david_carnell

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Museums and galleries should charge again. Seems > to me 90% of the visitors clogging up the > Tates/National etc. are well heeled tourists. Why > do we subsidise them? A fair point. Why not waive charges on presentation of proof of address in London?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You probably don't heat your house or cook with > oil, anyway. Unless you have an aga! What I really meant was the oil-fuelled power stations (of which England has 7) that then provide the electricity to heat or cook with.

Try heating your house or cooking with incentives.

Civil servant vanity photographer, Andy Parsons, was sacked and immediately rehired by Tory central office. He was joined by civil servant film maker Nicky Woodhouse. This is a humiliation for the prime minister. A degrading admission that he got it wrong ? despite the advice of civil servants responsible for propriety and ethics in government. In what appears to be a hurried statement, Ken Clarke announced to the House of Commons that he had reached an out of court settlement to pay the Guantamano Bay prisoners a secret amount of compensation running into millions of pounds. On a normal news cycle, journalists would be demanding to know how much and whether the prisoners received more than the 7/7 survivors were given in compensation. The governor of the bank of England formally wrote to the government that it is a ?concern that inflation is above target?. Which will be exacerbated next month when VAT is increased and petrol prices rise as a result. Ordinarily, white van men would be interviewed on petrol station forecourts up and down the land. Not yesterday. And then Greater Manchester police announced that comprehensive spending review cuts would result in 1,387 uniformed police posts being axed, sending shockwaves around other police services in the country. Actually, this figure is so shocking that I suspect reaction to it will be reported for days and weeks to come in the north west. But it won?t be leading the front pages nationally. That would have been today. Then there was the Redfern report ? the one that tells the full scale of the nuclear industry?s old habit of secretly harvesting the body parts of nuclear workers without informing their loved ones. Imagine how on a normal news day this announcement would play out. Nuclear workers? body parts systematically and secretly harvested for forty years? Even the Daily Mail might raise its eyebrows at that. On any other day. Cynical, moi?

You did read the Daily Mash article, didn't you, LB?

An Irishman and a South African deriding the British monarchy.... Who'd have thunk it?! Long Live the...err...future King (and Mrs Windsor)! Yawn.

There are the French guys selling salami and ham on North Cross Rd on Sat. They might be able to get it for you or know where you could obtain it.

If you get one louisiana....let me know where from.....I'd love one of those.

You can cook streaky bacon to a decent crunch in a microwave. You can even buy a special thing for it to sit on. Here. It's WRONG. But you could do it.

Interesting MM - I shall have to attempt that next time. Part of me almost takes pleasure in the length of time it takes though. Seems more.....rewarding.

The only one with the patience of a saint, Jah, is the woman upstairs in bed waiting for them to be cooked. I can have a sneaky bit of toast and some coffee with newspapers whilst I wait! Edit: To avoid domestic strife!

And don't forget he could have feasibly had another two weights to that as he skipped Superflyweight and Bantamweight. Absurd. Jeremy - a fair complaint but Margarito still came in at 17lbs heavier than Manny for that fight. I'll be interested to see what weight he and Floyd fight at if they ever get it on. My guess would be around welterweight?

That's a big "if" MM. They follow and play football far more fanatically and in far greater numbers yet the Chinese national team is still tosh. Watch for the Chinese targeting the less established sports (volleyball, archery etc) at the 2012 Olympics and cleaning up though.

After the predictable let-down of Haye-Harrison in terms of excitement, the Manny-Margarito fight was a humdinger. Manny, for me, is now the best pfp fighter in the world. An eighth world title at eight different weights is a phenomena. He hurt Magarito badly which almost no one does - the man is made of granite - and negated the height, weight and reach differential. That's EIGHT different weights! Unbelievable. The list in full with weights involved: Flyweight, 1998 - 51kg Superbantamweight, 2001 - 55.3kg Featherweight, 2003 - 57kg Superfeatherweight, 2008 - 59kg Lightweight, 2008 - 61kg Lightwelterweight, 2009 - 63.5kg Welterweight, 2009 - 66.7kg Lightmiddleweight, 2010 - 70kg That's a 20kg weight gain in just over a decade?! Now, bring on Floyd and shut his big mouth.

ED Deli sell Italian sausages in the fridges on the right hand side as you go in. Regular and spicy varieties. Rose's farmhouse sausage is my current sausage fave right now. Slow cooked in butter and oil in a frying pan with a lid till golden, sticky and caramelised. Takes at least 45mins. Any less and your heat is too high. Oven baking and grilling is blasphemy.

