meregreen Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 5 hours ago, chrisp65 said: Gove finally finding something he's good at. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 knackered been out all night, fly tipping 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) do your laundry for lee hendrie put our your bin for dion dublin clear your path for paul mcgrath (shh...) unblock your loo for john carew wash your curtains for gordan cowans mow your lawn for steve staunton fix your telly for tony daley bleed your radiator for gabriel agbonlahor........ polish your forks for dwight yorke wipe your windows for harry burrows shake your door mat for david platt clean your bed sheet for gareth southgate scrub your kitchen for gary hitchens replace old lights for alan wright Edited February 28, 2016 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Quote The new Investigatory Powers Bill will allow the police to look into all of everyone's internet browsing history. Theresa May has presented the re-drafted bill as including new provisions for user privacy. But a key part of the bill expands the powers that police have to look at Internet Connection Records (ICRs) — a full list of every website that a person has connected to. Independent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 3, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted March 3, 2016 10 minutes ago, Xann said: a key part of the bill expands the powers that police have to look at Internet Connection Records (ICRs) One thing always puzzles me - whenever there's a court case reported - for instance the Adam Johnson one, the court hears that "Johnson had googled "the age of consent" on his phone.. just after....". You see it for terrorist cases and pervert cases and stuff. So, like, "they" clearly, already record people's internets and phone call records and can go and get the records if they want them. I suspect that the law change planned is in effect to compel the internet companies to do something they probably do to a great degree already - maybe they don't keep the records for a year, at the mo' but they must keep them a fair old while. I don't like what May and the tories are doing and I loathe the way they basically ignore the various key constructive comment from experts and parliamentary committees and just pretty much carry on doing their ill thought out, flawed, rushed, bad law anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 On 2/27/2016 at 17:25, chrisp65 said: **** word removed 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 1 hour ago, blandy said: One thing always puzzles me - whenever there's a court case reported - for instance the Adam Johnson one, the court hears that "Johnson had googled "the age of consent" on his phone.. just after....". You see it for terrorist cases and pervert cases and stuff. So, like, "they" clearly, already record people's internets and phone call records and can go and get the records if they want them. I thought they got those details from the hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Quote Tories force through ESA disability benefit cuts as Lords run out of options to block them One peer described today as a "black day for disabled people" as Peers were forced to accept cuts to Employment Support Allowance Mirror Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 They really are the lowest of the low.All pretense of common decency and caring for the less fortunate now being ditched, utter bastards. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Xann said: Mirror Shameless, shameful stuff from Duncan Smith, Lord Fraud et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 This sounds as reported like a bad policy and the fact it appears to have been used to teach the Lords a lesson makes it even more abhorrent ... But I wouldn't mind some clarification on it other than the mirror one quoted .... That link appears to say there are half a million people who are in this group who won't be affected as it only applies to new claimants and those that break for 12 weeks ... And then the next paragraph we are being told how it affects half a million people who will lose £30 a week am I misreading something ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Quote The Government however says the cut, which applies to new claimaints, will incentivise disabled people to find work. On 2 March MPs voted to reject a House of Lords plan for an impact assessment into the cuts. Peers on Tuesday evening discussed the cuts - but were forced to wave them through because Ministers claimed "financial privilege" - meaning the Lords was not allowed to intervene. Independent list of bastard tory MP's that voted to cut £30 A WEEK for the disabled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 The way to incentivise people into work, is to raise wages, not lower benefits. Starving people into work, probably isn't a very good idea.And for vulnerable people such as the disabled and mentally ill, could prove to be both cruel and callous. I fear this country is becoming a meaner less compassionate place to live. More and more I find myself thinking, what's next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, tonyh29 said: This sounds as reported like a bad policy and the fact it appears to have been used to teach the Lords a lesson makes it even more abhorrent ... But I wouldn't mind some clarification on it other than the mirror one quoted .... That link appears to say there are half a million people who are in this group who won't be affected as it only applies to new claimants and those that break for 12 weeks ... And then the next paragraph we are being told how it affects half a million people who will lose £30 a week am I misreading something ? Until it's fully implemented, I doubt we know exactly who it will affect and how it will do it. I had a quick look at the legislation and it's not terribly clear as it seems to be removing references to the work related activity element of ESA from previous legislation. There is often lots of talk about 'new claimants' when they actually mean new claims and seeing as though a change of circumstances (which can be anything) can