Xann Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 The Lords chucked out a stab at opening children's care services to private interests today. Quote The proposed changes would have allowed ministers to give councils approval to suspend specific social care obligations for a three-year period, with the option for a permanent exemption if the methods were deemed successful. But peers voted 245-213 to ditch the controversial clause, saying ministers had failed to make a persuasive case. During the Lords debate on Tuesday, Ramsbotham, a former chief inspector of prisons, said the proposals were a “subversion of the rule of law” and lacked the backing of social workers and children’s charities. He said: “These clauses seem like a bad idea dreamed up in Whitehall that has not been properly evaluated or impact-assessed.” Lord Warner, a crossbencher, attacked the proposed powers as “draconian” and “fundamentally flawed”. He said: "Ministers should go back to the drawing board and“conduct a proper review of what was needed to help services improve services. “They have chosen an extremely large sledgehammer to crack quite small nuts". Labour's Lord Watson of Invergowrie, added that the Government's "ultimate intention" was to "open up the field of social work services completely either to the private sector or the third sector, with local authorities having their role reduced to a bare minimum". PoliticsHome 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted November 9, 2016 Moderator Share Posted November 9, 2016 Today. You have to hand it to the evil corporate bumholes don't you. Out of interest, do we know who sent that one to the Lords? Backdoor privatisation on the best news hiding day in years - it's unbelievably cynical. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 9, 2016 Moderator Share Posted November 9, 2016 1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said: Backdoor privatisation on the best news hiding day in years - it's unbelievably predictable. Fixed. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Xann said: Lord Warner, a crossbencher, attacked the proposed powers as “draconian” and “fundamentally flawed”. You know you stayed up all night watching the US election when you read that as crossdresser ... mind you knowing the Lords he probably is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 2 hours ago, tonyh29 said: You know you stayed up all night watching the US election when you read that as crossdresser ... mind you knowing the Lords he probably is I read a reference today to the head of the ethics committee, the one who didn't want to resign after he was videoed snorting coke off a prostitute's tits . . . Don't know how I'd forgotten that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Xann Posted November 10, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted November 10, 2016 Quote The government has been defeated in the highest court in the land over the bedroom tax. In a devastating blow to the hated policy, seven justices of the Supreme Court found in favour of Paul and Sue Rutherford who look after their severely disabled grandson Warren. They also backed the Carmichaels, who are unable to share a bedroom due to Jacqueline Carmichael’s severe disability. Five other cases, including one involving a sanctuary room for a woman escaping domestic violence, failed, and may now appeal. Backed by the Daily Mirror, the Rutherfords have been fighting for three years against the levy, which is charged on a room used to store Warren’s equipment and by overnight carers. Born with rare chromosomal disorder Potocki Shaffer syndrome – which affects the development of his bones, brain and other organs – teenage Warren needs round-the-clock care which the Rutherfords provide. Mirror 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 There's not a chance their Brexit appeal gets through the Supreme court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 (edited) Absolutely disgusting that these families have had to have the added stress, on top of all the other issues they face, of taking this to court. Anyone with an ounce of decency should recognise that this policy is abhorrent. Sadly common decency and Tory minister do not go together. Edited November 10, 2016 by markavfc40 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 The IP Bill passed through the Lords yesterday, and is a final house of commons rubber-stamp vote away from being made law. Every site we visit will be stored along with associated metadata for at least a year by your ISP, and any other communications service providers. On the face of it, this will be used to protect us all from the bad terrorists. 10 years ago, people were absolutely outraged about National ID cards, as people considered it an invasion of privacy, and few people trusted the government to keep the data secure, and a whole other raft of arguments that apply to this far more intrusive bulk surveillance. How quickly we've sleepwalked in to mass state surveillance. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 8 minutes ago, Davkaus said: The IP Bill passed through the Lords yesterday, and is a final house of commons rubber-stamp vote away from being made law. Every site we visit will be stored along with associated metadata for at least a year by your ISP, and any other communications service providers. On the face of it, this will be used to protect us all from the bad terrorists. 10 years ago, people were absolutely outraged about National ID cards, as people considered it an invasion of privacy, and few people trusted the government to keep the data secure, and a whole other raft of arguments that apply to this far more intrusive bulk surveillance. How quickly we've sleepwalked in to mass state surveillance. Done on the same day that we were reeling about Trump, and wouldn't notice. Cynical bastards. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 2 hours ago, Davkaus said: The IP Bill passed through the Lords yesterday, and is a final house of commons rubber-stamp vote away from being made law. Every site we visit will be stored along with associated metadata for at least a year by your ISP, and any other communications service providers. On the face of it, this will be used to protect us all from the bad terrorists. 10 years ago, people were absolutely outraged about National ID cards, as people considered it an invasion of privacy, and few people trusted the government to keep the data secure, and a whole other raft of arguments that apply to this far more intrusive bulk surveillance. How quickly we've sleepwalked in to mass state surveillance. from back in June June 7, 19:45 BST: On Tuesday night, 444 MPs voted in favour of the third reading of the Investigatory Powers Bill. The SNP, Liberal Democrats, and the Green Party opposed the proposed law representing just 69 votes. The bill will now proceed to the House of Lords. the SNP probably voted against by default rather than any principles , but never thought I'd be saying this , Good on the Greens (and Lib Dems) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said: Done on the same day that we were reeling about Trump, and wouldn't notice. Cynical bastards. It had 3 readings in the Lords and was passed on the 2nd Nov ... No DeLorans appear to have been harmed in the process but I did see a white haired old man running some cables down St Stephens tower Ok , Davkaus mislead you with his "yesterday" comment , so we can blame him Edited November 11, 2016 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 My mistake, I read an article that referred to 'today' with a timestamp of yesterday due to an edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, Davkaus said: My mistake, I read an article that referred to 'today' with a timestamp of yesterday due to an edit. No harm done , but Stefan owes Villatalk a like your point stands though , not a squeak from the social media warriors of the world about this , too busy filling out application forms for Irish passports or paperwork to adopt a Syrian refugee perhaps ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 There you go, you can have the like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Almost unbelievable. I pity young people that don't have a career sorted out already. Quote Jobs of the future may not have stable hours, holiday pay, sick pay, or pensions, DWP secretary says Jobs of the future may not have stable hours, holiday pay, sick pay, or pensions, the Work and Pensions Secretary has said. Damian Green described the trend in employment practices towards the so-called “gig economy” as “exciting” and said the changes had “huge potential”. The Cabinet minister’s endorsement of the approach comes a month after an employment tribunal found that drivers for the Uber car service should in fact get the minimum wage and paid holiday. The tribunal dismissed the taxi company’s claim that its drivers were in fact self–employed and not entitled to these rights. READ MORE Labour pushes Tories to put workers' rights for Uber drivers into law Mr Green said in a speech at the Reform think-tank on Wednesday morning: “Just a few years ago the idea of a proper job meant a job that brings in a fixed monthly salary, with fixed hours, paid holidays, sick pay, a pension scheme and other contractual benefits. “But the gig economy has changed all that. We’ve seen the rise of the everyday entrepreneur. People now own their time and control who receives their services and when. “They can pick and mix their employers, their hours, their offices, their holiday patterns. This is one of the most significant developments in the labour market. The potential is huge and the change is exciting.” He said the Government had launched the Taylor Review into employment practices to make sure that “employment rights keep up with employment practices”. He also used the speech to argue that the private sector and voluntary sector should be more involved in the provision of welfare services. Damian Green at the Conservative party conference in Birmingham (Getty) “The Government is a necessary, but not sufficient provider of welfare,” he said. The minister made a small concession to critics of the Government’s benefit sanctions system, announcing that he would extend hardship payments available to sanctioned people to a wider group. Gadgets and tech news in pictures 40show all The “gig economy” is