Tuesday 17th.March 2015
Forum rules
Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
Tuesday 17th.March 2015
Good morning, nesters!
There is an article on Conservative Home about the risks of doing business in China.
The author is Michael Green.
It says "Michael Green is a pseudonym. The author is a specialist in risk and compliance in international business".
ConHome could have used "John Smith" or any number of made-up names. But they chose "Michael Green".
Either they are very very stupid or someone there has a wicked sense of humour.
There is an article on Conservative Home about the risks of doing business in China.
The author is Michael Green.
It says "Michael Green is a pseudonym. The author is a specialist in risk and compliance in international business".
ConHome could have used "John Smith" or any number of made-up names. But they chose "Michael Green".
Either they are very very stupid or someone there has a wicked sense of humour.
"Poverty is the worst form of violence" - Mahatma Gandhi
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
Morning all.
Guardian calling for Shapps to be sacked,and Mr weighted clipped moving cross over blah blah himself is staunchly defending the party chairman.HoHo.
If this had happened within the labour party I'm certain that Ed would have fired him straight away.
Guardian calling for Shapps to be sacked,and Mr weighted clipped moving cross over blah blah himself is staunchly defending the party chairman.HoHo.
If this had happened within the labour party I'm certain that Ed would have fired him straight away.
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 7535
- Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 8:29 am
- Location: Being rained on in west Wales
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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;
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;
- Lonewolfie
- Lord Chancellor
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Fri 29 Aug, 2014 9:05 am
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
Morftingeveninooningtoningtonington all.
Are you sure it's not this Michael Green, Ephie? Another (powerful) broadcaster supporting and influencing Thatcher...and employing someone highly qualified in pointing at fish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gr ... magnate%29
...after all, he's still around and a favourite of OGRFG, attending Chequers in 2011 - along with a large number of bankers (typo)
http://socialistunity.com/the-ruling-class-at-chequers/
Perhaps that's where SebastianCorinneMichaelGrant FoxStockheathGreenShapiro (which is, apparently his actual real name (the Shapiro bit)) got the 'inspiration'....it is hard not to laugh - valid truth doublethink at it's most effective...I'm quite surprised the constituent (whos' name escapes me atm) hasn't indicated his intention to sue right back (emotional distress etc)...but, all in all, very easy to see why Tory vote share would be going up in the polls ....not!
No wonder OGRFG was so keen to get rid of the Green crap....Michael Green (Carlton), Lord Green (HSBC) and Grant (Green) Shapiro...oh, wait - not that sort of Green...oh right
I'm still mystified how anyone outside the Westmonster Bubble has ever seen Grunt Sh1tts (my personal favourite of his many pseudonyms) as anything other than an over-promoted vacuous a***-kisser of the highest order, put in place like most of OGRFGs cabinet - because there's no-one else to be relied upon to 'toe the line' and enthusiastically screech and squeal (and scream and scream) loudly until it all goes away (or the Bubble moves to another shiny squirrel).
Are you sure it's not this Michael Green, Ephie? Another (powerful) broadcaster supporting and influencing Thatcher...and employing someone highly qualified in pointing at fish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gr ... magnate%29
...after all, he's still around and a favourite of OGRFG, attending Chequers in 2011 - along with a large number of bankers (typo)
http://socialistunity.com/the-ruling-class-at-chequers/
Perhaps that's where SebastianCorinneMichaelGrant FoxStockheathGreenShapiro (which is, apparently his actual real name (the Shapiro bit)) got the 'inspiration'....it is hard not to laugh - valid truth doublethink at it's most effective...I'm quite surprised the constituent (whos' name escapes me atm) hasn't indicated his intention to sue right back (emotional distress etc)...but, all in all, very easy to see why Tory vote share would be going up in the polls ....not!
