FlyTheNest

Eric_WLothian wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:SNP
I loathe the SNP. A mendacious party. I hate nationalism in all its forms. The left and nationalists are enemies. That is true in all times and places.

If the SNP want to vote for a Labour queens speech, or give Labour a vote if confidence (or abstain) fine.

But we should not pretend that the SNP have any interest in a successful leftwing government of the United Kingdom. They don't.

No deals. They can support Labour or the Tories. Up to them.

Govern as we can, and then call a second election (see 1974).

I agree completely. The SNP's constant cry is 'more for Scotland'. If Scotland gets more, another part of the UK gets less. In my opinion this is a 100% Tory point of view "me, me, me, and stuff anybody else". (It's certainly not socialist).
It is obviously in the SNP's interest to try to engineer a Tory government in Westminster. Trying to split the Labour vote is one way of helping towards this objective.

While I don't often dust off the tinfoil hat, I think there's a degree of truth here:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/david-madd ... -1-3713938

Wish nobody had committed to Barnett.

Needs based or clear off.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote: Probably, but as a producer your job is to make the program and keep out of the way of the stars.

I suggest that getting into a fracas with Clarkson suggests you have failed in that job description. It isn't really a normal work environment.

I can't express just how much I don't agree with that viewpoint.

The real world is money, it is why EC didn't get sacked at ManU for booting a fan - on camera.

Top Gear was the biggest selling DVD in the UK last year. It brings in a huge chunk of the BBC revenue for overseas sales. It is so lucrative the BBC paid Clarkson a fortune to buy him out of the rights.

We are talking hundreds of millions of pounds here.

So yes I rather think the BBC will let this slide.

Could they not do the show without him?

Owen Smith MP ‏@OwenSmithMP · 2h2 hours ago
@MidWalesMike @kb32904 @ephemerid213 @Hephaestus7 It should go without saying, but this is obviously a lie. I would never say such a thing.

Mike Sivier
‏@MidWalesMike @OwenSmithMP I beg yr pardon, but it isn't. It's an honest comment on what you were saying based on knowledge of the subject. @Hephaestus7

So, even after Smith denies he made the comments Sivier keeps calling him a liar, but in the open finally.

Goodnight, PF

RobertSnozers wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote: I can't express just how much I don't agree with that viewpoint.

The real world is money, it is why EC didn't get sacked at ManU for booting a fan - on camera.

Top Gear was the biggest selling DVD in the UK last year. It brings in a huge chunk of the BBC revenue for overseas sales. It is so lucrative the BBC paid Clarkson a fortune to buy him out of the rights.

We are talking hundreds of millions of pounds here.

So yes I rather think the BBC will let this slide.

You seem to be suggesting that judt because someone is rich and powerful it's OK that they play by different rules to the rest of us? Isn't that everything we're supposed to be fighting against here?

I'm in agreement with Robert on this issue.

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:

Owen Smith MP ‏@OwenSmithMP · 2h2 hours ago
@MidWalesMike @kb32904 @ephemerid213 @Hephaestus7 It should go without saying, but this is obviously a lie. I would never say such a thing.

Mike Sivier
‏@MidWalesMike @OwenSmithMP I beg yr pardon, but it isn't. It's an honest comment on what you were saying based on knowledge of the subject. @Hephaestus7

So, even after Smith denies he made the comments Sivier keeps calling him a liar, but in the open finally.

I can't see how MS can say that, based upon what has been shown? Am I missing something?

I don't care who someone is.
Throw punches, booked for assault.
Violence is unacceptable.

Stephen Dolan
I'm utterly bewildered by Mike Sivier's accusations & behaviour.
If you're missing something, so am I.

StephenDolan wrote:

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:

Owen Smith MP ‏@OwenSmithMP · 2h2 hours ago
@MidWalesMike @kb32904 @ephemerid213 @Hephaestus7 It should go without saying, but this is obviously a lie. I would never say such a thing.

Mike Sivier
‏@MidWalesMike @OwenSmithMP I beg yr pardon, but it isn't. It's an honest comment on what you were saying based on knowledge of the subject. @Hephaestus7

So, even after Smith denies he made the comments Sivier keeps calling him a liar, but in the open finally.

