Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » From Ohio, the Nuneaton of US politics, the GOP search for

245

Comments

  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976


    Is this BBC story wrong? They are now saying:-

    "Kids Company closed on Wednesday after ministers said they wanted to recover a £3m grant given to the charity."

    Which implies that the government caused it to close; when actually they only wanted recovery after KC had closed. Is this the new spin line?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    The BBC coverage of the KC collapse is unhelpful, to say the least, there are lots of questions going unanswered simply because Aunty is not asking the questions.

    Camila Batmanghelidjh now claims HMG knew the £3m grant would be used for salaries, but has as yet provided little evidence to support the claim - There seems to be a deliberate attempt by Batman and others to conflate the HMG grant for restructuring and downsizing the charity, with that of an assured £3m donation on the back of the grant being approved.

    Yet, despite receiving the much needed government grant however, Batman now claims the unknown benefactor withdrew the offer due the police investigation into alleged child abuse.

    It’s all beginning to look very murky.
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474

    notme said:

    Scott_P said:

    @PeterMannionMP: It's all the fault of CIVIL SERVANTS...AND MINISTERS...AND THE MEDIA... AND AND... #Camilla #KidsCompany #R4Today

    @1jamiefoster: So Camila's point is that the only way to save children is to give her all the public money #r4today

    I find this situation very interesting, from a purely political perspective. Normally in such a situation, it doesnt matter who is in government, they get the blame as being heartless etc etc.

    What's interesting in this case is that it is the Government that is coming across as reasonable (though careless for giving them money in the first place). It's Batman woman who is coming across as unhinged, and that everyone involved is getting themselves incredibly fat, gorging themselves on the public grant buffet.

    Her pleas that everything was fine, and no one has ever raised concerns is clearly a falsehood. When the most senior civil servant tells the Prime Minister that he doesnt feel the PM's favourite charity is spending its money wisely and not 'providing value for money', and insists on a direction from a government minister before he will approve payment, you know something is seriously wrong.
    I expect that a number of Trustees have had their relaxing summer holidays ruined - surely they knew something was amiss with cash flow?
    Are any of them qualified to run a 'business' with such a turnover as KC?
  • Options
    notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    malcolmg said:

    notme said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
    It looks as if the cost of fracking is dropping so fast that oil prices are going to be at this level for a long time. Maybe not good for global warming, but cheap energy should be a major world economic stimulus. The Middle East sidelined has political impact too. More failed states on the way.
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
    It looks as if the cost of fracking is dropping so fast that oil prices are going to be at this level for a long time. Maybe not good for global warming, but cheap energy should be a major world economic stimulus. The Middle East sidelined has political impact too. More failed states on the way.
    any better though.
    Frankly, the whole of the Middle East is a series of failed states. Any replacement of the Sauhe Middle East and even if they were limited to there they would be a threat to the civilized world.

    Except Israel!! The only natural resource it has is its people.

    It has other people's land as well
    Which doesnt have any valuable natural resources. Israel is built on the ingenuity of its people, not the natural resources of its territory. Jews = make a rich successful liberal democratic state with no natural resources. Muslims = Failed despotic state, despite being unbelievable rich in oil.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976


    Is this BBC story wrong? They are now saying:-

    "Kids Company closed on Wednesday after ministers said they wanted to recover a £3m grant given to the charity."

    Which implies that the government caused it to close; when actually they only wanted recovery after KC had closed. Is this the new spin line?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    The BBC coverage of the KC collapse is unhelpful, to say the least, there are lots of questions going unanswered simply because Aunty is not asking the questions.

    Camila Batmanghelidjh now claims HMG knew the £3m grant would be used for salaries, but has as yet provided little evidence to support the claim - There seems to be a deliberate attempt by Batman and others to conflate the HMG grant for restructuring and downsizing the charity, with that of an assured £3m donation on the back of the grant being approved, which presumably would have covered the unpaid salaries.

    Yet, despite receiving the much needed government grant however, Batman now claims the unknown benefactor withdrew the offer due the police investigation into alleged child abuse.

    It’s all beginning to look very murky.
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    ydoethur said:

    Dair said:

    notme said:


    Your ugly use of sectarian language is starting to make this site unpleasant to view. Im going to ask you nicely not to. Then i'll just click 'ignore' and hope others will also.

    He also seems to have missed the point about "failed" loyalism. The unionists won last September, it is the seperatists who failed.
    The loyalist goal of preserving and sustaining the United Kingdom and avoiding its dissolution appears to be failing. The likelihood of the United Kingdom ceasing to exist is much higher today than at any point in its history.
    I hate to be pedantic Dair, but Scotland and England do not form the United Kingdom. They form the Kingdom of Great Britain (officially founded 1707, although used in some official documents before that for the sake of shortness - e.g. see the preamble to the King James Bible). This joined with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801 to form 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,' renamed 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' in 1949 when Eire became a republic.

    So unless you take Northern Ireland with you on independence, there would still be a 'United Kingdom' left behind.
    I concede there is some interpretation here, I gave you mine.

