politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Damian Green’s computer is none of our business
Options
Comments
-
And this is the fallacy of the 'lets nationalise it to get cheaper prices'.another_richard said:
Its so that the supplier can make a profit.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility company to get f*cked over by?HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they can vote for Corbyn Labour who are committed to that policy, Tories are not going to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
On some of the tariffs and with some of its customers there wont be any profit and with others there will be lots.
The 'clever' customers who regularly switch to cheaper deals and make use of cashback sites are effectively getting subsidised by the lazy / stupid / loyal customers who are getting ripped off.
Ditto with insurance, airlines, supermarkets.
The first effect of nationalisation would be that all the cheap deals would disappear.0 -
It was moneysupermarket to which I refer. To be honest, having to choose between fifty tariffs from one supplier (or more accurately thousands of tariffs from multiple suppliers) is a choice I could do without.HYUFD said:
Use comparethemarket.com or Money Supermarket to compare the best deal based on your needs, if the electricity companies are nationalised again under a Corbyn government you will not get that choice, you will have to take the deal the state owned company gives you.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility company to get f*cked over by?HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they can vote for Corbyn Labour who are committed to that policy, Tories are not going to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
Similarly, when making a rail journey, exploring whether splitting the journey into two or three separate segments is cheaper than booking the whole trip or - as in the case of a journey I make regularly - whether booking a longer trip starting from a station further back along the line is cheaper than the shorter trip starting from where I will actually board the train - is just annoying and pointless hassle.
The nonsense of the current setup is such that I would nationalise them both in a heartbeat.0 -
Most people I know save about 30% by their first swap. Worth having.IanB2 said:
It was moneysupermarket to which I refer. To be honest, having to choose between fifty tariffs from one supplier (or more accurately thousands of tariffs from multiple suppliers) is a choice I could do without.HYUFD said:
Use comparethemarket.com or Money Supermarket to compare the best deal based on your needs, if the electricity companies are nationalised again under a Corbyn government you will not get that choice, you will have to take the deal the state owned company gives you.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility company to get f*cked over by?HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they can vote for Corbyn Labour who are committed to that policy, Tories are not going to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
Similarly, when making a rail journey, exploring whether splitting the journey into two or three separate segments is cheaper than booking the whole trip or - as in the case of a journey I make regularly - whether booking a longer trip starting from a station further back along the line is cheaper than the shorter trip starting from where I will actually board the train - is just annoying and pointless hassle.
The nonsense of the current setup is such that I would nationalise them both in a heartbeat.
Moneysavingexpert also have an excellent service in this area.0 -
Clearly. The social benefit of all this is negative, however, and the time spent dreaming up all this complexity simply wasted effort and cost.another_richard said:
Its so that the supplier can make a profit.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility company to get f*cked over by?HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they can vote for Corbyn Labour who are committed to that policy, Tories are not going to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
On some of the tarrifs and with some of its customers there wont be any profit and with others there will be lots.
The 'clever' customers who regularly switch to cheaper deals and make use of cashback sites are effectively getting subsidised by the lazy / stupid / loyal customers who are getting ripped off.
Ditto with insurance, airlines, supermarkets.0 -
Sadly Damian Green ruined that plan with his original vehement denial of no porn on his computer.another_richard said:
I wondered if that might have been involved.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 was going through the Commons then, so accessing porn might have been done for research purposes of that.The_Apocalypse said:I don’t get why someone would look at porn at work. You’re just asking for trouble there. It’s much easier to just do it in your own time, I’m not quite sure why some can’t just leaving it at that.
He was Shadow Home Office Minister at the time so he'd have an extra plausible reason to do research on Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.0 -
Exactly. They could just be using the time to view porn....IanB2 said:
Clearly. The social benefit of all this is negative, however, and the time spent dreaming up all this complexity simply wasted effort and cost.another_richard said:
Its so that the supplier can make a profit.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility company to get f*cked over by?HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they can vote for Corbyn Labour who are committed to that policy, Tories are not going to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
On some of the tarrifs and with some of its customers there wont be any profit and with others there will be lots.
The 'clever' customers who regularly switch to cheaper deals and make use of cashback sites are effectively getting subsidised by the lazy / stupid / loyal customers who are getting ripped off.
Ditto with insurance, airlines, supermarkets.0 -
More likely, the government would use nationalised utilities as cash cows.another_richard said:
And this is the fallacy of the 'lets nationalise it to get cheaper prices'.another_richard said:
Its so that the supplier can make a profit.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility company to get f*cked over by?HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they can vote for Corbyn Labour who are committed to that policy, Tories are not going to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
On some of the tariffs and with some of its customers there wont be any profit and with others there will be lots.
The 'clever' customers who regularly switch to cheaper deals and make use of cashback sites are effectively getting subsidised by the lazy / stupid / loyal customers who are getting ripped off.
Ditto with insurance, airlines, supermarkets.
The first effect of nationalisation would be that all the cheap deals would disappear.0 -
Yep, choosing Oxford over Cambridge is a mistake from which you never recoverTheScreamingEagles said:
Well what do you expect from someone who read PPE at Oxford, they've not experienced real life.IanB2 said:
Clearly you missed your vocation as a defence barrister?TheScreamingEagles said:
Well the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 was going through the Commons then, so accessing porn might have been done for research purposes of that.The_Apocalypse said:I don’t get why someone would look at porn at work. You’re just asking for trouble there. It’s much easier to just do it in your own time, I’m not quite sure why some can’t just leaving it at that.
If only your client had been sharp enough to offer up this explanation voluntarily.
0 -
Right that's me done for today.
Pray that nothing major happens in the word of politics today as I'll be at the Manchester Arena watching Steps featuring The Vengaboys.0 -
If so, then the failed offerings will be driven out by the market mechanism.IanB2 said:
Clearly. The social benefit of all this is negative, however, and the time spent dreaming up all this complexity simply wasted effort and cost.another_richard said:
Its so that the supplier can make a profit.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility company to get f*cked over by?HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they can vote for Corbyn Labour who are committed to that policy, Tories are not going to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
On some of the tarrifs and with some of its customers there wont be any profit and with others there will be lots.
The 'clever' customers who regularly switch to cheaper deals and make use of cashback sites are effectively getting subsidised by the lazy / stupid / loyal customers who are getting ripped off.
Ditto with insurance, airlines, supermarkets.
Regular switching is not difficult, and people who choose not to do so are perfectly free to make that choice. It is still no reason to wreck it by nationalisation.
Excellent thing, free markets.0 -
There wasn't any porn on his computer. There is just an allegation of it, which I'm pretty sure would be inadmissible evidence in a court as illegally obtained, and as such should be treated as if it were a fabrication. Which it could well be.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sadly Damian Green ruined that plan with his original vehement denial of no porn on his computer.another_richard said:
I wondered if that might have been involved.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 was going through the Commons then, so accessing porn might have been done for research purposes of that.The_Apocalypse said:I don’t get why someone would look at porn at work. You’re just asking for trouble there. It’s much easier to just do it in your own time, I’m not quite sure why some can’t just leaving it at that.
He was Shadow Home Office Minister at the time so he'd have an extra plausible reason to do research on Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.0 -
Well, it seems that Igloo.com will be getting my custom come January.MattW said:
If so, then the failed offerings will be driven out by the market mechanism.IanB2 said:
Clearly. The social benefit of all this is negative, however, and the time spent dreaming up all this complexity simply wasted effort and cost.another_richard said:
Its so that the supplier can make a profit.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility company to get f*cked over by?HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they can vote for Corbyn Labour who are committed to that policy, Tories are not going to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
On some of the tarrifs and with some of its customers there wont be any profit and with others there will be lots.
The 'clever' customers who regularly switch to cheaper deals and make use of cashback sites are effectively getting subsidised by the lazy / stupid / loyal customers who are getting ripped off.
Ditto with insurance, airlines, supermarkets.
Regular switching is not difficult, and people who choose not to do so are perfectly free to make that choice. It is still no reason to wreck it by nationalisation.
Excellent thing, free markets.0 -
Maybe Green was thinking about porn for personal use.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sadly Damian Green ruined that plan with his original vehement denial of no porn on his computer.another_richard said:
I wondered if that might have been involved.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 was going through the Commons then, so accessing porn might have been done for research purposes of that.The_Apocalypse said:I don’t get why someone would look at porn at work. You’re just asking for trouble there. It’s much easier to just do it in your own time, I’m not quite sure why some can’t just leaving it at that.
He was Shadow Home Office Minister at the time so he'd have an extra plausible reason to do research on Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
Though if he had been doing any research work into extreme porn at the time it wouldn't be surprising if his computer got contaminated with some without his knowledge and without having visited any sites.0 -
Actually, that is quite patronising. How do you know that lower income people do not take advantage?IanB2 said:
Clearly. The social benefit of all this is negative, however, and the time spent dreaming up all this complexity simply wasted effort and cost.another_richard said:
Its so that the supplier can make a profit.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility company to get f*cked over by?HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they can vote for Corbyn Labour who are committed to that policy, Tories are not going to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
On some of the tarrifs and with some of its customers there wont be any profit and with others there will be lots.
The 'clever' customers who regularly switch to cheaper deals and make use of cashback sites are effectively getting subsidised by the lazy / stupid / loyal customers who are getting ripped off.
