Monday 9th March 2015

Post by **refitman** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 7:15 am

Morning all.

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 7:38 am

Morning.

Apologies for continuing something from last night but I just want to respond to a point from 51A.

51A wrote: Do you know what, absolutely the worst of forum form. All the things you could have levelled at that useless, parasitic wanker and you go for how many children and what their names are. Be very ashamed of yourselves.

I agree that making fun of names isn't particularly useful but mentioning how many children he had does kinda have a point, even if it was made as an offhand joke.

Proposed Tory policy is that families like his won't receive any child benefits for the fourth child onwards even if they already exist. It doesn't matter to his family as they'll be able to afford the extra expense regardless and so aren't the target of the hateful propaganda that poor people only have children to claim benefits (as opposed to having children because mummy and daddy love each other) and if you limiting the benefits to three children they'll stop having so many. That rhetoric is straight out of the 18th/19th century class system.

My paternal grandmother had nine children and today she would be labelled a benefits scrounger and put on the front cover of the Daily Heil but back in the mid 40s/50s it wasn't that uncommon to have larger families. What annoys me about this policy is that some of the children of that generation are the same people who have now grown up to attack later generations for doing exactly the same thing as their own parents. They're also the same people who decry immigration for increasing the population, attack British born people for having too many children but at the same time declare that all pensioners will receive great pensions that are protected for the next several decades.

And now, having thrown that hand grenade into the discussion, I'm off to work...

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 8:27 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31793683" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cameron promises 500 more Free Schools

Is he losing the plot?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 8:37 am

Good morning, all.

Thank you, Stephen Dolan - I was just about to post very similar sentiments. Rees-Mogg is a member of a government that has reduced more than 300,000 extra children to absolute poverty; Barnardo's says that 3.5M children are in poverty in the UK, 1.6M in severe poverty.
I appreciate that 51A seems to feel that we shouldn't be taking the piss out of Rees-Mogg's children, and I agree that there are other things we could have said about him - but the conversation went they way it went and no real harm was meant.

On to today's interesting thing....

Today is the day that the new system for civil claims comes in. It will cost up to 760% more to file a claim in civil courts, as of today.
There is an excellent breakdown here - http://www.legalchap.blogspot.uk/2015/03/road-to-ruin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If you want to file a claim in the civil courts for any amount over £10,000 the new fees will apply. If the value of your claim is £15,000, the old fee was £610; it's now £750. If the claim is worth £50,000, the fee has risen from £910 to £2,500.
These are just the fees for filing a claim with the Courts Service. Any legal advice is on top of that.

The introduction of hearing and issue fees in employment tribunals (on average, about £1,200) has led to a 75% reduction in claims.
Someone on an average wage would have to risk a month's salary - at a time when they may have no employment - to make a claim.

The next thing in the pipeline is the introduction of fees for lodging a benefit appeal with the Tribunals Service. The cost is expected to be £250.
Someone appealing a benefits decision is now no longer entitled to benefits; it used to be the case that those on ESA awaiting a hearing would get basic rates, but they don't any more. Even if they did, where would they find the equivalent of a months' benefit income on what is already an income way below the poverty line?

Grayling has brought this in today before the judicial review of the new charges. Just as he did with the new rules on employment tribunals.
He has chosen to ignore other judicial reviews which declared his activities illegal. He's doing what he wants anyway.

This is fascism.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 8:40 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31793683

Cameron promises 500 more Free Schools

Is he losing the plot?

D'oh, Paul.

They're to replace the ones that are closing.....

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 8:46 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31793683

Cameron promises 500 more Free Schools

Is he losing the plot?

I've just stuck this up on the Graun's take on it.

A few points:

1. Free schools are simply new academies. There are a further 49 schools that have been opened post-2010 that are classed as academies that aren't in any of the above figures.

2. Increasingly, multi-academy trusts like ARK and Harris are the ones opening free schools. The last list of free school openings I saw had 5 schools being opened by Harris and 7 by ARK.