    Of course what really matters is what other countries decide. And there would no doubt be more than enough who would decide that it is a new state (thus removing it as a UN Security Council member and likely leading to Security Council reform).

    Recognition is not a Security Council matter, it is a General Assembly matter and as such would only require one objection and a simple majority in the vote.

    I don't fancy England's chances.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,215


    Is this BBC story wrong? They are now saying:-

    "Kids Company closed on Wednesday after ministers said they wanted to recover a £3m grant given to the charity."

    Which implies that the government caused it to close; when actually they only wanted recovery after KC had closed. Is this the new spin line?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    I wouldn't believe a word KC is saying. According to the government the money was given to KC to help it restructure. It was not meant to be used to pay salaries. £800K was immediately paid out for the July payroll. It is not clear when they told the government they were going to close. But in any case the government said that it was seeking ways to recover the money it had given which had not been spent in the ways it was meant to be used.

    Undoubtedly KC will try to blame the government but if the government bears any blame it is in providing grants to an organisation which seems to have been incapable of running itself in a professional manner, whatever other good it may have done, but which had a huge sense of entitlement. There are - doubtless - other organisations which could provide some of the services/help to people in need which KC claimed to be doing but which did not have the advantage of having someone famous appearing on TV and ringing up Ministers personally to get hold of public funds without the proper scrutiny and proper controls on how - let's not forget - our money is spent, money raised from taxpayers who earn considerably less than the £90K p.a. which the founder paid herself.
  • Options
    notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Dair said:

    notme said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Plato said:

    I'm glad I never liked her. She's just becoming even more repellent and self-righteous as the days go by.

    BBC - "Kids Company founder Camila Batmanghelidjh says "we have become a football for the media and the civil servants"

    This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly" - as Batman attempts to blame everyone but herself for bankrupting her charity.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    The whole thing is making me angry. These kids really, really needed this help and it seems somehow the finances have blown up. We need more details on what was going on behind the scenes. As an example, I'm involved in a local charity and they, along with most others, have lost a lot of local government grants in recent years: is this partly what has happened at KidsCompany?
    They have not lost grants. If anything the opposite. They were given £5 million in April and £3 million last week. £800K was immediately paid out to staff. Where is the remaining £2.2 million?

    It takes some doing to spend £2.2 mio in week. What on? And if it hasn't been spent then it can be used to help those needing help but through organisations which are rather better run than this one seems to have been.

    The Fatwoman was talking about "facts" this morning on the Today programme. I only caught the end. Did Humphreys ask her where that £2.2 mio is?

    You should be angry. But you should be angry that one high profile charity seems to have hoovered up a lot of money which has - apparently - vanished into thin air while more deserving and well run entities may have lost out.

    Yesterday she referred to helping 3,000 "off-book" kids. WTF?
    Off Book means = someone's back pocket. When you have no controls you get fraud.
    When it comes to children's charities, operating with "no controls" screams of dangers far more worrying than fraud.
    Ha. You are making reasonable points just to test to see if I have clicked 'ignore' yet!
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,296
    MikeK said:

    The rumor is that Obama wants to stand for a third term. If this bastard can bendthe law, he will.

    http://newsexaminer.net/politics/obama-announces-plans-for-a-third-term-presidential-run/

    An amusing spoof. Here's the relevant law that prevents him for anyone interested:
    The Twenty Second Amendment to the Constitution

    Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress (1946/7) and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

    Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
    Change requires a 2/3 majority in Congress plus ratification by 75% of state legislatures, some of whom require 2/3 majorities of their own.

    Enacted to stop anyone else trying to keep the job for life the way FDR did, although in practice only three previous presidents had tried to stand for a third term (Grant, Cleveland and the other Roosevelt) and all failed to get nominated. Cleveland did fight three elections, but was defeated in the middle one.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,215
    malcolmg said:

    notme said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
    It looks as if the cost of fracking is dropping so fast that oil prices are going to be at this level for a long time. Maybe not good for global warming, but cheap energy should be a major world economic stimulus. The Middle East sidelined has political impact too. More failed states on the way.
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
    It looks as if the cost of fracking is dropping so fast that oil prices are going to be at this level for a long time. Maybe not good for global warming, but cheap energy should be a major world economic stimulus. The Middle East sidelined has political impact too. More failed states on the way.
    Agreed but for how many decades do we have to watch the US rebuild its industrial base on the back of cheap gas and oil products before our local idiots decide it might be "safe" after all?


    On Saudi I have heard from a few people who work in the Kingdom that the overthrow of the Saud family is an active ongoing discussion. There is no guarantee that their replacements (if this happens) will be any better though.
    Frankly, the whole of the Middle East is a series of failed states. Any replacement of the Saudis will almost certainly be worse. We need to develop alternative energy sources fast and we need, IMO, to be prepared to fight and defeat IS and all varieties of Islamist extremists because their ambitions extend beyond the Middle East and even if they were limited to there they would be a threat to the civilized world.

    Except Israel!! The only natural resource it has is its people.

    It has other people's land as well
    IS has other people's land as well and are intent on taking more, including - according to their Caliphate Map - the whole of North Africa above the Sahara, Greece, the Balkans and the Iberian peninsula.

