DJKillaQueen

I profoundly believe in 'equality of opportunity' and legislation that prevents the domination of super-corporates that eventually damage competition. For me that is the start of the solution too. AFAIK, there is a big crackdown starting on disability benefits. Are you doing your bit to solve that particular issue? This so called big crack down involves reassessing people with mental health poroblems like depression whilst not measuring any core symptoms of that in the reassessment. Almost veryone reassessed under the new guidelines with depressive illness fails. It has been strongly criticised by health professions and MIND. Those with support systems then appeal and most are successful at appeal. I saw the assessment structure today for the first time after someone I know who suffered a mental health breakdown in August somehow failed this assessment, in total contradiction to his doctors opinion and support workers opinion. The assessment structure is woefully innappropriate (shocking given that most claimants are claiming for mental health problems) and vulnerable people are going to be forced onto JSA and then lose their benefits altogether when they fail to seek employment (because they are not well enough to do so). It's a disaster waiting to happen for those individuals, not to mention the cost to the taxpayer in providing increased support services to help people appeal. On the other hand it still remains easy to fake a physical disability, such as back problems or other non degenerative pain related conditions that some people have been caught faking to get disaibility benefits. By all means reassess people periodically, but make sure the assessment truly meassures disability. The assessment as it currently stands doesn't.

For me a fairer society woyuld be one in which the gap between the richest and poorest were not so wide. That means having a society were greed is curbed and where the poor at least have hope that they can have a better future. In reality that means governemnts spending far more than they currently do on education, training, mental health resources and job creation. Unfortumately so far we are seeing no measures in that direction from this government. Tuition fees are set to significantly rise in the review (not something that will encourage the poorest to seek higher education). The drive to remove people from Incap to cheaper benefits will hit those with mental health problems hardest (therefore making them more ill in all likelihood) and training, apprenticeships and so on are woefully small in numbers compared to those that need free access to them.

DJKQ ? you are addressing Mockney who I don?t think has contributed to this thread lol you are quite right...will edit to address the right poster! oops ......

ewwww so is that what this thread is really about then...periods? *did we break the code?*

But what is an underserving cause Mac? Because all I see is that the privileged are more easily able to get on in life whilst the most diasadvantaged stay poor. In fact unless the Conservatives do something to improve the options for upward mobility they are doing nothing to address any imbalance. I'm not holding out for asignificant raise in minimum wage soon for example...something the Conservatives were bitterly opposed to in any form remember. Oh and just what imbalance was being addressed when Sheffield Forgemasters had their grant taken away. Meanwhile the recession is over for the banking industry.

Well it looks as though child tax credits will be removed at the some lower threshold too in the coming review so that'll also upset the apple cart.

It's not a point but a full stop.

I totally agree. Stoned people are a waste of space.

I will request it be painted a different colour tm at the CC meeting.

'Feeling' a cyclist rides too fast means what? They are going top crash into someone or something? A feeling is relative. It doesn't mean they are cycling too fast. And Pearson is correct in that the road surface of Sumner Road is shocking......but then the terrible maintenance of Roads in this borough is something that is nothing new.

lol (tu)

Err Sumner Road is a road, with traffic. The canal path is a quiet cycle off road route and therefore safer. I completely disagree with you that anti-social cyclists are anything like a major problem on the canal path....no more than cylist's, pedestrians and drivers you'll find anywhere else. I've been using that path every day for twenty years so know it very well.

I don't think we can ever have a system that is totally fair whilst life isn't fair. Only an accident of birth decides if you get a public school education or a state school one for example. Tonight I watched the second 'Titantic' programme where they rebuild a piece of the Titanic. This week it was the anchor. The programme's brilliance is the insight it gives into life in industrial Britain. A life that was awful for those working in the mills, mines, factories, foundries. Most people had to work to eat, and had no life outside of that work only to die young from the various hazards that working in those industries exposed them to. There was no fairness there. So for me, any question of fairness is more than about salary and taxation. We don't have a world where effort and talent are rewarded in equal measure and statistically, if born into poverty, a person is more likely to stay in poverty than escape it. A lot of the highest earners are vastly overpaid for what they do and it seems absolutely right that as a society we are not afriad to challenge that.

it is a section of the tour de france, which is how it can feel as a pedestrian when they all coming speeding past you. Define speeding...10 mphr? 20 mphr? The point is they ride past pedestrians not over them.....it's a perfectly safe route for both cyclists and pedestrians as it is.

