....not!
I'm feeling a bit odd - I want to commend Nicola Sturgeon on the response to Mr 'no Coalition with the SNP' Ed (who, I think, again did the right thing, even though the 'Coalition with the SNP' is a Murkydochian Westmonster 'wishitweretruesowe'llkeepsayingit'tilitis' factism) - effectively saying, we don't give a stuff as long as it's an anti-Tory (and their Little Help-themselves-ers) majority...so, that's definitely no job for Wee Eck in government post-May...how will Uncle Rupert react - all that money and effort positioning Salmond....and still no influence over Mr Edyahyah wrote:Morning !
Leanne Wood's been moaning that Ed's in "danger of handing the keys to power to a Tory-Ukip government" because he ruled out a coalition with the SNP.
Wood needs to consider that voting SNP, Plaid or Green in seats that Labour could win risks handing the keys of power to the Tories.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... rs-8854812" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...and is Ms Sturgeon showing actual independent thought? (Not for the first time, IIRC)....definitely absolutely terribly awful disasterous news for Ed Miliband 
Didn't they threaten that anyone who leaked details would face the boys in blue?yahyah wrote:Apart from the issue of drip feeding Tory budget plans to the media (whatever happened to a tight lipped Chancellor and his red box, the Budget first revealed to the country in the House ?) Osborne's help the rich plan is just so obvious, so depressing.
''George Osborne has drawn up plans that would allow parents to pass a main property worth up to £1m to their children without paying any inheritance tax, according to Treasury papers leaked ahead of Wednesday’s budget.
The proposed measure would also reduce the inheritance tax bill on properties worth up to £2m by £140,000 and the Treasury analysis concludes that the scheme would “most likely benefit high income and wealthier households”.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/m ... households" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Unfortunately for Ed Miliband he has a 1001 and one things to consider when thinking of a coalition with any party, especially one whose main objective is the break up of the union. Easy for Wood's to make glib comments.yahyah wrote:Morning !
Leanne Wood's been moaning that Ed's in "danger of handing the keys to power to a Tory-Ukip government" because he ruled out a coalition with the SNP.
Wood needs to consider that voting SNP, Plaid or Green in seats that Labour could win risks handing the keys of power to the Tories.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... rs-8854812" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
....but....but...it's a conspiracy theory, Yah Yah....and we know what can happen to whistleblowers, wherever they may be and whichever whistle they might blow (so being silenced by the OSA could be seen as 'mild')....yahyah wrote:Talking of whistleblowers; the BBC story about police officers allegedly being threatened with the Official Secrets Act if they did spilled the beans about Cyril Smith & his pals sick and illegal activities...
Why has Cameron not made any move to officially remove the legal threat against ex and serving officers ?
Just asking, as he has been making a lot of public PR noise about child abuse recently.
Why another inquiry? There's already one covering Parliament which would surely encompass any cover-up (Fernbridge). What are the odds that Fernbridge will shelve prosecutions in case they affect the ongoing PCC inquiry?Lonewolfie wrote:...and speaking of the boys in blue, I apologise now for the nature of this link so early, but I'm not sure that this was mentioned yesterday....
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... hild-abuse
...but Empty Dave says it's a conspiracy theory, so who am I to argue?
Is it me? (Wouldn't be surprisedpk1 wrote:I have a question for our IT specialists:
Why is it that sometimes I can click on a link in a post & it opens in a new tab & at other times, I'm directed there from this tab ?
Today, I have clicked on yahyah's post to Wales Online & it opened a new tab but all of Lonewolfies links open from this page thus forcing me to remember to click the back button to get back here.
Why is it different & what can I do to make sure every link opens in a new tab ? My pc settings are for links to automatically open in new tabs so it has to be something unique to this site.
)
I have wondered about this too. My uneducated assumption is that if the link is contained in a quotes box it opens in same tab but if quote sits outside a quotes box it opens in a new tab. I don't know why but seems to be the case.Lonewolfie wrote:Is it me? (Wouldn't be surprisedpk1 wrote:I have a question for our IT specialists:
Why is it that sometimes I can click on a link in a post & it opens in a new tab & at other times, I'm directed there from this tab ?
Today, I have clicked on yahyah's post to Wales Online & it opened a new tab but all of Lonewolfies links open from this page thus forcing me to remember to click the back button to get back here.