be regarded as a new claim then until one sees it in practice, it's difficult to be sure just who might lose money. There was a lot of stuff around the transition from IB to ESA (a lower rate than the long term IB payment) and there being no 'cash losers' and, whilst that may have been true for the actual instance of moving from the old benefit to the new one, as soon as someone's circumstances changed (and that included hitting the one year barrier on contributory ESA) then the extra payment was removed. I'd have thought that anyone who is awarded contribution-based ESA (WRAG) after the beginning of next tax year will see their payment reduced when their 365 day limit is up in April 2017 (or beyond). I'd also be concerned that anyone who was reassessed via a WCA after April 2017 and was moved from the support group to the WRAG would be deemed to be making a new claim and that anyone who may have applied for the benefit before April 2017 and not been assessed before that date would go on to the new rate. All of that ignores what the knock on will be with Universal Credit when/if they try and get existing ESA claimants on to it and that, effectively, the government have pushed through a policy, using a measure that they didn't think fit to use for their proposed changes in tax credits (because their vehicle had another, more important purpose), which reduces the income for a category of claimants whether or not those people in that group will all be the same people. They've done it to save money (so that's saving money on the backs of those who've, on the whole, actually got through the new WCA - there may still be some who haven't been reassessed) and they've done in it for the reason of trying to reduce an incentive to appeal against a WCA decision that didn't grant someone ESA (successful appeals being an area that have been causing them all sorts of problems over the last few years). Edited March 9, 2016 by snowychap Bad bracketing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 It wouldn't annoy me so much if it weren't for the government giving so much slack to the richer people and businesses they all seem to have vested interests in. It just seems like one rule for one, one rule for another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 55 minutes ago, lapal_fan said: It wouldn't annoy me so much if it weren't for the government giving so much slack to the richer people and businesses they all seem to have vested interests in. It just seems like one rule for one, one rule for another. do you think there has ever been a time when it hasn't been like that ? doesn't make it right but find me a government anywhere that doesn't operate on vested interests ... I suspect there are some people out there who have made a career on living on benefits and I don't see any reason not to go after these people ..However , what they are doing is victimising the genuine claimants be it disabled people or long term ill , and that is unforgivable .... but not unforgivable to the point that I'd put a vote in Corbyns box in the naïve belief that he would make the UK a utopia where we take everything from the evil rich and all our problems will be solved ... for one all his party on the same gravy train wouldn't let him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 1 minute ago, tonyh29 said: do you think there has ever been a time when it hasn't been like that ? doesn't make it right but find me a government anywhere that doesn't operate on vested interests ... I suspect there are some people out there who have made a career on living on benefits and I don't see any reason not to go after these people ..However , what they are doing is victimising the genuine claimants be it disabled people or long term ill , and that is unforgivable .... but not unforgivable to the point that I'd put a vote in Corbyns box in the naïve belief that he would make the UK a utopia where we take everything from the evil rich and all our problems will be solved ... for one all his party on the same gravy train wouldn't let him I didn't really mean it like that. Who doesn't want benefit frauds to be found out? We're wasting unfathomable amounts of public money to them. Likewise, the government are waving deaf ears to companies who don't pay tax, people who do jobs cash in hand etc etc. They're all crooks, they should all be made to pay the amount which is set by the government, proportionally the big companies who the government are turning a blind eye to are the biggest crooks. But it's much easier to go after Mr Smith who has swindled 50,000 in benefits over the last 20 years than it is Mr Smith who has avoided paying £30,000,000 in tax over the last 30. I just want it to be a fair system. I heard on radio WM the other day that there are genuine disabled people who have had their benefits cut because they could walk 20m with the aid of 2 walking sticks, so they had their specially modified cars taken away, because that's the threshold - 20m. That doesn't seem overly fair to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Wainy316 Posted March 9, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted March 9, 2016 The money lost on benefit fraud is absolutely minuscule compared to that lost on tax evasion, that's the issue. Go after both by all means but that's not really happening is it. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I don't mind as long as the money isn't being wasted. If we can save £30 a week by not handing out free money to some benefits type then after a thousand weeks we'll have enough money for one bomb that we can drop on some Syrian toilet. The alternative of getting people that earn over, say, £50,000 or £60,000 or £70,000 per annum to pay an extra penny, well that just sounds too difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 26 minutes ago, Wainy316 said: The money lost on benefit fraud is absolutely minuscule compared to that lost on tax evasion, that's the issue. Go after both by all means but that's not really happening is it. that's my point. Although one is obviously much more money, they are still equally "bad" and should be made right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts