Blah Blah

This is so needed and a great spot for it too. Echo the comments above about how great Krystal's is.

I thought it was a massive improvement on the recent months, both in terms of management of the panel and the audience. She seems a lot better researched on the arguments too. Will be interesting to see how she handles a more militant audience. Meanwhile, on This Week afterwards, Owen Jones and Andrew Neil showed no such discipline or control.

Pedestrians tend to be on the road near the actual closure, but there has always been a fair amount of jaywalking when the road is clear to be fair. Cycling at speed along Rye Lane has never been an option. Personally, I am liking the absence of buses, and find dismounting to walk the 50 yards with my cycle to the other side of the closure no real inconvenience at all. Cars driving at inappropriate speed might be less of an issue as the works move further down the lane.

So Steve32 is now 'Innocence'. Good to know.

Cycled up there today. The road closure is literally just 50 metres, and you can get off your bicycle and walk it. No need to detour at all.

Sadly the council are under financial pressure and some difficult decisions have to be made. Adult social care or subsidising bulk waste collection is one of them. As far as I know, the fee is ?16 to have the council remove bulk rubbish. There are higher fees and requirements for commercial waste, which is why fly tipping is perhaps on the rise. It's not an easy one to fix.

I think it is a great idea to ask people to donate unused instruments. Does it really matter what school James is helping here? The principle is a good one.

Nope. I can assure you that a lot of Labour members are pretty effed off with Corbyn right now. And we don't buy his lie that he said 'people' and not 'woman' either. He just seems completely out of his depth.

Quite and nor do they seem to realise that most benefit recipients have worked and also paid tax, or that most of them are currently in some type of work, but do not earn enough to live on.

Graphite must be part of lock lubricants for a reason though. Graphite on it's own makes no sense of course, but within a lube it is different. Glad you got it sorted anyway.

Graphite lock lube is the stuff to use for a sticking lock. You should be able to find it in somewhere like Halfords if you want it off the shelf. https://www.amazon.co.uk/LUBRICANT-AEROSOL-SPRAY-PADLOCK-GRAPHITE/dp/B00BBTJ460/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1545096453&sr=8-5&keywords=dry+lock+lubricant The WD40 can be used to clean it first though.

Ah thank you. I really must stop watching old episodes of Columbo ;)

Except the impact damage is flat across and not nearside worldwiser. And how do you explain the charger cable? As exciting as it may be to suspect some high speed shenanigans, look at the clues, A car that mounts a pavement at speed has at least, damaged front wheel tracking, if not a flat. This car was parked. And then something went wrong ;)

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Put on charge when absolutely flat, but still in > gear? Then once with power, trundled into the > school. That's not a high-impact; maybe 10-15mph. > The 'brick' wall will be a single skin clad of > brickwork. Yep,that sounds plausible.

There are some clues as to what might have happened if you look closely enough. The only way to get into that gap is deliberately and the tyres are still inflated, so the kerb was not hit at any speed. The car is a Hybrid and there seems to be a charging cable running to it. My guess is that the car parked there to charge and that the driver, either, more focussed on not blocking the bus stop pavement, drove into the wall, or, having charged the car, got reverse and forward mixed up and hit the accelerator hard enough to cause that damage (I favour the latter personally).

Why do you think there is a minister for work and pensions? Why did she recently announce a delay in the roll out? You really think none of those ministers are doing any work in their departments? All that Brexit has impeded, is the introduction of new bills and Acts of Parliament. It does not affect the working detail of policies of existing legislation, which a government department can change at any point it wants. Now, on May, there is no guarantee that the challengers will get the required 159 votes for no confidence. And if they don't, she can not be challenged for a year. Given the slow grind to get those letters to the 48, I think she will hang on. But anyway, what can be worse than a party that created this whole brexit mess in the first place? That forced unnecessary austerity on the poorest that helped guide that result no doubt? Labour do not have the level of division on the EU that the Tories have. Labour would be perfectly happy with a soft Brexit.

No claimant ever has got something for nothing. What preceeded were crisis loans and social fund payments, before the coalition scrapped them. They both had to be paid back. That is why delays in benefit payments suddenly meant people unable to feed themselves, and hence the rapid rise in foodbanks. Then on top of that, and in their wisdom, the Tories introduced a system where no claimant would receive anything for six weeks, and never asked what people would live on! So that advance is just a reinstatement of the old crisis loan system, something that should never have been scrapped in the first place. Ministers may be aware, but they pick and choose what they listen to, and then act upon. UC is not here because of brexit at all. It was dreamed up long before that referendum, and formed part of the Welfare Reform Bill, back when Parliament actually presented bills. Government could have amended any aspect of it at any time. MPs have not exactly been silent on the impacts. UC is ongoing business, not new business. there is a difference. No further bills are required to change anything. Corbyn, for all his faults, would at least do something about the disgraceful place we are now in. 1.5 million people needing foodbanks last year. Unacceptable and rising rates of homeless. The number of families in temporary accommodation has risen by 61% since this government came to power and 8000 of them in B&Bs (a rise of more than 1000 in the past year alone). This government has caused most of this by that very same Welfare reform Bill. So spare me the idea it would be worse under Labour. It has never been worse under Labour on any of those issues.

But opposition has already changed government policy on UC. They are delaying the rollout. So there is every value to continuing to pressure the government for further changes. Natty isn't just saying stop per se. She/he is specifically asking for the rollout to be stopped, a view shared by the Labour Party, because rolling out something that clearly is so flawed and has cost far more to implement than predicted, is just burying a head in the sand. What government should be doing, is halting the rollout, whilst they do a properly researched impact assessment of the implementation so far, before making the necessary changes to ensure any rollout is as seamless and pain free as possible. Hard to do that though when you have cut back the resources of the DWP and jobcentres by so much, and are continually seeking to cut the cost of the help you give to recipients.

I would go further than that Joe. I would say that because of brexit, government responsibility for what goes on with everything else has stopped. All that we are seeing is tinkering with things introduced by Cameron/ Osbourne's tenure. There is no other policy and therefore no government. People have died because of the conditions imposed by welfare reform by this government. They are cruel and pernicious in their lack of shame or responsibility for that. And quite frankly, anyone who dismisses the suffering they have and are causing should hang their head in shame too dbboy.

Well said Joe. Spot on.

Gerrard Batten said in an interview last week that he wonders if he has done the right thing but he is looking at what Tommy can bring ie avenues to money (American) and new members. Given that the EDL, FLA, DFLA etc are all proscribed organisations form UKIP (Even Tommy can not join them lol). Batten might be wishful thinking there.

Rendel is absolutely right. That 10% trial has been a disaster for far too many people. Rolling it out to the other 90% makes no sense. And yes, it has cost a ridiculous amount to just roll out to that 10%. How much will have to be spent fixing the expected fallout from rolling out the rest? Combining benefits makes a lot of sense in theory, but the overriding idea behind this was to cut costs and some ideological nonsense about how the poorest people live by millionaires who dreamed up the details of the scheme. It can be paused, reversed or completely redesigned without all the crap about the poor being responsible for their lot.

I agree but what does that have to do with a gofundme page being set up by someone and others donating? Anyone can do that. What you are talking about is central government funding, which is something government decides on, not you and I. And plenty of people are always campaigning around that, often to deaf ears sadly.

There was a government minister on Newsnight a couple of nights ago who was pretty angry that this happened, so maybe he or another minister will now look into what is going on at this school. Yes it can be difficult for schools to deal with bullying, but either you create a culture where children can safely report bullying and see action, or you don't. This school seems to sit in the latter. There have always been school bullies. But schools do have a range of options for dealing with this. Doing nothing is not an option though. As for the money raised in this case, it could be used in lots of positive ways, including giving Jamal and his sister a chance at another school somewhere else, one where they will be safe and treated with dignity. More importantly, it sends the message that the UK is still a country where most people are decent and giving. And that message is more important than the money.

Worse than that, Yaxley-Lennon has used it to claim that this boy was himself responsible for prior incidents of bullying (so victim blaming) and is now facing being sued (he never learns). Whatever the truth of all the stories now circulating, it seems to be the case that this particular school may have a problem that it has not been addressing for some time.