No wonder OGRFG was so keen to get rid of the Green crap....Michael Green (Carlton), Lord Green (HSBC) and Grant (Green) Shapiro...oh, wait - not that sort of Green...oh right
I'm still mystified how anyone outside the Westmonster Bubble has ever seen Grunt Sh1tts (my personal favourite of his many pseudonyms) as anything other than an over-promoted vacuous a***-kisser of the highest order, put in place like most of OGRFGs cabinet - because there's no-one else to be relied upon to 'toe the line' and enthusiastically screech and squeal (and scream and scream) loudly until it all goes away (or the Bubble moves to another shiny squirrel).
Proud to be 1 of the 76% - Solidarity...because PODEMOS
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8331
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:27 pm
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
Morning All!
So our esteemed Chancellor is trumpeting the biggest increase to Minimum Wage since, well forever really.
The increase is 20p per hour. Last year it was 19p.
So our esteemed Chancellor is trumpeting the biggest increase to Minimum Wage since, well forever really.
The increase is 20p per hour. Last year it was 19p.
- Lonewolfie
- Lord Chancellor
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Fri 29 Aug, 2014 9:05 am
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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 Ed ...and is Ms Sturgeon showing actual independent thought? (Not for the first time, IIRC)....definitely absolutely terribly awful disasterous news for Ed Milibandyahyah 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;
Last edited by Lonewolfie on Tue 17 Mar, 2015 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Proud to be 1 of the 76% - Solidarity...because PODEMOS
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 7535
- Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 8:29 am
- Location: Being rained on in west Wales
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
Edited to add:
The inheritance tax bribe for the rich is no going to be in the budget.
Is it Tory/Lib Dem staged propaganda so they can both appeal to their voters ?
------------------------------------------
Apart from the issue of drip feeding Tory/Lib 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;
The inheritance tax bribe for the rich is no going to be in the budget.
Is it Tory/Lib Dem staged propaganda so they can both appeal to their voters ?
------------------------------------------
Apart from the issue of drip feeding Tory/Lib 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;
- Lonewolfie
- Lord Chancellor
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Fri 29 Aug, 2014 9:05 am
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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
Proud to be 1 of the 76% - Solidarity...because PODEMOS
-
- Home Secretary
- Posts: 1767
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:44 pm
- Location: Neath Valley.
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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;
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 7535
- Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 8:29 am
- Location: Being rained on in west Wales
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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 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.
- Lonewolfie
- Lord Chancellor
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Fri 29 Aug, 2014 9:05 am
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
...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?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... hild-abuse
...but Empty Dave says it's a conspiracy theory, so who am I to argue?
Proud to be 1 of the 76% - Solidarity...because PODEMOS
- Lonewolfie
- Lord Chancellor
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Fri 29 Aug, 2014 9:05 am
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
....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.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -dead.html
...absolutely no connection whatsoever and totally unrelated (and unexplained) death...just like so many others....but the cat, as they say, is well and truly out of the bag and is starting to hunt and torment those 'in the know'.
Proud to be 1 of the 76% - Solidarity...because PODEMOS
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 7535
- Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 8:29 am
- Location: Being rained on in west Wales
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
The time scale mentioned in the BBC report is the 1980s, and an ex police commander seemed to think the story was credible. He also said such a thing could not happen [cover up] without high ranking police & political will.
Now let me see, who was in power in the 1980's ?
Now let me see, who was in power in the 1980's ?
- Lonewolfie
- Lord Chancellor
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Fri 29 Aug, 2014 9:05 am
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
There is, as they say, much more to come....the PIE Office in Queen Annes Gate (a Home Office building) from 1979...who was in the Home Office again?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 89051.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 89051.html
Proud to be 1 of the 76% - Solidarity...because PODEMOS
-
- Secretary of State
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 11:49 am
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
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.
- Attachments
-
- 1.jpg (14.94 KiB) Viewed 14341 times
- Lonewolfie
- Lord Chancellor
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Fri 29 Aug, 2014 9:05 am
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
Is it me? (Wouldn't be surprised )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.