3. The oversight system for free schools and academies is dire. There is no way a school opening in Sept 2013 should be being closed down in a couple of weeks time. A decent oversight system would have caught the problems far earlier.

4. Interesting that the rhetoric for free schools has changed - back in 2010 it was all about parent choice and innovation - now it's moved on to fulfilling basic need for pupil places.

5. Did any previous government make such a fuss about the numbers of schools opening?

6. Lastly, and it needs to be said again, all schools are run by their HTs and governing bodies - not just free schools and academies. This has been the case since the late 1980s. Enough of the lies about "council run schools".

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 8:54 am

I've also made the point that Baroness Natalie Evans, Tory Peer, of the New Schools Network used to be deputy director of Policy Exchange...

Chase them all into the sea.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 8:56 am

Morning all.

Just caught Today.

I noticed that when it comes to announcements and rebuttals we have

Conservative announcement Cameron says, Labour claims.

Labour announcement Leslie says, Cameron says.

Language used by the BBC news service is crucial.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 8:58 am

Future birthday present pencilled in.

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 9:09 am

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

Just caught Today.

I noticed that when it comes to announcements and rebuttals we have

Conservative announcement Cameron says, Labour claims.

Labour announcement Leslie says, Cameron says.

Language used by the BBC news service is crucial.

Eh ?

[youtube]QaxqUDd4fiw[/youtube]

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 9:18 am

I know little about Scotland, I don't read Scottish papers and have only been there a dozen times or so. Some questions for those more well informed than me,

First, what is the position of the Unions? If, as now seems likely, Labour loses the majority of its seats in Scotland, or indeed is nearly wiped out, do the Unions stay loyal, or are they drifting towards the SNP?

Second, what is the best result for the SNP? I would have thought the best result was a majority Tory government. if they get that then independence looks irresistible.

Third, what is the worst result for the SNP? A majority Labour administration that successfully governed the UK from the left would, I would expect, be a disaster for them.

Fourth, could they enter a coalition? That seems impossible to me. You couldn't have (as you do with the Lib Dems) SNP ministers for, say, education, health or business as these either are or would be devolved matters

Fifth, if they informally supported a Labour minority administration, what reason would they have for it being a success (see point three)?

Sixth, beyond devo-more and the retention of the (utterly disgraceful) Barnett formula, what will they want to extract from any UK government?

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 9:21 am

Talking of language, I noticed that Empty was 'challenging' EM to rule out a deal with the Nats. Well Dave, if you were to turn up to the debates, you'd have the perfect opportunity to do just that. But you won't because you're a craven poltroon aren't you. Tough talk, weak man. Go and have a cobra you useless excuse for a prime minister.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 10:03 am

Did anyone deliberately misread this headline?

Danny Alexander: I will block George Osborne's 'potty' tax cut plans

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 10:07 am

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Tory-MP-Ja ... story.html
“Since becoming an MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg has earned more than £500,000 from a second job at Somerset Capital Management, a hedge-fund that he co-founded. Despite its name, Somerset Capital Management has nothing to do with Somerset, but it is in fact a London-based hedge fund that invests in overseas companies, including substantial interests in tobacco, oil and coal mining companies.

Just to be clear, my dislike of Jacob Rees-Mogg is not particularly based on the fact that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth (although that does appear to have imbued him with a pompousness and sense of his own importance which is particularly irritating), as this is a circumstance he has no control over, but it is mostly based on how he chooses to make his money now, hedging on investments in emerging markets in the controversial areas of fracking and tobacco. This is a man who has no qualms about making money out of activities that are known to have potential health implications for those exposed to them in the case of tobacco and poses potential dire environmental consequences in the case of fracking. He is an unpleasant person who has used parliamentary time to advocate activities his company invests in and appears oblivious to the very real risks posed to his own constituency if fracking were allowed here. The Mendip Hills have a unique geology with extensive and little understood cave systems and are also thought to provide the unidentified source of the hot springs in Bath. He advocates fracking for Britain in parliament without declaring an interest saying his company only invests in foreign markets, yet is it not possible that the money he can make from fracking elsewhere is blinding him to the risks it poses at home?