  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,153
    ydoethur said:


    I hate to be pedantic

    You shouldn't start a post with a porky.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,296
    Dair said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dair said:

    notme said:


    Your ugly use of sectarian language is starting to make this site unpleasant to view. Im going to ask you nicely not to. Then i'll just click 'ignore' and hope others will also.

    He also seems to have missed the point about "failed" loyalism. The unionists won last September, it is the seperatists who failed.
    The loyalist goal of preserving and sustaining the United Kingdom and avoiding its dissolution appears to be failing. The likelihood of the United Kingdom ceasing to exist is much higher today than at any point in its history.
    I hate to be pedantic Dair, but Scotland and England do not form the United Kingdom. They form the Kingdom of Great Britain (officially founded 1707, although used in some official documents before that for the sake of shortness - e.g. see the preamble to the King James Bible). This joined with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801 to form 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,' renamed 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' in 1949 when Eire became a republic.

    So unless you take Northern Ireland with you on independence, there would still be a 'United Kingdom' left behind.
    I concede there is some interpretation here, I gave you mine.

    Of course what really matters is what other countries decide. And there would no doubt be more than enough who would decide that it is a new state (thus removing it as a UN Security Council member and likely leading to Security Council reform).

    Recognition is not a Security Council matter, it is a General Assembly matter and as such would only require one objection and a simple majority in the vote.

    I don't fancy England's chances.
    TBH Dair, I would be surprised if there were a problem for a post-independence UK from that point of view. I'm not an expert and if I'm wrong I'd be happy to be corrected, but I don't recall Sudan being considered a 'new' country after the secession of South Sudan, or Pakistan after the independence of Bangladesh, or Australia following Papua New Guinea's independence (that one was on much the same terms Salmond was asking for Scotland last year).

    Like I say, I could be wrong, and none of them had a security council seat or nuclear weapons (at that time) which may make a difference. But I think those would be ample precedents under international law that the UK would continue and Scotland would be a new state.
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Cyclefree said:


    Is this BBC story wrong? They are now saying:-

    "Kids Company closed on Wednesday after ministers said they wanted to recover a £3m grant given to the charity."

    Which implies that the government caused it to close; when actually they only wanted recovery after KC had closed. Is this the new spin line?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    let's not forget - our money is spent, money raised from taxpayers who earn considerably less than the £90K p.a. which the founder paid herself.

    Plus expenses.

    Running a charity such as this looks like a very nice little earner indeed. Can we all start one?
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,215
    Dear PB Brains. Despite following Kle4's advice yesterday, I simply cannot sign in to PB on my iPad. I have managed it in the past but now, nothing.

    I have tried Vanilla Forums but despite putting in my user name and password, nothing happens. It simply refuses to let me sign in. Nothing comes up - no message. It just acts as if nothing has happened.

    Is it my iPad settings? Any help/ideas gratefully received. Thanks!
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930
    Morning all.

    Some little bastard has shot one of our cats, she has a metal pellet lodged in her ear at any rate. Will inform the RSPCA and police but don't expect anything to come of it.
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    I have been CEO of a smallish charity and helped found another. It was my experience that as long as you sent in your annual accounts on time and had sufficient trustees that the CC made no comment and we never heard from them again.

    The whole CC practices and laws need beefing up and the purpose of a charity to be redefined and that includes how it is funded. It is receives more than 20% of its income from any part of the public sector, then there needs to be a published list showing the grants/payments made to all charities from the public sector.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,296

    ydoethur said:


    I hate to be pedantic

    You shouldn't start a post with a porky.
    Well, I must admit as a teacher I am paid to be a pedant, and I enjoy teaching so therefore I must enjoy being pedantic. You've got me! :wink:
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    @Recidivist FPT

    Can I just point out that there have been some banks which have been quietly successful in private ownership
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Dair said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dair said:

    notme said:


    Your ugly use of sectarian language is starting to make this site unpleasant to view. Im going to ask you nicely not to. Then i'll just click 'ignore' and hope others will also.

    He also seems to have missed the point about "failed" loyalism. The unionists won last September, it is the seperatists who failed.
    The loyalist goal of preserving and sustaining the United Kingdom and avoiding its dissolution appears to be failing. The likelihood of the United Kingdom ceasing to exist is much higher today than at any point in its history.
    I hate to be pedantic Dair, but Scotland and England do not form the United Kingdom. They form the Kingdom of Great Britain (officially founded 1707, although used in some official documents before that for the sake of shortness - e.g. see the preamble to the King James Bible). This joined with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801 to form 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,' renamed 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' in 1949 when Eire became a republic.

    So unless you take Northern Ireland with you on independence, there would still be a 'United Kingdom' left behind.
    I concede there is some interpretation here, I gave you mine.

    Of course what really matters is what other countries decide. And there would no doubt be more than enough who would decide that it is a new state (thus removing it as a UN Security Council member and likely leading to Security Council reform).

    Recognition is not a Security Council matter, it is a General Assembly matter and as such would only require one objection and a simple majority in the vote.

