ! A promise not to repeat stuff said by a politician that he can't directly quote is never going to be forthcoming but wouldn't it be great if just one journo had the balls to say "no off the record chat, it's all named stuff from me" ?

Seems Robinson was "misunderstood". And if you believe that...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... er-moment/

Eric_WLothian wrote:

pk1 wrote:

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:And that poor family should not have been used in this fashion, not after all they have suffered.

And that's precisely why Robinson needs to make a public apology both to the Dowler's & to Ed/Labour. He needs to do it tomorrow (should have done it today) and mean every damn word ! A promise not to repeat stuff said by a politician that he can't directly quote is never going to be forthcoming but wouldn't it be great if just one journo had the balls to say "no off the record chat, it's all named stuff from me" ?

Seems Robinson was "misunderstood". And if you believe that...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... er-moment/

Problem was he pretty much stood by the comment on the 6 o'clock news, so his denial sounds pretty weak. And pk1, we both know Robinson doesn't have the guts, or even the simple decency, to apologise. Time to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war, time to unleash Alaistair Campbell!!

Night all.

Night TGS

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... y.pdf.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Response to FOI request regarding sharing data of UC benefit claimants inc.medical history etc with landlords,charities etc.

"In respect of data sharing with social landlords, the legislation provides a legal gateway for the
data to be shared; it is not necessary for the Department to seek consent from the claimant.
Data will be shared with social landlords for all claims that meet the relevant criteria and this
will enable landlords to assess whether claimants require support with the transition to
Universal Credit and paying their rent from their monthly benefit payment.

"In respect of data sharing for Universal Support provision, the legislation allows for data to be
shared, this will happen following a conversation with a claimant during which they will have
the opportunity to decline to share some or all of the information. If someone prefers not to
share information, there is categorically no impact on their claim for Universal Credit. Giving
consent will enable Universal Support partnerships to offer tailored and more holistic support
more quickly this will help to ensure that people get the level of support they need "

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:

Eric_WLothian wrote:

pk1 wrote: And that's precisely why Robinson needs to make a public apology both to the Dowler's & to Ed/Labour. He needs to do it tomorrow (should have done it today) and mean every damn word ! A promise not to repeat stuff said by a politician that he can't directly quote is never going to be forthcoming but wouldn't it be great if just one journo had the balls to say "no off the record chat, it's all named stuff from me" ?

Seems Robinson was "misunderstood". And if you believe that...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... er-moment/

Problem was he pretty much stood by the comment on the 6 o'clock news, so his denial sounds pretty weak. And pk1, we both know Robinson doesn't have the guts, or even the simple decency, to apologise. Time to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war, time to unleash Alaistair Campbell!!

Night all.

Tomorrow Labour should make a public statement that no Labour MP, party member or party worker will speak to Nick Robinson.

That will finish him, but it is two strikes in this game not three.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/f ... 4#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Evictions from rented homes hit record levels in 2014"(115 a day)

Oh, I can feel a tiny bit smug. I don't own a working television. So I don't pay the licence fee. And after listening to Jonathan Dimbleby's clear bias on Friday evenings and watching his big brother do just the same last night (on a laptop, on catch-up well after the event), I might actually sleep tonight knowing that I contribute nothing to their smugness.

Fooking shame on the BBC. Impartial my arse!

HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/f ... 4#comments

"Evictions from rented homes hit record levels in 2014"(115 a day)

In the article it says that only 20% of evictions sought were granted so there were 575 cases seeking possession. Dreadful numbers and what a lot of misery for all those people. Also, it says that 60% of cases were brought by 'social landlords' which makes me wonder whether or not social landlords (council and/or housing association) are seeking possession more quickly than they would have done in the past. After all, people who have been sanctioned are usually left with no income so should have been advised (by whom I am unsure) to put in a fresh claim for Housing Benefit on the grounds of no income so they're not put in this position in the first place. And people affected by the Under-Occupancy Penalty or reductions in Local Housing Allowance should have had help from the Discretionary Housing Payment scheme – not that those in England and Wales necessarily get that help. Those situations being sorted out could explain why 80% of cases don't proceed to eviction, even if they're only sorted out by the Housing/Finance Officer at the County Court on the day of proceedings – in which case there would, in the past, have been a County Court Judgement (CCJ) issued covering repayment of arrears (and sticking to the terms of the tenancy agreement) which would hold off the Possession Notice for as long as the defendant stuck to the agreements made.