Ditto with insurance, airlines, supermarkets.0 -
Good for you but it's not unusual for others, men or women, though more common for men. And are we including literary porn. Not always about image.Barnesian said:
No. That's sad too. My vivid imagination is good enough for me.Casino_Royale said:
You've bought mags, then?Barnesian said:
I've never watched porn on a computer (it's just too sad)Casino_Royale said:
In the real world, virtually everyone lies about sex and virtually everyone watches porn. And I wouldn't believe those that said they didn't.Ally_B said:I concur with your view Nigelb. As David says, under these circumstances it isn't a sackable offence. Nor, in this case, do I think it appropriate for ex-Policemen to comment on what was found at that time. It does have the feel of Plebgate to it. Green shouldn't have done what is alleged on a work's computer but I'm afraid it reinforces my opinion of most politicians as individuals who are out of touch with the real world and I'll leave it at that.
Next.0 -
The charities and lobbying groups that are active in this area all hold this view. And i know from my own family that my older relatives don't even think of spending the time on comparison websites that my younger relatives do.MattW said:
Actually, that is quite patronising. How do you know that lower income people do not take advantage?IanB2 said:
Clearly. The social benefit of all this is negative, however, and the time spent dreaming up all this complexity simply wasted effort and cost.another_richard said:
Its so that the supplier can make a profit.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility company to get f*cked over by?HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they can vote for Corbyn Labour who are committed to that policy, Tories are not going to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
On some of the tarrifs and with some of its customers there wont be any profit and with others there will be lots.
The 'clever' customers who regularly switch to cheaper deals and make use of cashback sites are effectively getting subsidised by the lazy / stupid / loyal customers who are getting ripped off.
Ditto with insurance, airlines, supermarkets.0 -
Indeed. He may have done wrong, but it pales next to the leaking and what that implies.JonnyJimmy said:
Because it's next to police corruption.Stereotomy said:
Of course. If there turns out to be no credible evidence, he shouldn't be fired. But I don't understand this "it's just porn, who cares?" attitudeJonnyJimmy said:
I hope you live in a country where being accused of doing so a decade ago by bent cops with a grudge isn't a firing offence.Stereotomy said:Have I been living in some parallel universe where watching and saving porn on a work computer is normally a firing offense?
0 -
Whatever the truth about the porn the crazy thing is the two diametrically opposed positions.
He either did or didn't view it and regardless of the legal position I would just really really like to know what happened.0 -
Yes, the meerkats are strong May fansMarqueeMark said:
A Corbyn Govt. would be very bad news for comparethemarket.comHYUFD said:
Use comparethemarket.com or Money Supermarket to compare the best deal based on your needs, if the electricity companies are nationalised again under a Corbyn government you will not get that choice, you will have to take the deal the state owned company gives you.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility company to get f*cked over by?HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they can vote for Corbyn Labour who are committed to that policy, Tories are not going to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
Will nobody think of the poor meerkats? Heartless bastard, that Jeremy Corbyn.....0 -
That’s a right old mess. No matter what government tries to do, they’re never going to stop teenage boys finding imaginative ways of getting internet porn.edmundintokyo said:On topic, this is absolutely right. The porn doesn't matter, but the power games involved matter a lot.
Relatedly, British MPs have created a huge trap for themselves in the form of a thing called the Digital Economy Act, which requires age verification to view porn. Age verification is going to be done by making individuals put their personal information into databases controlled by various private corporations.
The upshot is that whoever owns, buys or hacks these databases will have access to embarrassing secrets about politicians, police and judges.
Vice has the detail:
https://www.vice.com/amp/en_uk/article/9kqp43/uk-porn-is-about-to-change-in-a-way-youre-not-going-to-like
Looking not very far into the future:
ttps://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/9347565472925327360 -
It would be LOL time when those people who thought that nationalisation would bring cheaper bills got price rises instead.Sean_F said:
More likely, the government would use nationalised utilities as cash cows.another_richard said:
And this is the fallacy of the 'lets nationalise it to get cheaper prices'.another_richard said:
Its so that the supplier can make a profit.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility company to get f*cked over by?HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they can vote for Corbyn Labour who are committed to that policy, Tories are not going to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
On some of the tariffs and with some of its customers there wont be any profit and with others there will be lots.
The 'clever' customers who regularly switch to cheaper deals and make use of cashback sites are effectively getting subsidised by the lazy / stupid / loyal customers who are getting ripped off.
Ditto with insurance, airlines, supermarkets.
The first effect of nationalisation would be that all the cheap deals would disappear.
Though the second thing that would happen, after the disappearence of the cheap deals, would be demands for pay rises from everyone employed in the nationalised industries.
The third thing would be strikes.0 -
I'm interested to know the truth, but I do t need police and ex police breaching procedure and possibly the law to inform meTOPPING said:Whatever the truth about the porn the crazy thing is the two diametrically opposed positions.
He either did or didn't view it and regardless of the legal position I would just really really like to know what happened.0 -
And are we including, for example, fan-fiction - written romnatic fiction / erotica which has more of a female authorship / audience?kle4 said:
Good for you but it's not unusual for others, men or women, though more common for men. And are we including literary porn. Not always about image.Barnesian said:
No. That's sad too. My vivid imagination is good enough for me.Casino_Royale said:
You've bought mags, then?Barnesian said:
I've never watched porn on a computer (it's just too sad)Casino_Royale said:
In the real world, virtually everyone lies about sex and virtually everyone watches porn. And I wouldn't believe those that said they didn't.Ally_B said:I concur with your view Nigelb. As David says, under these circumstances it isn't a sackable offence. Nor, in this case, do I think it appropriate for ex-Policemen to comment on what was found at that time. It does have the feel of Plebgate to it. Green shouldn't have done what is alleged on a work's computer but I'm afraid it reinforces my opinion of most politicians as individuals who are out of touch with the real world and I'll leave it at that.
Next.
0 -
i would be genuinely interested in seeing a link to the argument they make.IanB2 said:
The charities and lobbying groups that are active in this area all hold this view. And i know from my own family that my older relatives don't even think of spending the time on comparison websites that my younger relatives do.MattW said:
Actually, that is quite patronising. How do you know that lower income people do not take advantage?IanB2 said:
Clearly. The social benefit of all this is negative, however, and the time spent dreaming up all this complexity simply wasted effort and cost.another_richard said:
Its so that the supplier can make a profit.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility company to get f*cked over by?HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they can vote for Corbyn Labour who are committed to that policy, Tories are not going to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
On some of the tarrifs and with some of its customers there wont be any profit and with others there will be lots.
The 'clever' customers who regularly switch to cheaper deals and make use of cashback sites are effectively getting subsidised by the lazy / stupid / loyal customers who are getting ripped off.
Ditto with insurance, airlines, supermarkets.0 -
It serves a similar purpose so I don't know why not.MattW said:
And are we including, for example, fan-fiction - written romnatic fiction / erotica which has more of a female authorship / audience?kle4 said:
Good for you but it's not unusual for others, men or women, though more common for men. And are we including literary porn. Not always about image.Barnesian said:
No. That's sad too. My vivid imagination is good enough for me.Casino_Royale said:
You've bought mags, then?Barnesian said:
I've never watched porn on a computer (it's just too sad)Casino_Royale said:
In the real world, virtually everyone lies about sex and virtually everyone watches porn. And I wouldn't believe those that said they didn't.Ally_B said:I concur with your view Nigelb. As David says, under these circumstances it isn't a sackable offence. Nor, in this case, do I think it appropriate for ex-Policemen to comment on what was found at that time. It does have the feel of Plebgate to it. Green shouldn't have done what is alleged on a work's computer but I'm afraid it reinforces my opinion of most politicians as individuals who are out of touch with the real world and I'll leave it at that.
Next.0 -
Yup, the only positive aspect to it is that it helps educate young people in the use of useful technology like Tor and VPNs.Sandpit said:
That’s a right old mess. No matter what government tries to do, they’re never going to stop teenage boys finding imaginative ways of getting internet porn.edmundintokyo said:On topic, this is absolutely right. The porn doesn't matter, but the power games involved matter a lot.
Relatedly, British MPs have created a huge trap for themselves in the form of a thing called the Digital Economy Act, which requires age verification to view porn. Age verification is going to be done by making individuals put their personal information into databases controlled by various private corporations.
The upshot is that whoever owns, buys or hacks these databases will have access to embarrassing secrets about politicians, police and judges.
Vice has the detail:
https://www.vice.com/amp/en_uk/article/9kqp43/uk-porn-is-about-to-change-in-a-way-youre-not-going-to-like
Looking not very far into the future:
ttps://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/9347565472925327360 -
You are talking about retailing electricity. Most providers (e.g. Sainsbury Energy) buy wholesale (using their buying power) and sell retail with as much confusion as possible to make a margin. It's like retailing petrol but more confusing.HYUFD said:
Use comparethemarket.com or Money Supermarket to compare the best deal based on your needs, if the electricity companies are nationalised again under a Corbyn government you will not get that choice, you will have to take the deal the state owned company gives you.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility company to get f*cked over by?HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they can vote for Corbyn Labour who are committed to that policy, Tories are not going to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
The Labour manifesto policy on energy nationalisation is "to ensure that national and regional grid infrastructure is brought into public ownership over time”. This is different from retailing. It is about power lines and power stations. This is a subsidised monopoly of strategic importance like roads, railway lines, water reservoirs and pipelines, armies and navies, where true competition is impossible, extremely expensive or very undesirable.
Labour policy on energy retailing is very similar to Tory policy - cap prices and simplify tariffs.0 -
The CEGB ran power stations; it did not sell directly -- that was the job of regional electricity boards such as the LEB (London) and so on. In any case, what now is the customer choosing between? Only tariffs, not the cables it comes down, should your supply prove unreliable. And can the green customer choose between electricity from Scottish bird-blenders or French atoms?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility company to get f*cked over by?HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they can vote for Corbyn Labour who are committed to that policy, Tories are not going to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.0 -
Cue Green resigning and Osborne going for a return to Parliament in 5, 4, 3.....TheScreamingEagles said:Right that's me done for today.