Seriously.....sometimes I think you just want to misquote me and ignore my questions. That whole paragraph was hyperbolic nonsense. I never said businesses don't contribute to the country. That would be a ridiculous statement. Nor did I say they contribute nothing towards their employees development. Although, if you want to be arsey about it I could point out that the public sector also funds large amounts of training for its personnel who can then be poached by the private sector i.e. nursing.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > david_carnell Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Olivia - an interesting idea. The trouble is > that > > I barely trust vast swathes of the population to > > > leave the house in the morning with their pants > on > > the right way round. > > > > I have enough trouble allowing these people to > > vote let alone have direct control of fiscal > > allocation. All the money would be spent on > > Facebook causes and the Richard & Judy book > club. > > Is this your formal opinion as a Party member? No, my informal opinion having a hatred of the "general public". They know nothing. ;-)

I presume allowing people direct control over what their taxes are spent on is something you're in favour of then, Quids?

As this thread is about "fairness" I wonder if your approach is fair ????. Why do businesses get to benefit from a well trained, highly educated graduate without having to contribute anything towards that? Firms often run apprenticeships for technical professions that require skills so why shouldn't business have to contribute say 30% towards the cost of educating their future employees? Or are we attempting a double tax in that their corporation tax should pay for this stuff in the first place? I've no desire for the UK to be gloablly uncompetitive but businesses will move to other countries pretty quickly when the supply of graduates dries up as it becomes too expensive to gain a degree.

OliviaDee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yes, but unfortunately no-one ever seems happy > with how any government allocates the budget. i > didn't vote for this government but even if i did > - allocating taxes this way seems appealingly > democratic and gives the individual and the 'we' a > much stronger voice. (all this said knowing the > idea itself is not sustainable). BUT lets say i > thought students were a load of tossers and didn't > deserve my tax pound i might soon find myself > forced into a higher argument with myself - do i > really want to live a society with badly qualified > doctors, nurses, teachers etc... and then, as i > hear so many people say, also on this thread, i > would start to properly understand the value of > funding as a society something that at first > glance does not seem to pertain directly to me. > > i bet under a system like this (makey-up) one, > education and health would do better than under > any government. > > the banks probably wouldn't fare so well > though... > > * edited because i spelt education wrong. Olivia - an interesting idea. The trouble is that I barely trust vast swathes of the population to leave the house in the morning with their pants on the right way round. I have enough trouble allowing these people to vote let alone have direct control of fiscal allocation. All the money would be spent on Facebook causes and the Richard & Judy book club.

I've been lucky enough to be given a jar of PGC's jelly and it's bloody delicious. So instructions are a marvellous idea. Now....where do I get crab apples from? Do you use windfall PGC?

I'm not sure ????. I think you have to ask "who benefits" and in the case of degrees it is not just the graduate. It is also businesses and the state. So perhaps funding should come from a combination of the three? Does that not seem reasonable?

Ladymuck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > david_carnell Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don't wish to pick fault LadyM, as > ideologically > > we are on the same side, but there are some > flaws > > with your "option 3". > > You pick away DC...because I am going to:)). > Apologies for the fisk-style response too - but, I > think, it's easier this way. Well two can play that game but I'll delete my original comments to make it legible > I am afraid you are mistaken. From HM Revenue > Customs' website: > > EIM76222 - Social security benefits: how much > jobseeker's allowance is taxable > Part 10 Chapters 3 and 4 ITEPA 2003 > > Jobseeker's allowance (JSA) is taxable regardless > of whether someone is entitled to contribution > based JSA or income based JSA. There are special > rules for deciding how much of the JSA someone And if you linked to that website here you'd see it is only in rare circumstances when you exceed your personal tax allowance due to premiums being paid. Not unreasonable > Perhaps. But that means that if the claimant is > able to get there on a single bus, that he is not > eligible for reimbursement. That's correct. He will receive half price bus travel after 3months so a ?1 round trip isn't much money once a fortnight. Any extra requests made by the job centre to attend are fully funded. > Easy walking > distance? Again, perhaps. My character "Harry > Smith" (or was it Jones?) sometimes did the 1.5 > hour round trip on foot (from one part of ED to > Forest Hill). Time, he felt, could have been more > usefully spent pursuing employment. Really? 1.5 hours per fortnight was too much time where he could have been job hunting? The other 166.5 hours proving insufficient I presume? > > You are right - it isn't. However, the whole > process becomes excruciatingly complicated where > our character manages to secure a job interview on > "Job Centre" day. The Job Centre proved most > inflexible in these situations. In the case of > Mr. Harry Smith/Jones, life was made exceedingly > difficult. Much time was spent arguing over the > phone as Job Centre staff threatened to stop his > JSA on the grounds that "failure to attend" on a > set day (picked by the Job Centre) would mean that > he would have to sign off and re-apply. What a > waste of time of resources - on both sides! And > what a way to treat an unemployed person, who is > already down on his luck and feeling very > despondent over having lost his job and not being > able to find another sufficiently quickly. I appreciate that this seems petty. What you have to appreciate is that the "I have an interview today" ruse is one of the most common used to avoid having to attend the job centre by fraudulent claimants. Establishing the legitimacy of the interview is, I think, the right thing to do to combat benefit abuse. > > Costs of getting to job interviews are also > paid > > for by the job centre. That would even include > > air-fare if it was the cheapest and most > efficient > > means of getting there. > > Ha! Excuse the mock DC, but on the one occasion > Mr. Smith/Jones attempted to claim interview > fares, he was told that reimbursements were not > dealt with at that office but that he was free to > visit another (Lewisham) and make the application > there. In other words, he had to undertake a > further journey (to a different office) to make > another application. WTF! Needless to say - he > didn't bother. He was misinformed. All offices should do this. An error. > Again, all very well until such time as Mr. > Smith/Jones finds one day's work. Then he has to > sign off and sign on again (after having performed > his one day's work) and because there has been a > break in continuity in JSA, he can never be > eligible for the reduced fares (because being the > hard-working citizen that he is, Mr. Jones/Smith > will always take up work - whether it be for one > week in ED or one day in Scotland). The system > does not appear to be geared for people, like our > Mr. Smith/Jones who genuinely wish to help > themselves. This is now being amended. It is a fault in the system. As I understand it, the one day break rule is being changed to one week. > I am sure you are right and I suspect Mr. > Smith/Jones would have fared much better > (mentally, emotionally and financially) had he had > someone like you guiding and assisting him. > However, his experience was that of pretty shabby > treatment by often rude, uncaring, and - yes - > barely literate staff. Shameful. I am sorry you found that. A situation that was not good enough.