I hope that makes sense. But I would be really interested to know whether or not social landlords are going to court more quickly than they did in the past; and what proportion of eviction orders go to private-rental landlords compared to social landlords. If anyone here knows?

LadyCentauria wrote:

HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/f ... 4#comments

"Evictions from rented homes hit record levels in 2014"(115 a day)

In the article it says that only 20% of evictions sought were granted so there were 575 cases seeking possession. Dreadful numbers and what a lot of misery for all those people. Also, it says that 60% of cases were brought by 'social landlords' which makes me wonder whether or not social landlords (council and/or housing association) are seeking possession more quickly than they would have done in the past. After all, people who have been sanctioned are usually left with no income so should have been advised (by whom I am unsure) to put in a fresh claim for Housing Benefit on the grounds of no income so they're not put in this position in the first place. And people affected by the Under-Occupancy Penalty or reductions in Local Housing Allowance should have had help from the Discretionary Housing Payment scheme – not that those in England and Wales necessarily get that help. Those situations being sorted out could explain why 80% of cases don't proceed to eviction, even if they're only sorted out by the Housing/Finance Officer at the County Court on the day of proceedings – in which case there would, in the past, have been a County Court Judgement (CCJ) issued covering repayment of arrears (and sticking to the terms of the tenancy agreement) which would hold off the Possession Notice for as long as the defendant stuck to the agreements made.

I hope that makes sense. But I would be really interested to know whether or not social landlords are going to court more quickly than they did in the past; and what proportion of eviction orders go to private-rental landlords compared to social landlords. If anyone here knows?

My Housing Association still claims that it does not evict on the grounds of bedroom tax alone. But on top of the average £14 per week shortfall in Housing Benefit despite that is has no smaller homes to offer its tenants, it also applies Water Rates at about a tenner a week as part of the rent. So £24 a week quickly adds up if that is a third of your benefits.

Go to CAB if you have difficulties, please, they will, if they can, help you.

LadyCentauria wrote:

HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/f ... 4#comments

"Evictions from rented homes hit record levels in 2014"(115 a day)

In the article it says that only 20% of evictions sought were granted so there were 575 cases seeking possession. Dreadful numbers and what a lot of misery for all those people. Also, it says that 60% of cases were brought by 'social landlords' which makes me wonder whether or not social landlords (council and/or housing association) are seeking possession more quickly than they would have done in the past. After all, people who have been sanctioned are usually left with no income so should have been advised (by whom I am unsure) to put in a fresh claim for Housing Benefit on the grounds of no income so they're not put in this position in the first place. And people affected by the Under-Occupancy Penalty or reductions in Local Housing Allowance should have had help from the Discretionary Housing Payment scheme – not that those in England and Wales necessarily get that help. Those situations being sorted out could explain why 80% of cases don't proceed to eviction, even if they're only sorted out by the Housing/Finance Officer at the County Court on the day of proceedings – in which case there would, in the past, have been a County Court Judgement (CCJ) issued covering repayment of arrears (and sticking to the terms of the tenancy agreement) which would hold off the Possession Notice for as long as the defendant stuck to the agreements made.

I hope that makes sense. But I would be really interested to know whether or not social landlords are going to court more quickly than they did in the past; and what proportion of eviction orders go to private-rental landlords compared to social landlords. If anyone here knows?

My Housing Association still claims that it does not evict on the grounds of bedroom tax alone. But on top of the average £14 per week shortfall in Housing Benefit despite that is has no smaller homes to offer its tenants, it also applies Water Rates at about a tenner a week as part of the rent. So £24 a week quickly adds up if that is a third of your benefits.

Go to CAB if you have difficulties, please, they will, if they can, help you.

51A wrote:

LadyCentauria wrote:

HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/f ... 4#comments

"Evictions from rented homes hit record levels in 2014"(115 a day)

In the article it says that only 20% of evictions sought were granted so there were 575 cases seeking possession. Dreadful numbers and what a lot of misery for all those people. Also, it says that 60% of cases were brought by 'social landlords' which makes me wonder whether or not social landlords (council and/or housing association) are seeking possession more quickly than they would have done in the past. After all, people who have been sanctioned are usually left with no income so should have been advised (by whom I am unsure) to put in a fresh claim for Housing Benefit on the grounds of no income so they're not put in this position in the first place. And people affected by the Under-Occupancy Penalty or reductions in Local Housing Allowance should have had help from the Discretionary Housing Payment scheme – not that those in England and Wales necessarily get that help. Those situations being sorted out could explain why 80% of cases don't proceed to eviction, even if they're only sorted out by the Housing/Finance Officer at the County Court on the day of proceedings – in which case there would, in the past, have been a County Court Judgement (CCJ) issued covering repayment of arrears (and sticking to the terms of the tenancy agreement) which would hold off the Possession Notice for as long as the defendant stuck to the agreements made.

