LondonLax

Both of those issues are a direct result of the drug being illegal rather than anything to do with the drug itself.

He has good close control, he will probably end up being a centre mid rather than a winger. The way he can twist and turn out of trouble when surrounded by opponents is a useful skill.

A lot of the problems with illegal drugs comes from the face that they are illegal and there is no regulation in their manufacture or any guide to the dosage.

It would be a lot easier to kill yourself on a single night on alcohol if it were made illegally. Perhaps labelled as 10% when it was actually 55% strength, mixed with turpentine or some other chemical to thin it out etc etc.

The first half was poor but at least we got control of the game a bit in the second. We never really looked like we would score though. Young hitting the outside of the post and Clark heading wide was a close as we got.

I'll try again, do you think there should be a limit on the amount paid out in HB/LHA and if so what should it be?

The limit on the amount paid out is not the real issue here. It's the other sneeky clauses that are not getting any publicity that are the real problem.

Hang about, you sign on and then go to work? How does that 'work'? Is it a part-time thing?

Part time. Very part time, until I can get my hours up.

If you work under 16 hours you can still claim Jobseekers, they just adjust it to the amount you've already earned (meaning that it's actually pointless getting a part time job since you'd achieve the same thing money wise by not bothering to work at all). Still, I'd rather be doing some work than none at all.

Annoyingly I've realised that it might be a little tight with my signing on and going to work so gonna have to ring to see if I can postpone going to the job centre till Monday.

The Australian system when I was getting student allowance was that you lost 50c of welfare for every $1 you earn which is at least a bit better at incentivising work.

Boris Johnson, champion of the working man.

I love Boris, he's brilliant.

I'd shoot a man if he dared to put cinnamon in my curry. Horrible flavour.

You have probably eaten it in almost every curry you have had

It just blends in when there are so many spices.

I would rather get Man U in the quarter finals than in the semis (over two legs) or the final (when they will be playing their first 11)

Wenger has said before both rounds this year that he is taking the carling cup seriously for a change.

Currently, on the Government’s own estimate, 52% of properties in central London are available to benefits’ claimants because they are within the local housing allowance levels. This will reduce to 7% under the proposed reform.

As long as clean and safe accomodation is available to LHA claimants then I don't see the problem. Maybe some children will have to share bedrooms (like I and many others with two working parents had to as young kids) but I'm afraid that ultimately greater choice comes with paying your own way.

Obviously no one wants to see families literally out in the streets but will that be the case, or it will it actually involve then moving into accommodation of a size and in a location that relfects their financial means? Small wonder we're broke when people argue otherwise.

They already do share bedrooms dude, the council standard is two children per room plus babies who don't count in the number.

The function of the welfare state should be to provide a basic level of support for those that need it, not to provide a higher standard of living than that available to lots of people who aren't on benefits.

No shit but this is going to seriously **** a lot of people over. It seems like it needs to be reworked a bit so the change is not as abrupt.

How about if you are a normal working family living in London. You lose your job because of cutbacks or whatever, you get jobseekers allowance and rent assistance hopefully just short term whilst you look for a new job.

Unfortunately with these new rules your average house will not be covered up to its full rent value so chances are you lose that as well and have to move out and most likely move out of London altogether.

It seems like a step too far to me.

so if an area has rents between £2000pm and £500pm for a 4 bed property, they will be limited to a rent of a maximum of £950pm?

Yeah that seems right. So currently you have loads of people renting in that area for up to the median rate but everyone in that area currently getting up to the mean will have their rents cut and be forced to try and find a place to rent for £950pm.

There are not going to be enough of those places for those families though so they will be forced to move somewhere else and hope to find a city or town where there are loads of available properties in the 30th pecentile free to rent.

£20,000k a year in housing costs, poor? Do me a favour.

you can find a 4 bed house/apartment anywhere in the UK apart from a 2 square mile circle pretty much from westminster.

with the current cap at £3200 there are barely 30 properties in the whole of the midlands on right move that even ask for that kind of money.

yes every authority is different, but I am sorry plenty of people who are earning have downsized because they've had to save money, so why should people on LHA be exempt from such changes?

Quite. It's like complaining that children will starve because the public will no longer be paying for them to eat at the Savoy Grill.

Speaking of children, this is Bernados take on it.

