DJKillaQueen

Er no Dave i gave the reference for that in another thread. It is not plucked out of thin air it comes from the department for national statistics and is backed up by a report in 2009 on the labourforce market. It is further backed up by several studies into poverty in the UK by various bodies, both independent and government funded. I'll get the links for you again and then maybe you can tell me if you really think that is some thing should be allowed to continue.

Very funny......He does have a point though. Lime and Corriander...very Asian.

ooooh you're avin a larrrf.....you don't want me to give the impression that scousers can't spell proper as well do you...init!

Funnily enough, the odd northern vowel sound only seems to come out when I am teaching you ladies how to kick a ball! Now why on earth could that be? lol

Been a long day HAL?....:)-D

No he's alive out there somewhere. I think these days he does lectures and supports the odd 'stop the war' campaign and so on. Apparently he has become even more left wing as he ages, whereas Thatcher just took up whisky as a hobby! lol Hilary isn't a patch on his dad though.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- But the property > market has proven to be extremely robust and as > the FTSE has not been a profitable place for money > for 10 years, But it has been artificially kept so and not exposed to the same market factors that other investments are. No other investment has seen anything like that level of sustained growth. But it can't go on. DJKQs comparison of HB to average rents in particular areas is misguided - there are (obviously) many working families who rent properties for less than the average market value - are you really saying that those on HB should be provided with better accommodation than many working families? We can not have a country where one third of the workforce can't afford to pay all of their rent and where generations of people have no hope of ever buying property. This a nationwide problem. And no, most people are not in housing with rents anywhere near ?1000 per week. It's a red herring. The massive HB bill is due to other overwhelmig factors. Excessively high rents are only a drop in the ocean. The average private sector rent in all areas of the country is too high for 33% of those working and the cost to the country is over 20bn in Housing Benefit every year - a bill that is set to rise when half a million public sector workers lose their jobs. That's how big the gap between property values and wages is. That's what it means in REAL terms. Not misguided at all.... Even the smallest family home costs more than ?100 a week to rent in the private sector EVERYWHERE in the country. If you are on minumum wage or earning less that ?7 an hour as 33% of the workforce are you will need taxpayers money to top up your rent...(the majority of recipients of HB... ARE WORKING)....the taxpayers ARE paying the mortgages of some landlords. And why does no government want to do something about this? Because they are sh*t scared of the housing market falling in marked value. It is so out of control and too many people are too heavily sucked into it. It will take decades of regulation aimed at slowing the market to let wages catch up.

The sugar and honey keep the jerk sticky as it cooks in the oven.

Unless you are American in which case football is actually rugby with lots of padding and plenty of breaks. And of course 'cheerleaders'.

I agree with Mac. The opening rounds, notably the group games were poor on the whole. Germany are definitely the suprise of the tournament and they have the momentum so Spain will need to up it a gear I think. I think a Germany/ Holland Final would give us a great game (as opposed to a Spain/ Holland final which might be an anti-climax).

LOL....I lost my scouse accent years ago.....they all just think I'm another one of them 'suveners' now.....there really is no hope for me! :))

Here you go: To make the jerk seasoning 1 desertspoon allspice 1 desertspoon chilli powder 1 desertspoon paprika 2 tsp cinnamon 1 desertspoon salt 1 scotch bonnet pepper half red pepper chopped half green pepper chopped 1 bay leaf 1 medium onion chopped 6 cloves of garlic 6fl.oz vegetable oil Mix all the ingredients together except the veg oil. Place in a blender to get a rough chop until they are all mised and then add the oil a bit at a time. That is jerk seasoning. To make the chicken Chicken The jerk seasoning as above 57 ml clear honey 50g brown sugar Score, stuff and roll the chicken in the jerk seasoning. place in a roasting tin and pour over the honey and sprinkle with the brown sugar and leave to marinade for at least an hour (overnight is best). Cook according to the cooking time of your chicken. ENJOY :)

LOL footie is a common term used by people in my home town of Liverpool by ALL classes.............defined as 'slang'. Anyone further patronising or confusing Ladymuck will be pressed ganged into joining our soon to be formed cheerleading wing. http://photos4.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/b/4/5/a/600_16186170.jpeg

When the ball is passed to you (at the moment it is kicked), you are off side if there's no player from the other team between you and their goalkeeper.