Child benefit is paid to the biological mother at the moment (except in the case of a single parent/ guardian being otherwise) but it will be means tested on 'joint' household income, whether that other partner is male or female/ biological or step parent.

Is it true you have lovely browny green eyes? No.

If you start a new thread and address it to Dear James Also it's not Jame's Ward.

Hi Tom, I'd just like to reinforce the comments about pedestrians not realising it's a cycle lane. I understand the design is to slow everyone down but it doesn't work. Cycling at walking pace on the lane, I had two collisions in five days after a pedestrian (with back to me) stepped right in front of me with no time for me to react. They don't look behind them because it's a pavement (who would). In 20 years of cycling I've never had a collision with a pedestrian. Also the northbound road leaves no room for cyclists to overtake stationary buses..so they jump up onto the cycle pavement. Having cyclists on the pavement just does not work - the pavement is too busy. I will be bringing this up at the Community Council meeting tm. Getting a bit fed up of money being wasted on road schemes that don't work in practise - esp when Rye Lane itself has been in desperate need of resurfacing for years (it's shocking at the moment although I understand the plan is to resurface as part of those works). The lane needs to be painted a different colour, that's blatently clear. As for the canal path - what speeding? Most cyclists ride according to the conditions. Again I have never collided with a pedestrain on it in all the years I've used it and never seen a collision. If the pathway is clear you cycle quicker...if there are pedestrians you go slower until you safely pass them. Most times of the day it's fairly clear, only at rush hour will there be an abundance of cyclists going to/ from work. But there are those that just don't want cycling on any kind of pathway of course.

Are you a troll with bright green long hair though......? Because if so that's definitely likely to get in the way of the keyboard....!

raymondouppernorwood Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi girls anyone want to have a coffee and chat > smometime with a lovely man I don't mind if you > are single/married carefree and funny OK this thread just got seriously surreal lol :))

Axeman I am not going to even waste my time arguing with the bigot that you are. When you use terms like pikie it's a bit rich to start justifying your comments by somehow accusing those that rightly point out the offense you cause. When you tar a whole group of people as criminals (a very stupid attitude to have to any group of people) you will get accused of bigotry and ingnorant prejudice at the very least...that's what bigotry and ignorance is and that's the reaction most decent people would have to your comments. Just because you have the same colour skin does not make it ok to criminally brand an entire community and refer to them in derogatory terms. You WERE deeply offensive. Worse still you link your ignorant comments to a business currently in town doing nothing more than entertaining people which is defamatory and an embarassment to this forum...what must they think of the people of ED when people like you write the bs you did. Now ONCE AGAIN..what part of 'this is a thread about the circus and animal welfare and not gypsies' do you not understand?

I agree but why wait until 2013? What frustrates me is that cuts to the poorest will come right away.....next year in fact.....so that's reform to JSA even though the government has no answer at present to the ratio of 5 unmeployed for every job vacancy (and like previous governments no real answer to LTU).....in turn adding to those on JSA by taking people of Incap from this month onwards in fact.....and yet those with a decent household income won't see their benefits cut until 2013!!!!! I am thinking they are assuming the economy will have recovered enough by then so as not to alienate potential Conservative voters a year before the general election. After all how many unemployed are potential conservative voters......? And for all the waffle about fairness, if we are that broke as a country, then these cuts should come right away.....instead everything is being staggered so as not to harm the backbone of conservative support until as late as necessary...whilst at the time giving the impression that the government are somehow being fair by making everyone sacrifce something. A Labour government would do the same of course (protect it's own interests with it's voters) which is why so many of us regards politicians as full of, well you know what. Fairness and equality are not words that many of them truly understand let alone have any genuine interest in pursuing beyond furthering their own careers.

