Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Update - Labour lead at 5
by YouGov in Politics
Sun February 2, 2014 6 a.m. GMT

Latest YouGov / The Sunday Times results 31st January - 2nd February - Con 34%, Lab 39%, LD 8%, UKIP 11%;

Guilty or not guilty?



'Evidence of a motive' for the crime behind Amanda Knox verdict





Interview by Italian judge in Meredith Kercher murder retrial sparks fresh controversy




Michael Day

ROME


Sunday 02 February 2014


The judge who reinstated murder convictions against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito has spoken for the first time about his anguish at coming to the controversial verdicts, and hinted at a series of "coincidences" that led to the death of the British student Meredith Kercher.


Alessandro Nencini, the president of the Florence appeals court, said yesterday a chance decision on the part of Knox to change her plans on the night of 1 November 2007 initiated a series of events that culminated in the brutal killing of Ms Kercher, an exchange student from Coulsdon, south London.

Crucially, Judge Nencini said the court had arrived at a motivation for the crime, adding that it would emerge fully when a detailed reasoning for last week's judgment is published in the coming months.

However, the interview was criticised in the Italian press, with Sollecito's lawyers, Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori, reportedly accusing the judge of "very serious, indeed unacceptable" behaviour by commenting on the case.
On Thursday, the Florence court sentenced Sollecito to 25 years in prison and Miss Knox to 28 years and six months in jail, handing her a heavier sentence after finding her guilty of libelling a Congolese bar owner, Patrick Lumumba, by falsely accusing him of being the killer.

The court has 90 days in which to release its reasoning for upholding the guilty convictions. Judge Nencici did, however, shed some light on the jury's deliberations.



more:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/evidence-of-a-motive-for-the-crime-behind-amanda-knox-verdict-9101707.html

NOT GUILTY!

Should council house rents be means tested?
Bob Crow, whom i'm sure we all know, earns £135,000 a year (probably extras on top) yet lives in a council house where rents, i am sure, are subsidised by the taxpayer.

given the paucity of council and similar low cost housing, is this fair and just?

is it a reasonable argument, that the rent for such places should reflect the tenant's ability to pay (considerably) more - let's say 25% of salary?

Bob Crow's counter is that he was born in a council house and has every right to live and die there
true enough under present legislation, but we hear a great hue and cry and gnashing of teeth about taxpayers who legitimately minimise their tax liability
is there really any difference?

High life of Bob, the lobster-red baron: With his members set to bring misery to commuters this week, rail union boss Crow escapes to sip cocktails in Rio sunshine

£145,000-a-year union firebrand enjoys £10,000 luxury holiday
Enjoyed unlimited champagne, sushi and caviar from Barbados to Brazil
He sat by the pool most days in a prime position nearest to the bar
Suite boasted private balcony, marble bathroom and walk-in wardrobe
Serenaded guests with Neil Diamond’s Sweet Caroline on karaoke night
Later checked in to a £250-a-night five-star hotel on Copacabana beach
Now back home at to his tax-payer funded London council house
Last month he called for militant action to stop ‘rich getting richer’

Sipping contentedly from a coconut and baking on a golden beach in his Bermuda shorts, union boss Bob Crow enjoys a £10,000 holiday as his members prepare to go on strike.

While his comrades working for London Underground prepare to lose money in a bitter dispute, Crow found time for a luxury cruise from Barbados to Brazil.

The general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers union returns from a three-week jaunt this morning, three days before 10,000 members walk out, threatening travel chaos across the capital for rain-lashed commuters and tourists.

The £145,000-a-year union chief had left his taxpayer-subsidised council house to sail from Barbados to Rio, where he sunned himself on Copacabana beach and shopped in designer boutiques.

But Crow appeared to have dodged the bulldozer of austerity himself, paying £7,700 for a two-week journey aboard the Silver Spirit cruise liner for himself and long-term girlfriend Nicola Hoarau, an RMT office manager.

Those aboard the ship could indulge in unlimited champagne, sushi and caviar. Crow’s suite included a private balcony, marble bathroom, and walk-in wardrobe, while the ship boasts a casino, champagne bar, theatre, spa and beauty salon, and six restaurants.

He boarded on January 15 in Bridgetown, Barbados, and enjoyed stopovers in Grenada; Devil’s Island off French Guiana; and Belém, at the mouth of the Amazon.