Pray that nothing major happens in the word of politics today as I'll be at the Manchester Arena watching Steps featuring The Vengaboys.0 -
Both Conservatives and Labour are now proposing to cap the excesses of energy pricing. What more evidence that the privatised market isn't acting in the interests of all consumers do you need?MattW said:
i would be genuinely interested in seeing a link to the argument they make.IanB2 said:
The charities and lobbying groups that are active in this area all hold this view. And i know from my own family that my older relatives don't even think of spending the time on comparison websites that my younger relatives do.MattW said:
Actually, that is quite patronising. How do you know that lower income people do not take advantage?IanB2 said:
Clearly. The social benefit of all this is negative, however, and the time spent dreaming up all this complexity simply wasted effort and cost.another_richard said:
Its so that the supplier can make a profit.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility company to get f*cked over by?HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they can vote for Corbyn Labour who are committed to that policy, Tories are not going to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
On some of the tarrifs and with some of its customers there wont be any profit and with others there will be lots.
The 'clever' customers who regularly switch to cheaper deals and make use of cashback sites are effectively getting subsidised by the lazy / stupid / loyal customers who are getting ripped off.
Ditto with insurance, airlines, supermarkets.0 -
Indeed so. Governments trying to uninvent technology they don’t like never works and has never worked, a lesson the Americans learned in the 1920s. Ditto encryption.edmundintokyo said:
Yup, the only positive aspect to it is that it helps educate young people in the use of useful technology like Tor and VPNs.Sandpit said:
That’s a right old mess. No matter what government tries to do, they’re never going to stop teenage boys finding imaginative ways of getting internet porn.edmundintokyo said:On topic, this is absolutely right. The porn doesn't matter, but the power games involved matter a lot.
Relatedly, British MPs have created a huge trap for themselves in the form of a thing called the Digital Economy Act, which requires age verification to view porn. Age verification is going to be done by making individuals put their personal information into databases controlled by various private corporations.
The upshot is that whoever owns, buys or hacks these databases will have access to embarrassing secrets about politicians, police and judges.
Vice has the detail:
https://www.vice.com/amp/en_uk/article/9kqp43/uk-porn-is-about-to-change-in-a-way-youre-not-going-to-like
Looking not very far into the future:
ttps://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/934756547292532736
It’ll only take a couple of years before everyone is using an encrypted device to access https sites through a VPN, and then the government will find they’ve got nothing on anyone, the legislation the security services demanded doing nothing but shooting themselves in the foot.0 -
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.0 -
Well you got no choice with BR of course either.IanB2 said:
It was moneysupermarket to which I refer. To be honest, having to choose between fifty tariffs from one supplier (or more accurately thousands of tariffs from multiple suppliers) is a choice I could do without.HYUFD said:
Use comparethemarket.com or Money Supermarket to compare the best deal based on your needs, if the electricity companies are nationalised again under a Corbyn government you will not get that choice, you will have to take the deal the state owned company gives you.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility company to get f*cked over by?HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they can vote for Corbyn Labour who are committed to that policy, Tories are not going to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
Similarly, when making a rail journey, exploring whether splitting the journey into two or three separate segments is cheaper than booking the whole trip or - as in the case of a journey I make regularly - whether booking a longer trip starting from a station further back along the line is cheaper than the shorter trip starting from where I will actually board the train - is just annoying and pointless hassle.
The nonsense of the current setup is such that I would nationalise them both in a heartbeat.0 -
Every single job I've worked in, private & public sector, looking at and storing porn on a works computer while at work, fired.Stereotomy said:
Of course. If there turns out to be no credible evidence, he shouldn't be fired. But I don't understand this "it's just porn, who cares?" attitudeJonnyJimmy said:
I hope you live in a country where being accused of doing so a decade ago by bent cops with a grudge isn't a firing offence.Stereotomy said:Have I been living in some parallel universe where watching and saving porn on a work computer is normally a firing offense?
If ten years later it's discovered that I had been looking at and storing porn on a works computer while at work, and I was still in the same job, fired.
You can argue as to whether that's proportional or not, and I accept that it's still moot whether Green did it and that the 2 ex coppers' actions aint unimpeachable. However it's an unbreakable rule that saying that it's different for our elected members compared to the average punter 'because reasons' is a crap look for pols & their partisans.0 -
The security services have now started to crack VPNs, they are not guaranteed anonymity all the timeSandpit said:
Indeed so. Governments trying to uninvent technology they don’t like never works and has never worked, a lesson the Americans learned in the 1920s. Ditto encryption.edmundintokyo said:
Yup, the only positive aspect to it is that it helps educate young people in the use of useful technology like Tor and VPNs.Sandpit said:
That’s a right old mess. No matter what government tries to do, they’re never going to stop teenage boys finding imaginative ways of getting internet porn.edmundintokyo said:On topic, this is absolutely right. The porn doesn't matter, but the power games involved matter a lot.
Relatedly, British MPs have created a huge trap for themselves in the form of a thing called the Digital Economy Act, which requires age verification to view porn. Age verification is going to be done by making individuals put their personal information into databases controlled by various private corporations.
The upshot is that whoever owns, buys or hacks these databases will have access to embarrassing secrets about politicians, police and judges.
Vice has the detail:
https://www.vice.com/amp/en_uk/article/9kqp43/uk-porn-is-about-to-change-in-a-way-youre-not-going-to-like
Looking not very far into the future:
ttps://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/934756547292532736
It’ll only take a couple of years before everyone is using an encrypted device to access https sites through a VPN, and then the government will find they’ve got nothing on anyone, the legislation the security services demanded doing nothing but shooting themselves in the foot.0 -
Except it is different. If they are sentenced to less than a year in jail MPs can't be sacked even if they are a convicted criminal. Yes people don't like accepting some things are different for the elected, and most things aren't, but it is what it is.Theuniondivvie said:
Every single job I've worked in, private & public sector, looking at and storing porn on a works computer while at work, fired.Stereotomy said:
Of course. If there turns out to be no credible evidence, he shouldn't be fired. But I don't understand this "it's just porn, who cares?" attitudeJonnyJimmy said:
I hope you live in a country where being accused of doing so a decade ago by bent cops with a grudge isn't a firing offence.Stereotomy said:Have I been living in some parallel universe where watching and saving porn on a work computer is normally a firing offense?
If ten years later it's discovered that I had been looking at and storing porn on a works computer while at work, and I was still in the same job, fired.
You can argue as to whether that's proportional or not, and I accept that it's still moot whether Green did it and that the 2 ex coppers' actions aint unimpeachable. However it's an unbreakable rule that saying that it's different for our elected members compared to the average punter 'because reasons' is a crap look for pols & their partisans.0 -
When you put it like that it sounds reasonable, though someone will probably explain I'm silly to think that. On such issues I'm very open to persuasion though.Barnesian said:
You are talking about retailing electricity. Most providers (e.g. Sainsbury Energy) buy wholesale (using their buying power) and sell retail with as much confusion as possible to make a margin. It's like retailing petrol but more confusing.HYUFD said:
Use comparethemarket.com or Money Supermarket to compare the best deal based on your needs, if the electricity companies are nationalised again under a Corbyn government you will not get that choice, you will have to take the deal the state owned company gives you.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op ke any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity er the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility s. They can't.HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they g to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
The Labour manifesto policy on energy nationalisation is "to ensure that national and regional grid infrastructure is brought into public ownership over time”. This is different from retailing. It is about power lines and power stations. This is a subsidised monopoly of strategic importance like roads, railway lines, water reservoirs and pipelines, armies and navies, where true competition is impossible, extremely expensive or very undesirable.
Labour policy on energy retailing is very similar to Tory policy - cap prices and simplify tariffs.0 -
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.0 -
Ten years ago, I'd be surprised if an employee got fired.Theuniondivvie said:
Every single job I've worked in, private & public sector, looking at and storing porn on a works computer while at work, fired.Stereotomy said:
Of course. If there turns out to be no credible evidence, he shouldn't be fired. But I don't understand this "it's just porn, who cares?" attitudeJonnyJimmy said:
I hope you live in a country where being accused of doing so a decade ago by bent cops with a grudge isn't a firing offence.Stereotomy said:Have I been living in some parallel universe where watching and saving porn on a work computer is normally a firing offense?
If ten years later it's discovered that I had been looking at and storing porn on a works computer while at work, and I was still in the same job, fired.
You can argue as to whether that's proportional or not, and I accept that it's still moot whether Green did it and that the 2 ex coppers' actions aint unimpeachable. However it's an unbreakable rule that saying that it's different for our elected members compared to the average punter 'because reasons' is a crap look for pols & their partisans.
The thing is, that it is different for elected representatives. The voters get the chance to give them the boot, every few years, but they don't have employers. If the voters are outraged by an elected representative viewing porn, they can vote him out.0 -
@Kle4.
Think about capital investment and competing interests in government. If there X funds and the choices are schools and hospitals or the grid, where do you think it will go?0 -
In most other western European countries you can buy a rail ticket at a straightforward price, lower than ours, for a journey that most of the time will be comfortable and reliable. Why should British passengers have to spend an hour on the internet researching myriad permutations just to obtain a ticket that even then probably costs twice as much per mile as those European journeys?HYUFD said:
Well you got no choice with BR of course either.IanB2 said:
It was moneysupermarket to which I refer. To be honest, having to choose between fifty tariffs from one supplier (or more accurately thousands of tariffs from multiple suppliers) is a choice I could do without.HYUFD said:
Use comparethemarket.com or Money Supermarket to compare the best deal based on your needs, if the electricity companies are nationalised again under a Corbyn government you will not get that choice, you will have to take the deal the state owned company gives you.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:HYUFD said:
.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
Isolution.
