mockingbird_franklin

a draw, to match our result at man city

Obviously their lucky day, only 2 shots on target and 3 in total, winning 2-0 against the run of play it seems

Very odd when Baines has such a good penalty record. As for Leicester - they're on a great run. Only 4 points behind us if they win! Getting really worried about Leics - they're arguably the best footballing side down in the bottom 5 and keep getting results. Need Swansea to prevent Lecis from winning. Not as worried as Sunderland and Hull fans should be, but Yes I understand the feeling, Leicester win today and it really tightens things up at the bottom

I guess the question about insurance would be easy to answer with a little research into whether any insurance payout were made, I've read interviews where people discredit the 'due for demolition within a few days' reports. Agai if it was then surely there would be supporting evidence in the form of a paper trail showing the plans for demolition. In the article their is no mention of any insurance payout over the fire and It's probably safe to assume 15 years of research would have uncovered one if there was, so it appears there may not have been one, No mention if any money came in from any other sources either in relation to the fire. Are there people capable of setting fire to a stand full of people? Despite hoping not, there probably are, Doesn't mean that somebody did in this case even if their history with fire effected building looks very fishy, I really hope this is all conjecture and coincidence, If not it's going to be a pretty rough thing for families of the victims to take in, I imagine even the suggestions and media attention surrounding them is going to open up a lot of emotions.

I hope it says "C'mon lets ruin slippy G's media wankfest"

sorry Sebastian Fox, you are a lying shitbag

Some housing association big wig was on 5 live today touched on this scheme his conclusion was housing associations will have lots of money but will have lost all their assets.... And then it will take around 5 years or so before they get new property to replace the ones they've sold He didn't necessarily say it was a bad policy just that they were on the fence on it at present There were plenty saying yesterday that they'd sue the government if it was implemented can you sue a government ? and if so , can we sue the government for all our bank money back whilst we are at it ? Wait for TTIP, oh sorry that only allows for large international corporations to sue governments for compensation when they don't like legislation etc, not real living people. But if your point is it was a bad decision to hand over huge amounts of money to bail out a bunch of crooks and fraudsters that make up the "Banking Industry" yes it was, the only public money spent on them should have been for their jail time.

I can see Leicester winning and Burnley getting a draw this weekend, which would put Leicester 4 points behind us with a game in hand, I also can see West Brom Losing to Crystal Palace, If results go that way that would well and truly drag West Brom into it especially with their remaining fixtures, wouldn't be the best of results for us either but I think we have an easier run in than West Brom, Sunderland and Hull. Leicester have the easiest of run ins and have Hit some sort of form, with them playing Sunderland, Burnley and QPR, if they get points in their next two I could see them doing what Sunderland did last season and pulling off what was very unlikely two games ago. if they do it's most likely to be at the expense of someone like Hull or Sunderland

Isn't it the case that owner occupation is at the same percentage rate as it was before right to buy, so effectively all it did was convert council tenants with controlled regulated and secure tenancies into for profit private sector insecure tenants. This of course means the policy was a huge failure in it's stated aim to increase owner occupation, unless some other hidden motivation was the real reason behind the policy.

Isn't the new system even worse than that, From what I've has explained to me, Camemorons new proposal is to effectively force social housing tenants to buy their rented property within 5 years of the start of their tenancy or face being kicked out of it supposedly to rent in the private sector, of course it could have been explained wrongly to me as I find it hard to believe even this bunch of fools could come up with such a stupid idea. But then this bunch of incompetent fools are responsible for the mandatory consideration of ESA which automatically places the claimant on JSA and effectively forces them to declare themselves as fit for work and hence ineligible for ESA in the first place. Even though assessment phase ESA is paid at the same rate as JSA, of course the claimant can insist they are unfit for work, unfortunately then will not receive any payment of ESA benefits whilst under a non time limited consideration of the decision. they also won't receive and JSA payments as they will be deemed as not being available for work as they are unfit for work, Which the DWP claimed was not the case in their original decision to deny them ESA.

greenshot

how to take screenshots

https://youtu.be/Pd0LiFIlyO0

it is my opinions on politics that leads me to not vote, I feel unable to endorse any of the major political parties or the system they exist within. yet I am still forced by the fictional entity called government to be under it's authority, So with all respect your statement as above is indeed as snowychap eluded, a load of claptrap