He also visited Recife and Salvador, which has some of the most beautiful beaches on the north-east coast of Brazil, before mooring in Rio on January 29.

While in Rio, Crow apparently found time to attack London Underground’s planned closure of ticket offices and Tube chiefs’ efforts to keep the service running during the walkout.

hays - that doesn't even start to address the question i posed (36161)

I know it doesn't, but I don't like him.

that was also not the question
i don't either, but i intentionally made the question objective and general

Council houses are supposed to be social housing for people on low incomes. The rents are subsidised by the council and therefore subsidised by the rate payers. On that basis, the very least is that his subsidy should be removed. I have always liked means testing for many 'benefits' in the broadest sense. With the advent of central computing that know our details, I would expect a trend towards means testing. With limited resources to share out and rising population it looks like the way to go.

you are wrong to insert "his", as by that you show your subjectivity

but to take that a step further .....
if council rents are means tested, should it take into account the sum of earnings of all residents?
if so, if one of the parties only lives in this property for say 3 or 4 days a week, then what?

Why hasn't he exercised his right to buy?


I suspect he can afford it.

perhaps that no longer exists, or more likely, renting at the level he does, makes it less attractive to buy ..... but you don't answer the question either

It is said that he disapproves of right to buy. If he buys it then it removes a home from the stock of social housing.

Haystack 02 Feb 2014 18:11 - 36166 of 36170

Council houses are supposed to be social housing for people on low incomes. The rents are subsidised by the council and therefore subsidised by the rate payers.................ends.

Hays I used to think that until a Kirklees Estate Manager put me right on it.

They arent subsidised and tennants have to pay full cost and more for any repairs.

In fact he said LAs often return funds to the central treasury pot at the year end.

Hays more here.........

I often hear people moaning about the relatively cheap rents charged by councils - compared to private rents and claiming they are subsidised by the tax payer. It is not the case.

See this article, from a few years ago, but the system hasn't changed too much since

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/03/socialhousing.tenanttax

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/03/socialhousing.tenanttax

also more discussion here

http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/dch_infopage.cfm?KWord=finance

http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/dch_infopage.cfm?KWord=finance

essentially, as there are no or small mortgages, councils don't have to charge high rents to their tenants - and in fact pay money back to the treasury -

Almost all repairs are paid for by the council with no charge to tenants. They subsidise the rents by charging a lower rate than the market thereby passing up the opportunity to make more money. This is a cost to the ratepayers as loss of income for the extra profit.

i'll add my bit more - but tomorrow

Haystack - 02 Feb 2014 21:12 - 36173 of 36174

Almost all repairs are paid for by the council with no charge to tenants. ........ends

Thats wrong repairs are charged according to a tenants financial position. The LA receipts are pooled and those that cant afford do get subsidised but overall the housing budget usually returns a surplus to the treasury as above.

Here we are from Kirklees Council.........

Repairs you are responsible for

All repairs to the inside of your flat, including your front door but not the door frame, glass in your windows and all fixtures and fittings, but not the window frames;

any damage to the common parts or services caused by you, members of your household, or your visitors;

chimney sweeping.


Repairs to your own flat

You are responsible for repairs to the inside of your flat, including your front door and the glass in your windows. You should make your own arrangements to get someone to do the repairs for you.

If you, or someone you have employed, is carrying out repairs inside your flat, you must make sure that no damage is done to shared services or the structure of the block. You will be liable for any damage caused and you will have to pay to have it put right.

If you are in doubt about work you intend to carry out, contact the nearest KNH office and explain the situation.

You must not do repairs on landings, stairways or other shared areas e.g. roof, fall pipes, gutters etc. You would not be covered by our insurance if you had an accident or caused damage. If you, your visitors or members of your household cause damage to shared areas, you will have to pay for the repairs.


Doing your own alterations

As a leaseholder, you have the right to improve your home, but you will need written permission from us before starting work. This is because we have an investment in the block and a responsibility to the other tenants. We will not refuse permission unless we have a good reason. You may also need to get planning permission and building consent before starting work.

We do not need to know about minor work such as decorating, but we do need to know about any alterations that could affect walls, windows, doorframes, plumbing and electrical services.

The window frames belong to the landlord. You must not replace your windows unless we have given you permission in writing.