Similarly, when making a rail journey, exploring whether splitting the journey into two or three separate segments is cheaper than booking the whole trip or - as in the case of a journey I make regularly - whether booking a longer trip starting from a station further back along the line is cheaper than the shorter trip starting from where I will actually board the train - is just annoying and pointless hassle.
The nonsense of the current setup is such that I would nationalise them both in a heartbeat.0 -
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.0 -
And Ofgem just last month said: We share the government’s concern that the market is not working for all consumers, especially the vulnerableIanB2 said:
Both Conservatives and Labour are now proposing to cap the excesses of energy pricing. What more evidence that the privatised market isn't acting in the interests of all consumers do you need?MattW said:
i would be genuinely interested in seeing a link to the argument they make.IanB2 said:
The charities and lobbying groups that are active in this area all hold this view. And i know from my own family that my older relatives don't even think of spending the time on comparison websites that my younger relatives do.MattW said:
Actually, that is quite patronising. How do you know that lower income people do not take advantage?IanB2 said:
Clearly. The social benefit of all this is negative, however, and the time spent dreaming up all this complexity simply wasted effort and cost.another_richard said:
Its so that the supplier can make a profit.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:HYUFD said:
y.Pong said:
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
That is most peoples experience of utility companies. The right think they can shrug their shoulders. They can't.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
On some of the tarrifs and with some of its customers there wont be any profit and with others there will be lots.
The 'clever' customers who regularly switch to cheaper deals and make use of cashback sites are effectively getting subsidised by the lazy / stupid / loyal customers who are getting ripped off.
Ditto with insurance, airlines, supermarkets.0 -
"Seedy old men"foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.0 -
Oh, I daresay. I'm just saying it's a crap look.kle4 said:
Except it is different. If they are sentenced to less than a year in jail MPs can't be sacked even if they are a convicted criminal. Yes people don't like accepting some things are different for the elected, and most things aren't, but it is what it is.Theuniondivvie said:
Every single job I've worked in, private & public sector, looking at and storing porn on a works computer while at work, fired.Stereotomy said:
Of course. If there turns out to be no credible evidence, he shouldn't be fired. But I don't understand this "it's just porn, who cares?" attitudeJonnyJimmy said:
I hope you live in a country where being accused of doing so a decade ago by bent cops with a grudge isn't a firing offence.Stereotomy said:Have I been living in some parallel universe where watching and saving porn on a work computer is normally a firing offense?
If ten years later it's discovered that I had been looking at and storing porn on a works computer while at work, and I was still in the same job, fired.
You can argue as to whether that's proportional or not, and I accept that it's still moot whether Green did it and that the 2 ex coppers' actions aint unimpeachable. However it's an unbreakable rule that saying that it's different for our elected members compared to the average punter 'because reasons' is a crap look for pols & their partisans.0 -
The issue of nationalisation is the politics of management - that investment in infrastructure has to compete with skoolz’n’ospitals for the Chancellor’s attention, along with the willingness of workers to unionise and strike. Also the lack of competition leading to degraded service and the organisations being run for the benefit of the staff rather than the customer. I’d go with better regulation such as standardised tariff sheets, monopolies have been proven not to work.kle4 said:
When you put it like that it sounds reasonable, though someone will probably explain I'm silly to think that. On such issues I'm very open to persuasion though.Barnesian said:
You are talking about retailing electricity. Most providers (e.g. Sainsbury Energy) buy wholesale (using their buying power) and sell retail with as much confusion as possible to make a margin. It's like retailing petrol but more confusing.HYUFD said:
Use comparethemarket.com or Money Supermarket to compare the best deal based on your needs, if the electricity companies are nationalised again under a Corbyn government you will not get that choice, you will have to take the deal the state owned company gives you.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op ke any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity er the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:
A choice of which utility s. They can't.HYUFD said:
If people want to nationalise energy companies they g to deny them a choice of energy company.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
It's a political problem that resonates widely - with a simple, sensible solution.
The Labour manifesto policy on energy nationalisation is "to ensure that national and regional grid infrastructure is brought into public ownership over time”. This is different from retailing. It is about power lines and power stations. This is a subsidised monopoly of strategic importance like roads, railway lines, water reservoirs and pipelines, armies and navies, where true competition is impossible, extremely expensive or very undesirable.
Labour policy on energy retailing is very similar to Tory policy - cap prices and simplify tariffs.0 -
If you’re talking pricing you’ve clearly rarely travelled Intercity with DB or SNCF.IanB2 said:
In most other western European countries you can buy a rail ticket at a straightforward price, lower than ours, for a journey that most of the time will be comfortable and reliable. Why should British passengers have to spend an hour on the internet researching myriad permutations just to obtain a ticket that even then probably costs twice as much per mile as those European journeys?HYUFD said:
Well you got no choice with BR of course either.IanB2 said:
It was moneysupermarket to which I refer. To be honest, having to choose between fifty tariffs from one supplier (or more accurately thousands of tariffs from multiple suppliers) is a choice I could do without.HYUFD said:
Use comparethemarket.com or Money Supermarket to compare the best deal based on your needs, if the electricity companies are nationalised again under a Corbyn government you will not get that choice, you will have to take the deal the state owned company gives you.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:HYUFD said:
.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
Isolution.
Similarly, when making a rail journey, exploring whether splitting the journey into two or three separate segments is cheaper than booking the whole trip or - as in the case of a journey I make regularly - whether booking a longer trip starting from a station further back along the line is cheaper than the shorter trip starting from where I will actually board the train - is just annoying and pointless hassle.
The nonsense of the current setup is such that I would nationalise them both in a heartbeat.0 -
Bullsh*t. In all but the most extreme cases, whether an MP keeps or loses their seat depends on national swing, from which very many of them are almost entirely insulated under our absurd voting system.Sean_F said:
Ten years ago, I'd be surprised if an employee got fired.Theuniondivvie said:
Every single job I've worked in, private & public sector, looking at and storing porn on a works computer while at work, fired.Stereotomy said:
Of course. If there turns out to be no credible evidence, he shouldn't be fired. But I don't understand this "it's just porn, who cares?" attitudeJonnyJimmy said:
I hope you live in a country where being accused of doing so a decade ago by bent cops with a grudge isn't a firing offence.Stereotomy said:Have I been living in some parallel universe where watching and saving porn on a work computer is normally a firing offense?
If ten years later it's discovered that I had been looking at and storing porn on a works computer while at work, and I was still in the same job, fired.
You can argue as to whether that's proportional or not, and I accept that it's still moot whether Green did it and that the 2 ex coppers' actions aint unimpeachable. However it's an unbreakable rule that saying that it's different for our elected members compared to the average punter 'because reasons' is a crap look for pols & their partisans.
The thing is, that it is different for elected representatives. The voters get the chance to give them the boot, every few years, but they don't have employers. If the voters are outraged by an elected representative viewing porn, they can vote him out.0 -
When I go to visit family on the Isle of Wight, it is about £50 cheaper to buy a ticket to Portsmouth Harbour, then a separate ferry ticket, then a ticket on the Island line, than an inclusive ticket.IanB2 said:
In most other western European countries you can buy a rail ticket at a straightforward price, lower than ours, for a journey that most of the time will be comfortable and reliable. Why should British passengers have to spend an hour on the internet researching myriad permutations just to obtain a ticket that even then probably costs twice as much per mile as those European journeys?HYUFD said:
Well you got no choice with BR of course either.IanB2 said:
It was moneysupermarket to which I refer. To be honest, having to choose between fifty tariffs from one supplier (or more accurately thousands of tariffs from multiple suppliers) is a choice I could do withoutHYUFD said:
Use comparethemarket.com or Money Supermarket to compare the best deal based on your needs, if the electricity companies are nationalised again under a Corbyn government you will not get that choice, you will have to take the deal the state owned company gives you.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:HYUFD said:
.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
Isolution.
The nonsense of the current setup is such that I would nationalise them both in a heartbeat.
It is bonkers in its needless complexity.0 -
And the "allegations" should have absolutely nothing to do with porn on computers. But you believe it should, no?foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.0 -
I have, but to be honest not so much in recent years. Have things changed? (Comparing prices at pre-referendum exchange rates)AnExileinD4 said:
If you’re talking pricing you’ve clearly rarely travelled Intercity with DB or SNCF.IanB2 said:
In most other western European countries you can buy a rail ticket at a straightforward price, lower than ours, for a journey that most of the time will be comfortable and reliable. Why should British passengers have to spend an hour on the internet researching myriad permutations just to obtain a ticket that even then probably costs twice as much per mile as those European journeys?HYUFD said:
Well you got no choice with BR of course either.IanB2 said:
It was moneysupermarket to which I refer. To be honest, having to choose between fifty tariffs from one supplier (or more accurately thousands of tariffs from multiple suppliers) is a choice I could do without.HYUFD said:
Use comparethemarket.com or Money Supermarket to compare the best deal based on your needs, if the electricity companies are nationalised again under a Corbyn government you will not get that choice, you will have to take the deal the state owned company gives you.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At leastit.Pong said:HYUFD said:
.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
Isolution.