Proud to be 1 of the 76% - Solidarity...because PODEMOS
- rearofthestore
- Committee Member
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:12 pm
- Location: In the High Peak from time to time.
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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 surprised )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.
-
- Backbencher
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:12 pm
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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 surprised )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.
As far as I can see if you right mouse click on the web address and click 'inspect element' there is a line that says open window on web addresses that will then open a separate window.
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
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.
"Poverty is the worst form of violence" - Mahatma Gandhi
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
Here's an article on the Telegraph which sums up my thoughts on the inheritance tax cut guff, basically its not going to attract any new voters to the Tory party, but will just emphasise their image as a party who are only interested in the wealthy South of England.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budg ... -rich.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Presumably its meant to lock in those traditional Tory voters who might be thinking of flirting with UKIP, but I don't think it will. UKIPers don't seem to really care about the economy, or their own financial situation, they're so wound up about immigration and the EU that everything else is irrelevant to them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budg ... -rich.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Presumably its meant to lock in those traditional Tory voters who might be thinking of flirting with UKIP, but I don't think it will. UKIPers don't seem to really care about the economy, or their own financial situation, they're so wound up about immigration and the EU that everything else is irrelevant to them.
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 10937
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:10 pm
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. – Aesop
- Lonewolfie
- Lord Chancellor
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Fri 29 Aug, 2014 9:05 am
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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
Proud to be 1 of the 76% - Solidarity...because PODEMOS
- TheGrimSqueaker
- Speaker of the House
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 12:23 pm
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
COWER BRIEF MORTALS. HO. HO. HO.
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
-
- Secretary of State
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 11:49 am
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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 ?
Applies to IE - other browsers are available
Edited to add: Oops - sorry. That's already been said.
Last edited by Eric_WLothian on Tue 17 Mar, 2015 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
- TechnicalEphemera
- Speaker of the House
- Posts: 2967
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:21 pm
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
Release the Guardvarks.
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
Deleted, to prevent another row kicking off
Last edited by pk1 on Tue 17 Mar, 2015 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Lonewolfie
- Lord Chancellor
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Fri 29 Aug, 2014 9:05 am
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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 lately (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.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.
Proud to be 1 of the 76% - Solidarity...because PODEMOS
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
-
- First Secretary of State
- Posts: 3725
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:15 pm
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
Of course she isn't being quoted accurately - it's the usual cherry-picking.
What she did say is that Labour is not the party of benefits (true) and that Labour was founded for and remains the party of working people (also true) - then she is alleged to have said that Labour is not the party of the welfare state, and that's what people jump on.
The impression is that she is not interested in people who claim benefits.
I appreciate that what she is actually going to do includes pausing UC, reforming the WCA, and stopping the appalling over-use of sanctions, and doing what she can to stop the rise in need for food banks. But that's not what people read when the headlines pick out things out of context, and that's why they're all up in arms this morning.
It's a juggling act - and yes, you can't please all the people all the time - but the stuff that went on over Mike Siviers' blog is exactly the sort of thing people are saying. Some usually sensible people are getting very angry with Labour because of this - they think, rightly or wrongly, that their livelihoods are suffering (and will continue to suffer if Labour get into office) for political expediency.
It's my hope - if not my belief - that Labour will do more to reverse much of the legislation that has been pushed through over the past 5 years, but although I appreciate that Reeves doesn't want to frighten off people who won't vote Labour if they are seen not to be tough on claimants, she (and all the others, actually) are alienating a lot of people unnecessarily.
I think that some Labour politicians under-estimate the strength of feeling on this. Some of the people I know are adamant they won't vote Labour because of it - it's pointless telling them that they'll have a better chance of getting what they want/need under a Labour government and zero chance with any other party, because they're too wound up by things like this.
I think Labour should just keep quiet about this now. They can't afford to lose more votes.
"Poverty is the worst form of violence" - Mahatma Gandhi
- TheGrimSqueaker
- Speaker of the House
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 12:23 pm
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
COWER BRIEF MORTALS. HO. HO. HO.