    I don't fancy England's chances.
    You've given us your interpretation. It's rubbish and this particular line is a sure sign of the SNP supporters whose heads are unusually far up their own fundaments.

    At least you've moved onto making this argument in the context of the UN rather than the EU. That's progress of a sort I suppose.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,264
    ydoethur said:

    MikeK said:

    The rumor is that Obama wants to stand for a third term. If this bastard can bendthe law, he will.

    http://newsexaminer.net/politics/obama-announces-plans-for-a-third-term-presidential-run/

    An amusing spoof. Here's the relevant law that prevents him for anyone interested:
    The Twenty Second Amendment to the Constitution

    Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress (1946/7) and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

    Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
    Change requires a 2/3 majority in Congress plus ratification by 75% of state legislatures, some of whom require 2/3 majorities of their own.

    Enacted to stop anyone else trying to keep the job for life the way FDR did, although in practice only three previous presidents had tried to stand for a third term (Grant, Cleveland and the other Roosevelt) and all failed to get nominated. Cleveland did fight three elections, but was defeated in the middle one.

    Even if it was possible, I seems very unlikely Obama would want another term.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,488
    edited August 2015
    Cyclefree said:

    Dear PB Brains. Despite following Kle4's advice yesterday, I simply cannot sign in to PB on my iPad. I have managed it in the past but now, nothing.

    I have tried Vanilla Forums but despite putting in my user name and password, nothing happens. It simply refuses to let me sign in. Nothing comes up - no message. It just acts as if nothing has happened.

    Is it my iPad settings? Any help/ideas gratefully received. Thanks!

    Are you using safari?

    If so, install the google chrome app from the App Store.

    Then browse/login/post on PB using chrome.

    Safari and PB don't work well.

    Edit is the safari and vanilla that don't work well.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    There was a curious thing on Sky earlier - I note she's not on that channel. The anchorman looked rather caught in the headlights when reporting on the story and said "She's very... mesmerising.... [long pause] Very mesmerising..."

    I had the distinct impression that he wasn't sure what to say - that she'd totally bulldozed her detractors/had a Svengali hypnotic quality on her supporters.
    Cyclefree said:


    Is this BBC story wrong? They are now saying:-

    "Kids Company closed on Wednesday after ministers said they wanted to recover a £3m grant given to the charity."

    Which implies that the government caused it to close; when actually they only wanted recovery after KC had closed. Is this the new spin line?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    I wouldn't believe a word KC is saying. According to the government the money was given to KC to help it restructure. It was not meant to be used to pay salaries. £800K was immediately paid out for the July payroll. It is not clear when they told the government they were going to close. But in any case the government said that it was seeking ways to recover the money it had given which had not been spent in the ways it was meant to be used.

    Undoubtedly KC will try to blame the government but if the government bears any blame it is in providing grants to an organisation which seems to have been incapable of running itself in a professional manner, whatever other good it may have done, but which had a huge sense of entitlement. There are - doubtless - other organisations which could provide some of the services/help to people in need which KC claimed to be doing but which did not have the advantage of having someone famous appearing on TV and ringing up Ministers personally to get hold of public funds without the proper scrutiny and proper controls on how - let's not forget - our money is spent, money raised from taxpayers who earn considerably less than the £90K p.a. which the founder paid herself.
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Cyclefree said:

    Dear PB Brains. Despite following Kle4's advice yesterday, I simply cannot sign in to PB on my iPad. I have managed it in the past but now, nothing.

    I have tried Vanilla Forums but despite putting in my user name and password, nothing happens. It simply refuses to let me sign in. Nothing comes up - no message. It just acts as if nothing has happened.

    Is it my iPad settings? Any help/ideas gratefully received. Thanks!

    I found the same when I disallowed cookies, but on allowing cookies then all was well - but I was not using an i-pad
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,215


    Is this BBC story wrong? They are now saying:-

    "Kids Company closed on Wednesday after ministers said they wanted to recover a £3m grant given to the charity."

    Which implies that the government caused it to close; when actually they only wanted recovery after KC had closed. Is this the new spin line?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    The BBC coverage of the KC collapse is unhelpful, to say the least, there are lots of questions going unanswered simply because Aunty is not asking the questions.

    Camila Batmanghelidjh now claims HMG knew the £3m grant would be used for salaries, but has as yet provided little evidence to support the claim - There seems to be a deliberate attempt by Batman and others to conflate the HMG grant for restructuring and downsizing the charity, with that of an assured £3m donation on the back of the grant being approved, which presumably would have covered the unpaid salaries.

    Yet, despite receiving the much needed government grant however, Batman now claims the unknown benefactor withdrew the offer due the police investigation into alleged child abuse.

    It’s all beginning to look very murky.
    I know who the unknown potential benefactor is. I cannot reveal more save to say that Batman is overstating even this. As I said yesterday, the organisation was looked at and intelligent, hard-headed people realised that they would be throwing good money after bad. If you really want to help those in need the most important thing to do is to give money/help/time to those organisations which will spend their resources wisely and sensibly and in a way which gives the most help in ways which do the most good. Not to those who shout the loudest.