Similarly, when making a rail journey, exploring whether splitting the journey into two or three separate segments is cheaper than booking the whole trip or - as in the case of a journey I make regularly - whether booking a longer trip starting from a station further back along the line is cheaper than the shorter trip starting from where I will actually board the train - is just annoying and pointless hassle.
The nonsense of the current setup is such that I would nationalise them both in a heartbeat.0 -
Although you'll also find a significant saving (sometimes as much as 50%) if you book the inclusive ticket to Ryde St Johns rather than just to Ryde Pierhead. Equally bonkers to charge double for a shorter advance ticket journey.foxinsoxuk said:
When I go to visit family on the Isle of Wight, it is about £50 cheaper to buy a ticket to Portsmouth Harbour, then a separate ferry ticket, then a ticket on the Island line, than an inclusive ticket.IanB2 said:
In most other western European countries you can buy a rail ticket at a straightforward price, lower than ours, for a journey that most of the time will be comfortable and reliable. Why should British passengers have to spend an hour on the internet researching myriad permutations just to obtain a ticket that even then probably costs twice as much per mile as those European journeys?HYUFD said:
Well you got no choice with BR of course either.IanB2 said:
It was moneysupermarket to which I refer. To be honest, having to choose between fifty tariffs from one supplier (or more accurately thousands of tariffs from multiple suppliers) is a choice I could do withoutHYUFD said:
Use comparethemarket.com or Money Supermarket to compare the best deal based on your needs, if the electricity companies are nationalised again under a Corbyn government you will not get that choice, you will have to take the deal the state owned company gives you.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:HYUFD said:
.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
Isolution.
The nonsense of the current setup is such that I would nationalise them both in a heartbeat.
It is bonkers in its needless complexity.0 -
Clearly, they just need a "vulnerables" tariff, where you simply sign up by saying that you are "vulnerable".IanB2 said:
And Ofgem just last month said: We share the government’s concern that the market is not working for all consumers, especially the vulnerable0 -
The recent sex scandals in all parties (and I specifically cited Rennard in my party) are pretty dispiriting in the seedy actions of older men. It is all rather sordid, but no party seems immune.JonnyJimmy said:
"Seedy old men"foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.0 -
QED!IanB2 said:
Although you'll also find a significant saving (sometimes as much as 50%) if you book the inclusive ticket to Ryde St Johns rather than just to Ryde Pierhead.foxinsoxuk said:
When I go to visit family on the Isle of Wight, it is about £50 cheaper to buy a ticket to Portsmouth Harbour, then a separate ferry ticket, then a ticket on the Island line, than an inclusive ticket.IanB2 said:
In most other western European countries you can buy a rail ticketHYUFD said:
Well you got no choice with BR of course either.IanB2 said:
It was moneysupermarket to which I refer. To be honest, having to choose between fifty tariffs from one supplier (or more accurately thousands of tariffs from multiple suppliers) is a choice I could do withoutHYUFD said:
Use comparethemarket.com or Money Supermarket to compare the best deal based on your needs, if the electricity companies are nationalised again under a Corbyn government you will not get that choice, you will have to take the deal the state owned company gives you.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:HYUFD said:
.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
Isolution.
The nonsense of the current setup is such that I would nationalise them both in a heartbeat.
It is bonkers in its needless complexity.
I have travelled that route for years and haven't spotted that wrinkle.0 -
Meaning that the voters are pretty tolerant of behaviour which is not outrageous. Mostly, though, MP's who are likely to get voted out and/or deselected will stand down.IanB2 said:
Bullsh*t. In all but the most extreme cases, whether an MP keeps or loses their seat depends on national swing, from which very many of them are almost entirely insulated under our absurd voting system.Sean_F said:
Ten years ago, I'd be surprised if an employee got fired.Theuniondivvie said:
Every single job I've worked in, private & public sector, looking at and storing porn on a works computer while at work, fired.Stereotomy said:
Of course. If there turns out to be no credible evidence, he shouldn't be fired. But I don't understand this "it's just porn, who cares?" attitudeJonnyJimmy said:
I hope you live in a country where being accused of doing so a decade ago by bent cops with a grudge isn't a firing offence.Stereotomy said:Have I been living in some parallel universe where watching and saving porn on a work computer is normally a firing offense?
If ten years later it's discovered that I had been looking at and storing porn on a works computer while at work, and I was still in the same job, fired.
You can argue as to whether that's proportional or not, and I accept that it's still moot whether Green did it and that the 2 ex coppers' actions aint unimpeachable. However it's an unbreakable rule that saying that it's different for our elected members compared to the average punter 'because reasons' is a crap look for pols & their partisans.
The thing is, that it is different for elected representatives. The voters get the chance to give them the boot, every few years, but they don't have employers. If the voters are outraged by an elected representative viewing porn, they can vote him out.0 -
@IanB2 , in my experience walk-on IC fares are little different in Germany or the UK. The prebooking airline model you see in the UK is actually significantly cheaper.
0 -
What dirt has Chris Rennard got on other senior LDs? That’s the question I keep asking myself, there much be a really good reason that Cable wants to stop his party from taking a moral high ground on this issue, which they can’t do when one of their own problem dirty old men keeps reappearing.foxinsoxuk said:
The recent sex scandals in all parties (and I specifically cited Rennard in my party) are pretty dispiriting in the seedy actions of older men. It is all rather sordid, but no party seems immune.JonnyJimmy said:
"Seedy old men"foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.0 -
Sandpit said:
Indeed so. Governments trying to uninvent technology they don’t like never works and has never worked, a lesson the Americans learned in the 1920s. Ditto encryption.edmundintokyo said:
Yup, the only positive aspect to it is that it helps educate young people in the use of useful technology like Tor and VPNs.Sandpit said:
That’s a right old mess. No matter what government tries to do, they’re never going to stop teenage boys finding imaginative ways of getting internet porn.edmundintokyo said:On topic, this is absolutely right. The porn doesn't matter, but the power games involved matter a lot.
Relatedly, British MPs have created a huge trap for themselves in the form of a thing called the Digital Economy Act, which requires age verification to view porn. Age verification is going to be done by making individuals put their personal information into databases controlled by various private corporations.
The upshot is that whoever owns, buys or hacks these databases will have access to embarrassing secrets about politicians, police and judges.
Vice has the detail:
https://www.vice.com/amp/en_uk/article/9kqp43/uk-porn-is-about-to-change-in-a-way-youre-not-going-to-like
Looking not very far into the future:
ttps://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/934756547292532736
It’ll only take a couple of years before everyone is using an encrypted device to access https sites through a VPN, and then the government will find they’ve got nothing on anyone, the legislation the security services demanded doing nothing but shooting themselves in the foot.
If someone has the choice of handing their identity to a porn site (for potential identity theft and/or blackmail) or learning to proxy their requests via another country, which will they choose?
This anti-porn law (which seems more a land grab by the BBFC as much as anything) is up there with the EU Cookies directive in the stupidity stakes.
0 -
When investigating the harassment investigations, it would seeme sensible for the Cabinet Office to look at corroborating evidence.JonnyJimmy said:
And the "allegations" should have absolutely nothing to do with porn on computers. But you believe it should, no?foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.0 -
Could we have a league table of “vulnerable” (or “most vulnerable”)? If the Times letters page over the last month is to be believed, it might be quicker to compile a list of those who aren’t vulnerable (net taxpayers perhaps).MarqueeMark said:
Clearly, they just need a "vulnerables" tariff, where you simply sign up by saying that you are "vulnerable".IanB2 said:
And Ofgem just last month said: We share the government’s concern that the market is not working for all consumers, especially the vulnerable0 -
That's what makes you a pervert. This 'evidence' is illegally obtained and should be treated as a fabrication.foxinsoxuk said:
When investigating the harassment investigations, it would seeme sensible for the Cabinet Office to look at corroborating evidence.JonnyJimmy said:
And the "allegations" should have absolutely nothing to do with porn on computers. But you believe it should, no?foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.0 -
And if, say, the complaint against a "seedy old man" should prove to have something to do with the thwarted ambition of the accuser, seeing their chance of getting selected for his seat slipping away....? Would the accuser's actions then count as sordid too?foxinsoxuk said:
The recent sex scandals in all parties (and I specifically cited Rennard in my party) are pretty dispiriting in the seedy actions of older men. It is all rather sordid, but no party seems immune.JonnyJimmy said:
"Seedy old men"foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.0 -
I think it is more that he is seen as effective organiser of campaigns, and also that Cable has poor judgement in these matters.Sandpit said:
What dirt has Chris Rennard got on other senior LDs? That’s the question I keep asking myself, there much be a really good reason that Cable wants to stop his party from taking a moral high ground on this issue, which they can’t do when one of their own problem dirty old men keeps reappearing.foxinsoxuk said:
The recent sex scandals in all parties (and I specifically cited Rennard in my party) are pretty dispiriting in the seedy actions of older men. It is all rather sordid, but no party seems immune.JonnyJimmy said:
"Seedy old men"foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.0 -
1. Capital for investment in infrastructure can be borrowed at low rates, return much more than the cost of capital and put as an asset on the other side of the balance sheet (like the Government did with student debt).Sandpit said:
The issue of nationalisation is the politics of management - that investment in infrastructure has to compete with skoolz’n’ospitals for the Chancellor’s attention, along with the willingness of workers to unionise and strike. Also the lack of competition leading to degraded service and the organisations being run for the benefit of the staff rather than the customer. I’d go with better regulation such as standardised tariff sheets, monopolies have been proven not to work.kle4 said:
When you put it like that it sounds reasonable, though someone will probably explain I'm silly to think that. On such issues I'm very open to persuasion though.Barnesian said:
You are talking about retailing electricity. Most providers (e.g. Sainsbury Energy) buy wholesale (using their buying power) and sell retail with as much confusion as possible to make a margin. It's like retailing petrol but more confusing.HYUFD said:
The Labour manifesto policy on energy nationalisation is "to ensure that national and regional grid infrastructure is brought into public ownership over time”. This is different from retailing. It is about power lines and power stations. This is a subsidised monopoly of strategic importance like roads, railway lines, water reservoirs and pipelines, armies and navies, where true competition is impossible, extremely expensive or very undesirable.