Now that's very interesting. Barnet's plan is at this stage to abolish the Housing register only without giving a huge amount of detail on how they would allocate council housing although they point to rewarding those that are of most benefit to the 'community' - such as those in training or voluntary work etc. As to whether this is all legal, the document for the Council?s Cabinet says (7.1): ?Advice has been received from counsel which confirms that Barnet is not legally required to maintain a housing register and that it is permissible for Barnet to have a system where applicants not within a defined category for preference are advised that they will not be considered for allocation.' The issue here is what constitutes 'defined catagory'. That is where it could fall foul of the Equalities Act 2010. The document also says that (7.2): ?Counsel has been advised that Barnet is allowed to give some preference to those outside the statutory preference groups .? Could be used to cover their backs by housing the odd homeless person. The document goes on to say thatBarnet doesn?t believe that housing should be focused ?solely on those households with the highest need?. It wants instead to create a policy where: ?Social rented housing should, wherever possible, provide a stepping stone to more independent housing choices, but will struggle to achieve that role if all homes are let on a highest need basis.' But then conceeds (7.4): ?Counsel advises that a more wide-ranging consultation on the proposals to change the allocations policy would help to reduce the chances of successful challenges to it.? It's actually a ploy I think to keep undesirables out of the borough.

Ladymuck? Do shoes, shoppers and a purse help you on this? lol

I understand the off side rule lol and did you know that the real reason that the FA banned womens league football in 1921 was because it was drawing bigger gate receipts than the men's game. I watched one of the Irish footy games in the Park today and they seem to have no offside rule (although what a strange game it is...not football at all) and there were a million goals (well ok not a million but you get the point) because two players were always goal side of their defender to receive the ball. So no, the offside rule works and should stay! (Although I did try explaining it to ladymuck at the footy kickabout and for her sake maybe it should be abolished!)

It's an interesting proposal but would have some problems that would require video technology to sort. For example, any foul in the penalty area is a penalty (and it could be argued that some players can score form anywhere while others can't). The referee has to decide if it's a red or yellow card but referees often get it wrong when there are lots of players in the box. Also how far out does the GK foul have to be and at what angle to the goal? It not always a given that a player would have got around the keeper, kept control of the ball and scored on target. The point of the red card and penalty is to put the affected team at advantage and in 99% of cases it works. It's enough.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ???? Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > PS it's a secret ballot but I voted Liberal > > Democrat so don't make personal judgements on > your > > own prejudices eh > > > But you are a tory ...no?..... have I > misunderstood your right wing mutterings? LOL... What started this whole thing off is that my view (which is critical of the coalition on certain aspects of their policies so far) was dimissed out of had as left wing prejudice, when actually it has nothing to do with political bias and everything to do with getting a fair deal for the social groups that Conservatives traditionally attack. Which is why I'm trying to discuss specific policy points and ???? is replying with some ideological attack of the left - not that labour are a left wing party anymore and haven't been for more than a decade. In fact they occupy the centre ground that was pre Thatcherite Conservatism!

Tony Benn (whilst I too didn't agree with a lot of his views) was an extremely intelligent man. Not sharing a view is not grounds for dismissing intellect. The intellectuals left politics two decades ago and now we are left with bland and of average intellect career politicians where spin and image is worth far more than any substance. Where are the visionaries? Where is just the radical honesty even? For example, I think it's shamefull that one third of workers renting in the private sector need housing benefit to pay part of the rent, paid for by you and me - our taxes (and both previous Labour and Conservative governments in collusion with the banks have allowed this to happen). If Cameron wanted to be truly radical he could have introduced rent capping and saved the tax payer far more money than the propsed HB blanket capping. He has done NOTHING to help the lack of affordable housing, in fact just the opposite in potentially forcing 2 million people and families out of their current accomodation in search of cheaper and probably unsuitably smaller accomodation, and for what? Savings that will barely make a dent in the HB bill - and no savings when you add the half million public sector workers expected to lose their jobs. Look also at the withdrawal of the Sheffield Forge grant for example - a grant that would have untimately been paid back and created 3000 jobs in an area were there is high unemployment (the unemployed outnumber available vacancies by 8 to 1)- not to mention making that plant at the forefront of nuclear energy technolgy. Their reasoning was simply that it was unfair to give a grant of ?80million to one company (that the banks should do it in the form of a loan, at a time when they aren't lending!). Completely short sighted and dumb. And to the unemployed? If you are a council tenant you should give up your low rent assured tenancy and move! That's all they can come up with? We are back to the classic Conservative belief that the free market will take care of everything....well we know that it most certainly doesn't...isn't that what let the banks lose on the housing market in the first place? That's what you get from a Prime minister of average intellect in denial of the real causes of the rot in our boom and bust short term economy. He knows nothing else. Don't get me wrong....Labour messed up on those points too but the issue with the banks would have happened whether the government had been Labour or Conservative because they both think exactly the same way on the housing market, credit/debt and banks. The difference is that Labour did change a lot of things for the better after the last Conservative government left our country and whole groups of marginalised people to rot. OK maybe that investment went too far in some areas, but a return back to the austere 'survival of the fittest' policy of Thatcherite Conservatism is not the answer.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Another cracker. I think the quarter finals have > been fantastic. Yep I agree. Spain v Germany...well it's Villa vs Klose isn't it.....who can say which way it will go?