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,296
    watford30 said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Is this BBC story wrong? They are now saying:-

    "Kids Company closed on Wednesday after ministers said they wanted to recover a £3m grant given to the charity."

    Which implies that the government caused it to close; when actually they only wanted recovery after KC had closed. Is this the new spin line?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    let's not forget - our money is spent, money raised from taxpayers who earn considerably less than the £90K p.a. which the founder paid herself.

    Plus expenses.

    Running a charity such as this looks like a very nice little earner indeed. Can we all start one?
    I used to run a charity. I was paid £80 a year. What was I doing wrong?

    I endorse @Financier's point on the CC as well. During my time, we took over another charity with a different ostensible purpose but the same geographical spread. I enquired of the CC if they would have any objection (since the founding articles suggested it might be legally dubious) and their reply was essentially, 'we don't give a stuff, sort it out yourself.'

    OK, so they were two very small charities and there was no public money involved. But to pick up on @antifrank's point from yesterday, what does it say about their state of mind?
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Morning all.

    Donald Trump ? – I don’t get it, must be an American thing.

    Politics as entertainment, in'nt

    Basically sticking two fingers up at the establishment and waggling them around for a while before selecting the same boring mediocrity that they always do

    (As an aside, I'm going to stick up for George W. John Kerr, who I greatly admire, described him as one of the most intelligent men that he had ever met & dragged Tony Blair out to Dallas to meet him on Blair's first official visit to the State - Bush was still only Governor of Texas at the time)
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    ydoethur said:

    Dair said:


    I concede there is some interpretation here, I gave you mine.

    Of course what really matters is what other countries decide. And there would no doubt be more than enough who would decide that it is a new state (thus removing it as a UN Security Council member and likely leading to Security Council reform).

    Recognition is not a Security Council matter, it is a General Assembly matter and as such would only require one objection and a simple majority in the vote.

    I don't fancy England's chances.

    TBH Dair, I would be surprised if there were a problem for a post-independence UK from that point of view. I'm not an expert and if I'm wrong I'd be happy to be corrected, but I don't recall Sudan being considered a 'new' country after the secession of South Sudan, or Pakistan after the independence of Bangladesh, or Australia following Papua New Guinea's independence (that one was on much the same terms Salmond was asking for Scotland last year).

    Like I say, I could be wrong, and none of them had a security council seat or nuclear weapons (at that time) which may make a difference. But I think those would be ample precedents under international law that the UK would continue and Scotland would be a new state.
    As I said, it's all down to interpretation.

    If you interpret the United Kingdom as a multi-national state created with the Acts of Union, then there is grounds to challenge the legitimacy of England (plus or minus NI) continuing as the United Kingdom.

    One of the most bizarre publications of the Indyref period was the UK government's own legal opinion on whether it would be a Continuing or Successor State where this exact issue was raised in the opening preamble.

    It's conclusion was that it could be a Continuing State "because it would" with no other justification and still in the preamble. It was a truly bizarre piece of circular logic which provided the entire foundation for the legal opinion.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Mr. Pulpstar, very sorry to hear that. Will she be ok? How's her behaviour?
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Oh noes! A call to your local paper would also be a good idea - that may shame or expose the bugger.

    Hope she's on the mend very shortly. Years ago, two thugs kicked my ZsaZsa to death in the street. Sadistic bastards.
    Pulpstar said:

    Morning all.

    Some little bastard has shot one of our cats, she has a metal pellet lodged in her ear at any rate. Will inform the RSPCA and police but don't expect anything to come of it.

  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,264
    watford30 said:

    notme said:

    Scott_P said:

    @PeterMannionMP: It's all the fault of CIVIL SERVANTS...AND MINISTERS...AND THE MEDIA... AND AND... #Camilla #KidsCompany #R4Today

    @1jamiefoster: So Camila's point is that the only way to save children is to give her all the public money #r4today

    I find this situation very interesting, from a purely political perspective. Normally in such a situation, it doesnt matter who is in government, they get the blame as being heartless etc etc.

    What's interesting in this case is that it is the Government that is coming across as reasonable (though careless for giving them money in the first place). It's Batman woman who is coming across as unhinged, and that everyone involved is getting themselves incredibly fat, gorging themselves on the public grant buffet.

    Her pleas that everything was fine, and no one has ever raised concerns is clearly a falsehood. When the most senior civil servant tells the Prime Minister that he doesnt feel the PM's favourite charity is spending its money wisely and not 'providing value for money', and insists on a direction from a government minister before he will approve payment, you know something is seriously wrong.
    I expect that a number of Trustees have had their relaxing summer holidays ruined - surely they knew something was amiss with cash flow?
    Are any of them qualified to run a 'business' with such a turnover as KC?
    From KC website (yes, its still up, so the domain name bill must have been paid at least):

    "At Kids Company, we are extremely lucky to have the support of a Board of Trustees who are hugely dedicated to the charity:
    Alan Yentob
    Richard Handover
    Sunetra Atkinson
    Erica Bolton
    Francesca Robinson
    Jane Tyler
    Andrew Webster"

    I only know of Yentob, v senior BBC, so should at least be able to read a spreadsheet of budgets.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,215
    Financier said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Dear PB Brains. Despite following Kle4's advice yesterday, I simply cannot sign in to PB on my iPad. I have managed it in the past but now, nothing.