Labour policy on energy retailing is very similar to Tory policy - cap prices and simplify tariffs.
2. Ask Southern Rail about strikes in the private sector (and customer satisfaction).
3. When Thatcher first mooted privatisation of the utilities, the top management were up in arms against it until it was pointed out to them that their remuneration should match the private sector. Suddenly their opposition vanished and over a couple of years, their remuneration quadrupled.
0 -
I'm quite enjoying this discussion - it's as if people think that the old BR just sold flat fares for everything. They didn't. Your anecdote could have been written in the 1970s or 1980s as much as today.foxinsoxuk said:When I go to visit family on the Isle of Wight, it is about £50 cheaper to buy a ticket to Portsmouth Harbour, then a separate ferry ticket, then a ticket on the Island line, than an inclusive ticket.
It is bonkers in its needless complexity.
Yes, fares have become more complex, but the complexity used to be hidden because few knew about the best ways to get cheap fares. Now, with t'Internet and companies actually wanting to get passengers, they're much more obvious.
I also think you're mistaken if you think fares will become simple. They won't, for several reasons. Fares increase and decrease in line with usage: you want to promote use using cheaper fares out of busy times, etc, etc. Then there are the routing restrictions (e.g. the 'not via London') that lead to different classes of tickets, and other factors such as Young Persons Railcard and equivalents.
Basically: pricing on a complex network such as the railways is a naturally complex beast. It's probably too complex atm, but the idea that it was ever simple is laughable. You just didn't get to see the complexities because they were hidden from you.0 -
Think what you like.JonnyJimmy said:
That's what makes you a pervert. This 'evidence' is illegally obtained and should be treated as a fabrication.foxinsoxuk said:
When investigating the harassment investigations, it would seeme sensible for the Cabinet Office to look at corroborating evidence.JonnyJimmy said:
And the "allegations" should have absolutely nothing to do with porn on computers. But you believe it should, no?foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.
I think that the defences of viewing porn at work that we have seen on here and your extreme defensiveness about investigating sexual impropriety are rather more depressing.0 -
Searching just this minute for a single next Saturday London Waterloo to Ryde pier on national rail at 1330, the price is £44.10. Get the same train from Waterloo with a ticket through to Ryde St Johns - a longer trip - is £20.40.foxinsoxuk said:
QED!IanB2 said:
Although you'll also find a significant saving (sometimes as much as 50%) if you book the inclusive ticket to Ryde St Johns rather than just to Ryde Pierhead.foxinsoxuk said:
When I go to visit family on the Isle of Wight, it is about £50 cheaper to buy a ticket to Portsmouth Harbour, then a separate ferry ticket, then a ticket on the Island line, than an inclusive ticket.IanB2 said:
In most other western European countries you can buy a rail ticketHYUFD said:
Well you got no choice with BR of course either.IanB2 said:
It was moneysupermarket to which I refer. To be honest, having to choose between fifty tariffs from one supplier (or more accurately thousands of tariffs from multiple suppliers) is a choice I could do withoutHYUFD said:
Use comparethemarket.com or Money Supermarket to compare the best deal based on your needs, if the electricity companies are nationalised again under a Corbyn government you will not get that choice, you will have to take the deal the state owned company gives you.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At leas privatised it.Pong said:HYUFD said:
.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
Isolution.
The nonsense of the current setup is such that I would nationalise them both in a heartbeat.
It is bonkers in its needless complexity.
I have travelled that route for years and haven't spotted that wrinkle.
And, amazingly, leaving Merseyside Waterloo at the same time bound for Ryde - which I searched for by mistake the first time - via London including the tube journey Euston to Waterloo - will cost just £44.30!0 -
Possible. I mean, how plausible is it that he could have a stash of dirt to dish on such upstanding members of society as Liberals/Liberal Democrats?foxinsoxuk said:I think it is more that he is seen as effective organiser of campaigns, and also that Cable has poor judgement in these matters.
Given there are so few of them, they do seem to attract a surprising numbers of sleaze balls, perverts, pederasts and convicts....
0 -
My "extreme defensiveness about investigating sexual impropriety"?!?! You colossal pervert. I'm talking about the disgraceful actions of bent cops and the state broadcaster. And you're dribbling away about fictional pornography.foxinsoxuk said:
Think what you like.JonnyJimmy said:
That's what makes you a pervert. This 'evidence' is illegally obtained and should be treated as a fabrication.foxinsoxuk said:
When investigating the harassment investigations, it would seeme sensible for the Cabinet Office to look at corroborating evidence.JonnyJimmy said:
And the "allegations" should have absolutely nothing to do with porn on computers. But you believe it should, no?foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.
I think that the defences of viewing porn at work that we have seen on here and your extreme defensiveness about investigating sexual impropriety are rather more depressing.0 -
I wish people would stop assuming that if the government falls then it will be handing Jeremy Corbyn the keys to No.10. Labour's lead in the polls is about a third of what it was in July, a month after the election. I wouldn't underestimate the Tories' scope for running a successful campaign this time after they screwed up so badly in June. They couldn't do it under Theresa May of course, who may well lose two more cabinet ministers tomorrow (Damian Green and David Davis), but under a new leader they might. The one who comes to mind is Jacob Rees-Mogg, precisely the contender who is outside the cabinet and not so associated with perceived government incompetence as those who are in it. You've got to wonder whether those who dislike him (a minority) would like to see him get a big cabinet portfolio as soon as possible.
That said, it would be best for the country if the Tories could continue their pro and anti "Europe" in-fighting in opposition rather than in government.0 -
How is it illegally obtained?JonnyJimmy said:
That's what makes you a pervert. This 'evidence' is illegally obtained and should be treated as a fabrication.foxinsoxuk said:
When investigating the harassment investigations, it would seeme sensible for the Cabinet Office to look at corroborating evidence.JonnyJimmy said:
And the "allegations" should have absolutely nothing to do with porn on computers. But you believe it should, no?foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.
It flowed from an authorised search warrant that included checking Damian Green's offices, houses, and property therein such as computers?0 -
It was ordered to be destroyed.TheScreamingEagles said:
How is it illegally obtained?JonnyJimmy said:
That's what makes you a pervert. This 'evidence' is illegally obtained and should be treated as a fabrication.foxinsoxuk said:
When investigating the harassment investigations, it would seeme sensible for the Cabinet Office to look at corroborating evidence.JonnyJimmy said:
And the "allegations" should have absolutely nothing to do with porn on computers. But you believe it should, no?foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.
It flowed from an authorised search warrant that included checking Damian Green's offices, houses, and property therein such as computers?0 -
Because it is police property and has been illegitimately retained by the person pursuing the accusation?TheScreamingEagles said:
How is it illegally obtained?JonnyJimmy said:
That's what makes you a pervert. This 'evidence' is illegally obtained and should be treated as a fabrication.foxinsoxuk said:
When investigating the harassment investigations, it would seeme sensible for the Cabinet Office to look at corroborating evidence.JonnyJimmy said:
And the "allegations" should have absolutely nothing to do with porn on computers. But you believe it should, no?foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.
It flowed from an authorised search warrant that included checking Damian Green's offices, houses, and property therein such as computers?0 -
"Asked about the peer's [Rennard's] future position, Sir Vince, who took over as party leader in July, said: "He has no role whatever advising me or as a spokesman for the party - and I have no intention of going down that road."foxinsoxuk said:
I think it is more that he is seen as effective organiser of campaigns, and also that Cable has poor judgement in these matters.Sandpit said:
What dirt has Chris Rennard got on other senior LDs? That’s the question I keep asking myself, there much be a really good reason that Cable wants to stop his party from taking a moral high ground on this issue, which they can’t do when one of their own problem dirty old men keeps reappearing.foxinsoxuk said:
The recent sex scandals in all parties (and I specifically cited Rennard in my party) are pretty dispiriting in the seedy actions of older men. It is all rather sordid, but no party seems immune.JonnyJimmy said:
"Seedy old men"foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:foxinsoxuk said:JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.
Asked by Emma Barnett on BBC Radio 5 live if Lord Rennard could return to the front bench in future, he replied: "No. I've ruled that out, where I'm concerned."
He added: "He clearly is the focus of a great deal of critical comment. I want the party to move on… I don't want every conversation to go back to what happened 10 years ago with him."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-419909050 -
Yes, he’s certainly a good organiser of campaigns, I know he was the man behind a lot of the by-election wins over a couple of decades but that doesn’t excuse his behaviour.foxinsoxuk said:
I think it is more that he is seen as effective organiser of campaigns, and also that Cable has poor judgement in these matters.Sandpit said:
What dirt has Chris Rennard got on other senior LDs? That’s the question I keep asking myself, there much be a really good reason that Cable wants to stop his party from taking a moral high ground on this issue, which they can’t do when one of their own problem dirty old men keeps reappearing.foxinsoxuk said:
The recent sex scandals in all parties (and I specifically cited Rennard in my party) are pretty dispiriting in the seedy actions of older men. It is all rather sordid, but no party seems immune.JonnyJimmy said:
"Seedy old men"foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.