And of course that's before you even get to the links with Circle:

http://www.todd4nesomerset.com/north_ea ... cle_health

I have no beef with any one who wishes to lampoon Rees-Mogg's toff persona, as it really is crying out to be lampooned and I unashamedly do so myself whenever the opportunity arises. I just wanted to remind everyone that, like Boris, this man is not a joke, he is extremely right-wing with close ties to the kind of vested interests that is destroying our democracy and our country.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 10:09 am

Good morfternoon.

@ SpinningHugo

You pose some interesting questions (to which I have no answers).

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 10:11 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Did anyone deliberately misread this headline?

Danny Alexander: I will block George Osborne's 'potty' tax cut plans

Good job they didn't have a potty tax when Dave was clearing his logjam. Would have bankrupted him.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 10:13 am

SpinningHugo wrote: First, what is the position of the Unions? If, as now seems likely, Labour loses the majority of its seats in Scotland, or indeed is nearly wiped out, do the Unions stay loyal, or are they drifting towards the SNP?

The unions were split over the independence - some declared for 'yes', some for 'no' and some remained neutral. I doubt whether any unions would contribute to SNP funds, but it would presumably depend on a ballot of members.

Second, what is the best result for the SNP? I would have thought the best result was a majority Tory government. if they get that then independence looks irresistible.

Their best result would be a Tory (with or without LD or UKIP support). This would enable them to continue the "Scotland doesn't get the government it voted for" mantra and continue to press for another referendum. This would be boosted if there was an EU referendum and the UK voted to leave.

Third, what is the worst result for the SNP? A majority Labour administration that successfully governed the UK from the left would, I would expect, be a disaster for them.

Scotland voting overwhelmingly Labour, together with a Labour majority in Westminster would negate the "Scotland doesn't get..." mantra and make an EU referendum unlikely.

However the GE goes, next year's SE will be more important for the SNP. If they gain a majority of seats in Holyrood, they will take it as a mandate to press for another independence referendum.

Fourth, could they enter a coalition? That seems impossible to me. You couldn't have (as you do with the Lib Dems) SNP ministers for, say, education, health or business as these either are or would be devolved matters

They've ruled out a coalition with the Tories. I, personally, can't see a coalition with any other party being viable, for the reasons you give. In any case, how could a minister who is a member of a party which is dedicated to breaking up the UK be trusted with UK policy?
It's also worth bearing in mind that the Labour party refused to prop up the previous SNP minority government in Holyrood.

Fifth, if they informally supported a Labour minority administration, what reason would they have for it being a success (see point three)?

If I were Ed M, I wouldn't trust them, or bank on their support - either formally or informally. They won't roll over like the Lib Dems and would be a constant worry that he could well do without. All they would do is demand more power, so as to achieve independence by the back door. At the end of the day they're a one-policy party.

Sixth, beyond devo-more and the retention of the (utterly disgraceful) Barnett formula, what will they want to extract from any UK government?

See 5 above. What may be more important is the question of what they can contribute, as a bunch of amateurs, to a UK government (apart from guaranteed numbers - individual SNP MPs would not be allowed to step out of line). I would suggest very little.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 10:22 am

I'm not going to link but the Mail is saying that the decision to open an annexe to the grammar school in Kent won't be taken until after the election.

So if labour win, that's not going to happen.

Chickening out?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 10:23 am

Good-morning.
As hard as I try to keep following the thread, it would seem I do miss some posts.
Spacedone's post brought to my attention criticism I'd not read yesterday.
I wasn't offended by the post 51A took offence to.
The post had a direct link to Tory policy & Rees-Mogg's failure to remember he's in the 21st century.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 10:34 am

I thought that the number of Free Schools that David Cameron was supposedly intending to open was in the high 200s (that was what I read yesterday). What's going on?