    I have tried Vanilla Forums but despite putting in my user name and password, nothing happens. It simply refuses to let me sign in. Nothing comes up - no message. It just acts as if nothing has happened.

    Is it my iPad settings? Any help/ideas gratefully received. Thanks!

    I found the same when I disallowed cookies, but on allowing cookies then all was well - but I was not using an i-pad
    Thank you. I will try that.

  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Pulpstar said:

    Morning all.

    Some little bastard has shot one of our cats, she has a metal pellet lodged in her ear at any rate. Will inform the RSPCA and police but don't expect anything to come of it.

    The police probably will just send you a victim of crime letter, but the RSPCA may help if they have had similar complaints locally - they just love prosecutions. I remember once an interesting discussion on the rights of trespass between cats and dogs.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Shameless name-dropper!
    Charles said:

    @Recidivist FPT

    Can I just point out that there have been some banks which have been quietly successful in private ownership

  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,215

    Cyclefree said:

    Dear PB Brains. Despite following Kle4's advice yesterday, I simply cannot sign in to PB on my iPad. I have managed it in the past but now, nothing.

    I have tried Vanilla Forums but despite putting in my user name and password, nothing happens. It simply refuses to let me sign in. Nothing comes up - no message. It just acts as if nothing has happened.

    Is it my iPad settings? Any help/ideas gratefully received. Thanks!

    Are you using safari?

    If so, install the google chrome app from the App Store.

    Then browse/login/post on PB using chrome.

    Safari and PB don't work well.

    Edit is the safari and vanilla that don't work well.
    Thank you TSE. Will try this too.

  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Sandpit said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    As someone based in the middle east that article is shocking. The Saudis are basically praying that they can stop anyone else producing cheaper oil before their own foreign currency reserves run out. That's a bonkers bet, which the US are determined to prove wrong.
    In the normal world that would be called trade dumping and is prohibited by the WTO
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Miss Plato, blimey. Know it was a while ago but that's bloody horrendous.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,215
    Charles said:

    @Recidivist FPT

    Can I just point out that there have been some banks which have been quietly successful in private ownership

    Now, now: we don't want investment banker-style boasting here!!

  • Options
    Off topic.

    The Trent Bridge test is the most northern test this Ashes series.

    Bloody disgrace that there's no Ashes test at Headingley or Old Trafford.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    Firefox won't allow me to see avatars if I go to the poster's page. It's blank. It used to work. No idea what's going on. I used to use an image blocker/adblock but have disabled/uninstalled both and it still won't work.

    I can see them using my phone using FFox. Makes changing/viewing avatars a complete pain.

    Anyone know how to fix this? I don't want to change browsers.
    Financier said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Dear PB Brains. Despite following Kle4's advice yesterday, I simply cannot sign in to PB on my iPad. I have managed it in the past but now, nothing.

    I have tried Vanilla Forums but despite putting in my user name and password, nothing happens. It simply refuses to let me sign in. Nothing comes up - no message. It just acts as if nothing has happened.

    Is it my iPad settings? Any help/ideas gratefully received. Thanks!

    I found the same when I disallowed cookies, but on allowing cookies then all was well - but I was not using an i-pad
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,296
    edited August 2015
    Plato said:

    Oh noes! A call to your local paper would also be a good idea - that may shame or expose the bugger.

    Hope she's on the mend very shortly. Years ago, two thugs kicked my ZsaZsa to death in the street. Sadistic bastards.

    Pulpstar said:

    Morning all.

    Some little bastard has shot one of our cats, she has a metal pellet lodged in her ear at any rate. Will inform the RSPCA and police but don't expect anything to come of it.

    For even more appalling animal cruelty, while I was at school (I'd have been about 15) some youths broke into the local infants' school, took Year 1's hamster out of its cage and used it as a football (literally, used it as a football - with goalposts and everything).

    If anyone has anything viler than that...maybe it's better not to spoil everyone's day by sharing it.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    As someone based in the middle east that article is shocking. The Saudis are basically praying that they can stop anyone else producing cheaper oil before their own foreign currency reserves run out. That's a bonkers bet, which the US are determined to prove wrong.
    The Saudis made the same bet in the 1980s in an attempt to drive expensive North Sea and Alaskan crude from the market.

    It didn't work then.

    And the reason it didn't work is that once the capital has been committed (i.e., money has been spent on pipelines, pumps, drilling, BOPs, etc. etc.) then fields will run at full capacity irrespective of price, because the marginal cost of production is negligible.
    This time it's different ;)

    Seriously, though, North Sea and Alaskan oil came from well capitalised multinationals who could afford relatively weak cash flow because they could fund their debt from legacy assets

    Too many of the shale producers are over leveraged and mono-asset or at least mono-class investments. To the extent that low cashflow pushes them into Chapter 11, or delays future drilling it's a positive for the Saudis. Not worth it, IMHO, but it's not an entirely identical situation.
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474

    watford30 said:

    notme said:

    Scott_P said:

    @PeterMannionMP: It's all the fault of CIVIL SERVANTS...AND MINISTERS...AND THE MEDIA... AND AND... #Camilla #KidsCompany #R4Today

    @1jamiefoster: So Camila's point is that the only way to save children is to give her all the public money #r4today

    I find this situation very interesting, from a purely political perspective. Normally in such a situation, it doesnt matter who is in government, they get the blame as being heartless etc etc.

