ECCOnoob

Who has taken your country away???

Are you sure you are not comparing Christmas day and Easter Sunday? Rules for large shops in England and Wales: Shops over 280 square metres - can open on Sundays but only for 6 consecutive hours between 10am and 6pm must close on Easter Sunday must close on Christmas Day https://www.gov.uk/trading-hours-for-retailers-the-law Good Friday to me has always been a grey area with opening and not. Supposedly its a bank holiday with many businesses choosing to close but its certainly not been a Christmas Day style full closure.

You are missing the point. The rule and law and rule of supremacy are clear. Its how judges interpret statutes every single day. The point I am making is that the directive wording itself is NOT directly applicable to us. Its OUR parliament who will interpret the terms/scope of a directive and apply it to our either existing, new or old laws. With respect to the VAT on solar panels issue. It was not the government who went to Court and lost. The case referred was an issue between a private individual and the Austrian tax office. The dispute was linked to the fact that the householder was earning money by having the solar panels. The Judge considered that the installation of the solar panels was done to allow to the householder to gain a net increase of money over the amount than they would need to pay out for their electricity supply. It was deemed to be an "economic activity" and therefore subject to standard VAT rate within the law. This has become "case law" and can be used against the UK government when dealing with legal disputes. The HMRC could still proceed to challenge it. The government could amend any existing laws regarding solar panels and the links between "economic activity" and "VAT" to avoid any potential legal issues with the EU. However, ball is in their court. So, in a nutshell, its still not a direct EU application. Our own laws still apply and its our own HMRC who have chosen to apply full VAT. ---------- Post added 25-03-2016 at 18:00 ---------- We signed up to agreements and treaties. Its not the same thing.

You are in the ball park. A fact that many of the out campaign and frothy mouthed fail to realise is an EU directive cannot be placed directly upon any part of British lives. We have a parliament with our own laws and own statutes. When a directive is set out by the EU, its up to our own government to implement the scope of it through the existing statutes, amendments or if necessary the repeal of a law so that the terms and purpose of a directive are met. Its the "interpretation" of a directive which is applied not directly. Its still our OWN laws. Its still our OWN parliament. Its still our OWN policy that affects the man on the street.

You really cannot be silly as you are making out. You cannot seriously think the problem is so simplistic to say "it's Frances problem". We have an agreement at the moment that the our border – the big gates to the UK is on the French side. If that agreement was revoked the border could move back to our English port. That would mean that Mr Asylum Seeker and Mr Economic Migrant will be able to freely travel across Europe through France and onto any boat they choose to get to the UK border which is now back on our soil. So for every ferry that arrives we now have to deal with thousands of passengers and vehicles and lorries getting off sorting out who is resident who is a genuine visitor, who is seeking asylum or even something else. We then find a handful of people who shouldn't be here and arrange to send them back on the next boat, during which time another 4 ferries have arrived. Lets not forget that once Mr Asylum Seeker and Mr Economic Migrant get back to France they are perfectly entitled to choose another ship and do exactly the same thing again. Round and round it goes. What you going to do when you cannot find a ferry to put them back on that day. Where you going to put them? Its easy to say, I wouldn't build camps but have you any idea who long the asylum process takes. Regardless of the EU in/out debate we still have international obligations which include asylum considerations. What's the alternative? Spend money taking them to some airport and flying them back to their country of origin? Your comments are falling in line with a lot of the mainstream media. Its far too easy to spout nonsensical statements like "block them getting in" "turn the boats around" "send em all back" It does not always work like that in the real world. Even Australia is finding that out the hard way. Fact is that just like Airlines, having the checking BEFORE crossing is far more practical and sensible than trying to deal with upon disembarkation. We do not want to lose that.

Wow, I never knew it was so simple. Like a giant game of refugee tennis. Boat comes in and before anyone even steps a foot on the ramp, we close it up and send it straight back again. How long do you seriously think that's gonna last before something gives.