At the risk of stretching the point, Jimmy Savile raised millions for charity too, it didn’t excuse him from being a pervert.0 -
Tragically it probably did, while he was alive.Sandpit said:
Yes, he’s certainly a good organiser of campaigns, I know he was the man behind a lot of the by-election wins over a couple of decades but that doesn’t excuse his behaviour.foxinsoxuk said:
I think it is more that he is seen as effective organiser of campaigns, and also that Cable has poor judgement in these matters.Sandpit said:
What dirt has Chris Rennard got on other senior LDs? That’s the question I keep asking myself, there much be a really good reason that Cable wants to stop his party from taking a moral high ground on this issue, which they can’t do when one of their own problem dirty old men keeps reappearing.foxinsoxuk said:
The recent sex scandals in all parties (and I specifically cited Rennard in my party) are pretty dispiriting in the seedy actions of older men. It is all rather sordid, but no party seems immune.JonnyJimmy said:
"Seedy old men"foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.
At the risk of stretching the point, Jimmy Savile raised millions for charity too, it didn’t excuse him from being a pervert.
0 -
JonnyJimmy said:
It was ordered to be destroyed.
Do you have link to that please chaps?AnExileinD4 said:Because it is police property and has been illegitimately retained by the person pursuing the accusation?
0 -
A fair point.IanB2 said:
Tragically it probably did, while he was alive.Sandpit said:
Yes, he’s certainly a good organiser of campaigns, I know he was the man behind a lot of the by-election wins over a couple of decades but that doesn’t excuse his behaviour.foxinsoxuk said:
I think it is more that he is seen as effective organiser of campaigns, and also that Cable has poor judgement in these matters.Sandpit said:
What dirt has Chris Rennard got on other senior LDs? That’s the question I keep asking myself, there much be a really good reason that Cable wants to stop his party from taking a moral high ground on this issue, which they can’t do when one of their own problem dirty old men keeps reappearing.foxinsoxuk said:
The recent sex scandals in all parties (and I specifically cited Rennard in my party) are pretty dispiriting in the seedy actions of older men. It is all rather sordid, but no party seems immune.JonnyJimmy said:
"Seedy old men"foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.
At the risk of stretching the point, Jimmy Savile raised millions for charity too, it didn’t excuse him from being a pervert.0 -
Given how much you appear to enjoy everything that causes Mrs May difficulty, I suspect you might be enjoying this too. Are you a pervert?TheScreamingEagles said:
How is it illegally obtained?JonnyJimmy said:
That's what makes you a pervert. This 'evidence' is illegally obtained and should be treated as a fabrication.foxinsoxuk said:
When investigating the harassment investigations, it would seeme sensible for the Cabinet Office to look at corroborating evidence.JonnyJimmy said:
And the "allegations" should have absolutely nothing to do with porn on computers. But you believe it should, no?foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.
It flowed from an authorised search warrant that included checking Damian Green's offices, houses, and property therein such as computers?0 -
I think he admitted it in the interview.TheScreamingEagles said:JonnyJimmy said:It was ordered to be destroyed.
Do you have link to that please chaps?AnExileinD4 said:Because it is police property and has been illegitimately retained by the person pursuing the accusation?
0 -
Ha. Believe it or not we read it in school, about 1955. The basic idea certainly broadened our horizons.Charles said:
I am trudging through that at the moment.Toms said:
Yours is the 1st comment, and I agree. But I'd like to think (should it have occurred) it was done during one's lunch hour.Nigelb said:Pretty well agree with all of that.
This kind of nonsense makes me think of Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter".
And "trudging" is the right term.
40 pages to describe the building and the occupants of the building in which he found the (fictitious) old notes on which he claimed to base the story.,.0 -
Indeed, why did he disobey a direct instruction to destroy it? Surely that must be illegal and anything that flows from it is as the Americans say now "fruit of the poisonous tree".JonnyJimmy said:
It was ordered to be destroyed.TheScreamingEagles said:
How is it illegally obtained?JonnyJimmy said:
That's what makes you a pervert. This 'evidence' is illegally obtained and should be treated as a fabrication.foxinsoxuk said:
When investigating the harassment investigations, it would seeme sensible for the Cabinet Office to look at corroborating evidence.JonnyJimmy said:
And the "allegations" should have absolutely nothing to do with porn on computers. But you believe it should, no?foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.
It flowed from an authorised search warrant that included checking Damian Green's offices, houses, and property therein such as computers?0 -
Jo Swinson has been a bit better on the subject:Barnesian said:
"Asked about the peer's [Rennard's] future position, Sir Vince, who took over as party leader in July, said: "He has no role whatever advising me or as a spokesman for the party - and I have no intention of going down that road."foxinsoxuk said:
I think it is more that he is seen as effective organiser of campaigns, and also that Cable has poor judgement in these matters.Sandpit said:
What dirt has Chris Rennard got on other senior LDs? That’s the question I keep asking myself, there much be a really good reason that Cable wants to stop his party from taking a moral high ground on this issue, which they can’t do when one of their own problem dirty old men keeps reappearing.foxinsoxuk said:
The recent sex scandals in all parties (and I specifically cited Rennard in my party) are pretty dispiriting in the seedy actions of older men. It is all rather sordid, but no party seems immune.JonnyJimmy said:
"Seedy old men"foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:foxinsoxuk said:JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.
Asked by Emma Barnett on BBC Radio 5 live if Lord Rennard could return to the front bench in future, he replied: "No. I've ruled that out, where I'm concerned."
He added: "He clearly is the focus of a great deal of critical comment. I want the party to move on… I don't want every conversation to go back to what happened 10 years ago with him."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41990905
https://medium.com/@jo_swinson/sexual-harassment-a-chance-for-change-1e87a9db15810 -
Perverted is in the eye of the beholder, and well if you get it in their eyes...JonnyJimmy said:
Given how much you appear to enjoy everything that causes Mrs May difficulty, I suspect you might be enjoying this too. Are you a pervert?
I’m on Team Anti Rozzer, always have been, especially Bob Quick.
The Fuzz have treated Damian Green shamefully for a decade.0 -
Come to think of it, as a teenager I found "Gormenghast" a more entertaining building.Toms said:
Ha. Believe it or not we read it in school, about 1955. The basic idea certainly broadened our horizons.Charles said:
I am trudging through that at the moment.Toms said:
Yours is the 1st comment, and I agree. But I'd like to think (should it have occurred) it was done during one's lunch hour.Nigelb said:Pretty well agree with all of that.
This kind of nonsense makes me think of Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter".
And "trudging" is the right term.
40 pages to describe the building and the occupants of the building in which he found the (fictitious) old notes on which he claimed to base the story.,.0 -
Good to hear.TheScreamingEagles said:
Perverted is in the eye of the beholder, and well if you get it in their eyes...JonnyJimmy said:
Given how much you appear to enjoy everything that causes Mrs May difficulty, I suspect you might be enjoying this too. Are you a pervert?
I’m on Team Anti Rozzer, always have been, especially Bob Quick.
The Fuzz have treated Damian Green shamefully for a decade.
"The former detective, who spent 25 years with the Met, said after the leaks inquiry ended he was ordered by the force to delete the data on the computer copies he had made."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-421511480 -
I can do my own thinking on property ownership and creation during the course of employment. I don’t require a validation link. As a lawyer nor should you.TheScreamingEagles said:JonnyJimmy said:It was ordered to be destroyed.
Do you have link to that please chaps?AnExileinD4 said:Because it is police property and has been illegitimately retained by the person pursuing the accusation?
0 -
Yes, much better from Swinson. Probable future leader of the LDs.foxinsoxuk said:
Jo Swinson has been a bit better on the subject:Barnesian said:
"Asked about the peer's [Rennard's] future position, Sir Vince, who took over as party leader in July, said: "He has no role whatever advising me or as a spokesman for the party - and I have no intention of going down that road."foxinsoxuk said:
I think it is more that he is seen as effective organiser of campaigns, and also that Cable has poor judgement in these matters.Sandpit said:
What dirt has Chris Rennard got on other senior LDs? That’s the question I keep asking myself, there much be a really good reason that Cable wants to stop his party from taking a moral high ground on this issue, which they can’t do when one of their own problem dirty old men keeps reappearing.foxinsoxuk said:
The recent sex scandals in all parties (and I specifically cited Rennard in my party) are pretty dispiriting in the seedy actions of older men. It is all rather sordid, but no party seems immune.JonnyJimmy said:
"Seedy old men"foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:foxinsoxuk said:JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.
Asked by Emma Barnett on BBC Radio 5 live if Lord Rennard could return to the front bench in future, he replied: "No. I've ruled that out, where I'm concerned."
He added: "He clearly is the focus of a great deal of critical comment. I want the party to move on… I don't want every conversation to go back to what happened 10 years ago with him."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41990905
https://medium.com/@jo_swinson/sexual-harassment-a-chance-for-change-1e87a9db15810 -
Are you a lawyer ?JonnyJimmy said:
My "extreme defensiveness about investigating sexual impropriety"?!?! You colossal pervert. I'm talking about the disgraceful actions of bent cops and the state broadcaster. And you're dribbling away about fictional pornography.foxinsoxuk said:
Think what you like.JonnyJimmy said:
That's what makes you a pervert. This 'evidence' is illegally obtained and should be treated as a fabrication.foxinsoxuk said:
When investigating the harassment investigations, it would seeme sensible for the Cabinet Office to look at corroborating evidence.JonnyJimmy said:
And the "allegations" should have absolutely nothing to do with porn on computers. But you believe it should, no?foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.JonnyJimmy said:
You've mildly criticised the cops, while simultaneously defending them with the "public interest" crap. And you've gone straight into whataboutery with your list of others wronged, and implied that you think it's about time it happened to a Tory. You are enjoying this.foxinsoxuk said:
I have criticised the cops, not called for any sackings or resignations and stated that I am happy for the Cabinet Office to investigate by due process.JonnyJimmy said:I think that those enjoying this perversion of justice are far bigger perverts than those that watch legal porn. I reckon @foxinsoxuk is proving himself to be a massive pervert today.
