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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26288112

Bad enough just having your house robbed and the invasion of your privacy attacked.

God knows what it must be like for those poor devils on the Somerset Plains when its water that as destroyed your house and life to a certain extent.

Cant do with these people saying they should be allowed to flood. Thats bunkum.

Got to get all parties together and come up with LONG TERM solutions which start immediatly.

Cameron’s ‘mission’ is morally bankrupt 21/FEB/2014

When David Cameron stands up in all his hypocrisy and tells you that tearing apart the basic safety net that guaranteed people would not be left in hunger or destitution is part of his “moral mission”, even die-hard Tories should agree that the country has taken a turn for the worse.

When he defends an administration that has become so punitive that applicants who don’t get it right have to wait without food for months at a time, by claiming he is doing “what is right”, even die-hard Tories should agree that the man who claims he is Prime Minister has diverged from reality.

That is precisely what he has done, and you can bet that the Tory diehards will quietly go along with it because they think it is far better for other people to lose their lives than it is for their government to lose face.

Cameron has been responding after the Catholic Bishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, delivered a vehement attack on the social security “reforms” being forced on the country’s most vulnerable people by Iain Duncan Smith.

In the Daily Telegraph, Cameron smarmed: “Our long-term economic plan for Britain is not just about doing what we can afford, it is also about doing what is right… Nowhere is that more true than in welfare. For me the moral case for welfare reform is every bit as important as making the numbers add up.

“We are in the middle of a long and difficult journey turning our country around,” Cameron said. “That means difficult decisions to get our deficit down, making sure that the debts of this generation are not our children’s to inherit.

“But our welfare reforms go beyond that alone – they are about giving new purpose, new opportunity, new hope – and yes, new responsibility to people who had previously been written off with no chance.

“Seeing these reforms through is at the heart of our long-term economic plan – and it is at the heart too of our social and moral mission in politics today.”

Drivel. Any evidence-based analysis will find the exact opposite. Where are the opportunities in Workfare schemes that pay only benefits, meaning travel expenses alone put claimants out of pocket, and then send jobseekers back to the dole queue so rich companies can profit further by taking on more claimants on the same terms?

How can anyone derive hope from taking responsibility for their job search, when DWP staff at Jobcentre Plus are ordered to ignore their own responsibilities in favour of harsh sanctions for invented infringements of the Jobseeker’s Agreement?

And how is encouraging people to say they are self-employed, even though they have little chance of earning enough to support them and none of enjoying a holiday or a pension, different from writing them off with no chance?

Look at the new employment figures from the Office for National Statistics - the Coalition government has been making a song and dance about them ever since they came out. On the face of it, they seem reliable: In December 2013, 30.15 million people were in work of some kind, up by 396,000 from the same time the previous year; there were 2.34 million unemployed, down 161,000 from December 2012; and the Claimant Count (those on Jobseekers’ Allowance) was 1.22 million in January, down 327,000 from a year earlier.

However, the number of people marked as self-employed has rocketed to a record level, totalling one in seven of the workforce. That’s 437,000 – up 150,000 on the previous year. This is extremely suspicious, as the increase in the previous year totalled 25,000 – just one-sixth of this week’s figure.

Some of these people might be genuinely self-employed and making their new business work – but all of them? In an economy where productivity hasn’t increased since the Coalition took office? You’d have to be stupid to believe that.

Assuming the amount of real self-employment has increased in line with economic growth (at 1.9 per cent), that’s an extra 25,475 in 2013, leaving 124,525 in limbo. Are these really self-employed? Or were they told by Jobcentre advisors to say so and claim working tax credits (as we’ve seen in the past), leading to a huge debt when HMRC tells them they have been claiming fraudulently and have been overpaid?

How many of the unemployed have been wiped off the books due to sanctions? We don’t know, because we don’t have figures up to December 2013. We do know that 897,690 sanctions were enforced in the year to September 2013. We don’t know how many were for one month, how many for three months or how many for three years, but we do know that the rate was six per cent of jobseekers per month in the three months to the end of September 2013. Assuming that rate stayed solid, it suggests that 73,200 were off-benefit due to sanctions in December and should be added to the Claimant Count to give a more accurate figure.