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 10:38 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31793683

Cameron promises 500 more Free Schools

Is he losing the plot?

Now PfY - it's a 'plan', not a 'plot'....didn't you get the memo?

Apols (as ever) if this has been posted before....it's quite long, but interesting all the same...

Recent reporting on illegal tax evasion by the world’s second largest bank, HSBC, opens a window onto the pivotal role of Western banks in facilitating organised crime, drug-trafficking and Islamist terrorism. Governments know this, but they are powerless to act, not just because they’ve been bought by the banks: but because criminal and terror financing is integral to global capitalism. Now one whistleblower who uncovered an estimated billion pounds worth of HSBC fraud in Britain, suppressed by the British media, is preparing a prosecution that could blow wide open the true scale of criminal corruption in the world’s finance capital.

'In August last year, HSBC director Rona Fairhead was appointed as chair of the BBC’s board of trustees. Fairhead is currently chair of HSBC’s North America Holdings, and was chair of the audit and risk committee when HSBC was fined by US authorities for money-laundering. Some of the fraud exposed in the Swiss leaks occurred during her watch on the committee. Before her government nomination to the BBC, Fairhead was appointed a British Business Ambassador by Prime Minister David Cameron. Prior to that, she had been a non-executive board director for the UK Cabinet Office under the coalition government.'

The Guardian’s links with HSBC go beyond mere advertising. Much has been made of the fact that the newspaper is owned and run by The Scott Trust, originally created in 1936 “to safeguard the title’s journalistic freedom.” The paper, wrote leftwing columnist Owen Jones in the wake of Peter Oborne’s revelations, “is unique for being owned by a trust rather than a media mogul.”
I have a lot of respect for Jones, who is doing important work, but his assertion here is untrue and misleading.
The Guardian is not owned by a trust at all. In 2008, “the trust was replaced with a limited company” that was accordingly re-named “The Scott Trust Limited.” Though not a trust at all, but simply a profit-making company, it is still referred to frequently as ‘The Scott Trust,’ promulgating the widely-held but mistaken belief in the Guardian’s inherently benign ownership structure.

https://medium.com/@NafeezAhmed/death-d ... 5ed9ef5316

I wonder if any of it will be mentioned this afternoon...

http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... sion-hsbc/

...and morftereve all.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 10:46 am

http://urban-echo.co.uk/exclusive-bradf ... veals-all/

moving if not seen.

Below is amusing

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/53803842-c029 ... z3TsYkO18E

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 10:49 am

@Lonewolfie
500 free schools Dave is promising after talking up 153 just the other day.
The man's off his head.

Naturally, nefarious global finance doesn't help.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 10:51 am

By 'many people' suggesting Balls is scaremongering you mean the MSM and CCHQ hey Norman Smith?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 10:54 am

citizenJA wrote:@Lonewolfie
500 free schools Dave is promising after talking up 153 just the other day.
The man's off his head.

Naturally, nefarious global finance doesn't help.

Goodness. What number should we expect tomorrow?

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:00 am

frightful_oik wrote:Talking of language, I noticed that Empty was 'challenging' EM to rule out a deal with the Nats. Well Dave, if you were to turn up to the debates, you'd have the perfect opportunity to do just that. But you won't because you're a craven poltroon aren't you. Tough talk, weak man. Go and have a cobra you useless excuse for a prime minister.

I think Cow-ring Cameron finds quite a bit of life 'challenging'...and even more so now.

