ECCOnoob

You do realise that over 11 million citizens voted for that so called "scumbag" government. That was just under 2 million more than the lead opposition and over 1.3 million more than the all the other parties combined. I have no doubt that Labour, Greens and the SNP will take the opportunity to get "stuck in". Although quite at what, god only knows. Its a PROPOSAL. Its a policy suggestion. The bloody thing is still in consultation so there is bugger all they can do about it anyway until its set in stone. Fact is, they all lost the election. The Conservatives won. You will get another try in 4 years time. Its what I've been saying repeatedly all night. Its venom for venom sake. No point to it. No resolution. A minister has resigned, YES, that is newsworthy. Wont be the first and he may not even be the last in this interim period. Who really cares though? All this nonsense as if the entire tory government is on the brink of collapse as if labour will be magically placed into influence and power. Dream on people.

To all those popping the champagne over IDS resigning I just got to ask one question. Who are you wanting to take over the role of Work and Pensions Secretary from Monday?? Better the devil you know and all that. Some of you OTT people who are currently "glad he has gone" and excited about "crapping on his grave" might be thinking different when you find out who replaces him next week.

What you talking about "shock". No shock for me. Minster resigns because he does not support a policy. Its happened before and it will happen again.

Responsible for what exactly?

See what I mean... This thread and so many others goes a long way to prove my point. The petty namecalling, insulting and venom spit about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING the Tories do. I swear to god, they could give every benefit claimant a totally universal non means tested 6 bedroomed house, free car and £5000 cash each month and the left wing would still complain about "nasty tory party scum" They are doing what THEY think is right. They have a huge financial hole and they are trying to reduce public spending. Now, I will fully agree that sometimes they get it badly wrong. All governments have been guilty of massive u turns and embarrassing defeats when they try to bring in new policy. But is there really any need for such bile and childish reactions about someone doing their job. God sake, the things are still in PLANNING. Nothing has been set in stone yet and the things are not due to come into effect until January NEXT YEAR. They could be chopped, changed or abolished altogether before then. IDS, Osborne, Cameron are entitled to their opinions and the opposition are entitled to theirs. But for god sake, lets focus on the ISSUE and SOLUTION not just create sensationalism, unnecessary venom and totally inaccurate speculation. One fact does remain clear. Despite what the rent a gob crowd scream, SOME of those 300,000 or is it 600,000 or hey, lets make it up to a million "disabled" people who will be allegedly affected quite frankly deserve to have their benefit cut. Not every disabled person needs support with everything. SOME disabled people have a good career and earn good money. Why should they be given benefits they don't need at a time when cuts have to be made. The tax issue is not ALL about the high earners. A fact many of the media outlets are completely ignoring. The threshold raising means that many many of the lowest earners workers pay no tax at all on their earnings. Those on minimum wage full time posts will only pay around £60 a month. They will have more disposable income and most importantly, it rewards those who can work by making sure they have an incentive to work.

I don't think its been proved one way or another. PIP is quite rightly being monitored and may even be changed. Its no different to any other benefit. They should be constantly open to consultation and amendment. The world changes, life changes and we need to change with it. If the government has made a balls up of it, then of course, they should cease immediately and get it into shape. HOWEVER. There are SOME people out there who are receiving monies for things they don't need, don't use and (dare I say it) don't deserve. There are SOME people who claim for things when they could easily afford not to. Controversial as cuts are, I am disgusted by this knee jerk reaction from certain media outlets and rent a mob organisations with ludicrous statements such as "attack on the disabled" "scum government" and a certain bearded old fart whose turn of phrase was as exaggerated as "declared war". None of this lot have said one thing about what THEY would do to solve the problem. Its clear that whatever the Tory MP said on Question Time is not the supported by any statement or even suggestion from the PM, Chancellor or the rest of the cabinet. I suspect she will be regretting opening her gob so loosely without some facts to back it up.

hahahaha. More than happy to ignore. A couple of random blogs, an opinion piece and a glorified book review. Yeah! Mind-blowing evidence there.

Do you know what you mean. AVOIDANCE is perfectly legal and anyone who has the relevant monies can choose to do it if they so wish. Who are you, me or anyone else to stop them doing something which is perfectly legal. Should we smear people who use perfectly legal tax avoiding savings accounts, share schemes, property transfer schemes, enhanced pension schemes, lottery players who avoid gambling tax.... All these schemes are legal. All these schemes are available. Only difference is the amounts of money. Some people get tax avoidance on £5k others get tax avoidance on £5 million. Same thing.

Can you clarify what sort of law? Indian law for what? Is it immigration matters?

I am saying that generations and generations before us managed to have children without the state funding their lifestyle on benefits, providing working people with additional income just because they choose to breed nor providing free childcare to all and sundry. What did they do that was different? It wasn't just rich people having children was it. How did our parents and grandparents cope? I don't buy this simplistic argument of "things were cheaper back then". In terms of food and household goods they certainly were not. Shock horror. There was a life before tax credits. There was a life before entire second and third generation of families got away with never working a day in their lives. What's different now?

Are you for real? They CHOOSE to have children. They bloody pay for them. If yummy mummy wants to stay at home and look after them full time, one of them needs to work hard enough to be able to afford it. Are you going to suggest the rest of us taxpayers should subsidise their breading CHOICE for them somehow??

Lets not get too sentimental about the "old days" I'm not convinced that all aspects of costs of living were cheaper. Food and household goods certainly weren't. I agree that there was a seemingly plentiful supply of jobs available but back in the good old days we had a huge percentage of women who were left indoors and deemed only good for cooking the dinner and making the house look pretty. We also had a population of around 12-14 million less than we have today. The average life expectancy has also increased by around 11-12 years. We had heavy industries who were so closed shop and unionised that they crippled the economy and hugely lagged behind the volume and efficiencies of foreign competitors. Constant strikes, poorly made goods and ever increasing prices led to even our own population slowly decreasing buying British and reaped the benefits of importing from abroad. To those prepared to stop latching on to the teat of state handouts, house purchases are still a realistic prospect. You just have to be prepared to work hard for it and sacrifice. For those people in the 60s and 70s preparing to buy a home, you can bet that expensive household goods, cars, holidays, clothing, electronics all were cut to the bone to ensure every penny went toward saving. Look around at the first time buyers of today. They want it all. Long gone are the days when people are prepared to accept cuts in order to save for the long goal. This mirrors exactly what happened with our previous government. Spend spend spend. Lots of promises. Lots of new things. Lots of shiny carrots to appease the population. Well, now the bill has arrived and the credit card has been maxed out. Thank god we have a government who is prepared to be the sensible boring uncle who has put a stop to the fun. We have a party who is prepared to lose face and implement the unwelcome but necessary cuts to get things back on track. As Jim Mcdonell has proved categorically, its far too easy to go on television and show support for those affected by the cuts. Its all too easy to sit there spouting a load of things you would do with magic money from the non existant money tree. Unfortunately, it takes someone with some nuts to actually sit there and said we are doing these unpleasant things because its good for you. It needs to be done. A doctor could tell you that that lump is nothing to worry about it adds to your personality. BUT that's not going to do you any good if the truth is that it needs to be chopped out to save your life.

Whilst there may be grounds for curbing foul language and or if its being used as a form of abuse, I totally disagree with an outright ban. If its in the dictionary its language. Who deems it offensive. Its a completely subjective thing. Personally I find the sort of pretentious flowery guff that people like Boris Johnson comes out with offensive. Its just a cover to distract. I am speaking from a personal position as someone who still uses LATIN in my day to day work. Point is that people's choice of words is personal to them. The great Billy Connolly was right. Sometimes, "shoo" or "go away" just wont do.

You are correct with certain countries. But that's not a problem with my American or Australian contacts. That why my place needs to be flexible.

Well said. The traditional weekend and Sunday "day of rest" is long gone. This is 2016! People work is many different ways these days. They work different hours, flexibly, work from home. Many traditional 9-5 roles (including registered professionals such as my job) have long moved away into late nights and/or weekend opening. In my role I deal with other countries - many of whom have Sunday as a working day. My hours are 8 hours a day 5 days out of 7. My "weekend" varies and is set as two consecutive anytime throughout the week - most often for me is Tuesday/Wednesday. Lots of other people have weekend working as part of their normal week. Its nothing special anymore. The overall hours and amount of days off still remain as they always have. What realistically makes Saturday and Sunday any more special. Its just a day. Why cant Tuesday be the new Saturday for some people. Why not look forward to then end of Monday when you get your two days off. It makes no difference. Personally I enjoy being able to do things off peak. The point is, if I come out of the office at 6.00 on a Sunday - why shouldn't I be able to nip to meadowhall or Sainsburys to do some shopping just like anyone else on a say, Monday or Thursday. Why should this archaic and ridiculous law stop a business from opening when it wants to. I have heard the God botherers and "right to family life" campaigners and think its nonsense. They really do make out that there is crowd of people just desperately gathering outside churches with their kids waiting to get in every Sunday. All this "spend quality time with children" - as if families on a weekend suddenly stop their normal everyday behaviour and delight in the joys of sitting around together playing games. Its nonsense. Families will do exactly the same things as they would do on any other day. Most of the time that ironically means going shopping. NOBODY is going to be forced to work 12 hours a day 7 days a week. People need to drag themselves out of the past and take a look at what the modern world is like. As for the SNP and their poison gnome leader - its a total sham. Deliberate tactical voting just to spite the Conservatives. They are more than happy to have freedom to open over the border but oh god forbid the Nasty tories actually come up with an idea they approve. Its completely childish.

Last time I looked Canada doesn't have a National Health Service Its combined income tax rates can be anything between 25-40% for the lowest scale earners. It has a sales tax of between 5% - 15% on goods and services Its average minimum wage is around 1.50 less than our current one and will be a couple of quid less than the new increased one. Grass is always greener and all that.

Commercial sensitivity. Stopping misinformation being spread. Stop potentially damaging or inflammatory details becoming public knowledge without authority. Tensions are high and some disgruntled employees may be tempted to spout off making things worse. The company is about to undertake a huge consultation process with the unions and staff. The company has publically stated that it has lost a hell of a lot of customers and thus revenue. For all we know they might be trying to merge, sell out or anything inbetween. Until such time as the ink is dry on anything to do with the business and/or the staff they don't want every Tom Dick and Harry blabbing to the press and all over twitter about things. Its could jeopardise the whole process. ---------- Post added 08-03-2016 at 20:31 ---------- It said on tonight's news that they are trying to redeploy a lot and will be trying to offering voluntary redundancy.

Typical socialist worker.... Sorry, I mean Daily Mirror spin. "dark day for disabled people" "forced through policy" Horse crap. Only "disabled people" affected are those deemed fit to work but aren't working. Those severely disabled or with life long conditions will carry on receiving DLA just like they always have. Our elected leaders have voted and put the bill forward. A load of unelected old farts have tried to block it. Now they cant. A winner for democracy and our elected house. People who don't like it get their say at Election time. Those of us who agree with the cuts had to put up with 13 years of Labour's interference and inflation of such benefits, massive overspends and inflation of the public sector. In 2015 the people voted and we are where we are. Democracy is just that.

But this is the problem that newspapers face. You have mentioned earlier the completion is huge. "news" is well out of date by the time it gets to press and hits the street. News is rolled around 24 hours a day on the TV and radio, people get updates on their phones by text and email. People can see a story the second it is published through hundreds of news websites. Plus, thanks to the curtain twitcher world of facebook, twitter and forums such as this. News of some incident is being talked about well before the news organisations actually get hold of it. Gossip, opinion and agendas is all the newspapers have left. With exception of The Metro which I occasionally glance through on the tube (.....which is only Daily Mail rehashed articles anyway), I honestly cannot remember the last time I picked up a newspaper.

10/10 for missing the point. Oh, for the record HE did not bankrupt the country. He was just one of the figureheads out of dozens of others of one of the MANY organisations in MANY countries around the world which failed and resulted in the global crisis. The media made him the face of it all. The media choose him to be the panto villain. Its was far from that black and white. Academic of the above, I am not defending him. I am just using his background as an example of the massive differences in education, study, career and (dare I say it) efforts between someone who spends their life working as a cleaner and the head of a big organisation. To seriously try and compare let alone mirror their remittances as some sort of injustice is just ludicrous.

I am not defending the man by any means. BUT, can we just have a reality check. Whether you like him or not, Fred Goodwin was raised in a normal family with not much in the way of priviledge. His father was a tradesman and he was he first member of his family to go to university. He left his grammar school, studied at university, qualified as a chartered accountant, worked his way up to partner level before eventually becoming a company director after around 10 years. He then kept on working his way up through various firms until he finally reached his now infamous role as CEO of the Royal Bank of Scotland. Like him or not. He studied, he qualified, he worked his way up the ladder and became what he did. Some NMW cleaner or labourer leaves school and becomes a cleaner or labourer. If those people CHOOSE to stay that all of their working lives, then that's fine. But you cant start throwing around the ridiculous comparators with the top earners. People who have ambition to be better get better. Those cleaners and labourers who are allegedly being forced to carry on with back breaking work until their 70s would have had ample opportunity to change roles before the work becomes too much. Im not even talking about being office based management. If somebody is a cleaner and cannot handle the manual work anymore - why cant they transfer to some other sort of NMW which is less taxing. Call handler, receptionist, shop assistant, crossing patrol, driver..... Those who are MEDICALLY unfit to work for whatever reasons will get the same medical retirement and support as they do now. Its all just too much excuse making. FACTS are clear. We are living longer. The population is growing. People need to start taking some responsibility for themselves.

Until a Judge has determined them guilty of their crimes and incarcerated them according to his sentence I would treat them the same as I would any other member of the public wishing to use my business. If they were released and rehabilitated rapists etc etc the same would apply. They are a person. A member of the pubic. If they are allowed to be freely walking around the streets my business is there to serve them as much as anyone else. ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 21:58 ---------- Just out of interest. If people have such strong beliefs in Christianity that homosexuality is wrong - how do they explain the fact that we now have gay priests who are giving services on the same text. How come we now have opened our Christian churches to perform same sex marriage ceremonies?

Oh glory be. I was just waiting for someone to bring this up. Thou shalt have no other gods before me Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy Honour thy father and thy mother Thou shalt not kill Thou shalt not commit adultery Thou shalt not steal Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour (neighbour's house) Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's wife) Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's servants, animals, or anything else) Nothing about homos and hotel rooms in there. Neither are they a defined set of statues considering there has been significant references to killing in the same texts. I seem to remember a quite famous religious figure was killed.

For the FINAL TIME!! They BELEIVE that homosexuality is wrong. They are entitled to believe that. WHY does that belief allow them to exclude gay people from staying in their hotel accommodation? Those gay people are not forcing them to join in with their sexual practices are they? They are staying in a bloody hotel room. IF the bible does say that homosexuality is wrong. So what? The bible DOES NOT say that homosexuals should be excluded from your PUBLIC SERVICES Seriously, how hard is this concept to understand. Jesus, somebody get me a brick wall.

Religion is not LAW. I have asked four times now - Where exactly in the bible does it say that homosexuals can be discriminated against and refused access to a service by a business. Where exactly in any Christian text does it categorically say that these "sinners" must be persecuted without tolerance and forgiveness. That is what law is. You will.... You will not... It is permitted to... It is forbidden to..... A clear set of rules. Christian text is an INTERPRETATION based on stories from a multitude of witnesses and gospels. Its not set in stone and not even read the same way by their own mouthpieces. How can you possibly compare it to a legal statute.