How many of the unemployed have been wiped off the books due to Workfare? We don’t know. How many are unemployed but on Universal Credit, which isn’t included in the Claimant Count? We don’t know – 3,610 were on it at the end of November last year, but the DWP has not divided them into those in work and those without.

David Cameron has access to all of this information, and he doesn’t care. He also has access to the mortality figures for claimants of Incapacity Benefit/Employment and Support Allowance, that the DWP has been withholding from the rest of us, probably for fear of sparking an international outcry. He doesn’t care about that either.

His comments are therefore doubly outrageous – not only is he claiming that his Coalition’s changes are having a beneficial effect when the figures demonstrate the opposite, but he is also claiming the moral high ground when his actions are more appropriate to the populace of the Pit.

In terms of his morality, there can be only one description for him and his cronies:

Bankrupt.

Look at the new employment figures from the Office for National Statistics - the Coalition government has been making a song and dance about them ever since they came out. On the face of it, they seem reliable: In December 2013, 30.15 million people were in work of some kind, up by 396,000 from the same time the previous year; there were 2.34 million unemployed, down 161,000 from December 2012; and the Claimant Count (those on Jobseekers’ Allowance) was 1.22 million in January, down 327,000 from a year earlier.

However, the number of people marked as self-employed has rocketed to a record level, totalling one in seven of the workforce. That’s 437,000 – up 150,000 on the previous year. This is extremely suspicious, as the increase in the previous year totalled 25,000 – just one-sixth of this week’s figure.

Some of these people might be genuinely self-employed and making their new business work – but all of them? In an economy where productivity hasn’t increased since the Coalition took office? You’d have to be stupid to believe that.

Assuming the amount of real self-employment has increased in line with economic growth (at 1.9 per cent), that’s an extra 25,475 in 2013, leaving 124,525 in limbo. Are these really self-employed? Or were they told by Jobcentre advisors to say so and claim working tax credits (as we’ve seen in the past), leading to a huge debt when HMRC tells them they have been claiming fraudulently and have been overpaid?

How many of the unemployed have been wiped off the books due to sanctions? We don’t know, because we don’t have figures up to December 2013. We do know that 897,690 sanctions were enforced in the year to September 2013. We don’t know how many were for one month, how many for three months or how many for three years, but we do know that the rate was six per cent of jobseekers per month in the three months to the end of September 2013. Assuming that rate stayed solid, it suggests that 73,200 were off-benefit due to sanctions in December and should be added to the Claimant Count to give a more accurate figure.

How many of the unemployed have been wiped off the books due to Workfare? We don’t know. How many are unemployed but on Universal Credit, which isn’t included in the Claimant Count? We don’t know – 3,610 were on it at the end of November last year, but the DWP has not divided them into those in work and those without.

.

Cleggy pulls a fast one on Cameroon and Radar Millipeed. (both bottled it)





Nigel Farage agrees to EU debate with Nick Clegg

Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg will go head-to-head in a debate on the European Union.



By Peter Dominiczak, Assistant Political Editor

9:46AM GMT 21 Feb 2014




Nigel Farage will take on Nick Clegg in a debate on the European Union after the Ukip leader accepted a challenge from the Deputy Prime Minister.


Mr Farage told LBC radio that he has “no choice” but to accept Mr Clegg’s challenge.


He said that he would rather take part in a debate that also included David Cameron, the Prime Minister, and Ed Miliband, the Labour leader.


“I have absolutely no choice,” Mr Farage said. “I’ve got to say yes because we need to have a national debate on what I think is the most important issue this country has faced.


“The answer is yes, I will do it with Nick Clegg, but the other two, I’d like to see them there as well.”


The debate could lead to renewed calls for Mr Farage to take part in any leaders’ debates ahead of the 2015 general election.

Mr Cameron’s senior advisers are said to be against Mr Farage taking part.

Mr Farage added: "I nearly choked on my bacon roll when I heard Nick Clegg say he wanted to have a debate about the big European question because this was the guy three years ago advocating an in/out referendum who now says there shouldn’t be a referendum, but now wants a debate so he’s all over the place.