Hayden - Hey Love

and a bit of analysis of the misleading and innacurate presented as fact, strange that a party has no idea where they will make £12 billion in welfare cuts, even over 12 months after proposing them, but can so accurately predict the tax implications of a rival parties manifesto pledges within a blink of an eye, From the Institute of Fiscal Studies http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7678 Would Labour increase taxes by over £3,000 for every working household? Date: 30 March 2015 Authors: Carl Emmerson , Paul Johnson and Soumaya Keynes Publisher: Institute for Fiscal Studies The Conservative Party have claimed that under Labour there would be a £3,028 tax rise for every working household. This calculation assumes that Labour would increase taxes on working households by £7.5 billion in 2016–17 and £15 billion from 2017–18 onwards, with the £3,028 being the average tax rise cumulated over all years through to 2019–20. What time period, which households? The first point to note is that, on the basis of these figures, you get to an average £3,000 tax increase by (1) cumulating increases over four years – this is the average additional bill in total over four years, it is not an annual additional cost – and (2) dividing the total tax increase only by the number of working households not by the total number of households. In a world in which taxes were to rise by £15 billion one would usually describe this as leaving households worse off by £560 a year – £15 billion divided by 26.7 million households. Cumulating numbers like this over several years is, at best, unhelpful. Ignoring the existence of non-working households doesn’t help provide sensible averages either. Which fiscal targets? A more fundamental question to ask, though, is whether Labour would need to impose a tax rise amounting to £7.5 billion in 2016–17 and £15 billion from 2017–18 onwards to meet its commitments for reducing the deficit, assuming that the consolidation is split 50/50 between further tax rises and real spending cuts. The Conservatives argue that this would be needed for Labour to comply with the Charter for Fiscal Responsibility which it voted for earlier this year in the House of Commons. The Charter sets out two fiscal targets. First, that public sector net debt should be lower as a share of national income in 2016–17 than 2015–16. Second, that there should be a surplus on the structural current budget balance in the third year of the forecast horizon. This second rule means that, after adjusting for the estimated impact of the ups-and-downs of the economic cycle, total revenues should be sufficient to cover all of the government’s current spending: in other words any borrowing should be explained either by temporary weakness in the economy or spending on investment. Let’s start with the more important, and sensible, of these targets, the target for structural current budget balance. The latest forecasts for the structural overall deficit and the structural current budget deficit are shown in the figure below. The OBR’s forecast is that total public spending, less spending on debt interest, would be cut by £30.5 billion by 2017–18 and that this would be sufficient to deliver a current budget surplus of £16.3 billion. However, because some items of public spending – such as spending on public service pensions – is expected to rise the size of the discretionary cut to spending required to bring about this surplus is actually closer to £35 billion. So on the face of it Labour might need a fiscal tightening of just over £18 billion by 2017–18 (the £35 billion implied by the Budget less the £16.3 billion of overachievement against the fiscal target that Labour would not actually need). Obviously, such a tightening – if half is to come from tax rises – would imply a net tax rise of around £9 billion in 2017–18 (and not the £15 billion the Conservatives suggest). However, the target set out in the Charter for Fiscal Responsibility relates to the third year of the forecast horizon. While this is currently 2017–18, by the time of any post-election “emergency” Budget this would relate to 2018–19 (because the current financial year would be 2015–16 not 2014–15). In that year, the Budget forecast is for a surplus on the structural current budget of £33.7 billion, brought about by a total real cut to departmental spending between 2015–16 and 2018–19 of almost £40 billion. In other words the total amount of consolidation needed beyond the cuts in 2015–16 (that Labour has signed up to) would be just £6 billion. Achieving this 50/50 through tax rises and spending cuts would imply a £3 billion tax rise from 2018–19 onwards (and not the £15 billion from 2017–18 onwards that the Conservative numbers suggest). Latest OBR forecasts for structural borrowing Debt target The OBR’s latest forecasts suggest that public sector net debt will fall from 80.2% of national income in 2015–16 to 79.8% of national income in 2016–17. This assumes that there are no new net tax rises or welfare cuts but that departmental spending is cut in real terms by £18.8 billion in 2016–17. This takeaway could be reduced to just over £9 billion and debt would still be forecast to fall slightly as a share of national income. If done 50/50 through tax rises and spending cuts this would imply a £5 billion tax rise in 2016–17 (not the £7.5 billion the Conservatives suggest). But as we have argued before this target for debt to be falling in a particular year has little to commend it. In conclusion It is also not entirely clear – at least to us – when Labour would want to achieve current budget balance. Their oft-stated goal is to eliminate the current budget deficit by, at the latest, the end of the parliament. If that’s all they want to achieve they may need no tax increases or real terms spending cuts – beyond those planned for 2015–16 – at all. But that is later than implied by their having signed up to the Charter for Budget Responsibility. If they take that commitment seriously then they at least need to aim to get to current budget balance by 2018–19. If that’s what they want then they will require about £6 billion of spending cuts or tax increases. There is real uncertainty about what path the Labour party want to follow for the public finances. The Conservatives have been clearer about what they want to achieve, but they have not been clear about how they would achieve it. They would require substantially bigger spending cuts or tax increases than Labour. There is little value in bandying around numbers which suggest either party would increases taxes by an average of £3,000 for each working household. We don’t know what they will do after the election. But neither of the two main parties has said anything to suggest that is what they are planning.

talking of Lies

I work a great 4 on 4 off pattern, but that is because its days only, with my holiday entitlement hitting 30 days this year it means I'm at work for just over 150 days a year, I do have to work weekends (which I actually prefer to week days) and planning life can be a little awkward at times but I would find it hard to work a normal 5 day in 7 working week now.

I've had bulging disks at L3/L4 and L4/L5 and have various degenerative problems throughout my lumber spine, and had been suffering for about 5 years with extreme discomfort and pain, but for about 25 overall, before i was considered for surgery which i underwent about a year ago, I just managed to cope reasonably well until the last 5 years when it got really tough managing the pain. I previously tried a nerve root block with no success, surgery was a real miss for me, but then they only did what they considered to be the worst disc, now have severe back pain, which I previously never had, all my pain was in my legs,groin and buttock areas, I',m far more limited than i previously was which has lead to weight gain, I was only pain free in my legs for about 4 weeks with the root block, awaiting appointment at specialist, probably looking at a proposal to have the disc fused or another disc decompressed. I had a brother in law had same surgery, he was pain free for about 3 years but he was told he had another disc showing signs of deteriorate and to expect problems in the future. My Mother had 3 discs decompressed at the same time, stopped the leg pains, but now gets severe back pain. overall not a great deal to recommend going under the knife and part of the reason I may decline surgery if as expected it is offered again.

That's about as far from "analysis" as you could get. Why not chose one of these allegedly misleading statistics and explain how and why it's wrong with some evidence? At the moment your post is just bluster. Is it? surely saying upon analysis the budget sounded like a potato would be much further from my anlysis, You appear to have confused the term bluster, with the term condensed

quite a few various answers, 1)patronymic from the personal name of Hain / Haine, 2) from the place Haynes in Bedfordshire, 3)from the Welsh personal name Einws, a diminutive of Einion (of uncertain origin, popularly associated with einion ‘anvil’) 4)Irish: variant of Hines Of the 4 possible variations can't find much on the last two The first alternative is of Anglo-saxon Origin and appears to have had a family seat in Lincolnshire from before the Norman conquest Haynes in Bedforshire first appears in Domesday Book as Hagenes, possibly derives from the plural of Old English hægen, hagen ‘enclosure’ but a more likelt alternative meaning is below. Hain is of Germaic origin (Hagano) meaning Hawthorne, Haynes in Bedfordshire again comes from the Germanic Hagano and Hagenes means 'land on which a Hawthorne tree stood' common spelling variations, Hian, Haines, Hains, Haine, Hainson

budget analysis, lots of headline grabbing tax breaks that actually amount to pennies per week in real terms, a few poor jokes and a whole load of well chosen misleading statistics presented in an attempt to prove the chancellor has some sort of clue of what he's doing and it's working, so a pretty standard budget really

Which means if you are particularly good at it you are both a god amongst men and most despised at the same time.

care to expand on your reasoning behind the comment, Not particularly, no. fair enough, we can totally count your opinion as an unconsidered invalid stupid one then, thank you

what corporations? how can you kill something that is a dead legal fiction.