Latest post of the previous page:
That page not available to us non Fb inflicted people, thundril.INFORMATION
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
The future of Government (if any)
Re: The future of Government (if any)
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Dave B wrote:That page not available to us non Fb inflicted people, thundril.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Tories cement their nasty party reputation...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 15641.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 15641.html
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Thanks, Alan. It has long been a concern of mine that once the cheap imports from China have ruined our industries and made us dependant the price will rocket!
Not just steel and power stations - by the time xmas comes along we will have imported several cubic kilometers of containers worth of toys, electronics, clothes etc., etc...
Not just steel and power stations - by the time xmas comes along we will have imported several cubic kilometers of containers worth of toys, electronics, clothes etc., etc...
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The future of Government (if any)
So sweet: A Freedom of Information request for UK Home Secretary Theresa May's metadata
Dear Home Office,
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I hereby request the following information from and regarding the Rt Hon Theresa May MP (Con), Secretary of State for the Home Department (the "Home Secretary"):
1) The date, time, and recipient of every email sent by the Home Secretary during October 2015.
2) The date, time, and sender of every email received by the Home Secretary during October 2015.
3) The date, time, and recipient of every internet telephony call (e.g. "Skype" call) made by the Home Secretary during October 2015.
4) The date, time, and sender of every internet telephony call (e.g. "Skype" call) received by the Home Secretary during October 2015.
5) The date, time, and domain address of every website visited by the Home Secretary during October 2015.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Fair do's!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The future of Government (if any)
They will find a 'clever' excuse not to provide it (but why if they've nothing to hide...), but it'll be interesting to see them squirm in the process.Dave B wrote:Fair do's!
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
I was actually thinking, "They will try to ignore it..." but, hopefully publicity will prevent that.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The future of Government (if any)
They can't ignore it, but they will use one of the various exemptions available to them. But whichever on they use, it can only be embarrassing for them.Dave B wrote:I was actually thinking, "They will try to ignore it..." but, hopefully publicity will prevent that.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Michael Gove to tell judges they can ignore European Court of Human Rights rulingsSecretary of State for Justice will unveil British bill of rights to replace the Human Rights Act before Christmas
Judges will be told they can ignore some rulings from the European Court of Human Rights, and look to Australian or Canadian law instead, under plans to introduce a British bill of rights.
Michael Gove is set to unveil the Government’s long-awaited replacement for the Human Rights Act before Christmas. Government sources suggest the proposals will include a weakening of European law, with domestic courts encouraged to turn to the common law, or even law in Commonwealth countries, in forming judgments.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
The Misguided Direction of Public Disdain
These narratives all paint a picture in our heads that, whilst many in work are struggling to make ends meet, there are many who get even more than they do for doing absolutely nothing. In a survey conducted by YouGov 42% of people said that they thought the welfare bill is too high. Similarly, people believe that, 41% of the total benefit bill is spent on unemployment benefit; 27% of unemployment benefit is claimed fraudulently; the welfare system has created a culture of dependency (52%). In reality, according to the Trade Union Centre only 3% of total welfare spending goes on unemployment benefit (the vast majority is spent on pensions, the disabled and benefits accessible to working families), a meagre 0.8% is claimed fraudulently (this is not only through claimants filling paperwork out incorrectly, but also systematic error from the Department of Work and Pensions) and only 10% of claimants continue to claim for over a year.
This demonstrates how misguided the British population are on these issues and the level of disdain directed towards the unemployed is vastly unwarranted. The actual figures suggest that only a tiny percentage of people could ever be said to be receiving ‘something for nothing’. Secondly, there are even fewer people attempting to get money illegitimately. And thirdly, considering the vast majority of people are on unemployment benefit for under a year, it stands to reason that most see the ‘dole’ as a temporary solution and hence are not part of a ‘culture of dependency’. Yet with these erroneous ideas dominating mainstream thought, it is no wonder that cuts to the benefit system have been met with support.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Your access to Freedom of Information is under threat – here’s what to do
Proposed changes, currently under discussion by a cross-party government commission, could make it much harder for you to access information.
This is what the proposed restrictions would mean for you:
You’d be charged for making a request
Your request could be turned down on the grounds of cost, even more easily than it can be now
You’d find it more difficult (or even impossible) to obtain details of public authorities’ internal discussions
The release of government information could be easily blocked by ministers
You have until 20 November if you’d like to voice your opposition to these restraints.
Here are four easy ways you can take action right now—you’ll find more details about all of them on the Campaign For Freedom of Information’s website.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Petition signed.
Wanting to scrap the FoI act would indicate the government has domething to hide...
Wanting to scrap the FoI act would indicate the government has domething to hide...
