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.

Haze,

"What sort of people did they expect to recruit for the magazine of the Paedophile Information Exchange?"

I may be gullible, but if you drop the "magazine" out of the question and I was a research student I might wish to correspond, inquire or discuss "sexual deviations" with them.

Also remark of " statutory rape" of under 16 years olds.

Suggest you look at the number of prosecutions and under 16 year old pregnancies and under sixteen year old "mums".

----------

This is muck raking for an attempt to gain political gain and circulation figures, by what many see as a distasteful group representing the salacious views of a portion of the
torrid party.

as opposed to the (better organised?) muck raking from other quarters perhaps?
except of course, the reprehensible and surely politically-motivated campaign against andrew mitchell that has spectacularly backfired albeit rather late in the day

fossy will start claiming that scargill (and the rest of his wrecking crew) has been unfairly maligned for all these years, or more recently, bob crowe

Haystack Send an email to Haystack View Haystack's profile - 27 Feb 2014 22:35 - 37183 of 37195

More important things to debate.........................ends

Certainly is for once hays you are right.

Its all part of the Mails crusade to get the Tories elected, but sadly for them the average Joe in the street doesnt read their paper and secondly the average joe cares more about the pound in is pocket and not some silly old smear campaign roped up from the past.

Cynic un-filtered, after 5 day sanction.

oh goody goody :-)
silly boy you are sometimes :-))


btw, you're certainly right about the pound in your pocket etc - forget Our 'arold!

what should concern us all is the inevitable backlash against both major parties for the unabated influx of immigrants from the likes of romania and bulgaria who have no job lined up, and also the impatience (at best) of getting a far better deal from eu

the conservatives at least want a significant renegotiation - whether there is or would be any chance to achieve that is another matter
on the other side, labour seem totally uninterested, which is surely insane

that leaves you with the kippers, assuming you are going to vote at all, though personally i do not agree at all that we should just cut and run from eu

Some good points made above Cynic dont agree with them all but watch for my next post this might affect you.

hmrc chasing tax avoiders? :-)

Coalition to impose sanctions on housing benefit

Part-time workers who are judged to be doing too little to find full-time work could have their Housing Benefit sanctioned by the government when Universal Credit comes into full force, according to Inside Housing.

The revelation is the latest in a long line of benefit betrayals to be inflicted on the poor by the Coalition government. The new development also means landlords stand to lose out.

The Department for Work and Pensions has confirmed to Inside Housing that under Universal Credit, where a tenant is working less than 35 hours per week at minimum wage and is not eligible for JSA or ESA, then the housing element can be sanctioned instead.

It seems clear that the government is determined that it should be able to take income away from everyone who is not being properly paid by their employer. Does this seem fair to you?

Under the present system, Housing Benefit is paid direct to landlords, meaning sanctions against tenants can only be applied to out-of-work benefits like Jobseekers’ Allowance or Employment and Support Allowance. The aim is to use Universal Credit to spread the threat of sanctions so that it covers people in low-paid work as well. Would you consider any government that did this to be standing up “for hardworking people”?

The article quotes a DWP spokesperson who said: “It is only right that people claiming benefits should be aware that not sticking to the rules can have a consequence.”

This, of course, assumes that a person is breaking the rules if their employer refuses to improve their working conditions… but we know that the government has altered working conditions to ensure that employers are under no pressure to do so; the benefit cap, and the one per cent limit on the annual uprating of benefits have ensured that people without jobs will become continually worse-off, so those who are in work cannot demand pay increases for fear of being handed their P45s and told that someone else will do their job for less.

Are these the actions of a government that believes we are “all in it together”?

If anybody thinks they can find justification for this behaviour, please get in touch.

The new development also means landlords stand to lose out.

The landlords will just get different tenants.

Especially as Direct payment to landlords is to be abolished nationaly and claimants will be paid monthly instead of fortnightly or weekly.

THINK OF THE ARREARS OF RENT WHICH MAY BUILD UP.

Stick to drinking Hays you obviously dont know how hard and long a process it is to get someone evicted.

And at a loss of rent which you never see again.

Not difficult at all. I have a friend with a large number of properties and I have helped him with the process and paperwork.

Yes youve got a lot of freinds you havent you.

Talking shite again.

Manuel.

Why don't you engage the remnants of you brain before rushing out your foolish opinions.

You should apply for the editorship of the Mail or similar.

Rent a mouth comes to mind.


--------------


As I posted early Mitchell was abusive and possibly used "foul" language to the police at the "gates".

Any sensible person would have apologized and in probability it would have passed as a non-event.

Instead, the guardian of the "tax payers purse" elevated it to a farce and the state has paid, or is paying for his "vanity".


(I the past and in temper, I have cursed the police on a number of occasions, but had the sense to apologise for doing so. They a have done like so to me.)

================

Right Scargill.

Before shooting off you mouth, look back at what I have posted about Scargill before making "false" assertions.

But, although I disagree with much of what Scargill did and stood for, I do feel he was maligned by the Murdoch and tory press, as often he was an easy political target for the right wing of the con party to scapegoat for their own managerial incompetence and mistakes.

Similar to the scapegoating of migrants, the EU and "weakest members" of the population.

It is dirty politics as practiced by the con members of the coalition government.

The NASTY PARTY IS BACK and it stinks.

sticky - not sure where you got the above info/article, but it's not factually correct anyway ......

Under the present system, Housing Benefit is paid direct to landlords
no it isn't! ..... i know so, because my "benefits tenant" pays me by DD from her own bank a/c

so how much else of that article is incorrect or merely hearsay or guesswork or worse?

fossy stands up for scargill by trying to pass the buck ...... no surprises ever from the red corner

scargill, along with a number of others, was in the direct or indirect pay of communist russia .... his aim was only peripherally to look after the union members; his real aim was to wreck the whole uk economy, and thank goodness we had someone at the helm who was strong enough to stand up to him and his cronies, and ultimately to defeat them ..... and no, i would say exactly the same had there been someone from the other party who fought as hard for what was right for this country

as in the last war, cometh the hour, cometh the man - well woman in this instance

gf
He even gets back money owed when people leave. If you do credit checks when people start the tenancy you have their bank details. When they leave you can have them credit checked again and you will finfd their new address. He then has a debt registered against them and pursues the money at the new address, using bailifs if needed. No one ever gets away with owing money to him. I remember some twenty years ago when he owned a chain of staff agencies across London, he would sue for even small debts plus costs. He once sued someone for less than £10, which he got plus costs.

Cyners my rent is paid direct to me weve had this discussion before. CERTAIN councils only a few have adopted the new system in anticipation of Universal Credit.

The article is spot on just do a google and see how many returns you get.

If I remember correctly your tenants work part time dont they???

HAYS BUNKUM......watch channel 5 on mondays new series started 9pm, yep after a lengthy delay up to 18 months he'l get his house back but he wont get his rent back.

And as for bailifs going in and trying to reposes goods to the value of arrears owed ....forget it...complete waste of time.

Get a fraction back of what you are owed.

And do you really think a person owing money is going to fill in the statutory electorate sheet sent out every year. Without filling that in they cant be traced.

Your so called pall is telling you porkies.

People who have no money have nothing to lose always remember that hays.