Why is it different & what can I do to make sure every link opens in a new tab ? My pc settings are for links to automatically open in new tabs so it has to be something unique to this site.
Good Morning.rearofthestore wrote:I have wondered about this too. My uneducated assumption is that if the link is contained in a quotes box it opens in same tab but if quote sits outside a quotes box it opens in a new tab. I don't know why but seems to be the case.Lonewolfie wrote:Is it me? (Wouldn't be surprisedpk1 wrote:I have a question for our IT specialists:
Why is it that sometimes I can click on a link in a post & it opens in a new tab & at other times, I'm directed there from this tab ?
Today, I have clicked on yahyah's post to Wales Online & it opened a new tab but all of Lonewolfies links open from this page thus forcing me to remember to click the back button to get back here.
Why is it different & what can I do to make sure every link opens in a new tab ? My pc settings are for links to automatically open in new tabs so it has to be something unique to this site.
Yep. Read it the other day...More hot air.Lonewolfie wrote:Didn't they threaten that anyone who leaked details would face the boys in blue?yahyah wrote:Apart from the issue of drip feeding Tory budget plans to the media (whatever happened to a tight lipped Chancellor and his red box, the Budget first revealed to the country in the House ?) Osborne's help the rich plan is just so obvious, so depressing.
''George Osborne has drawn up plans that would allow parents to pass a main property worth up to £1m to their children without paying any inheritance tax, according to Treasury papers leaked ahead of Wednesday’s budget.
The proposed measure would also reduce the inheritance tax bill on properties worth up to £2m by £140,000 and the Treasury analysis concludes that the scheme would “most likely benefit high income and wealthier households”.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/m ... households" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31876623
...oh no, silly me....that's just the Plebs
As I understand it, the Met referred themselves to the PCC due to the seriousness of the alleged actions of some police officers (from the Met and elsewhere) and some of the alleged 'covering-up' (making it very difficult for them to investigate themselves) - IMHO the fact that it is now with the PCC (as an independent body) makes it more likely that truths will be told - the vast majority of police, politicians, BBC & NHS employees have the human response to child cruelty and want to 'do the right thing' - it is, however, very difficult if no-one else acts and the 'system' is against you - as I opined above, the cat is out of the bag and the worms are everywhere - given the likelihood that once the 'truth is out there' the Monarchy, parliament (and it's actions over the last 35+ years) the Secret Services, military etc etc will be under the microscope, it needs to be very carefully handled (as the shock to those who are still oblivious will be profound)Eric_WLothian wrote:Why another inquiry? There's already one covering Parliament which would surely encompass any cover-up (Fernbridge). What are the odds that Fernbridge will shelve prosecutions in case they affect the ongoing PCC inquiry?Lonewolfie wrote:...and speaking of the boys in blue, I apologise now for the nature of this link so early, but I'm not sure that this was mentioned yesterday....
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... hild-abuse
...but Empty Dave says it's a conspiracy theory, so who am I to argue?
Seems to me that there is an awful lot of prevarication and foot-dragging.
For those interested, here is a list of the 13 (yes thirteen) CSA inquiries:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28194271
As I've said before, I'm not Reeves biggest fan, but are you sure she is being quoted accurately? I saw a tweet from Dawn Foster which still references the "tougher than the Tories" line which we know was a misquote; the Guardian have an agenda and, at the moment, I wouldn't trust them if they told me daffodils were yellow.ephemerid wrote:Also -
Happy St.Patrick's Day.
Happy Commonwealth Day.
And I wish Rachel Reeves would just be quiet.
Pleeeeeaaase, Rachel.
The disability Bloggers and Tweeters are up in arms this morning.
With reason.
Use the right button on your mouse on the link & choose 'open link in new tab'.pk1 wrote:I have a question for our IT specialists:
Why is it that sometimes I can click on a link in a post & it opens in a new tab & at other times, I'm directed there from this tab ?
Today, I have clicked on yahyah's post to Wales Online & it opened a new tab but all of Lonewolfies links open from this page thus forcing me to remember to click the back button to get back here.
Why is it different & what can I do to make sure every link opens in a new tab ? My pc settings are for links to automatically open in new tabs so it has to be something unique to this site.
Yes I know I can do that but you know, sometimes it's easier just to click the link & expect to be taken to a new place, in accordance with the settings on one's own computer.citizenJA wrote:Use the right button on your mouse on the link & choose 'open link in new tab'.pk1 wrote:I have a question for our IT specialists:
Why is it that sometimes I can click on a link in a post & it opens in a new tab & at other times, I'm directed there from this tab ?