I hope that makes sense. But I would be really interested to know whether or not social landlords are going to court more quickly than they did in the past; and what proportion of eviction orders go to private-rental landlords compared to social landlords. If anyone here knows?

My Housing Association still claims that it does not evict on the grounds of bedroom tax alone. But on top of the average £14 per week shortfall in Housing Benefit despite that is has no smaller homes to offer its tenants, it also applies Water Rates at about a tenner a week as part of the rent. So £24 a week quickly adds up if that is a third of your benefits.

Go to CAB if you have difficulties, please, they will, if they can, help you.

Oh and PS: I think there might have also been a rush by private landlords of sub-standard accommodation to beat the Judgment that came today as a result of a campaign by CAB re retaliatory evictions. It is now illegal to evict a tenant because they complain of deficiency in the quality of their housing. How do you police that? Yet to be seen.

51A wrote:

51A wrote:

LadyCentauria wrote: In the article it says that only 20% of evictions sought were granted so there were 575 cases seeking possession. Dreadful numbers and what a lot of misery for all those people. Also, it says that 60% of cases were brought by 'social landlords' which makes me wonder whether or not social landlords (council and/or housing association) are seeking possession more quickly than they would have done in the past. After all, people who have been sanctioned are usually left with no income so should have been advised (by whom I am unsure) to put in a fresh claim for Housing Benefit on the grounds of no income so they're not put in this position in the first place. And people affected by the Under-Occupancy Penalty or reductions in Local Housing Allowance should have had help from the Discretionary Housing Payment scheme – not that those in England and Wales necessarily get that help. Those situations being sorted out could explain why 80% of cases don't proceed to eviction, even if they're only sorted out by the Housing/Finance Officer at the County Court on the day of proceedings – in which case there would, in the past, have been a County Court Judgement (CCJ) issued covering repayment of arrears (and sticking to the terms of the tenancy agreement) which would hold off the Possession Notice for as long as the defendant stuck to the agreements made.

I hope that makes sense. But I would be really interested to know whether or not social landlords are going to court more quickly than they did in the past; and what proportion of eviction orders go to private-rental landlords compared to social landlords. If anyone here knows?

My Housing Association still claims that it does not evict on the grounds of bedroom tax alone. But on top of the average £14 per week shortfall in Housing Benefit despite that is has no smaller homes to offer its tenants, it also applies Water Rates at about a tenner a week as part of the rent. So £24 a week quickly adds up if that is a third of your benefits.

Go to CAB if you have difficulties, please, they will, if they can, help you.

Oh and PS: I think there might have also been a rush by private landlords of sub-standard accommodation to beat the Judgment that came today as a result of a campaign by CAB re retaliatory evictions. It is now illegal to evict a tenant because they complain of deficiency in the quality of their housing. How do you police that? Yet to be seen.

Don't worry, @51A, I'm ok but would, of course, go to CAB (or a local specialist advice service for the disabled - where I used to volunteer when I was more able) should I need help. My income is too high to get DHP, according to the policy of this particular council – who have no smaller properties available – so I keep paying nearly twenty quid Under-Occupancy Penalty on top of the (like yours) nearly a tenner for water-rates out of my ESA(SG,) in hopes that a change of government will abolish the bloody UOP. If not, I'll likely end up with no option but to demand they rehouse me anywhere at some point – and say goodbye to the amazing support-network of friends and neighbours on whom I rely for so much.

I didn't know that CAB had succeeded in getting that Judgement on retaliatory evictions! That's brilliant news and I hope that the judge(s) declared that there could be no appeal. Off to read about it, now, before turning in again for Second Sleep. Cheers!

Folks - I made a mistake in my stroppy post earlier about IDS's mad idea to gift homes...

Under UC, the rules for capital remain the same as they are now. For now....

Thanks to HindleA for the correction!