    What's interesting in this case is that it is the Government that is coming across as reasonable (though careless for giving them money in the first place). It's Batman woman who is coming across as unhinged, and that everyone involved is getting themselves incredibly fat, gorging themselves on the public grant buffet.

    Her pleas that everything was fine, and no one has ever raised concerns is clearly a falsehood. When the most senior civil servant tells the Prime Minister that he doesnt feel the PM's favourite charity is spending its money wisely and not 'providing value for money', and insists on a direction from a government minister before he will approve payment, you know something is seriously wrong.
    I expect that a number of Trustees have had their relaxing summer holidays ruined - surely they knew something was amiss with cash flow?
    Are any of them qualified to run a 'business' with such a turnover as KC?
    From KC website (yes, its still up, so the domain name bill must have been paid at least):

    "At Kids Company, we are extremely lucky to have the support of a Board of Trustees who are hugely dedicated to the charity:
    Alan Yentob
    Richard Handover
    Sunetra Atkinson
    Erica Bolton
    Francesca Robinson
    Jane Tyler
    Andrew Webster"

    I only know of Yentob, v senior BBC, so should at least be able to read a spreadsheet of budgets.
    Yentob is a Creative Director. And the BBC seem fairly profligate with our money so I wouldn't put too much faith in their budgets.

    Richard Handover was former CEO and Chairman of WH Smith so should be pretty clued up. One wonders how much the trustees really knew about day to day financial operations at the charity?
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    What that article really shows is how we are missing out with the antediluvian, ignorant and frankly just stupid resistance to the development of a Shale industry in this country.
    It looks as if the cost of fracking is dropping so fast that oil prices are going to be at this level for a long time. Maybe not good for global warming, but cheap energy should be a major world economic stimulus. The Middle East sidelined has political impact too. More failed states on the way.
    Agreed but for how many decades do we have to watch the US rebuild its industrial base on the back of cheap gas and oil products before our local idiots decide it might be "safe" after all?

    On Saudi I have heard from a few people who work in the Kingdom that the overthrow of the Saud family is an active ongoing discussion. There is no guarantee that their replacements (if this happens) will be any better though.
    I'm told that last year the Saud family moved $11 billion in liquid funds to London because they felt that was a useful safety net in case anything went wrong.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,296
    Plato said:

    Firefox won't allow me to see avatars if I go to the poster's page. It's blank. It used to work. No idea what's going on. I used to use an image blocker/adblock but have disabled/uninstalled both and it still won't work.

    I can see them using my phone using FFox. Makes changing/viewing avatars a complete pain.

    Anyone know how to fix this? I don't want to change browsers.

    Financier said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Dear PB Brains. Despite following Kle4's advice yesterday, I simply cannot sign in to PB on my iPad. I have managed it in the past but now, nothing.

    I have tried Vanilla Forums but despite putting in my user name and password, nothing happens. It simply refuses to let me sign in. Nothing comes up - no message. It just acts as if nothing has happened.

    Is it my iPad settings? Any help/ideas gratefully received. Thanks!

    I found the same when I disallowed cookies, but on allowing cookies then all was well - but I was not using an i-pad
    When I had this problem, it was a net connection thing. Have you checked your router/wireless/ethernet? Or your download speed? When I got a slow line sorted out it was fine again.
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Good Moring @Plato

    Just clicked on your avatar and you came up loud and clear. Are you using the latest version of Firefox as they have had quite a few updates recently? Our office machines update automatically.
    Plato said:

    Firefox won't allow me to see avatars if I go to the poster's page. It's blank. It used to work. No idea what's going on. I used to use an image blocker/adblock but have disabled/uninstalled both and it still won't work.

    I can see them using my phone using FFox. Makes changing/viewing avatars a complete pain.

    Anyone know how to fix this? I don't want to change browsers.

    Financier said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Dear PB Brains. Despite following Kle4's advice yesterday, I simply cannot sign in to PB on my iPad. I have managed it in the past but now, nothing.

    I have tried Vanilla Forums but despite putting in my user name and password, nothing happens. It simply refuses to let me sign in. Nothing comes up - no message. It just acts as if nothing has happened.

    Is it my iPad settings? Any help/ideas gratefully received. Thanks!

    I found the same when I disallowed cookies, but on allowing cookies then all was well - but I was not using an i-pad
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Typically animal cruelty in youngsters is a sign of a potentially serious personality disorder. They're experimenting with inflicting pain, that often translates into doing it to humans in later life.
    ydoethur said:

    Plato said:

    Oh noes! A call to your local paper would also be a good idea - that may shame or expose the bugger.

    Hope she's on the mend very shortly. Years ago, two thugs kicked my ZsaZsa to death in the street. Sadistic bastards.