Campaigning on one thing to get elected and then ditching what you got elected for is a straighforward issue of 'can we trust the politicians to stick by the things they campaigned on'? It's nothing to do with any prejudice on my part. You on the other hand dismiss any criticism of the coalition as the witterings of the left (which also has nothing to do with my point). Many voters feel let down when they vote for one set of policies and get another. Some Lib Dem backbenchers are NOT happy with the decisions Nick Clegg has agreed to. It will cost some Libs Dems at the next parliamentary elections which is exactly why some backbenchers are very twitchy. That's what happens when you get no overall government...the majority of electorate did not vote for this. And to then take the stance that this lot are somehow more responsible in government than the last lot.......tell that to the half million public sector workers about to lose their jobs, or the poor about to see the measly benefits the get cut, whilst NOTHING is done about the banks and the ridiculous cost of housing in this country (a far more effective way of cutting the biggest part of the welfare bill - Housing Benefit). After it it wasn't the poor and unemployed that got us into this mess was it? Some of the cuts being proposed are actually going to cost the country MORE money than they save. The Cabinet know this but won't publish their true figures as requested by Harman in Prime Ministers questions last week (these are secret figures compiled by Cabinet and then partially leaked). When asked about the rate of rise of expected unemployment from Cameron, he completely dodged the question, trying to divert it back to labour with some vague point that unemployment was already rising under Labour. There are policies being set that are clearly more idealogical than being both progressive and fair. Some of it is the same rhetoric we heard in the 80s and I remember only too well the consequences for a whole generation of people in some parts of the country. There's nothing wrong with cuts but if you don't then invest in people and the economy there will be NO recovery. Worse still why cut if the consequences end up costing more? If you really want to know my view I think all parties are too far one way or the other. You mentioned Tony Benn...well he was from a generation of politicians (on all sides) that were infinitely more intelligent than Clegg, Cameron, Milliband and todays motley crew. We could do do with them a few of them now.

Yes Barnet think it's ok to deny affordable housing to the unemployed...worse still they seem to be allowed to act on that view.

These kind of requests for opinion seem to me to be an attempt to dilute responsibility should the decision eventually taken turn out to be wrong or ultimately unpopular. Maybe conversely it's an attempt to stay in touch with public opinion although untimately (I agree with you in that) they will pick and choose which public opinions they act on, as long as they compliment party policy and then refer to them as evidence to counter future accusations that they are not in tune with public opinion.

Oh England were really bad and the Argentina defense has always been suspect too. Germany is the first decent team they've had to play and perhaps only one of three 'complete' teams in the tournament. Brazil were complete until they lost their heads for 20 minutes against the Dutch. Odyssey, the world cup is not dead. You may have romantic nostalgis for the great Argentinian and Brazilian teams of the past, where a single player could win it for them, but what you have to remember is that in the modern football era there are no mystery players with magical talents. Every player is well known to their opposition and teams are far more evenly matched. Only teams that are disciplined and strong in every area of the game are going to have any chance of winning. Argentina were never that kind of team. Germany, like Holland and Spain have shown themselves to be otherwise. They mark the danger men out of the game and break with pace and punish with top notch finishing. So far those three teams have been excellent on the whole - because they play as complete teams.