DJKillaQueen

Is that the number of fire engines on night cover LM? :)

The sooner we get there the better (It really could be the difference between life or death). I totally accept this. It's common sense. With regards to night cover....again I don't know enough about calls out vs cover at night to know who is right but am I right in thinking there already is reduced cover at night compared to day? Pilgrim, I totally agree that taking kit home as opposed to leaving it at the station is inpractical (especially for those that rely on public transport). Surely as well, the time taken to travel between stations isn't so great that much would be saved in withdrawing the need for those journeys. These are the kinds of details that the union should be publicising.

There are some pics of a Lebanese Loop and some other cash machines skimmers on this webpage (you have to scroll down halfway)... ATM skimming scams

I think it can be done Reggie but it has to flexible to reflect the range of people that are unemployed - for the various reasons they are unemployed. And those reasons are as regional as they are individual. In most of these discussions there is a lack of aknowledgment of 'individual circumstance'. We need more jobs...that's a given. We need incentives to employers to 'give a chance' to those they might not automatically employ. We need apprenticeships for the unskilled young and we need retraining for others who would benefit from it. And we need work/welfare schemes for those that do sit at home all day watching TV because they DO exist although not in the numbers the Daily Mail would have us believe. Whatever is done, the unemployed individual should benefit from the process....otherwise it's extra expense down the drain and will achieve nothing. On punishment...I am opposed to taking away benefits, but would instead favour replacing benefits with vouchers. I think the embarassment of buying food and utilities with vouchers would suffice to have a desired effect. And those vouchers can stay in place for as long as it takes for that person to play ball.

I also agree that IDS is making an effort to genuinely understand the problems at hand. He recognises it will take sizeable investment but the long term benefit to the country would be worth it. However he has to get that investment out of central government and I think that will be the hardest challenge for him.

No DJKQ, they'll have condemned themselves to homelessness and starvation by refusing to go to work. What kind of world do you live in H? DO you understand the maths of an area that has high unemployment? If there are NO jobs for people then what are they supposed to do? If there are jobs, but they can't compete for them because employers are prejudiced against women, the over 50's, the disabled, the LTU (which is a real fact) - what are they suposed to do? Let's have some answers to that......

DJKQ's point about 'exploitation' coveniently ignores the fact that benefit recipients are currently exploiting the hard work of others. Remember, it's not government money - it's your money. You forget that most of the unemployed HAVE worked at some time in their lives and have paid taxes like the rest of us. The cases we hear about in the Daily Mail number just 50 accross the country and they all have the same thing in common...lot's of children and 'ill' parents. It's the child benefits, housing costs and incapacity benefitis with DLA that create the shocking figures in those cases (all of which can be sensibly dealt with). MOST people on unemployemnt benefits get just $65 per week. It's a very hard amount to live on for any prolonged period of time as it is. The government has chosen to use the 50 anomalies above as the excuse to bash ALL benefits recipients. And Labour are absolutely right to oppose things like the proposed 10% cut to HB after a year. But I've also made some very good points about what a welfare to work scheme would cost to implement. Those of you so concerned about the cost of benefits seem to be conveniently ignoring that fact.

I agree with Sean too in many respects. My view is that if we are going to spend that amount of money....sending people out to 'pick up litter' is not the best way to spend it. For a start, the unemployed who want/ need help finding employment or training should be able to access that right away, not after six months which is the case at present (it's six months because of the cost btw). Specialist agencies that Labour set up - paid by results (with good success rates) to help LTU, will tell you they can always tell who is most likely to become LTU. They'll often be over 50, or lacking in skills or self esteem, or have been in the same job for a long time. Sometimes they will have poor attitude. But it can be spotted before those people become LTU. The coalition intend to scrap all those sepcialist agencies (who tailor jobsearches to the individual) and replace them with a one size fits all agency. It's a backwards step. The Coalition seem to think they can tackle these problems on the cheap.....threatening those that don't comply or worse still get failed by the new syatem with the loss of benefits for three months. Well that will I'm afraid condemn a samll number of people to homelessness and starvation...and they won't all be work shy scroungers....some of them with be vulnerable people. I can see many problems...poor results and spiralling costs as things are proposed at present.