zeban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > david_carnell Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Costs of getting to job interviews are also > paid > > for by the job centre. That would even include > > air-fare if it was the cheapest and most > efficient > > means of getting there. > > I'm sorry but what job centre did you work at???!! > this is not true. It's up to individual job > centres discretion what they pay for but there's > no way they would pay for a flight. They once > could help with clothing for an interview but this > doesn't always happen and it's in the form of a I worked at a central London job centre. Jobcentre Plus can?t pay for all interviews, the travel-to-interview scheme has the following rules: you must be out of work and on benefit you must have been invited to go to an interview for an exact job you must have been living in your area for at least four weeks the interview must be in the UK the interview must be outside your local area (i.e. more than two bus rides away) the interview must be for a job that will be for 16 hours or more a week and will last more than three months You can only get help if you go to the job interview. A check will be made with the person you meet that you actually went to the interview. If you don?t go, you will be expected to pay back any costs you have been paid. You must apply for help with costs before you go to your interview. Your Jobcentre Plus adviser will have to check some things with the person you are meeting so they can decide if they can help you. If Jobcentre Plus agree to pay back your travel costs, you must ask for the refund within four weeks of your interview. Jobcentre Plus may give you money to cover the cost of going to your interview by car. If they do, it can't be more than the cost of a train, bus or coach fare. Jobcentre Plus may pay you the costs of one or two overnight stays if there is no other option. These costs must be agreed before you go, and you must provide receipts. There is a fixed limit for each night. > There is > > After 3 months all JSA claimants receive > > half-price bus travel. After 6 they receive > half > > price travel on all public transport. > > This isn't true at all. After 6 months you can > renew your half price bus travel, there's no other > transport apart from trams that you get half price > on. Again, I'm afraid you're wrong. If you are on the New Deal or Flexible New Deal you will be eligible for a "New Deal Travelcard" which gives you half priec travel on ALL forms of public transport. > You're acting like they give out money willy > nilly, they don't at all. They don't pay for > training, id you might need, getting certain > badges etc, they don't encourage aspirations, and > they're more concerned at the moment with filling > a government target for sanctioning people. Almost > every week there are new government targets > they're supposed to focus on. I'm not saying they give out money willy nilly at all. What I am saying is that there is money available for those that need it. Some training is paid for. College courses for the unemployed are available at vastly subsidised rates. There are crisis loans, grants for those moving to new accomodation, funeral grants, loans for those needing to purchase white goods. > They have a computer says no kind of approach too. > The 3 jobs you put down in your jobseekers > agreement to apply for can only come from the > computer system so if it's not there you have to > choose something that is there. It's all very old > fashioned. The range of job types available on the system is extensive almost to the point of absurdity. I've seen classifications for jobs I never knew existed. Crofter, anyone? Tobacconist? If you're profession wasn't there you're adviser wasn't looking hard enough. If you don't agree with your job seekers agreement you shouldn't sign it or arrange for it to be changed. Otherwise it is your problem when you are penalised for not meeting its criteria. > You're also only allowed to do a very small amount > of voluntary work because whilst signing because > they don't want anything to eat into the time > you're supposed to be job searching- though for > some this would be a good way to give them new > skills and confidence to then go for jobs they > feel they can do. Wrong again. You can volunteer for as many hours as you like while you're claiming Jobseekers' Allowance (JSA), as long as you are still actively seeking work and you aren't legally obliged to volunteer. If any potential jobs that you're suitable for come up, you will need to prioritise them over your voluntary work. This means you can't turn down suitable paid work because of your volunteering commitments. In practical terms, this means you must be free to go to an interview if they give you 48 hours' notice.

It has been. Here.