-
- First Secretary of State
- Posts: 3725
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:15 pm
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
Then there's the small matter of the debates.
Don't give up TGS.
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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?
One world, like it or not - John Martyn
-
- Secretary of State
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 11:49 am
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
People who have suffered under the DWP cosh and those who campaign for them are not seeing that - what they see is Reeves once again saying that Labour is not the party of the welfare state.
It is upsetting people because they are afraid that whoever they vote for, their lives are not going to get better. Whether they are right to think that is moot - but they think it anyway.
People with long-term illness and disability could do with some reassurance, and many of them feel they're not getting it from Labour.
I can understand why - although I don't think they're entirely correct.
All I ask for is that she just stops giving the press the soundbites that cause such distress. Don't underestimate how upset people get.
Rightly or wrongly, they DO get upset.
"Poverty is the worst form of violence" - Mahatma Gandhi
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 15686
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:26 pm
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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?
The rest of her reported comments are pretty unexceptionable, as others have already said.
"IS TONTY BLAIR BEHIND THIS???!!!!111???!!!"
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
"Poverty is the worst form of violence" - Mahatma Gandhi
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 10937
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:10 pm
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
She is right about Labour being formed by and for workers. What she fails to get across - although I can't see why she can't - is that if Labour can get people on a decent wage, with more taxes being paid they will be able to take care of the less well off.
Labour has to to concentrate on jobs and wages. If they can get those up and running a lot of other stuff will automatically fall into place.
Last edited by ohsocynical on Tue 17 Mar, 2015 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. – Aesop
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
So the furore is all about that quote, she hasn't said anything else?
If that is what she said then it is very poorly worded, even if she didn't mean it that way it makes it sound like Labour isn't interested in supporting and representing people who are out of work, so of course its going to make people who are currently in that situation think "well why the hell should I vote for them then."
I don't understand why she felt the need to day it at all, in what otherwise is a really positive article about changing the culture at the DWP, and ensuring that working people earn enough not to need top up benefits to make ends meet. She must be aware that she had probably the most sensitive job in the Shadow Cabinet, and everything she says will be picked to pieces by both left and right wing critics, so why give them any sort of amunition?
If that is what she said then it is very poorly worded, even if she didn't mean it that way it makes it sound like Labour isn't interested in supporting and representing people who are out of work, so of course its going to make people who are currently in that situation think "well why the hell should I vote for them then."
I don't understand why she felt the need to day it at all, in what otherwise is a really positive article about changing the culture at the DWP, and ensuring that working people earn enough not to need top up benefits to make ends meet. She must be aware that she had probably the most sensitive job in the Shadow Cabinet, and everything she says will be picked to pieces by both left and right wing critics, so why give them any sort of amunition?
- TheGrimSqueaker
- Speaker of the House
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 12:23 pm
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
COWER BRIEF MORTALS. HO. HO. HO.
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
Basically Ephe's right, she should shut up.
My Mum used to say, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
My Mum used to say, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
One world, like it or not - John Martyn
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
If we can stick together for another couple of months we'll be rid of them, maybe for good, if they implode into infighting and recriminations like I suspect. We've just got to keep the faith!!!
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 10937
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:10 pm
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
Should have added.
Labour being the party of the Welfare State is a Tory, UKIP, LibDem meme.
It's imperative that Labour captures the votes of working people on slightly better wage. To get across that they won't lose out if Labour gets in. Greed and selfishness is a big decider. Like it or not that's the reality.
Labour being the party of the Welfare State is a Tory, UKIP, LibDem meme.
It's imperative that Labour captures the votes of working people on slightly better wage. To get across that they won't lose out if Labour gets in. Greed and selfishness is a big decider. Like it or not that's the reality.
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. – Aesop
Re: Tuesday 17th.March 2015
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.
Labour will get 316. You heard it here first.
One world, like it or not - John Martyn