There's lot's of points for me to agree with here, but if we do want to look at the US, the work/ welfare scheme is fraught with problems, especially for single parents for whom there is no childcare provision. And instead of helping those people into better employment many employers descriminate against work/ welfare applicants, in the same way employers descriminate against the LTU here. And just like here the US has high unemployment in parts with no jobs for the unemployed to occupy. The example of Harry Brown and Harry Smith is a good one. It's a complex issue. And add to that the ill and disabled that the government is now also going to decide can work (again some genuinely can and have been milking the system for years, other genuinely can't but the re-assessment doesn't measure for it - which is why almost half of appeals are sucessful). It will need a complex case by case approach, which in turn will cost money (?760 million alone in just awarding the contracts to private companies to manage it). People forget that in order to put the unemployed to work, supervisors, managers and a whole host of other things will have to be paid for...including transport costs for the unemployed themselves. It's perhaps why in the past, the unemployed have been required to attended short back to work courses from time to time (rather than any fully time scheme). They are far cheaper to run and easier to manage. The moment you set out to keep the unemployed occupied full time...the cost will rocket. That's just a fact. In the US the work/ welfare scheme does displace local jobs. They cut the management costs by placing people in things like retail and kitchen porter placements - effectively taking away those positions as jobs. If the government go for a one size fits all approach, it won't work.

I personally don't have an issue with the unemployed doing something...what I do have an issue with is the number of hours the government is proposing. My suggestion would be two hours each morning...that will get the truly work shy out of bed and used to going somewhere. At the same time, those who have been looking for work will still have the time they need to continue doing that. But the government does need to be careful. It has been suggested that the agencies that would organise this 'work' would be the same agencies that currently arrange community service for convicted criminals. There is also the issue of impact (if any) on local jobs. And many unemployed people already do lots of what could be considered as voluntary work. They may help their local community in any numbers of ways. That should be accepted as part of the deal. Also sending skilled people to pick up litter will only serve to demoralise them. Those without skills aren't going to pick any up either. I am increasingly of the view anyway that this government is determined to make being unemployed and on benefits as miserable an existence as possible. That's fine in a city like London where there are good chances of finding work if you are prepared to do anything.....but it won't do anything for those in areas of high unemployment...where they have a 1 in 10 chance of getting a job (and that's assuming a level playing field). The reality is the LTU are unlikely to ever be employed because of the prejudices of employers. And worse still for those with mental health conditions and some physical conditions. At present everyone being reassessed on incapacity benefit and ESA fails (apart from those with terminal illness or severe disability). And those being moved onto ESA will after a year be put onto JSA irregardless of their health. These people are particularly vulnerable - especially those suffering from depression which this government doesn't even recognise as a debilitating condition for some people. Thay also forget that employers won't adsorb the cost of employing someone that can change from day to day.

That's useful to know, so that others can look out for it, and obviously call the Police rather than walk away from the machine. At least your bank knew right away what had happened and were happy to refund the money.

Yeah whatever.....

Hmmm...you forget who began the process of deregulation townley (long before Labour came to power) and that it was a global crisis enabled by global deregulation of banking practises. It's far too easy to blame Labour as your blatently Tory supporting post does. You obviously are not unemployed in an area of high unemployment, or disabled, or low waged, in receipt of HB or have any problems with housing.

Yeah I agree with Sean and in fact this is the case in America, which pretty much has a two tier University system. More affluent parents take out policies and investments to pay for their childs University education anyway.

That's my view too. I think he is a career politician and chose the Liberal Democrats because he felt he would have more opportunity to progress the ranks within them.....but even he couldn't have dreamt it would be so meteoric and land him in shared power. There is also a very strong hint that much of the deals done with the Cameron government haven't involved the bulk of his MPs.

Of course you can get a smaller service for much lower cost, but will it be as good? That's the key question in any dispute about cuts. And without an answer, whilst I can certainly support the sentiment to oppose them, it's hard to know who is right. The union should be able to provide an overview that analyses the number of call outs to engines etc. Managament will certainly be able to do that and would use it as the basis of any proposal for cuts. As a member of the public, of course I want a good service, but I also want it to be good value for the money spent on it too. On the shift change aspect, I'm afraid H is right. There has been no effective counter argument made to the mamnagement proposals, and nor has any good answer been given as to why the compromise of 11/13 was rejected, apart from 'because of the conditions attached' - and no attached conditions listed for us to consider.

It's a B Road.

LOL.......

I need cheering up waynetta, so c'mon....gis a larf :))

Well I'd rather take the Police word for it, and most of the crashes reported on here take place during the day.

They are not the same in what they do and think (something that gets forgotten after long terms of same government) but they are the same in how they operate.

I agree that positioning of the pedestrian crossing might be a factor. It certainly would distract drivers attention away form the junction and to the lights. It seems to be there to serve the small parade of shops too.

Could be a strong campaigning point with good local support. James made the pint earlier that the process by which road/ traffic improvements are considered is such that only data is a consideration, not public/political perception. I must also be wildly wrong in my estimations of speed Yes you probably are. The police stood there with a speed gun. How more accurate can you get. If the police pull anyone over for speeding it's because they have an accurrate reading, or camera footage that proves they were speeding.

I too agree Brendan. It is immoral that young people should be indebted to banks as a matter of course like that. And worse than that we continue the mantra that debt is good. Debt is only good for banks and the money they make on it.

I agree with them...but the third point was born out of necessity after being in opposition for so long.