Loz

It's more complicated than that, RD, as it is doubtful if Corbyn can win government on his own (thank goodness). He will need SNP and/or LibDem support - both dyed-in-the-wool Remainers.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not so - there is a common law obligation also. Hiding behind specifications & clearances is not > the whole story. A Developer/Architect/Builder has a duty of care & can be held responsible > regardless of what was specified - if it wasn't so there is a possibility of condoning mistakes & > even a conspiracy to defraud. The issue of self-certification of installations is > particularly important as the person doing the certification is employed by the builder - not a > healthy scenario & prone to pressure & abuse. > > I am working on a case where this very principle is at issue. Prime cost v Costs-in-Use v > Whole-of-Life-Costs where the Developer, Builder, consultants & others are being held to account > for poor work & specification that have lead to residents being required to stump up millions for > remediation after they have bought their flats. The residents have been winning the case and the > developers/architects/builders have requested an adjournment for settlement as the court has > indicated they will reward compensation even greater that has been claimed. > > A lot of the actors in this case will be held culpable & rest assured they are this very day & > every day for the future working with high priced lawyers to try to save them from jail & huge > compensation for the victims & their families. You are talking apples and oranges. There is a huge difference between deciding who is at fault for remedial work (civil case) vs corporate or individual manslaughter (criminal case). One is on the basis of a balance of probabilities and the other is on the basis of 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. If all the materials were certified for purpose, the more likely scenario is that the Borough of K&C will be found at civil fault and the treasury will fork out compensation. But no individuals will be found criminally responsible. If the materials were not certified (as Philip Hammond has said) then we may see some people in jail.

When you get wildly differing views on a subject, it's always best to refer to the FullFact website for a sensible, balanced view. https://fullfact.org/health/what-is-naylor-review/ And, as a bonus, it's a one-pager, rather than a dry, 46-page government report.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Culpability:- > > Supplier - knew or should have known of the risks > of using material & had an obligation to inform > and/or refuse supply. > Builder - knew or should have known risks of using > material & ought to have opted for safer material > - a better & more effective fire barriers to the > flammable material; also had an obligation to > install the materials properly. > Employers agent - had an obligation to ensure all > materials were fit for purpose, didn't pose any > risk & were installed properly. > Architects/engineers - had an obligation to ensure > against risks as last and to write detailed > specifications that demanded suitable effective > fire proofing standards. As I said above, if the cladding and insulation were certified for use for the situation, all of these groups will be absolved. If the materials weren't certified, some or all of these will be in massive amounts of trouble.

There's no CGT on your primary residence.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's no doubt someone will go to jail. At least 58 people are dead because they wanted to save (if > I have it correct) about ?5,000 on the cladding. The PM has gotten herself personally involved in > an effort to appear less of an android, and there's widespread anger in the community. Someone > is going to jail. For someone to go to jail, you almost certainly need to prove negligence. If all materials used were certified as safe, then I suggest people involved in the cladding decision won't go to jail. I suspect the alarms will be an issue, though. Interestingly, the brand new MP for Kensington has said that ?poor-quality materials and construction standards have played a part in this hideous and unforgivable event?. She seem to have forgotten she was, according to some newspapers, on the board of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation when the refurbishment was discussed and scrutinised.

Medusa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's a Labour Party one in Brockwell Park on Saturday. Doesn't that completely miss the point?

I think what Just Giving has set up is excellent. Putting together a computer system that can handle unexpected surges in demand is really difficult, even in the cloud computing age. Remember all those ticket sites like Ticketmaster and Glastonbury that fell over just about every time? And they knew it was coming. OK, JG could consider capping or tapering charges for bigger collections, but collecting 5% on the usual ?500 collections isn't much - they probably rely on the big collections for their income. And they do a responsible job. Remember when there we question marks over some of the Manchester and London collection, so they stepped in, froze the money and made sure it got to the recipient it was intend for? Admin takes up a lot of charity funds. If you give ?10 to, say Oxfam or a cancer charity, they probably spend a similar amount on fund raising costs. But they don't spell that out like JG does. So I think for their 5%, they do a good job. It's not an unfair margin. They have a solid system ready and waiting to be the conduit for people to raise funds for good causes. That 5% will go to maintaining that system, paying salaries and (whisper it quietly) making a profit. Do you really think the government could do a better job for less money?