I couldn't (and still can't) get my head around the whole 'Dave's going to get his own program on the Beeb'...he has an opportunity to appear on TV - in the debates...and have CCHQ done any 'focus group brain-thinking' to see how many people would actually bother to watch it?...and if anyone did have a strong enough constitution to endure it, would it not just provide a stockpile of ammunition for the 'he's a useless empty lying mendacious venal over-privileged omnishambolic frackwitted dungbucket' brigade (I am a member, for the avoidance of doubt)

...and apols again, the Free School frackwittery I responded to wasn't necessarily supposed to link to the HSBC/Fairhead frackwittery in the rest of the post....but it's all frackwittery, I suppose

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:02 am

I suspect the "Dave to get his own show" thing was just a bit of kite flying that will go nowhere, tbh.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:04 am

The FT (paywall) has reported that 30,000 DWP staff will lose their jobs by 2020 if the Tories get into office.

The jobs will be mainly lost from the Pensions Service (which has 4 sections) mainly in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

There have already been many redundancies at DWP - in 2010 there were 100,000 staff, now there are 83,000.

At a time when the biggest shake-up in social security history is going on (and if the Tories win, is set to continue) it seems daft to be cutting staff especially from pensions services with new rules coming in and an ageing population......unless everything is going to be done online.

Of course, we know that Capita is taking over the administration of all new online Universal Credit claims; as online claims are the default method and UC is now being rolled out nationally for all new uncomplicated JSA claims, DWP won't need so many people.

But 30,000 in 5 years?

According to the FT, there is a report somewhere that says Labour will cut 20,000 jobs - but that's all across Whitehall not just DWP.

If this FT article is right, Osborne/IDS/DWP will cut its workforce by more than a third in 5 years. It's madness.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:05 am

PorFavor wrote:I thought that the number of Free Schools that David Cameron was supposedly intending to open was in the high 200s (that was what I read yesterday). What's going on?

The long-anticipated, long-overdue total meltdown of the Tories (including Tory Blur) and their anti-human neo-liberal Thatcherite stupidity? I live in hope (just north of Peterborough and close to Landslide

)

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:06 am

PorFavor wrote:
citizenJA wrote:@Lonewolfie
500 free schools Dave is promising after talking up 153 just the other day.
The man's off his head.

Naturally, nefarious global finance doesn't help.
Goodness. What number should we expect tomorrow?

I find it interesting that this has come today alongside a feature on BBC about asbestos in schools:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31793017

It saddens me that the Future Schools programme under Labour that was in some cases replacing old schools with completely new built ones was scrapped and was replaced instead with the willy-nilly spending on free schools that has been used in some cases to convert old buildings which may have asbestos present. We had a great opportunity to make our schools fit for the future and its been thrown away and replaced with old offices without playgrounds in areas with plenty of school places already. Why does anyone think the Tories are competent or good with money? It really is beyond me.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:07 am

Balls seems to have changed his tune a bit since the Labour conference - which is a good thing, of course

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:14 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Balls seems to have changed his tune a bit since the Labour conference - which is a good thing, of course

I thought this was a killer.

'Balls says Osborne does not appreciate how a growing economy, and growing tax revenues, can contribute to deficit reduction. He is more of a historian than an economist.'

Now if only it'll get reported properly and perhaps referenced by future questioners of the Conservatives. Alternatively, SCAREMONGERING, SCAREMONGERING, SCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAREMONGERING!

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:18 am

SpinningHugo wrote:http://urban-echo.co.uk/exclusive-bradf ... veals-all/

moving if not seen.

Below is amusing

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/53803842-c029 ... z3TsYkO18E

I'd seen the first, but not the second - they could be set in totally different worlds! When you think of the vast gap between the two constituencies (not to mention the candidates) it's not really surprising that it's so hard to form consensus in this country. and that without bringing the Scots, Welsh and Irish in to the equation.
Thanks

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:23 am

RobertSnozers wrote:Council in Jeremy Hunt's constituency soending taxpayer's money to remove anti-TTIP signs from people's gardens

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey- ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can they do that? Remove a sign that is on someone's property?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:25 am

Lonewolfie wrote:
PorFavor wrote:I thought that the number of Free Schools that David Cameron was supposedly intending to open was in the high 200s (that was what I read yesterday). What's going on?
The long-anticipated, long-overdue total meltdown of the Tories (including Tory Blur) and their anti-human neo-liberal Thatcherite stupidity? I live in hope (just north of Peterborough and close to Landslide )

Whereas I live in Landslide!, sustained by its near neighbour Hope

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:36 am

ohsocynical wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:Council in Jeremy Hunt's constituency soending taxpayer's money to remove anti-TTIP signs from people's gardens

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey- ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Can they do that? Remove a sign that is on someone's property?