More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/10653279/Nigel-Farage-agrees-to-EU-debate-with-Nick-Clegg.html

FOOD BANKS
given the virtual monopoly of this thread by the rabids, i have no doubt that this little thought for the day will get quickly swamped, but hey ho

are food banks required?
it's an unfortunate fact, but yes they are

were food banks required say 12 years ago?
almost certainly - but they didn't even come into existence until 10 years ago

are an increasing number of people now availing themselves of food banks?
yes - patently so

does that mean that there is a growing proportion of the population that needs food banks?
not quite as simple an answer as you might think
food banks have only recently been given substantial airing
it is a matter of fact that the creation of food banks and their recent publicity has in itself created a growing demand for them as more and more people wake up to the fact they may be entitled to use them

is this growing demand or need the "fault" of the present government?
the rabids would give an affirmative knee-jerk answer
those who stop to think may register that 4 years ago this country was effectively bankrupt, so much of this increased demand can reasonably be said to be a direct or indirect lag effect of that situation

has this government exacerbated this situation?
the rabids would give an affirmative knee-jerk answer
those who stop to think may conclude that this government could possibly have done more for the lower echelons of society, but how that might have been sensibly achieved is virtually impossible to determine

would the previous incumbents have made a better job of this situation?
on their dismal record of managing the economy over the 10/12 years in which they were in power, the answer is almost certainly not

The present mob in control has done more harm to the economy and society in 4 years than the previous government did in 13years.

Look at the figures and start DYOH.

i see that as usual you do not answer or even contradict the Q's posed above, but just go off on some airy-fairy, sweeping statement tangent - but of course you don't/won't/never vote, so your opinion is of even less value than it might be

at least you managed to be succinct for a change

I was an observer for a large part of my life and highly paid for the few opinions I gave!

Consider yourself lucky that you have them now for nothing.

(Probably, what your and my opinions are worth.)


8-)

we'll agree on that for a once!

It's a fact that food banks exist.

It's a sad fact that food banks are required.

It's a shamefull fact that the politicians, both present and the last lot don't seem to give a toss.

Gotta say those foodbank thingies sound like a very good idea. Anyone happen to know if they've got one in the Illiez Valley?

And how do they work exactly? Is there a number to phone your order through? Do they deliver? And would they send someone along to do the cooking and wash up afterwards?

Hils,

I have a recipe for old tarts, if you feel a little underdone!

I am sure it would be sufficient for the ingredients you have,

Goldie

One for you and Fred


DJ Chris Moyles claimed to be a second-hand car dealer in a bid to save up to £1 million in tax, a tribunal has found. A tax court named Moyles and two other men as having taking part in a scheme called "working wheels" which counted "450 fund managers, celebrities and other high earners between 2006 and 2008" as members.

The scheme worked by allowing its members to say they had incurred large fees while working in the second-hand car trade which they could claim back against their tax bill. A published judgment from the Tax Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal said Moyles's self-assessment tax return for the financial year ending on April 5, 2008, when he was presenting Radio One's Breakfast Show, said he "had engaged in self-employment as a used car trader".

Moyles did not give evidence directly to the tribunal but did submit "a brief witness statement". The tribunal, under Judge Colin Bishopp, described that evidence as "very brief and rather uninformative". The judgment said: "It is however quite clear from the statement that he too entered the scheme for no purpose other than to achieve a tax saving, and that he took no interest in the trade."

It went on to say that Moyles was "anxious to be reassured that the scheme was lawful, and that he would not have to undertake any trading himself". It said his accountant, a Mr Smith, had "agreed that the scale of Moyles's borrowing was driven solely by the amount of the tax loss he wanted to achieve, in his case £1 million, and that the trading was not carried on for its own sake but was merely a means to an end".

Exchequer Secretary David Gauke said: "This case is another example of why taxpayers should not fall for the promises of promoters selling schemes that are all too often too good to be true. Not only will the taxpayer waste money on the fees for these failed schemes, they will still have to pay all the tax, interest and penalties that are due.

"This Government has provided HMRC with the resources to tackle these avoidance schemes and HMRC will now pursue the other users of the scheme to make sure all the taxes that are due are paid."