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What exactly are the lib dems holding out for before getting together with May? They'll never be > in a better position to (try and) show they're not completely irrelevant. Surely there's a back-door > deal being discussed. Well, it might change now Farron has gone, but I'd guess that the Lib Dems won't be cutting deals with either the Tories or Labour any time soon. More's the pity as they are exactly the people you want holding the balance of power, but the 2010-2015 coalition has left some nasty scars.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > rendelharris Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > I assume Lordship means, and I agree, that she > > > should apologise for calling an entirely > > > unnecessary general election > > > > Nice try, Rendel, but looks like you were a bit > > off the mark! > > Really? I look to Lordship to correct me, but I > see nothing in his or her posts which contradicts > my opinions... Not a contradiction. It was more that his post four after yours had zero in common with your theory. Yours was kind of sensible.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry, banging on a bit but one thing more: had Mrs.May, herself a diabetic, made slips on figures > due to mismanaging her medication, one suspects the majority of the press would have said poor > woman, what a heroine for sacrificing herself for the country, hats off to her - they would > definitely have looked for a reason rather than immediately starting with "Cor what a thickie" > headlines. I think we can safely say it would depend on the leaning of the press in question. I think both the left and the right would happily stick the boot into the other side, and complain vociferously when it happens to one of their own.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > The man is a walking advertisement for some > > consultancy somewhere - they did a remarkable > job. > > > I don't think that's true. > > I heard him speak just after (literally just > after) he had been put under pressure all > afternoon by Labour MPs who wanted him to stand > down as leader. > > He was totally inspiring. > > That was months and months ago. > > The only reason anybody would think otherwise was > because of biased media coverage. > > I doubt very much any consultancy has been > involved. He didn't need it. Oh, I know he's good in front of a crowd, but he was awful in TV studio.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I assume Lordship means, and I agree, that she > should apologise for calling an entirely > unnecessary general election Nice try, Rendel, but looks like you were a bit off the mark! Anyway, you should be happy she called the election - it seems to have kiboshed the hard Brexit we were careering towards. And with any luck and a good wind, it might even undo it completely. It may yet - inadvertently, of course - save us a lot of money!

Should have told them they were your mum and dad. Technically, you'd have been fine, then.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She has apologized many many times to the > conservatives but she has yet to apologize to the > electorate for her shambles... You want her to apologise to the electorate for them not voting for her enough to give her a majority? She got more votes than Corbyn - does he have to apologise as well? You have a really weird viewpoint of the world.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Corbs on the other hand is a lifelong campaigner and was > totally in his element. *After* he relented and did some media training. The man is a walking advertisement for some consultancy somewhere - they did a remarkable job.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In our family it was the wishbone used to make a wish. Us too. And I always wanted a really big teddy bear. I remember that, every time I got the big end of the wishbone, making the exact same wish month after month, year after year. And did I get my really big teddy bear? No I did not. Fecking dead chickens. Useless.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Corbyn has agreed to renew Trident as that's what the Labour party conference voted for. Nothing to > do with betraying his principles, it's accepting the democratic decision of his party. You don't see a person who has been a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament for three decades leading a party that will renew a nuclear weapons system as betraying his own principles? That's... erm... flexible thinking.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Labour will walk an election sooner or later Well, yes, as cycles work that way. Corbyn has lost a lot of the distrust he had and I suspect he might win another one held in the next 12 months. Though 50 seats is still a big loss, it will be almost impossible for May to get any of the lost seats back. Though you could also say that it would be pretty difficult for the Tories to have another election campaign quite as inept as this one. Lesson one: don't piss off your core vote. Boris taking over might make a difference. We'd then have an election with both main party leaders making wild promises they almost certainly can't deliver.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But thinking that a spoilt ballot paper is a political process is just retarded. > > Like Rendell, I adhere to Churchill on this. It's flawed, but better than the alternatives. Actually, I'd give him credit for at least turning up, rather than sitting on his backside, not voting at all and yet still moaning about politics. It can be the equivalent of 'none of the above'. And a spoilt ballot can definitely be a political message. I remember a referendum in the 80's where many people considered neither option on the ballot paper acceptable and nearly half the ballots were spoilt. That sent a very political message (which the government of the time ignored, but still...)

Many people are using saying that the Tories are putting "party before the country" in dealing with the DUP. There is a simple solution to this - if a big enough group of MPs (i.e. about 8) were to put the country before their parties and do a deal with May on a simple confidence and supply agreement - that is, pass the Queens Speech and the budget only - then problem solved. The DUP out of the frame and we have something that looks vaguely like a government. But this won't happen because each and every person in Westminster is an utter hypocrite. The lot of them.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > British Citizens each and everyone of them But not British? In other news, I hear UKIP are looking for a new leader.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz wrote > > You are really tying yourself into a knot here. > What exactly is your definition of 'British'? > > Someone born in Great Britain > > All the rest are Citizens. A Mongolian would be a > Mongolian who has been granted British Citizenship So you are saying Mo Farah is not British? Really? Are you sure you want to go to that place? Oh, and Bradley Wiggins. And Justin Rose. And Chris Froome. And Cliff Richard. And Joanna Lumley. And Spike Milligan. And Freddie Mercury. Not a British person amongst them?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Exactly Loz > > These people are British Citizens, or have the > right to British Citizenship, but are not > necessarily British except in a loose collective > term. So they are British, but they are not British. You are really tying yourself into a knot here. What exactly is your definition of 'British'? And how would you apply that definition if someone from, say, Gibraltar moves to London? Or someone from Outer Mongolia emigrates to Birmingham. Or to Belfast for that matter.

Lets put this another way: what is the collective name for people from "Great Britain and Northern Ireland", then? Answer: British. And, as of 21 May 2002, you can add people from the following places as 'British': Anguilla Bermuda British Antarctic Territory British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands Falkland Islands Gibraltar Montserrat Pitcairn Islands Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Turks and Caicos Islands https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-overseas-territories-citizen