What would you call a reduction in someone's mobility rate component of (what was formerly DLA) and is now PIP. I know full well what the difference is between the two types of funding. I could not give a flying mallard what you define to be a "benefit" A cut is a cut and no matter how much silly semantics you want to keep bringing up, my POINT does not change. How many more times do I need to say it. SOME disabled people deserve their benefit cuts. SOME disabled people do not require what they once did. When a service user has a multitude of benefits/monies/grants/dough whatever you want to call it, and those get reviewed and cut its the same thing. PIP replaced DLA which included mobility and living costs elements. Not all of a person's personal budget covers those living costs. Not all aspects of a PIP is there to fund elements of social care personal budgets. Its all interchangeable. Maybe I need to take lessons from the Great Wise One. Or perhaps, maybe I cant be bothered. If you want to point score then yes, maybe my terminology and reference was wrong. Dishonest? I don't think so. Time for our correspondence to close I think.

I expect a withdrawal of your totally unnecessary statement by return. He used to get DLA. That has since changed to PIP. He has gone from one rate to another. He does also get a personal budget and that has also just gone through more periods of assessment. Call it whatever you will. DLA/PIP/Mobility/Personal Budget/Attendance. Its "benefit". The point still remains. He used to get x amount. It has now been reduced to y amount because his circumstances have changed. What he needed before he needs no longer. He is certainly not the only one in that position and I repeat again for the umpteenth time! SOME PEOPLE DESERVE A CUT. Cry-babies and rent a protestors can bang on all they want. Money is not infinite. Just because a review and a proposal was put forward does not automatically give them some right to start gobbing off and making absolutely ludicrous insults about the Government or quite frankly anyone in the outside world who (god forbid) might actually support it. Say what you like but, Its was NOT a blanket attack on the disabled. It was NOT some inhumane scheme from the so called nasty party. It was a suggestion to try and sort out the mess that is the welfare state. Its was a good proposal which I will concede has been badly put forward but ultimately mauled by the media to suit their agenda. It like anything to do with welfare, the NHS or the Civil Service in general. Too many think its some protected bubble which just cannot possibly ever ever be touched. Nonsense. MPs in the house today (from both sides) should have been ashamed of themselves. The world is blowing itself up due to terrorists and they spent the day name calling, squabbling, showing off and backstabbing just because an IDEA was suggested which was even slightly controversial. All that hot air about defective budget, cat calls for Osborne's head on a plate and the budget still got through the vote. 1 minster throws bucket of slurry to try to enhance their career and the more moronic in the house treat it as if the whole right side of the house is ready to fall of a cliff. I say it again, the Tories could offer everyone a million pounds and a free 5 bedroomed house and the left would still criticise and lay on this "nasty party" tag.

Why should it? ITVs revenues come from adverts. It is allowed to undertake product placement, sponsorship, branding and reap the rewards of the associated bias that comes with such things. ITV is not compelled by an Act of parliament to to provide a range of disability access services, minority interest, education, children's, religious, parliamentary and state broadcasting. ITV does not fund 56 different national and local radio stations. ITV does not have to provide specialist regional broadcast services in Gaelic and Welsh language. Not even in the same camp. The public service bindings on ITV and Viacom (C5) are nothing compared to the obligations pushed upon the BBC. It might seem trivial but people might start complaining if the BBC chased what sells and only put out what their corporate masters wanted. Kiss goodbye to all your BBC ad free radio. Kiss goodbye to any specialist, religious and even parliamentary broadcasts. Kiss goodbye to free at source subtitled, AD and language services. Those are the parts of the TV licence that the whinging brigade always forget about. Don't want pay your 40p a day? Stop receiving and watching live broadcasts. Stop listening to BBC radio.

Could not be further from it. I agree with the tory (now cancelled) policy. I always have done. I am trying to show a real life working example of why SOME people should have their monies reviewed and if necessary cut.

This is the issue. This is what lots of people don't understand. He now only works 2 out of the 5 days. He does not use the taxi account as much. He no longer requires the support worker for 3 out of those five days. Reduced support worker costs. Reduced taxi costs. The monies originally provided were based upon the full time support and full time travel costs. Those costs have now been reduced. Now do you think its fair that the budget payments have been reduced accordingly? After all, why should my relative get more money than he needs.