I'm not sure. There are rules regarding adverts but these placards weren't adverts, they were political endorsements. Does this mean a Tory council could just go round and remove Labour party placards because they are in breach of advertising rules? I'm struggling to see the difference between these TTIP signs and other political material. How is opposing TTIP an advert?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:36 am

citizenJA wrote:@Lonewolfie
500 free schools Dave is promising after talking up 153 just the other day.
The man's off his head.

Naturally, nefarious global finance doesn't help.

Just to clarify, the 153 is what is in the pipeline already to open in Sept 2015 and beyond - that was confirmed by the new list that the DfE put out this morning.

The 500 includes the 153 and also has schools that will be needed but as yet don't have a name, sponsors or anything else. I guess it's just based on projected pupil numbers and current spaces.

As I said earlier, I've never known a government be so train-spotterish about the numbers of schools that they're busily opening or converting. They're more interested in the numbers than ensuring decent oversight of them *cough* Durham Free School - opened 2013, closing at Easter *cough*

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:42 am

Willow904 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:Council in Jeremy Hunt's constituency soending taxpayer's money to remove anti-TTIP signs from people's gardens

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey- ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Can they do that? Remove a sign that is on someone's property?
I'm not sure. There are rules regarding adverts but these placards weren't adverts, they were political endorsements. Does this mean a Tory council could just go round and remove Labour party placards because they are in breach of advertising rules? I'm struggling to see the difference between these TTIP signs and other political material. How is opposing TTIP an advert?

I think the argument (such as it is) may be that they were a distraction to drivers, in which case the council would be within their rights to have them removed. Political posters in windows are presumably far enough from the road for them to be acceptable.
(Don't ask about posters on lamp posts).

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:47 am

Bloody good Rowson cartoon this morning.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... tin-rowson

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:48 am

And the benefits of a privatised Royal Mail start to appear:

ROYAL Mail is planning to cut collection times at thousands of post boxes across the country.
The scheme is being rolled out to 3,300 boxes north of the Border which carry 50 items or less a day as they do not cover their costs.
Collection times have been cut by up to nine hours with the last daily pick-up at some boxes now 9am Monday to Friday when it was previously 6pm.
The changes mean that first class letters posted later than 9am are unlikely to be collected until the next day.
On Saturdays those times have been cut, in some areas, to 7am when customers previously had until 12 noon to post letters.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/t ... -1-3713022

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:48 am

ohsocynical wrote:Bloody good Rowson cartoon this morning.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... tin-rowson

love the puddle.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:49 am

Eric_WLothian wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote: Can they do that? Remove a sign that is on someone's property?
I'm not sure. There are rules regarding adverts but these placards weren't adverts, they were political endorsements. Does this mean a Tory council could just go round and remove Labour party placards because they are in breach of advertising rules? I'm struggling to see the difference between these TTIP signs and other political material. How is opposing TTIP an advert?
I think the argument (such as it is) may be that they were a distraction to drivers, in which case the council would be within their rights to have them removed. Political posters in windows are presumably far enough from the road for them to be acceptable.
(Don't ask about posters on lamp posts).

I'm failing to see where it's different from For Sale signs
If they tried to remove a placard that was on my property, it'd be over my dead body.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:52 am

Oh dear.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 93895.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 11:53 am

StephenDolan wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:Bloody good Rowson cartoon this morning.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... tin-rowson
love the puddle.

He's even given Clegg a bit more body and a lot of defiance.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 12:05 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Oh dear.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 93895.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What like this? (This is my favourite version. Wrong country and so on but the sentiment stands. Anyway, enjoy it.)

With God On Our Side - Aaron Neville

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfmcUeueuhc

Any road up, let's hope this is as counterproductive as I suspect it will be.

Edited to insert a space

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 12:08 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote:
Willow904 wrote: I'm not sure. There are rules regarding adverts but these placards weren't adverts, they were political endorsements. Does this mean a Tory council could just go round and remove Labour party placards because they are in breach of advertising rules? I'm struggling to see the difference between these TTIP signs and other political material. How is opposing TTIP an advert?
I think the argument (such as it is) may be that they were a distraction to drivers, in which case the council would be within their rights to have them removed. Political posters in windows are presumably far enough from the road for them to be acceptable.
(Don't ask about posters on lamp posts).
I'm failing to see where it's different from For Sale signs
If they tried to remove a placard that was on my property, it'd be over my dead body.

Here's the can of worms you're opening

:

Some frequently displayed types of advertisement for which you need the planning
authority’s consent are:
virtually all posters
some illuminated signs
fascia signs and projecting signs on shop-fronts or business premises where
the top edge of the sign is more than 4.6 metres above ground level
most advertisements on gable-ends.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 326679.pdf (Page 26).

With a 32 page 'guide' to work with, councils could probably find a reason to remove anything, if they're so minded.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 12:18 pm

Oh dear, the England cricket team

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 12:21 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote: I think the argument (such as it is) may be that they were a distraction to drivers, in which case the council would be within their rights to have them removed. Political posters in windows are presumably far enough from the road for them to be acceptable.
(Don't ask about posters on lamp posts).
I'm failing to see where it's different from For Sale signs
If they tried to remove a placard that was on my property, it'd be over my dead body.
Here's the can of worms you're opening :

Some frequently displayed types of advertisement for which you need the planning
authority’s consent are:
virtually all posters
some illuminated signs
fascia signs and projecting signs on shop-fronts or business premises where
the top edge of the sign is more than 4.6 metres above ground level
most advertisements on gable-ends.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 326679.pdf (Page 26).

With a 32 page 'guide' to work with, councils could probably find a reason to remove anything, if they're so minded.

B******s !!!!!!!

Post by **adam** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 12:25 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I suspect the "Dave to get his own show" thing was just a bit of kite flying that will go nowhere, tbh.

I expect him to change his mind about the debates at the last moment, doing as much as possible to make sure that his appearance becomes the story, but if that doesn't happen, then as an alternative I expect the tories to demand that each section of the debate is concluded by David Dimbleby, or possiblly Benedict Cumberbatch, Emily from Bagpuss or The Queen, reading a statement written by the tories, with no comment or right to reply for anyone else.

Post by **adam** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 12:33 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:I know little about Scotland, I don't read Scottish papers and have only been there a dozen times or so. Some questions for those more well informed than me,

First, what is the position of the Unions? If, as now seems likely, Labour loses the majority of its seats in Scotland, or indeed is nearly wiped out, do the Unions stay loyal, or are they drifting towards the SNP?

Second, what is the best result for the SNP? I would have thought the best result was a majority Tory government. if they get that then independence looks irresistible.

Third, what is the worst result for the SNP? A majority Labour administration that successfully governed the UK from the left would, I would expect, be a disaster for them.

Fourth, could they enter a coalition? That seems impossible to me. You couldn't have (as you do with the Lib Dems) SNP ministers for, say, education, health or business as these either are or would be devolved matters

Fifth, if they informally supported a Labour minority administration, what reason would they have for it being a success (see point three)?

Sixth, beyond devo-more and the retention of the (utterly disgraceful) Barnett formula, what will they want to extract from any UK government?

I agree about the best/worsts that people have already said. I'd that I think any government on any issue needs to draw a very clear line against going straight back for another go after losing a referendum.