Mine is possibly the most tame mannered perverted lynch mob ever. @foxinsoxuk is Born to be Mild.
Now the Rugby League is over, I need to tend to my poorly pooch. The old fellow looks as if he is fading away.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.
I think that the defences of viewing porn at work that we have seen on here and your extreme defensiveness about investigating sexual impropriety are rather more depressing.0 -
The police did not have a warrant to search Green's office.TheScreamingEagles said:How is it illegally obtained?
It flowed from an authorised search warrant that included checking Damian Green's offices, houses, and property therein such as computers?0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/damian-green-decade-long-feud-met-officer-bob-quick .This says the police obtained a warrant for his home and office.ydoethur said:
The police did not have a warrant to search Green's office.TheScreamingEagles said:How is it illegally obtained?
It flowed from an authorised search warrant that included checking Damian Green's offices, houses, and property therein such as computers?0 -
No. Fairly low skilled general IT bod, cryptic crossword compiler, and maths tutor.Yorkcity said:
Are you a lawyer ?JonnyJimmy said:
My "extreme defensiveness about investigating sexual impropriety"?!?! You colossal pervert. I'm talking about the disgraceful actions of bent cops and the state broadcaster. And you're dribbling away about fictional pornography.foxinsoxuk said:
Think what you like.JonnyJimmy said:
That's what makes you a pervert. This 'evidence' is illegally obtained and should be treated as a fabrication.foxinsoxuk said:
When investigating the harassment investigations, it would seeme sensible for the Cabinet Office to look at corroborating evidence.JonnyJimmy said:
And the "allegations" should have absolutely nothing to do with porn on computers. But you believe it should, no?foxinsoxuk said:
Could you quote where I used it to attack the government, because I do not think that I have.JonnyJimmy said:
Your earlier comments are there for all to see, and to me they suggest otherwise. You know nothing about the facts of this affair except that two bent cops and the BBC have behaved disgracefully, and that the DPM has always denied it. But you've still used it to attack the government.foxinsoxuk said:
No, I am not enjoying anything about this affair, or for that matter this government. It just seems as if we are being goverened by a lot of seedy old men. It is all rather depressing.
Indeed, I have expressed the opinion that Green should stay in post and the Cabinet Office get to the bottom of the allegations.
I think that the defences of viewing porn at work that we have seen on here and your extreme defensiveness about investigating sexual impropriety are rather more depressing.0 -
Not as many as the Tories, of course. But they are better at covering things up.MarqueeMark said:
Possible. I mean, how plausible is it that he could have a stash of dirt to dish on such upstanding members of society as Liberals/Liberal Democrats?foxinsoxuk said:I think it is more that he is seen as effective organiser of campaigns, and also that Cable has poor judgement in these matters.
Given there are so few of them, they do seem to attract a surprising numbers of sleaze balls, perverts, pederasts and convicts....0 -
But not his parliamentary office:Yorkcity said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/damian-green-decade-long-feud-met-officer-bob-quick .This says the police obtained a warrant for his home and office.ydoethur said:
The police did not have a warrant to search Green's office.TheScreamingEagles said:How is it illegally obtained?
It flowed from an authorised search warrant that included checking Damian Green's offices, houses, and property therein such as computers?
"A judge granted Quick a search warrant for Green’s homes and constituency office and he pressed the House of Commons serjeant at arms for permission to search Green’s parliamentary office as well. The serjeant gave the police her consent and told the speaker, Michael Martin. A subsequent Commons privileges inquiry concluded that Martin assumed the police must have had a warrant but none had been presented. Quick claims he consulted the deputy Met commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson before the Commons raid."0 -
Yes, shocking abuse of Parliamentary Privilege from Jill Pay and Michael Martin to allow the police within a mile of Damian Green’s office in Parliament. Poor judgement from whoever authorised the other warrants too.TheWhiteRabbit said:
But not his parliamentary office:Yorkcity said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/damian-green-decade-long-feud-met-officer-bob-quick .This says the police obtained a warrant for his home and office.ydoethur said:
The police did not have a warrant to search Green's office.TheScreamingEagles said:How is it illegally obtained?
It flowed from an authorised search warrant that included checking Damian Green's offices, houses, and property therein such as computers?
"A judge granted Quick a search warrant for Green’s homes and constituency office and he pressed the House of Commons serjeant at arms for permission to search Green’s parliamentary office as well. The serjeant gave the police her consent and told the speaker, Michael Martin. A subsequent Commons privileges inquiry concluded that Martin assumed the police must have had a warrant but none had been presented. Quick claims he consulted the deputy Met commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson before the Commons raid."0 -
When one considers the greatest destruction of rail services was carried out when the network was in public hands and came about primarily as a result of a botchedBarnesian said:
1. Capital for investment in infrastructure can be borrowed at low rates, return much more than the cost of capital and put as an asset on the other side of the balance sheet (like the Government did with student debt).
2. Ask Southern Rail about strikes in the private sector (and customer satisfaction).
3. When Thatcher first mooted privatisation of the utilities, the top management were up in arms against it until it was pointed out to them that their remuneration should match the private sector. Suddenly their opposition vanished and over a couple of years, their remuneration quadrupled.
'modernisation' programme and that the whole thing was driven by a minister who had made his fortune building roads, I would suggest your faith in public ownership is seriously misplaced.0 -
Well, of course, the LibDems in the 70s & 80s had a Parliamentary party of about 10, including two acknowledged paedophiles (Cyril Smith & Clement Freud), a convicted fraudster (Bessell) and a bunny-lover and dog killer (Thorpe).PClipp said:
Not as many as the Tories, of course. But they are better at covering things up.MarqueeMark said:
Possible. I mean, how plausible is it that he could have a stash of dirt to dish on such upstanding members of society as Liberals/Liberal Democrats?foxinsoxuk said:I think it is more that he is seen as effective organiser of campaigns, and also that Cable has poor judgement in these matters.
Given there are so few of them, they do seem to attract a surprising numbers of sleaze balls, perverts, pederasts and convicts....
I am not a huge fan of the Labour or Tory parties either, but the percentage of wrong'uns in the LibDems does seem anomalously large.
Small number statistics, perhaps.0 -
It was carried out by Richard Beeching as Chairman of the British Rail Board.Richard_Tyndall said:
When one considers the greatest destruction of rail services was carried out when the network was in public hands and came about primarily as a result of a botchedBarnesian said:
1. Capital for investment in infrastructure can be borrowed at low rates, return much more than the cost of capital and put as an asset on the other side of the balance sheet (like the Government did with student debt).
2. Ask Southern Rail about strikes in the private sector (and customer satisfaction).
3. When Thatcher first mooted privatisation of the utilities, the top management were up in arms against it until it was pointed out to them that their remuneration should match the private sector. Suddenly their opposition vanished and over a couple of years, their remuneration quadrupled.
'modernisation' programme and that the whole thing was driven by a minister who had made his fortune building roads, I would suggest your faith in public ownership is seriously misplaced.
Beeching had been a Director of ICI and subsequently deputy Chairman. He was on a five year secondment from ICI when he axed the railways using private sector logic (an early John Harvey Jones). He was opposed by the Labour opposition and the unions but backed by a Tory Government (Marples).
You really can't blame public sector ownership for the axing of the railways. It was private sector thinking under a Tory Government.0 -
In most other European nations while they have a main state owned railway operator they also have private operators too, e.g. DB in Germany and Renfre in Spain also compete with some smaller private operators. In Australia and Canada the main rail operator has been privatized and in the US Amtrak is a private company with significant government subsidy.IanB2 said:
In most other western European countries you can buy a rail ticket at a straightforward price, lower than ours, for a journey that most of the time will be comfortable and reliable. Why should British passengers have to spend an hour on the internet researching myriad permutations just to obtain a ticket that even then probably costs twice as much per mile as those European journeys?HYUFD said:
Well you got no choice with BR of course either.IanB2 said:
It was moneysupermarket to which I refer. To be honest, having to choose between fifty tariffs from one supplier (or more accuratelyHYUFD said:
Use comparethemarket.com or Money Supermarket to compare the best deal based on your needs, if the electricity companies are nationalised again under a Corbyn government you will not get that choice, you will have to take the deal the state owned company gives you.IanB2 said:
On the other hand, as I know from having been researching my options for when my tariff expires in January, the current pricing is ridiculously complicated. My current supplier, Co-op energy, supplies just two products, gas and electricity. Yet according to comparison websites they seem to have about fifty tariffs to choose from. How can this make any sense?HYUFD said:
At least with different electricity companies available you can switch if you are unhappy with one provider which would not be the case if there was only one state owned provider again as there used to be under the old Central Electricity Generating Board until Thatcher privatised it.Pong said:HYUFD said:
.Pong said:https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/energy/2017/12/spark-energy-customers-chased-for-payment-by-debt-collectors-before-bills-are-due
Time to nationalise the energy companies. Put an end to this bullsh*t.
That's what 77% of the public wants.
Come on tories. Do it.
Take back control.
Isolution.
The nonsense of the current setup is such that I would nationalise them both in a heartbeat.
0
This discussion has been closed.