Moyles later took to Twitter to give his side of the story. He said: "I want to comment about a recent tribunal tax ruling.
"Upon advice, I signed up to a scheme which I was assured was legal. Despite this, my knowledge of the dealings of the scheme were naive.

"I'm not a tax expert and acted on advice I was given. This was a mistake and I accept the ruling without reservation. I take full responsibility and have learnt a valuable lesson."

Nigel Farage will take on Nick Clegg in a debate on the European Union after the Ukip leader accepted a challenge from the Deputy Prime Minister.


Clegg think's he is going to win that debate , like he did in the last election debate on tv , i think he is in for a surprise.

Fred1new - 21 Feb 2014 16:56 - 37005 of 37011

I was an observer for a large part of my life and highly paid for the few opinions I gave!


I hope it wasn't another case of Labour wasting tax payers money

Well done to Wales tonight, I hope England does as well tomorrow.

NAH.

Wales for the championship.

Cynic re to food banks where on earth do you get these silly assholic ideas from????????? I think you make it up as you go along...

See report out today(comissioned by government)..............here below.

Ministers can no longer deny the link between food banks and benefit cuts......
The long-delayed government-commissioned report slipped out today contradicts claims by ministers that food bank usage is driven by supply.
BY MOUSSA HADDAD PUBLISHED 21 FEBRUARY 2014

People, it turns out, are going to food banks because they’re hungry and in need. This finding, which chimes with the experiences of those of us with on-the-ground experience (including prominent members of the Catholic Church), emerges from a long-delayed report commissioned by ministers at Defra, and quietly slipped out today. It contradicts welfare reform minister Lord Freud’s assertion that food bank usage is driven by supply (if you build food banks, people will come for the free food).

In fact, as well as finding "no systematic evidence on the impact of increased supply" and that "hypotheses of its potential effects are not based on robust evidence", the report found that food bank use is "a strategy of last resort". People are proud, the evidence shows, and will tend to use them only once they’ve cut back on everything they can, and exhausted all other possible avenues of support. Indeed, food bank use is probably the tip of the iceberg: the report finds that, internationally, only one in five of those who are food insecure will tend to use emergency food support. Unfortunately, we don’t measure food insecurity in this country, but with food banks springing up across the country, from those linked to big national networks to small independent operations, perhaps we should.

The research looked at various sources as to why people are seeking food aid. In order of ranking, they found that reasons included: "loss of, reductions in or problems associated with, social security payments; low income; indebtedness; homelessness". A study the report cites from Citizens Advice found that the two main reasons for referrals for a food parcel were benefit delays and benefit sanctions. With sanctions at an all-time high, and the government proposing to make people wait for seven days to claim JSA after losing their jobs, these issues are only going to get worse.

The Defra pocket book (2012) highlights the compounded effects of falling income and rising food prices over recent years, which had "produced a double effect of reducing food affordability by over 20 per cent for households in the lowest income decile". Overall, the report makes clear that people go to food banks for both reasons of short-term crisis – job loss or problems with the social security system – and of long-term poverty – low income or indebtedness.

The report also bemoans the lack of systematic UK evidence of why people go to food banks. We, like many others, are seeing the urgency of the issue daily in our work, and policy makers need to gain far greater understanding of the growing food poverty crisis. The explosion in food bank use is a national emergency, and it is imperative that we understand its causes so that we can eliminate hunger from British children’s lives.

In the meantime, there is a lot that can be done to tackle the issues we already know about. Jobcentre Plus advisers need to start making much better use of short-term benefit advances. To tackle the longer-term causes of food poverty, we need more action on the inadequacy of incomes, on supporting people into work that pays enough to live on, backed up by high-quality, affordable childcare, and on the structural problems in the social security system that are edging many towards destitution.

Ultimately, food banks are a symptom of deeper problems. No child should be going hungry, and no child should be living in poverty. As part of its legal obligation to end child poverty by 2020, the government must publish its new Child Poverty Strategy by early April, and will be consulting on it shortly. It is a great opportunity for them to set out their roadmap to giving every child the nourishment they need, and the start in life they deserve.