I can't see how MS can say that, based upon what has been shown? Am I missing something?

I suspect he is has dug in too deeply and is too embarrassed to back down. He's now acting as though he is the only person fighting the WCA, which is incredibly disrespectful for all those who have been fighting against it for so long; his replies to people like Ephe are dismissive in the extreme. He has lost much respect today, and he really isn't getting it.

citizenJA wrote:Stephen Dolan
I'm utterly bewildered by Mike Sivier's accusations & behaviour.
If you're missing something, so am I.

This is the Facebook post that "inspired" MS blog post "Why are disabled people being asked to die for Labour’s election hopes" it starts with
"Comrades, we heard from Owen Smith MP today (a member of the left wing of the of the Labour Party leadership) that it is important for disabled people to continue to die"

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is MS blog
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/03/1 ... ion-hopes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
HTH

Mike Sivier's got into a mess in my view because of the 10,600 figure. It's a rogue one.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomch ... ply-wrong/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 10,600 figure comes from this awful, impenetrably written Freedom of Information response, from July 2012. It says that "In total, between January 2011 and November 2011, some 10,600 claims ended and a date of death was recorded within six weeks of the claim end." But I've spoken to the DWP, and while that figure is correct, the "within six weeks" bit, bizarrely, does not mean "within the following six weeks": it means "within six weeks either side".
What that means is that the large, presumably overwhelming, majority of those 10,600 people died, and then their claims ended because they were dead.

AngryAsWell wrote:

citizenJA wrote:Stephen Dolan
I'm utterly bewildered by Mike Sivier's accusations & behaviour.
If you're missing something, so am I.

This is the Facebook post that "inspired" MS blog post "Why are disabled people being asked to die for Labour’s election hopes" it starts with
"Comrades, we heard from Owen Smith MP today (a member of the left wing of the of the Labour Party leadership) that it is important for disabled people to continue to die"

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is MS blog
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/03/1 ... ion-hopes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
HTH

Thank you, AAW. I've not missed anything.

Mike Sivier ‏@MidWalesMike · 4m4 minutes ago
@AndyLucia In a choice between concern for my rep and concern for people's lives, I'll take the latter- every time @Hephaestus7 @OwenSmithMP

Arrogant ****.

TheGrimSqueaker ‏@AndyLucia · 5m5 minutes ago
@MidWalesMike @Hephaestus7 @OwenSmithMP Wow!! Cold up in that ivory tower Mike? You have dismissed opinions of ppl who live this shit ....

TheGrimSqueaker ‏@AndyLucia · 4m4 minutes ago
@MidWalesMike @Hephaestus7 @OwenSmithMP .... and now you are the White Knight on a steed come to save them? Sheer arrogance.

Steve Bell on Jeremy Clarkson – cartoon

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... on-cartoon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems Mike is happy to dish out the criticism, but doesn't like it when faced with a few home truths.

Mike Sivier ‏@MidWalesMike · 36s36 seconds ago
@AndyLucia I'm happy to discuss this in a reasonable way but now you are not being reasonable. Blocking you now. @Hephaestus7 @OwenSmithMP

Ah well, another day of watching the Left shoot itself in the foot is over. Good night all.

Jonathan Simons @PXEducation · 5h 5 hours ago
The only solution to Top Gear is to have 3 episodes - two with 7 presenters, and one with just 2 who realistically could replace Clarkson

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:It seems Mike is happy to dish out the criticism, but doesn't like it when faced with a few home truths.

Mike Sivier ‏@MidWalesMike · 36s36 seconds ago
@AndyLucia I'm happy to discuss this in a reasonable way but now you are not being reasonable. Blocking you now. @Hephaestus7 @OwenSmithMP

Ah well, another day of watching the Left shoot itself in the foot is over. Good night all.