The Local Housing Allowance will be set at the 30th percentile of rents in each broad rental market area (BRMA), rather than the median

4. We are concerned that effects of the overall caps on rents will be made worse by the proposal to restrict the calculation of payments at the 30th percentile of rents in a BRMA, rather than the median. Barnardo’s believes this will have a profound effect on areas with high property prices, most notably the capital. Currently, on the Government’s own estimate, 52% of properties in central London are available to benefits’ claimants because they are within the local housing allowance levels. This will reduce to 7% under the proposed reform. This will place a significant additional pressure on the availability of properties to rent in all the inner and outer London boroughs. However, these areas themselves are estimated to see a reduction in their housing stock with a fall properties available at local housing allowance levels of between 17% and 26%.

£20,000k a year in housing costs, poor? Do me a favour.

That is just a smokescreen mate. A very popular headline that will smooth over these changes.

The real issue that is going to **** people is the reduction in allowence to the 30th percentile of properties in an area.

There are virtually no areas in the country where £20,000pa in rent is the 30th percentile anyway so it will virtually never be given out. That figure is just a smokescreen for what is actually going to happen where people on much much lower rents than that will be priced out of finding somewhere to live.

It is time to slag off our team yet? Only to start cheering them again when we score?

I'm never sure how these match threads work...

Ah how prophetic of me...

It is time to slag off our team yet? Only to start cheering them again when we score?

I'm never sure how these match threads work...

He has been injured loads at Man City as well. I would rather we stayed clear. Let some other club take the punt and pay £7-10m or whatever City would be wanting.

well its a major reason why we are in such a mess financally so obviously no

For UK PLC the whole thing was cheaper financially than the 2012 Olympics.

I guess the question then is how much do we make back from the Iraq war in ticket sales and McDonalds sponsership?

Well rubbish forecasts or not positive growth is positive, but that's my ideology coming out :winkold:

Also cost of borrowing is now at its lowest for decades which will save a substantial amount.

VT might not like these spending cuts but our creditors seem to.

The cuts haven't actually come into force yet. These figures are from the previous three months.

I know, I know. From 23rd September to October 18th I sent 31 texts including a picture message not of my cock. About 5 or 6 essay's, 10 saying her name and the rest not sure. I think she wants me.

Jesus Christ even I'mnot that desperate!! And Like your mate POB Im a ginger... You've let all of mankind down.

Absolutely. What WERE you thinking, not sending a picture of your cock?

Perhaps his phone camera doesn't have the required level of zoom?

All irritating shite.

Perhaps some garlic or holy water would sort out your Vampire problem? If it is zombies though you might just have to reach for the chainsaw...

One interesting idea buried in today's excitement was the prospect of public service workers being offered collective wage reduction and hours reductions instead of job cuts. It's the wage bill that needs reducing, not the number in employment. If people can be persuaded to take a pay cut of, say, 10% then this has a double effect. Everyone still has 90% of their income, we are not all paying for 500,000 people to be on benefits.

Yes, why was that 'buried'?

Was it perhaps so that it can be brought out in the future by the government as a defence?

I'd suggest that it is laying the groundwork for passing the buck or 'devolving the blame'.

"It wasn't us who cut the jobs, we gave them/you choices. It is your fault that you're out of work."

I don't see a problem with giving people a choice.

He's currently on an Inter Milan board telling them that the first half didn't count and Spurs actually won the game 3-0!

Actually he is on Redcafe telling any Man U fans who will listen about Spurs brilliant comeback.

GlastonSpur

Reserve Team Player

Join Date: Feb 2007

Posts: 4,228 Quote:

Originally Posted by peterstorey

You were completely humiliated, a consolation hat trick from Bale after Inter took their foot off the gas is neither here nor there.

The game ended 4 -3, with Spurs playing with 10 men away from home for something like 80 mins: far from being humiliation, that's an amazing fight back.

Your earlier claim was that Spurs would be humiliated in the group stages. Well, we're 2nd in the group and looking likely to qualify .... so that's another stupid prediction from you looking likely to dissolve like morning mist.

You also previously claimed that Spurs wouldn't even reach the group stages ... is there any end to your blinkered vision?

It's Maggie Thatchers 85th birthday and the only things on TV are celebrating scousers and miners!!