Funny you say that. Churchill had far far more to him than just the war effort you know. Perhaps you should read up a bit. Like all politicians he was not free from controversy and ill feeling http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767

You do know that Cameron has already announced that he is not doing another term after this one. Why do you think he needs to be "kept" at the helm.

All these chiefs that you are highlighting, what exactly would you do with their vacant posts? Are you one of those who thinks a massive organisation with multi million pound budgets can just be self managed? Perhaps some kind volunteers could pop in and run it part time eh? I really don't see your point. Yes the BBC has some highly paid staff just like any other big organisation. BUT, their salaries are well below their commercial competitors so..... ---------- Post added 21-03-2016 at 19:37 ---------- Here, I will save you the effort.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/#heading-a-to-c

No. The parliamentary legislation called the Communications Act 2003 allows the BBC to collect the licence fee to fund ALL of its services not just television. Its a government act. A law. A statute. What has any of that got to do with salaries anyway? The BBC is not the only public money organisation that has a selection of high earners. Have you seen the NHS, Police, Fire services and even the Civil Service Departments.

BBC Director General total package is half of just the BASE salary of their commercial rival. Not even counting the enhancements and bonuses. Seems more than reasonable. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/14/itv-adam-crozier-pay-package-bonus-investors

Let me give an example just to see if I can stop banging my head against a wall. One of my relatives with a mental health condition used to go to a work placement each day. He could not self travel unsupervised so his PIP budget had an element for taxi accounts, support worker and/or LD Service buses to take him to and from work. Last year he suffered some physical degenerative change and could no longer go to work every day. He now only does 2 days a week. His PIP review reduced his monthly monies by around £150. That obviously created quite a drop in his bank balance. Fair??

I have two family members who receive PIP and I am a legal guardian and trustee for one of them. I have been dealing with disabled family members since school age. I have been dealing with the DWP, local authority, social services and other service users since my teenage years. I know how things used to be and I take time to read between the lines with things proposed and things already in place. Don't tell me what you THINK I know and don't know. Just because my view does not follow the line of the rent a gob disability rights brigade does not make me any less valid. I am not so thick that I consider the collective "disabled" to be some protected bubble who should be 100% guaranteed to be immune from any sort of assessment, consultation, change or reduction to their means. Its exactly the same sort of knee jerk exaggerated reaction that people have whenever even a tiny proposal is whispered regarding trimming a part of the NHS. Leaving it up to the service user to decide how to meet their "additional costs" IS NOT the same as spend on what they like and use it as a top up to their income. That is what is happening with SOME of the recipients. Its supposed to be used for an additional cost caused by their disability. Its not pocket money. Those who don't have any additional costs. Those who dont need any additional support. Those whose living, condition or personal circumstances have improved should quite rightly be re-assessed and where necessary have their monies reduced or removed altogether. Its not a blanket reduction. Its not a complete withdrawal. Nowhere in the plans does it say that cases will not be considered on a unilateral basis. They of course will be. IF a person is deemed to need their money, they will keep it. Those that don't wont. What part of this are you not understanding?

I see the issue but this is the whole thing. That benefit should be for the carer, service provider, equipment, aid or whatever. If those people are using it as some sort of additional general income then that needs to be ceased immediately. The benefit is not for their living costs. Its supposed to be a specific payment for a specific need. In my ideal world there should be no "money" to speak of. If a service user needed a carer or cleaner or special equipment they would be provided with that without any "money" or "benefit" being paid out first. It should just be provided directly from the supplier and paid directly from the government. IMO that should apply to everything else too. Housing, mediation, social services. It should be centrally funded and provided directly. Alas that does not happen and now we have this mess we are in. SOME people cheating the system, exaggerating and getting things they don't need but are quite happy to keep receiving.