Today, I have clicked on yahyah's post to Wales Online & it opened a new tab but all of Lonewolfies links open from this page thus forcing me to remember to click the back button to get back here.
Why is it different & what can I do to make sure every link opens in a new tab ? My pc settings are for links to automatically open in new tabs so it has to be something unique to this site.
What has she said now? I've just read the article in the Guardian about cutting sanctions and holding a review into Universal Credit but I didn't see anything about disability benefits.ephemerid wrote:Also -
Happy St.Patrick's Day.
Happy Commonwealth Day.
And I wish Rachel Reeves would just be quiet.
Pleeeeeaaase, Rachel.
The disability Bloggers and Tweeters are up in arms this morning.
With reason.
Right-click on the link. A popup menu then offers the options to 'open' (same window as the link); 'open in new tab' or 'open in new window'.pk1 wrote:
...what can I do to make sure every link opens in a new tab ?
Why ? What's been said now ?ephemerid wrote:Also -
Happy St.Patrick's Day.
Happy Commonwealth Day.
And I wish Rachel Reeves would just be quiet.
Pleeeeeaaase, Rachel.
The disability Bloggers and Tweeters are up in arms this morning.
With reason.
There is nothing objectionable in the Reeves article, which is really about sorting out sanctions so they aren't punitive.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:As I've said before, I'm not Reeves biggest fan, but are you sure she is being quoted accurately? I saw a tweet from Dawn Foster which still references the "tougher than the Tories" line which we know was a misquote; the Guardian have an agenda and, at the moment, I wouldn't trust them if they told me daffodils were yellow.ephemerid wrote:Also -
Happy St.Patrick's Day.
Happy Commonwealth Day.
And I wish Rachel Reeves would just be quiet.
Pleeeeeaaase, Rachel.
The disability Bloggers and Tweeters are up in arms this morning.
With reason.
Not sure about the quotes being correct, but I'm with Ephie on this - they know it'll be twisted so either don't say anything at all or come out all guns blazing about the state and scale of Fraud/Purnell/IDS/McViles' cruelty and incompetence (and yes, it all started under Tory Blur and Neo-lie-bore), citing the masses of evidence that exists...my hope (which is where I live, although apparently it's gone a bit downmarket latelyTheGrimSqueaker wrote:As I've said before, I'm not Reeves biggest fan, but are you sure she is being quoted accurately? I saw a tweet from Dawn Foster which still references the "tougher than the Tories" line which we know was a misquote; the Guardian have an agenda and, at the moment, I wouldn't trust them if they told me daffodils were yellow.ephemerid wrote:Also -
Happy St.Patrick's Day.
Happy Commonwealth Day.
And I wish Rachel Reeves would just be quiet.
Pleeeeeaaase, Rachel.
The disability Bloggers and Tweeters are up in arms this morning.
With reason.
(I'm looking at you, AAW!)) is that something stronger will be said over the next 7 weeks as I can't understand why, when Labour can state absolute opposition to the Bedroom Tax, the Badger Cull, MPs 2nd jobs etc, they also can't say something that will spike the guns of the 'they're all the same' brigade and provide some comfort for those being persecuted, bullied and frightened by the Coalition for Cruelty.Bugger, if I had read your post before posting mine, I needn't have botheredTechnicalEphemera wrote: There is nothing objectionable in the Reeves article, which is really about sorting out sanctions so they aren't punitive.
The Labour Party is the party of working people not the unemployed, always has been. The objective is to get the unemployed into decent jobs that pay, always has been. The reason she has to say stuff like this is the media, it would be wonderful for the Tories if IDS could paint Labour as a soft touch who will give away all your cash to the feckless.
Why that is upsetting people is beyond me.
Completely agree. I'm wondering if who said that has a input into how what said is interpreted.TechnicalEphemera wrote:There is nothing objectionable in the Reeves article, which is really about sorting out sanctions so they aren't punitive.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:As I've said before, I'm not Reeves biggest fan, but are you sure she is being quoted accurately? I saw a tweet from Dawn Foster which still references the "tougher than the Tories" line which we know was a misquote; the Guardian have an agenda and, at the moment, I wouldn't trust them if they told me daffodils were yellow.ephemerid wrote:Also -
Happy St.Patrick's Day.