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The future of Government (if any)
I am not in favour of the changes, not because I fear for British justice, but because it is one way of attempting to influence other parts of the world.Alan H wrote:Michael Gove to tell judges they can ignore European Court of Human Rights rulingsSecretary of State for Justice will unveil British bill of rights to replace the Human Rights Act before Christmas
Judges will be told they can ignore some rulings from the European Court of Human Rights, and look to Australian or Canadian law instead, under plans to introduce a British bill of rights.
Michael Gove is set to unveil the Government’s long-awaited replacement for the Human Rights Act before Christmas. Government sources suggest the proposals will include a weakening of European law, with domestic courts encouraged to turn to the common law, or even law in Commonwealth countries, in forming judgments.
Having said that, justice, in British courts at least, is based on precedent, rather than codified law. So all judgements are therefore a choice of precedents, with developments where appropriate. So it is not so much that Gove wants European law to be "ignored", but that judges are not necessarily obliged to follow European law in preference to other judgements where there is conflict. To imply that turning to common law is something of a departure, shows how far our ages-old justice system has been over-ruled by statute originating from the EU, over which we have so much less influence. And given the source of much of the law in Commonwealth countries, to look to Commonwealth countries for precedent in forming judgements is logical, and should not be the surprise it appears to be to the Indie.
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Apparently, Tony Blair regards the FoI Act as his biggest blunder....Dave B wrote:Petition signed.
Wanting to scrap the FoI act would indicate the government has domething to hide...
Re: The future of Government (if any)
I know that, Nick, why is it relevant? Just another of your attempted digs at the left?Nick wrote:Apparently, Tony Blair regards the FoI Act as his biggest blunder....Dave B wrote:Petition signed.
Wanting to scrap the FoI act would indicate the government has domething to hide...
The colour of the politician, IMO, has no relevance - never trust any of them!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The future of Government (if any)
If Michael Gove listens to Daniel Hannan’s honeyed polemic on Human Rights he really will get into a muddle
Let’s start with the “Sovereignty problem.” Mr Hannan’s premise is that the Human Rights Act gives “direct effect” to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. That might indeed be a problem if it were true; but it isn’t. The Human Rights Act does not give direct effect to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. If your premise is wrong, then no matter how beautifully expressed the rest of your argument may be, it won’t hold water.
The relevant part of the Human Rights Act is Section 2, and all that that does is require British courts to “take into account any:judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights;"
Taking something “into account” does not mean agreeing with it, or necessarily obeying it. And as the English courts have made quite clear it certainly does not mean “giving direct effect to it.” For example, in the case ofVinter[/url] the European Court of Human Rights found in July 2013 that a whole-life term of imprisonment was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention (which prohibits torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment). It was a conclusion which the England and Wales Court of Appeal Criminal Division took into account, and then expressly disagreed with when, on the Attorney General’s application, it imposed a whole-life term on a double murderer in February 2014. It was a clash between the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Appeal: and the Court of Appeal won. This was not a unique case: in 2009 the Supreme Court, had declined to follow the European Court of Human Rights in Horncastle, a case about the admissibility in evidence of the statement of a deceased witness.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
If only all towns and businesses did this... Crickhowell: Welsh town moves 'offshore' to avoid tax on local business
When independent traders in a small Welsh town discovered the loopholes used by multinational giants to avoid paying UK tax, they didn’t just get mad.
Now local businesses in Crickhowell are turning the tables on the likes of Google and Starbucks by employing the same accountancy practices used by the world’s biggest companies, to move their entire town “offshore”.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Tsk, tsk. David Cameron reported to statistics watchdog over questionable EU migrant benefit statistics
The website Full Fact, an independent organisation that verifies claims made by politicians of all parties, said there was “nothing” backing up the figures in any official publication.
Full Fact said it was launching a full complaint to the UK Statistics Authority.
“There is nothing backing these up on the Department for Work and Pensions’ ad hoc statistics page—where non-regular analysis is placed when it is used in public, for example in speeches or the press,” wrote Phobe Arnold, a researcher at Full Fact.
Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) and a former chief economist at the Cabinet Office, was among those treating the 43 per cent figure with incredulity.
“They appear to have taken the number of EU/EEA migrants claiming benefits from DWP data, made some ‘adjustments’, and divided by the number of EU/EEA migrants here for less than four years according to the LFS,” the Times newspaper quoted him as saying.
Mr Portes described some aspects of the figures as “very suspicious” and contrary to statistical “common sense”.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
I know that, Nick, why is it relevant?[/quote]Because it was hid government that introduced it. I would have thought that that was extremely relevant.Dave B wrote:[quote="NickApparently, Tony Blair regards the FoI Act as his biggest blunder....
No, a devastating critique.Just another of your attempted digs at the left?
I'll bear that in mind.The colour of the politician, IMO, has no relevance - never trust any of them!
In the light of which I await your disparaging comments on any who make "attempted digs" at "the right"......