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.

Anyway...how about a little bet on Porto (soccer) to win tonight ...odds not bad !...

had you noticed how few replies you and fossy get to your ramblings? ...... hays almost always, with the occasional input from max and and on e or two others .....

in fact, it is just you and fossy who take up about 85% of the postings and SPACE on this thread, which should tell you that .....

FEW OF US ARE MUCH INTERESTED!

Then why comment?

Peculiar?

Yep push off and start your own thread cynic.

RF somebody as to point out the lies and myths this present government spread.

I do hear that they are contemplating setting up a ministry of propaganda.!!!!!!!!!

GF,

They are a ministry of propaganda already.

Please don't encourage them.

----------

Bye the way he Manuel did start what could have been an interesting thread for some on food.

If he had refrained from being obnoxious it is possible that many may have contributed to it.

My skin is thicker than the most and Manuel is often amusing!

Absolutely Fred, see my comments on his fry ups thread.

Those old sayings still have virtue
Empty vessels make most noise

Anyone watch Question Time last night.?

Biggest cheer of night was when the writer on the panel cant remember her name laid into Cameron and his welfare reforms saying "here is a man who as wanted for nothing all his life and is simply not fit to run this country". WOW what a clap and positive response she got from the audience.

I suppose the audience were against the Tory Hammond who repeatedly kept calling LIZ /
Rachel Reeves........hes a minister for christ sake.

Talk of incompetence.

goldfinger - 20 Feb 2014 22:41 - 36964 of 36968

Yep push off and start your own thread cynic.


When I did that you went crying to Ian , Someones stolen my thread , I have copyright on it . And it was deleted.

Anyone watch Question Time last night.? yes

What i found funny was that Rachel was flinging her arms and hands around has if the audience were deaf. Must have been watching to many of Tony Blair speeches , Just like the Blair babes were trained to do.

The Philosopher on the panel kept calm and was good .

GF,

Yes, did watch QT.

There was not much sympathy for the torrids.

But, I think Philip Hammond is underestimated and does not seem to me a rampant ideologist like some of his present "leadership".

Disagree with some of what he says, but appears moderate and usually talks sense.

The lady in question was Jeanette Winterson. A very feisty Lancashire lass. Frightens the wits out of many men.

It was quite an entertaining program.

But the torrid party is on the run.

=============
Hear Farrage has accepted a challenge to a debate on the EU with Clegg.

Bet Cameron ducks Farrage once again!

Probably, he is still hiding behind Alistair Darling.

Aldwick simply not accurate what you said in post above ie......

aldwick 21 Feb 2014 09:10 - 36970 of 36972

goldfinger - 20 Feb 2014 22:41 - 36964 of 36968

Yep push off and start your own thread cynic.


When I did that you went crying to Ian , Someones stolen my thread , I have copyright on it . And it was deleted........................ends

See below. Youve had 3 attempts at trying to takeover my thread idea and FAILED.

Topic EPIC Started By Last Poster Updated Total Unread IR TR

The Don't Talk To Yourself Thread
CHAT
aldwickk
Dil
19 Jul 2013 02:59 14 1 Y


The politic's free discussion thread
PFD
aldwickk
mnamreh
09 May 2012 14:00 7 Y

The new talk to yourself thread
NTTY
aldwickk
IanT(MoneyAM)
08 May 2012 12:58 77 Y

Ian on the last botched attempt by you said this..........

IanT(MoneyAM) - 08 May 2012 12:58 - 77 of 77

All,

We are closing this thread down.

Bulletin board etiquette would dictate that if you wish to start a new discussion thread, then by all means do so, but do so as an entirely serparate entity i.e. new ideas, new title etc.

Regards

Ian.........................ends

Now you dont have to post here, i would prefer it if you did your contributions are much appreciated.

Perhaphs I was a little over aggresive with Cynic yesterday but to be truthfull hes been having his snidey digs all week and enough is enough.

You fight back.

If you dont like the political content here just skip it.

YOU THE POSTER DICTATES THE CONTENT ON THIS THREAD AT ANY ONE TIME.

Cleggy has nothing to lose, unless he comes up with a winner, he's buggered at the next election.

Cameroon and Millipeed have plenty to lose, hence the reticence.

LOL.

Social Cleansing ‏@Director_UKJCP 3m
If charging for sanction appeals becomes law, with a 52% success rate for appeals, there is something very wrong with the law.......................ends

Only under the Tories could claimants (usually the poor and disabled)get charged £250 UP FRONT to carry on with their appeal.

Its an utter disgrace and time the middle and working classes in this country stood up and faught for the poorest and I dont mean the worthless scroungers who can work.

Whats this about gf?