Happy Commonwealth Day.
And I wish Rachel Reeves would just be quiet.
Pleeeeeaaase, Rachel.
The disability Bloggers and Tweeters are up in arms this morning.
With reason.
The Labour Party is the party of working people not the unemployed, always has been. The objective is to get the unemployed into decent jobs that pay, always has been. The reason she has to say stuff like this is the media, it would be wonderful for the Tories if IDS could paint Labour as a soft touch who will give away all your cash to the feckless.
Why that is upsetting people is beyond me.
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:As I've said before, I'm not Reeves biggest fan, but are you sure she is being quoted accurately? I saw a tweet from Dawn Foster which still references the "tougher than the Tories" line which we know was a misquote; the Guardian have an agenda and, at the moment, I wouldn't trust them if they told me daffodils were yellow.ephemerid wrote:Also -
Happy St.Patrick's Day.
Happy Commonwealth Day.
And I wish Rachel Reeves would just be quiet.
Pleeeeeaaase, Rachel.
The disability Bloggers and Tweeters are up in arms this morning.
With reason.
Polling figures show Cameron won't be PM again. The man who, with an open goal couldn't score a majority.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:If Reeves genuinely said that then she is irredeemably stupid, but I'm still suspicious as the Guardian have serious form with misquoting her words. I tend to agree with Lonewolfie, possibly best to say nothing if you know what you do say will get twisted. But I'm close to giving up anyway, I think Lynton is winning and can no longer see the point of fighting.
That's a horrible line and I'm not surprised if people are upset.we’re not.. the party to represent those who are out of work,
I agree with what you say but according to the report in the Scotsman, the IPCC are just managing the investigation by the Met - ie the Met are still investigating themselves. Seems to me that the allegations of a cover-up have been there from day one and perhaps a multi-force team should have been set up in the first place, or non-Met officers should now be seconded to Fernbridge to pursue the historic links to the Met.Lonewolfie wrote:As I understand it, the Met referred themselves to the PCC due to the seriousness of the alleged actions of some police officers (from the Met and elsewhere) and some of the alleged 'covering-up' (making it very difficult for them to investigate themselves) - IMHO the fact that it is now with the PCC (as an independent body) makes it more likely that truths will be told - the vast majority of police, politicians, BBC & NHS employees have the human response to child cruelty and want to 'do the right thing' - it is, however, very difficult if no-one else acts and the 'system' is against you - as I opined above, the cat is out of the bag and the worms are everywhere - given the likelihood that once the 'truth is out there' the Monarchy, parliament (and it's actions over the last 35+ years) the Secret Services, military etc etc will be under the microscope, it needs to be very carefully handled (as the shock to those who are still oblivious will be profound)Eric_WLothian wrote:Why another inquiry? There's already one covering Parliament which would surely encompass any cover-up (Fernbridge). What are the odds that Fernbridge will shelve prosecutions in case they affect the ongoing PCC inquiry?Lonewolfie wrote:...and speaking of the boys in blue, I apologise now for the nature of this link so early, but I'm not sure that this was mentioned yesterday....
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... hild-abuse
...but Empty Dave says it's a conspiracy theory, so who am I to argue?
Seems to me that there is an awful lot of prevarication and foot-dragging.
For those interested, here is a list of the 13 (yes thirteen) CSA inquiries:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28194271
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
There is nothing objectionable in the Reeves article, which is really about sorting out sanctions so they aren't punitive.
The Labour Party is the party of working people not the unemployed, always has been. The objective is to get the unemployed into decent jobs that pay, always has been. The reason she has to say stuff like this is the media, it would be wonderful for the Tories if IDS could paint Labour as a soft touch who will give away all your cash to the feckless.
Why that is upsetting people is beyond me.
But that is the bit that has possibly been spun by the media (like the infamous "tougher than the Tories" trope was)gilsey wrote:That's a horrible line and I'm not surprised if people are upset.we’re not.. the party to represent those who are out of work,
Who is going to stand up for the disadvantaged if not Labour?
Don't give up, TGS.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:If Reeves genuinely said that then she is irredeemably stupid, but I'm still suspicious as the Guardian have serious form with misquoting her words. I tend to agree with Lonewolfie, possibly best to say nothing if you know what you do say will get twisted. But I'm close to giving up anyway, I think Lynton is winning and can no longer see the point of fighting.