David Cameron's son had severe cerebral palsy and epilepsy. Its a severe and life long condition. Of course he bloody got money for him. ITS A PERMANENT DISABILITY. Do you know who doesn't deserve money. Maureen who has mild back pain and claims she needs mobility assistance and a carer to make her meals. Derek who is morbidly obese and claims he can never work and needs a carer to do all his chores for him. Those are the type of people who deserve the cuts. Those are the type of people that these current reforms are targeting. People who could work but choose not to. People who claims things that they neither need, use or should be entitled to. Don't start muddying the issues. Cameron pays tax like the rest of the working population. He is perfectly entitled to use the NHS and claim benefits for someone WHOSE CONDITION WARRANTS IT. Not everyone does. Some people deserve to have their money cut. Remember the statement from the Department: "a significant number of people are likely to be getting the benefit despite having minimal to no ongoing daily living extra costs". :: The DWP said it reviewed a "number of cases" and in 96% of them the "likely ongoing extra costs of daily living were nil, low or minimal". The department's argument is that many of the aids and appliances which people are currently getting points for are provided free by the NHS and councils, may already be in people's homes or could be bought cheaply Taxpayers giving money to Claimants for aids which the taxpayers have already paid out for through the NHS. You don't think that warrants some investigations, assessment and cuts where necessary?? Attack on the disabled my backside.

Why don't you make the effort to find out before declaring them "overpaid" How do you know? ---------- Post added 20-03-2016 at 00:13 ---------- Clearly working efficiently and managing their time. I think you need to change your job. I certainly would not put up with doing a minimum of 10 hours work in an 8 hour day only to get dragged into the Bx room as you say.

What an absolutely bizarre list. I would like to see some of the factual raw data used in this article. Just taking my own profession for a minute.... How an earth can Barrister/Judge be averaging £43k, Solicitors £46k and "legal professionals" jump to £73k. What the hell is a "legal professional" other than a Solicitor / Barrister or a Judge. Its certainly not paralegals earning £70k a year. Barristers and Judges cannot be in the same camp. Barristers (particularly junior barristers) are self employed and their work levels and fees can fluctuate dramatically. District judges start off on a salaried rate of £106,000 year going up to around £200k - £210k for Lord Justices of Appeal Court. Seems like a load of unverified clickbait to me.

....Ministers insisted that the data could not be used to link claimant deaths to its welfare reforms.... ...The DWP defended the accuracy of the WCA and said the statistics proved no causal effect between benefits and mortality. It said: “These isolated figures provide limited scope for analysis, and nothing can be gained from this publication that would allow the reader to form any judgment as to the effects or impacts of the WCA"..... What point you trying to make? A study suggested that the welfare reforms COULD have been responsible for people's deaths. Others argued that the statistics DIDN'T PROVE any link. Good luck trying to get IDS in Court for murdering disabled people on that one.

I am talking about the problem of people receiving benefit awards who either don't need it, don't use it, are not entitled to it or at the least don't need the full amount. Its nothing to do with taxing the rich or forcing the "bankers" to pay. The ISSUE is the problem of public spending being far too high and research which concludes that SOME of the recipients of benefits payments don't necessarily need them or should have them. btw, taxing the rich in its most simplistic form would mean that someone has to completely overhaul the tax law so those earning over xxx amount or those who own xxxx amount of assets are compelled to pay over and above what the HMRC says they legally have to pay. Making the "bankers" pay is more tricky. Pay for what exactly? If its the public bailout that the bank corporation was provided with then that appears to be already happening. As for any personal liability, well good luck trying to prove that individuals were personally negligent for bankrupting the country and therefore must be personally responsible for paying it back. A government cannot legally stop an individual within a private organisation earning whatever their contractual agreement says they earn (that includes bonuses). A corporation is a private business and is therefore entitled to offer whatever terms it deems fits within the boundaries of the law. Even if they did tax the rich and get bankers to pay, that still does not solve the issue of some people getting benefits payments that they don't need or getting too much for what they do need. Should that be ignored if rich people and bankers are there to keep topping up the public purse?

You call it childish goading. I call it providing facts and reality. I guess we shall just have to agree to disagree on that one.