the idea that technological change will make stable jobs less prevalent and that more people will instead work a number of casual “gigs” as a self-employed person. A significant growth in the numbers of people self-employed in recent years has however been accompanied by falling incomes for self-employed people. Labour has called for the judgment that Uber drivers are in fact employees to be enshrined in law so that other workers with similar working arrangements cannot be denied paid holidays or the minimum wage. Uber is appealing the judgment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 17, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted November 17, 2016 words removed 2013: Quote Andrew Lansley: The lobbying bill will make our democracy more accountable The new Transparency Bill will make it clear who is lobbying the Government and for whom, Andrew Lansley says... ....The Transparency Bill has three key aims: to make it clear who is lobbying the Government and for whom; to make third-party campaigning at election times subject to clear rules; and to provide assurance that trade unions know who their members are. Each of these is intended, in different ways, to strike a balance between, on one hand, making sure individuals and organisations can use their inalienable right to a voice in politics, and, on the other, making sure our political system doesn’t fall prey to opaque and unaccountable groups who spend millions in trying to decide who wins an election. That should be a shared aim of everyone..... 2016 Quote Andrew Lansley, the former health secretary, who now advises health companies, has been accused of trying to stall a parliamentary bill that proposes to expose lobbyists in Whitehall to greater scrutiny. The Tory peer has tabled 30 amendments to a bill before the House of Lords that seeks to establish a new register for lobbyists who meet ministers, senior civil servants and special advisers. Labour and transparency campaigners suspect there will not be time for a parliamentary committee to discuss the amendments, and that the changes are in effect an attempt to scupper the bill.... The proposed legislation would replace the government’s much-criticisedlobbying register with one that would be far more comprehensive. It would cover in-house lobbyists as well as agency lobbyists, and would be extended to cover meetings with senior civil servants and special advisers. At present, only meetings between agency lobbyists and ministers and permanent secretaries are recorded. Lord Brooke told the Guardian: “It was obvious from Lord Lansley’s contribution at second reading that he doesn’t agree with the fundamentals of what I’ve proposed. “While some of the tabled amendments look helpful, there are many others that would rip the heart out of the bill. And given the limited amount of time we’ve been allocated, it certainly feels like he’s trying scupper its passage.” 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 I've stuck this here rather than politic up the 'piss you off' thread: Children in Need 2008: £38.5 million raised Children in Need 2009: £40.2 million raised Children in Need 2010: £36.6 million raised Children in Need 2011: £46.1 million raised Children in Need 2012: £43.3 million raised Children in Need 2013: £49.6 million raised Children in Need 2014: £49.1 million raised Children in Need 2015: £55.0 million raised 2008 to 2015 total = £358.4 million raised The Queen's estimated personal wealth (Times Rich List 2015) = £340 million Duke of Ed's personal wealth (not easy to find / google estimate) = £25 million Duchy of Lancaster: valued at £470 million earning £16 million p.a. income for royals Duchy of Cornwall: valued at £750 million earning £19 million p.a. income for royals Tax paid by the Queen, Duke, Duchy of Cornwall, Duchy of Lancaster: £0 Tax to be paid by the UK tax payer that will be used to renovate Buckingham Palace: £360 million I accept it's a cheap thing to make the comparison. But, well, y'know. All in it together. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 Pornography sites face UK block under enhanced age controls Quote Pornography websites that fail to implement stringent age verification controls could be blocked from British users after MPs forced the government to strengthen planned measures to prevent children accessing such content. The culture secretary, Karen Bradley, said the move would protect children from “harmful pornographic content” and fulfil a Conservative manifesto promise. Ministers had previously said such a measure would be disproportionate. The move has widespread support from child safety campaigners and the general public. An ICM poll, commissioned by Durham University’s centre for gender-equal media and published last month, found 78% of respondents backed blocks on adult websites that allowed under-18s to access their content. Age verification had the backing of 86%. The rules, to be enforced by the British Board of Film Classification, will apply to all websites regardless of where they are based. The government says they comply with EU country of origin rules. Digital rights campaigners, however, say the measure has no equivalent in any other democratic