Night, take care of you xx

Goodnight, TGS

Night PF

RogerOThornhill wrote:Jonathan Simons @PXEducation · 5h 5 hours ago
The only solution to Top Gear is to have 3 episodes - two with 7 presenters, and one with just 2 who realistically could replace Clarkson

He's got a good sense of humour.

ohsocynical wrote:I hope RebeccaRiots is okay...She's not been around.

I was wondering about her, myself, whilst making dinner!

LadyCentauria wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:I hope RebeccaRiots is okay...She's not been around.

I was wondering about her, myself, whilst making dinner!

I had a quick check and she wasn't on here at the weekend either so that's four days.


If Dan, Ernst or Paul have a means of contacting her other than here perhaps they could check everything is okay. It's not like her to be gone for so long.

goodnight, everyone
love
JA

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Mike Sivier's got into a mess in my view because of the 10,600 figure. It's a rogue one.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomch ... ply-wrong/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 10,600 figure comes from this awful, impenetrably written Freedom of Information response, from July 2012. It says that "In total, between January 2011 and November 2011, some 10,600 claims ended and a date of death was recorded within six weeks of the claim end." But I've spoken to the DWP, and while that figure is correct, the "within six weeks" bit, bizarrely, does not mean "within the following six weeks": it means "within six weeks either side".
What that means is that the large, presumably overwhelming, majority of those 10,600 people died, and then their claims ended because they were dead.

The Telegraph's blogger made a pretty wild assumption, himself, that because the deaths might have occurred either before or after the claim ending "the large, presumably overwhelming, majority" died and, therefore, their claim ended. That assumption does not automatically follow, any more than does the opposite. It just means that insufficient records are kept and that the deaths occurred within six weeks either side of the claim ending.

Good night PF, cJA, and TGS. Let's all hope that tomorrow is filled with Tories shooting themselves in the foot, instead!

LadyCentauria wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Mike Sivier's got into a mess in my view because of the 10,600 figure. It's a rogue one.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomch ... ply-wrong/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 10,600 figure comes from this awful, impenetrably written Freedom of Information response, from July 2012. It says that "In total, between January 2011 and November 2011, some 10,600 claims ended and a date of death was recorded within six weeks of the claim end." But I've spoken to the DWP, and while that figure is correct, the "within six weeks" bit, bizarrely, does not mean "within the following six weeks": it means "within six weeks either side".
What that means is that the large, presumably overwhelming, majority of those 10,600 people died, and then their claims ended because they were dead.

The Telegraph's blogger made a pretty wild assumption, himself, that because the deaths might have occurred either before or after the claim ending "the large, presumably overwhelming, majority" died and, therefore, their claim ended. That assumption does not automatically follow, any more than does the opposite. It just means that insufficient records are kept and that the deaths occurred within six weeks either side of the claim ending.

Nobody has found anything like 10,600 cases, or even 600 cases over the entire Parliament, let alone over a few months in 2011.

Even in job scheme pilots, the DWP isn't interested in you once you come off an out of work benefit. So it's not interested in people dying after they've lost ESA.

Tubby, perhaps what all this shows is that the DWP needs to keep better records, make at least some attempt to find out what does happen to people after their claim ends, make sure that its statements (and responses to FOI requests) are carefully written to ensure their meaning is clear, backed up with accurate figures and/or charts. It really should be simple enough to say x claims were closed within six weeks following death of terminally-ill claimant, rather than the odd wording they used.

I knew, personally, someone who died (from the condition under which her ESA claim was made) just five weeks after her she was declared fit-for-work. She was appealing against the decision at the time. Her family advised the DWP and submitted a copy of her death certificate to be attached to her appeal papers. So, they are made aware of at least some deaths following negative ESA decisions. Perhaps they just don't record them in a way that allows for that sort of information to be easily retrieved.

Well, here's some news to cheer us all up (I hope!):

Plans to privatise up to £75m worth of NHS services in Cornwall have been abandoned, bosses have confirmed.

Last year, NHS Kernow was asking for bids to run services including outpatient appointments, follow ups and non-complex operations in cardiology, gynaecology and general surgery.

However, the clinical commissioning group said procurement of the services was now not the way forward.

Union bosses welcomed the decision calling it a "turning point".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-31503707