I love that scene Rosie...such a brilliant speech and Meryl delivers it so brilliantly....ha ha. Now does anyone know where I can buy a cerulean track suit from?

or do we have to wait until some one is killed or seriously injured before the council take action as usual? The only time I've had near misses on that road is when pedestrians too stupid to look first walk out in front of me ....especially when I'm cycling I'm afraid (I've never had any problems with other vehicles either as a driver or cyclist). If all poor 'green cross code' sense were to be dealt with by road closures there's be few roads left open in any town or city. As a pedstrian I have never had any problems crossing that road and if some pedestrians however choose to cross in a stupid place or without looking any accident will be their own fault. It seems pretty clear from what most people are saying on this thread there is no demand for an extended market and certainly not one open 7 days a week. Road closures and extra stalls would be a clear move to create a magnet for market goers at weekends, which means it would have to be promoted as such to attract the custom to justify the changes. Local residents have every right to be concerned by anything that would dramatically change their experience of living there at weekends.

c/o Sky News online Child benefit will be withdrawn from higher-rate taxpayers from 2013, the Chancellor has announced. Speaking ahead of his speech to the Tory party conference, George Osborne said the decision was necessary to help the Government reduce spending. He told Sky News the change would affect households where at least one worker paid 40% or 50% tax. It means households where one person earns more than ?44,000 will have the benefit withdrawn, but families with two parents earning ?43,000 will still be able to claim it. Around 15% of families - 1.2 million people - will be affected by the reform. On average, these households earn around ?75,000. A family with two children stands to lose ?140 a month. Mr Osborne said the move would save the Treasury ?1bn a year. "We face a very, very serious economic situation. This country has some of the biggest debts in the world and we've got to pay those debts off," he said. "I didn't particularly want to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer who takes this decision." The announcement signals an end to universal benefits, although Mr Osborne said the Government would honour its commitment to maintain other payments such as the winter fuel allowance. Children's organisations have criticised the move and said the Coalition has targeted a benefit that works. Alison Garnham, chief executive of Child Poverty Action Group, said: "I was amazed that George Osborne said it was the right thing to do because we are quite clear that it's the wrong thing to do. "It's very unfair that families with children should once again be taking the hit. "Child benefit is a strategic benefit that works. It's simple and everybody understands it," she added. Dr Katherine Rake, chief executive of the Family and Parenting Institute, said it would hit women hardest. "For many women, even in higher income brackets, this is the only source of income they receive directly, giving them independence and control over family spending," she said. "There have now been a suite of measures which have hit those with children particularly, at a time when many are struggling to make ends meet." Yvette Cooper, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said families who "want to get on" are being made to pay more. "Instead of boosting jobs and growth, the government is making families with children pay more. "We support child benefit for all children and all families. "Of course there are difficult choices to make and we need more welfare reform, but it's better to get the economy growing faster and raise more tax from the banks than to cut support for children in middle income families," she said. The Chancellor also used his conference speech to announce a limit on the amount of benefits a family can claim. Unless they have disabilities, they will not receive any more than the average working family earns, he said. He also offered a fierce attack on the new Labour leader Ed Miliband. Mr Osborne said market turmoil, a credit downgrade and a sharp rise in market interest rates would result from Labour's approach to the economy. He told delegates: "Imagine, if I were to stand up in the House of Commons in two weeks' time and say: 'I'm cancelling the deficit plan. I agree with Ed Miliband. Let's delay the tough decisions. Let's borrow more. Let's go on adding to our debt.' Imagine if I said that." The Labour leader has suggested that he will adopt a more cautious position on reducing Britain's borrowing and said he favours tax increases as well as any cuts in public spending. The Chancellor cited last week's backing for his plans from the International Monetary Fund as evidence that the coalition Government, not the Labour Party, is on the right side of the economic argument. "The world has confidence has confidence in the plans we've set out," he said. In a reference to Mr Miliband's support from the unions, the Chancellor added: "The national interest or vested interests? I know which side we're on." He also promised to give priority to spending that supports growth in the economy, with investment in transport schemes, medical research and communications networks. The pledge follows a warning from Justice Secretary and last Tory chancellor Ken Clarke that the UK economy could yet fall back into recession. Mr Osborne will deliver his much-anticipated Comprehensive Spending Review on October 20 and his speech is one of the big set-piece events in Birmingham, where the Conservatives have gathered as a party in power for the first time in 14 years.