Reading her words, I think she's just rubbish at expressing herself properly.Tish wrote:What has she said now? I've just read the article in the Guardian about cutting sanctions and holding a review into Universal Credit but I didn't see anything about disability benefits.ephemerid wrote:Also -
Happy St.Patrick's Day.
Happy Commonwealth Day.
And I wish Rachel Reeves would just be quiet.
Pleeeeeaaase, Rachel.
The disability Bloggers and Tweeters are up in arms this morning.
With reason.
I did think that this was unecessary though -
"However, Reeves said Labour did not want to be seen to be the party of the welfare state. “We are not the party of people on benefits. We don’t want to be seen, and we’re not, the party to represent those who are out of work,” she said. “Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people.”
If Labour aren't the party of people on benefits then who the hell is? UKIP? The BNP? Do you not deserve political represantation if you are on benefits? She doesn't seem to understand how dehumnising that argument is, becouse then later on she says:
"She hoped to see a shift in tone if Labour came to power. “I would never use language like scroungers, shirkers,”
which is all well and good, but does that mean that you can still treat people on benefits as somehow lesser people as long as you don't call them rude names while you do so? Becouse that doesn't seem like much of a step on.
And that is what people should be aware of & voting to prevent. All the non-votes will do is increase the Cons chances.ephemerid wrote:Don't give up, TGS.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:If Reeves genuinely said that then she is irredeemably stupid, but I'm still suspicious as the Guardian have serious form with misquoting her words. I tend to agree with Lonewolfie, possibly best to say nothing if you know what you do say will get twisted. But I'm close to giving up anyway, I think Lynton is winning and can no longer see the point of fighting.
I won't.
Whatever happens with our individual pets issues (and we've all got 'em) the only thing we can be absolutely sure of is that if the Tories get another 5 years we'll all be sunk.
But people are out there shouting that there is no difference between the parties, that Labour don't deserve their vote, that they will vote Green, TUSC, anything for a change. I'm a f***ing Red Tory, an irrelevance, my opinion is worth less than nothing. Intelligent people are swallowing the lies and sleepwalking over the edge of a cliff; problem is, they are dragging the rest of us with them as well and I can no longer see a way to prevent it. Ah well, if we're all that goddamned stupid we deserve everything we get, we deserve a proper evil bastard unfettered Tory Government; I won't survive it, but never mind.pk1 wrote:And that is what people should be aware of & voting to prevent. All the non-votes will do is increase the Cons chances.ephemerid wrote:Don't give up, TGS.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:If Reeves genuinely said that then she is irredeemably stupid, but I'm still suspicious as the Guardian have serious form with misquoting her words. I tend to agree with Lonewolfie, possibly best to say nothing if you know what you do say will get twisted. But I'm close to giving up anyway, I think Lynton is winning and can no longer see the point of fighting.
I won't.
Whatever happens with our individual pets issues (and we've all got 'em) the only thing we can be absolutely sure of is that if the Tories get another 5 years we'll all be sunk.
They are so not winning, they're trying to pretend that they are to demoralise us, but its bullshit. All they've got to offer is the warmed up remains of long discredited policies (selling off council houses that hardly anybody is lucky enough to have any more, cutting inheritance tax for the tiny minoroty of people who own million pound properties, more and more privitisation, which poll after poll shows the majority of people don't want).TheGrimSqueaker wrote:If Reeves genuinely said that then she is irredeemably stupid, but I'm still suspicious as the Guardian have serious form with misquoting her words. I tend to agree with Lonewolfie, possibly best to say nothing if you know what you do say will get twisted. But I'm close to giving up anyway, I think Lynton is winning and can no longer see the point of fighting.
The difference between you and me is that I believe there are good numbers of good people who don't swallow the lies, who understand the issues and agree with you. They just don't make as much noise. They'll turn out to vote, you'll see.TheGrimSqueaker wrote: But people are out there shouting that there is no difference between the parties, that Labour don't deserve their vote, that they will vote Green, TUSC, anything for a change. I'm a f***ing Red Tory, an irrelevance, my opinion is worth less than nothing. Intelligent people are swallowing the lies and sleepwalking over the edge of a cliff; problem is, they are dragging the rest of us with them as well and I can no longer see a way to prevent it. Ah well, if we're all that goddamned stupid we deserve everything we get, we deserve a proper evil bastard unfettered Tory Government; I won't survive it, but never mind.