Goldfinger

Proved my point , you went crying to Ian , and it wasn't breaking any rules , etiquette is not a rule.

So Cynic can't start another thread like you said , or you will report him to Ian.

The Don't Talk To Yourself Thread , ment it wasn't your thread so why was it deleted ? Why did you thing it was such a threat to your thread if it was such a botched attempt . ?

People stripped of benefits could be charged for challenging decision
Critics argue that proposal in leaked document from Department for Work and Pensions would hit poorest people in the country

Shiv Malik and Patrick Butler
The Guardian, Thursday 20 February 2014 19.45 GMT

People who have been stripped of benefits could be charged by the government for trying to appeal against the decision to an independent judge.

Critics said the proposal, contained in an internal Department for Work and Pensions document leaked to the Guardian, would hit some of the poorest people in Britain, who have been left with little or no income.

In the document about the department's internal finances, officials say the "introduction of a charge for people making appeals against [DWP] decisions to social security tribunals" would raise money.

Other ideas include selling off child support debt to "the private sector to collect", though civil servants remark that the government would be unlikely to raise more than 5-7p in the pound from the £1.4bn currently owed to the DWP. The department currently collects arrears.

Earlier this week figures showed that in the past year nearly 900,000 people have had their benefits stopped, the highest figure for any 12-month period since jobseeker's allowance was introduced in 1996. In recent months, however, 58% of those who wanted to overturn DWP sanction decisions in independent tribunals have been successful. Before 2010, the success rate of appeals was 20% or less.

One welfare legal adviser said the number of appeals being lodged at independent tribunals would be decimated if the government introduced a charge.

Last year the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) which sets policy in the area, brought in charges for employment tribunals of up to £250 to lodge a claim, depending on the kind of case being brought. The union Unison asked judges to review the policy, saying the number of claims had dropped by more than half after fees were introduced. High court judges declared the policy lawful this month.

In the DWP Efficiency Review, which is marked "restricted", it says the proposal for charging for social security tribunals is already "under investigation" by the MoJ and officials "intend to revisit it" in the wake of the Unison court challenge decision.

However, the 80-page document points out, the policy will "entail no revenue generation nor efficiency for the [DWP] per se" but will however generate income for the justice department.

The policy proposal leak comes as the prime minister and senior religious leaders clash over the benefits system. In a letter to the Daily Mirror, 27 Anglican bishops blamed David Cameron for creating a "national crisis" in which hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to survive on the charity of food banks because of "punitive sanctions" and other DWP failures. It followed similar criticisms from Vincent Nichols, the highest ranking Catholic in England and Wales, that the government was stripping away the welfare safety net – a charge dismissed as "an exaggeration" by Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister.

The justice minister Shailesh Vara said: "The government has made clear that reducing the deficit is our top priority. It is right that the Ministry of Justice looks at all opportunities to bring down the cost of our services to the taxpayer.

"We believe that it is right to consider whether those who use tribunals should make a greater contribution to their costs, where they can afford to do so, which is why we introduced fees for employment tribunals last year.

"We will continue to keep the position under review, but we have no current plans to extend fee charging into other tribunals."

Rachel Reeves, shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "When government's own figures show a staggering 58% of appeals against Department for Work and Pensions decisions to dock jobseeker's allowance are upheld, it's clear the system is broken. Rather than penalising thousands of people by charging them to appeal, ministers need to ask why they are presiding over a broken system which is making so many bad decisions, which are overturned on appeal."

Steve Winyard, head of policy and campaigns at the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which is threatening the DWP with legal action over sanction failures, said: "Every week RNIB receives complaints about DWP failing to provide correspondence and other benefits information in Braille or other accessible formats.

"As a result, these people are at direct risk of sanction and a number have had the benefits they rely on to live withdrawn. To now say that these individuals will not even be able to appeal the inaccurate DWP decision without paying for it is a disgrace, It's a 'computer says no' approach that locks people out and leaves some with no help whatsoever, many becoming reliant on food banks as a result."

Neil Bateman, a long-serving welfare rights lawyer, also described the policy idea as a disgrace. He said: "Stopping people from challenging bad decisions actually strikes at the heart of our democratic arrangement." He said many of the people he had successfully represented over the years at tribunals would not have got justice if they had been made to pay a fee and that even £5 would be too high a charge for them.

Bateman said that from his experience, a very high proportion of appeals were caused by mistakes and poor-quality decision-making by the DWP. He said this had risen in recent years because the department had got rid of experienced DWP decision-makers, social security law had become more complex and attitudes had changed.

"Under this government there is an attitudinal issue in terms of evidence of increased DWP staff antipathy towards clients and that all results in decisions which are wrong which eventually get turned over at appeal," Bateman said.