country, while free speech advocates say it could be the start of a slippery slope towards ever greater censorship. Together with the online surveillance powers introduced by the Investigatory Powers Act this week, it constitutes a significant tightening of control over the internet. Bradley said: “We made a promise to keep children safe from harmful pornographic content online and that is exactly what we are doing. “Only adults should be allowed to view such content and we have appointed a regulator, BBFC, to make sure the right age checks are in place to make that happen. If sites refuse to comply, they should be blocked. “In fulfilling this manifesto commitment and working closely with people like [MPs] Claire Perry and Kit Malthouse, who have worked tirelessly on internet safety issues, we are protecting children from the consequences of harmful content.” The measure will be introduced as an amendment to the digital economy bill. It comes after the Labour MP Louise Haigh introduced her own amendment in the bill’s committee stage, calling for non-compliant websites to be blocked. She withdrew the amendment in the face of ministerial opposition, but a new amendment was introduced by Perry, a Conservative, at the report stage. It was expected to be passed by a cross-party coalition of MPs after Perry threatened to split the Tory vote and defeat the government, Haigh told the Guardian. “[Perry] was obviously feeling a bit feisty and she told them that she was going to divide the house,” she said. “There was going to be a vote on Monday. She had enough Tory backbenchers to defeat the government.” Details of the government’s amendment were contained in a Press Association story published on Saturday morning. It is unclear exactly how the blocks will work and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport referred a request for more information back to the news agency’s story. According to PA, the rules will give the BBFC the power to issue a notice to internet service providers, and those that cover mobile network operators, to prevent access to websites that have no or inadequate age verification for pornography. The original bill already gave regulators powers to issue fines of up to £250,000 or 5% of turnover, while websites outside British jurisdiction would have UK customer payments via services such as Visa and MasterCard cut off. Ministers were also seeking cooperation from other services that support websites, such as servers, to clamp down on those that fail to comply. Jim Killock, the executive director of the Open Rights Group, which has campaigned against the blocking of websites, said doing so for online pornography was an “outrageous” measure that put the UK in the company of countries such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia. “It’s clearly because they [the government] think they might suffer a defeat, not because they think this is a workable policy,” he said. “What it will lead to is the blocking of a large amount of legal content, and many of those sites will have little or no incentive to use the UK’s bespoke age verification system, with the result that large amounts of material will be blocked to UK adults, despite the material being entirely legal to impart and receive.” Killock said children, especially teenagers, were unlikely to find the blocks a barrier to viewing pornography because “they will find their own ways around it”. Jerry Barnett, a free speech campaigner whose book, Porn Panic!, details an increasingly illiberal attitude towards pornography in the UK, said he believed the censorship introduced by the bill would undoubtedly extend beyond its current remit, “partly because the language is very slippery”. “Sometimes they say ‘porn’, by which they mean all sex, erotica, etc; but sometimes they use ‘adult content’, which is a far broader term, and they start going on about knife sales or self-harm sites, drug information sites,” he said. “And if you look at the BBFC’s remit, what the BBFC believes it’s here to protect us from, porn is one of a number of categories. “Porn, sex and erotica is absolutely the first target, but I can’t see in any way, shape or form that they won’t extend it because both the BBFC, for video, and Ofcom, for TV, have given themselves an incredibly broad censorship remit when it comes to child protection, and porn is just one of the categories.” Research commissioned by the NSPCC and the children’s commissioner for England found that the majority of children are exposed to pornography by their early teens. Fifty-three per cent of 11 to 16-year-olds have encountered it online, of whom 94% saw it by the age of 14, according to the Middlesex University study. The NSPCC said a generation of children was at risk of being “stripped of their childhoods” through exposure to pornography at a young age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 19, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted November 19, 2016 Or we could ask parents to be, you know, better parents. Also, I think we can assume that 47% of children aged 11 to 16 are liars. And 'encountered' is a very nice way of saying 'searched rabidly for'. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts