Bolitics The New Condem Government

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

 

(satire?)

 

 

 

There is something very Swiftian about the present government being so powerless to do anything much that the only options left are idiotic gimmicks.

 

The government look like little people obsessed with arguing about which is the best way to break a chav. 

 

There is even something Carrollian about the bunch of characters who make up the cabinet, with May playing the White Queen whose moves are all pointless.

 

Malice Through the Looking-Glass, maybe?

Edited October 23, 2013 by MakemineVanilla

[drat01]

Seems like Cameron resorted to Right wing type and Flashman tactics returned during PMQ - Using phrases like "con man" are somewhat rich and you can tell that Cameron was rattled as he floundered yet again. Luckily he was pulled up by the Speaker again and told that he was acting "un-parliamentary"

[tonyh29]

yeah I heard Ed "won" PMQT this week  ... what's that 3 times now in 3 years  .. take a bow Ed  nice hatrick

[drat01]

yeah I heard Ed "won" PMQT this week  ... what's that 3 times now in 3 years  .. take a bow Ed  nice hatrick

 

I fail to see how you "win" PMQ. But Cameron again is floundering, and has shown in the past that when he is rattled resorts to Flashman type attitude which is something that really is not what you would expect from the PM.

 

The energy thing is a mess, the Gvmt seem clueless and leaderless over what to do. Cameron tried to blame Labour but was caught out when it was pointed out that his Gvmt had introduced the majority of the Green taxes that he is moaning about.

[tonyh29]

 

yeah I heard Ed "won" PMQT this week  ... what's that 3 times now in 3 years  .. take a bow Ed  nice hatrick

 

I fail to see how you "win" PMQ.

 

That's you and Ed both then it seems

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

PMQ is a load of old shite.

[StigVillan]

Nobody wins in pmq you just try my not to make an arsehole out of yourself.

Most fail.

[mockingbird_franklin]

I like this positive take on the Energy price arguments that abound

 

18 Friday Oct 2013

(satire?)

• Study finds two out of three grannies’ bodies contain more nutrients if frozen to death
• Experts say freezing old people prevents cancer and aids the body, brain, skin and eyes
• Results demonstrate frozen pensioners less likely to experience painful illnesses such as arthritis

Frozen pensioners and old people can be healthier, with higher levels of vitamins and cancer fighting antioxidants in their bodies than senior citizens who are still alive according to experts.

Two independent studies found more beneficial nutrients in the bodies of everything from frozen grandfathers and grannies to great aunts and uncles.

In two out of three cases, frozen pensioners scored better on measurements of antioxidant-type compounds – including Vitamin C, polyphenols, anthocyanins, lutein and beta-carotene – than those OAPs who were still warm and alive.

Many of the anti-oxidant compounds found in frozen pensioners are considered beneficial in preventing cancer and supporting the working of the body, brain, skin and eyes – a result which is leading experts to recommend families should consider freezing elderly relatives who are most at risk of life-threatening diseases.

A spokesperson for the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said the government was doing all it can to save the NHS millions of pounds unnecessarily treating pensioners of avoidable illnesses by making sure energy prices are so expensive old people have no alternative but to freeze themselves to death this winter.

 

http://tompride.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/frozen-pensioners-contain-higher-levels-of-vitamins-and-antioxidants-say-scientists/

Edited October 23, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[StigVillan]

Satire is strikingly close to government policy...

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

[tonyh29]

 

Brand is a cock .. but he did make me chuckle a few times

 

 

Talks a bit hypercritallly for a bloke sititng on a net worth of $15 m though

Edited October 24, 2013 by tonyh29

[Kingfisher]

I don't really find Brand funny, but I've always agreed with a lot the guy has to say. The Daily Mail hated him for ages, along with Ross. It made me laugh when they steered up all that shit about the prank call, with their faux outrage. They got what they wanted as it did its job and got him sacked from the beeb, who of course have no backbone and capitulated to the tide media pressure. Didn't do his career any harm though, it seems.

[tonyh29]

I don't really find Brand funny, but I've always agreed with a lot the guy has to say. The Daily Mail hated him for ages, along with Ross. It made me laugh when they steered up all that shit about the prank call, with their faux outrage. They got what they wanted as it did its job and got him sacked from the beeb, who of course have no backbone and capitulated to the tide media pressure. Didn't do his career any harm though, it seems.

 

Brand did the what's worse  ..a prank call to Andrew Sach's or supporting Hitler line in his defence .. this was before he wore Hugo Boss of course so in no way shape or form was Brand being hypercritical

[mockingbird_franklin]

Claimants to lose DLA permanently if falsely accused of fraud, DWP decides Created on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 23:56

Category: Latest news

From 28 October, where a claimant is investigated by the DWP as a result of a false accusation of fraud, they will automatically lose their DLA and be forced to make a claim for PIP, even if found to be entirely innocent. The new DWP policy is legally questionable and is likely to cause enormous distress to claimants, whilst rewarding hate-callers.

The change in DWP policy has come about because of the roll-out of PIP to existing claimants which begins at the end of this month.

According to PIP regulations, after 28 October if ‘a DLA entitled person . . . notifies the Secretary of State of a change of circumstances’ they will be ‘invited’ to claim PIP instead.

In other words, if you are getting DLA and you inform the DWP that your condition is getting better or worse, then you will be assessed for PIP rather than for DLA.

In March of this year the DWP published a PIP toolkit which included a number of factsheets about the PIP claims process. Included in factsheet 6 was confirmation of how changes of circumstances would be treated:

From October 2013, DWP will start to write to the following existing DLA claimants, inviting them to claim PIP. The invitation will explain how to make a claim, and the time limits for making a claim:

• claimants who choose to claim PIP (selfselectors) can do so from this date

• those DLA claimants who report a change in their care or mobility needs will be invited to claim PIP

However, in September the wording of the second bullet point was changed, so that it now states that amongst those who will be invited to claim PIP will be:

• those claimants where we receive information that there has been a change in their care or mobility needs

So, it appears it will not just be where the claimant themselves inform the DWP of a change of circumstances that they will be assessed for PIP, as the law requires.

Instead, where someone else, including a malicious neighbour or relative using the anonymous National Benefit Fraud Hotline, reports that the claimant is no longer in need of help with care or mobility, the claimant will still lose their DLA and be assessed for PIP instead.

This approach appears to be confirmed by a poster on Rightsnet who explained:

“At our local JC+/customer/representative forum meeting last week a DWP partner support manager brought the following change of wording to the attention of the meeting (second bullet point on page one of link)

“In his words anyone who was ‘bubbled’ (shopped) would be taken as if they were a ‘self selector’ in the DLA/PIP reassessments.”

The decision about whether the claimant has been committing fraud must still be based on the DLA criteria.

But even if it is decided that there has been absolutely no change in their condition and they are the victim of a misguided or deliberately malicious informant, the claimant will still lose their DLA and have to claim PIP instead.

It will undoubtedly be cheaper and more convenient for the DWP to assess claimants for PIP at the same time as they are investigating them for DLA fraud. It saves coming back and looking at their claim again at the proper time.

However, we know that large numbers of people are likely to lose out under the transfer from DLA to PIP, including some people with mobility problems and some people who need supervision because of serious mental health conditions. Being assessed early for PIP, in some cases possibly by three or more years, will therefore be a serious blow.

That, simply for administrative convenience, the DWP are prepared to inflict this blow and in the process collude with hate-filled anonymous callers, says a great deal about the way that claimants are now viewed by the state.

Benefits and Work have made a Freedom of Information request to try to uncover what guidance has been issued on how to treat DLA claimants accused of fraud after 28^th October.

 

 

http://benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/2416-claimants-to-lose-dla-permanently-if-falsely-accused-of-fraud-dwp-decides

Edited October 24, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[mockingbird_franklin]

Tories on Plebgate: police lied. Tories on Hillsborough: blaming police “contemptible”

23 Wednesday Oct 2013

Posted by Tom Pride in hopeless naivety

(not satire – it’s the Tories!)

Senior Tories are openly accusing the police of lying during the so-called ‘plebgate’ incident.

A very different reaction to how senior Tories reacted when people suggested the police may have lied and been part of a conspiracy to smear the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy.

They called those allegations “contemptible”.

Here it is in black and white in a 1996 letter from senior Tory ‘sir’ Bernard Ingham:

Senior Tories also told relatives of those who died to “shut up” about the Hillsborough disaster.

This completely different reaction from senior Tories has of course nothing to do with the fact that the victim of ‘plebgate’ was also a senior Tory whereas the victims of the Hillsborough disaster were obviously not.

They were just, well ….. plebs I suppose?

.

For the real facts about the Hillsborough tragedy – have a look here:

Hillsborough Justice Campaign

[Awol]

3 C & P articles from "Tom Pride" on the same page?  I wouldn't mind but simply throwing dog toffee at a piece of paper wouldn't produce worse analysis and that last one on "Plebgate" is utterly pathetic.

 

His "Think Left" blog is no better either.

[bickster]

The whole shame about the Plebgate thing is that Andrew Mitchell is likely to come out of it as some sort of vindicated hero, when the reality of it was that he was acting like a pontificating arse whether he used the word pleb or not. there were a number of Tories at the time who off the record stated that the p word was part of Mitchell's everyday lexicon and his don't you know who I am attitude, was also typical of him. The whole p-word thing has completely clouded an incident that should have made him look exactly what he is, a hypocritical gobshite but instead he's going to come out of it looking like the vindicated victim of bullying, which is rich considering that many in his party considered him to be the bully, in fact it was his bullying tendencies that got him started in all this in the first place.

[tonyh29]

Tbf if the police hadn't lied he wouldn't have been vindicated ... I think the issue was his behaviour first and foremost which he looked to have survived with an apology ... Trial by media then took hold and even Ed couldn't miss an open goal like that one and he became a distraction to the party and hounded out of office

It smelt as fishy as one of Baldricks apple pies at the time as I commented on ( police logs being leaked to the press etc ) ...

[thetrees]

Interesting the comparisons being drawn with Hillsborough.

In Mitchell's case the police apparently refused to open the gate for a rude, mouthy individual who had no right to have the gate opened.

In the Hillsborough case the police apparently opened the gates for a gang of rude, mouthy individuals, who had no rights to have the gates opened by virtue of the fact that they were ticketless.

Of course, in both cases the police are entirely to blame, and in both cases the gate stormers are vindicated heroes.

[bickster]

Interesting the comparisons being drawn with Hillsborough.

In Mitchell's case the police apparently refused to open the gate for a rude, mouthy individual who had no right to have the gate opened.

In the Hillsborough case the police apparently opened the gates for a gang of rude, mouthy individuals, who had no rights to have the gates opened by virtue of the fact that they were ticketless.

Of course, in both cases the police are entirely to blame, and in both cases the gate stormers are vindicated heroes.

Except your version of the Hillsborough Tragedy isn't even close to the truth. Why keep peddling this bollocks which has been proved to be utterly untrue? not that its for this thread but come on