    Pulpstar said:

    Morning all.

    Some little bastard has shot one of our cats, she has a metal pellet lodged in her ear at any rate. Will inform the RSPCA and police but don't expect anything to come of it.

    For even more appalling animal cruelty, while I was at school (I'd have been about 15) some youths broke into the local infants' school, took Year 1's hamster out of its cage and used it as a football (literally, used it as a football - with goalposts and everything).

    If anyone has anything viler than that...maybe it's better not to spoil everyone's day by sharing it.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,215
    ydoethur said:

    watford30 said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Is this BBC story wrong? They are now saying:-

    "Kids Company closed on Wednesday after ministers said they wanted to recover a £3m grant given to the charity."

    Which implies that the government caused it to close; when actually they only wanted recovery after KC had closed. Is this the new spin line?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    let's not forget - our money is spent, money raised from taxpayers who earn considerably less than the £90K p.a. which the founder paid herself.

    Plus expenses.

    Running a charity such as this looks like a very nice little earner indeed. Can we all start one?
    I used to run a charity. I was paid £80 a year. What was I doing wrong?

    I endorse @Financier's point on the CC as well. During my time, we took over another charity with a different ostensible purpose but the same geographical spread. I enquired of the CC if they would have any objection (since the founding articles suggested it might be legally dubious) and their reply was essentially, 'we don't give a stuff, sort it out yourself.'

    OK, so they were two very small charities and there was no public money involved. But to pick up on @antifrank's point from yesterday, what does it say about their state of mind?
    Under their previous chief they were more bothered about beating up public schools.

    And in relation to KC if the trustees did not know about day to day finances or did not ensure that there was someone in the organisation who did, they were in breach of their duties. That's what trustees are there for: to ensure that the charity is properly run and carries out its charitable objectives. It's not meant to be just an excuse to go to some posh dinners and look good.

  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

    Saudi heading towards a 20% budget deficit. Wow! Of course it would be different in Scotland...

    As someone based in the middle east that article is shocking. The Saudis are basically praying that they can stop anyone else producing cheaper oil before their own foreign currency reserves run out. That's a bonkers bet, which the US are determined to prove wrong.
    In the normal world that would be called trade dumping and is prohibited by the WTO
    The Americans are probably not unhappy about collateral (if it is) damage to the Russian economy.
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    I feel that we are living in a much more visually violent age - but with fewer people having personal experience of the results of violence (e.g WW2). So many films today are in-your-face and are quite violent and I presume that the same apples to gaming - but as I am not a gamer, I do not have that experience. However there is a lot of violence shown where the personal results of such actions are not evident.
    Plato said:

    Typically animal cruelty in youngsters is a sign of a potentially serious personality disorder. They're experimenting with inflicting pain, that often translates into doing it to humans in later life.

    ydoethur said:

    Plato said:

    Oh noes! A call to your local paper would also be a good idea - that may shame or expose the bugger.

    Hope she's on the mend very shortly. Years ago, two thugs kicked my ZsaZsa to death in the street. Sadistic bastards.

    Pulpstar said:

    Morning all.

    Some little bastard has shot one of our cats, she has a metal pellet lodged in her ear at any rate. Will inform the RSPCA and police but don't expect anything to come of it.

    For even more appalling animal cruelty, while I was at school (I'd have been about 15) some youths broke into the local infants' school, took Year 1's hamster out of its cage and used it as a football (literally, used it as a football - with goalposts and everything).

    If anyone has anything viler than that...maybe it's better not to spoil everyone's day by sharing it.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    OT A while ago, we discussed which places we'd have on our bucketlists/ones we'd crossed off.

    This chappy has done the lot
    It is a feat that very few manage to achieve, but a Norwegian explorer has succeeded in visiting every country in the world - and before his 40th birthday.

    New media consultant Gunnar Garfors clinched the title to become the youngest person in the world to visit all 198 countries, at the ripe age of 37 in 2013.

    Since returning, he has created a book about his incredible adventures and released some of the pictures from his epic journey.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3185929/He-ran-countries-Meet-youngest-person-visit-country-planet-turning-40-s-got-advice-same.html#ixzz3i1aZjdBH
  • Options

    notme said:

    Scott_P said:

    @PeterMannionMP: It's all the fault of CIVIL SERVANTS...AND MINISTERS...AND THE MEDIA... AND AND... #Camilla #KidsCompany #R4Today

    @1jamiefoster: So Camila's point is that the only way to save children is to give her all the public money #r4today

    I find this situation very interesting, from a purely political perspective. Normally in such a situation, it doesnt matter who is in government, they get the blame as being heartless etc etc.

    What's interesting in this case is that it is the Government that is coming across as reasonable (though careless for giving them money in the first place). It's Batman woman who is coming across as unhinged, and that everyone involved is getting themselves incredibly fat, gorging themselves on the public grant buffet.

    Her pleas that everything was fine, and no one has ever raised concerns is clearly a falsehood. When the most senior civil servant tells the Prime Minister that he doesnt feel the PM's favourite charity is spending its money wisely and not 'providing value for money', and insists on a direction from a government minister before he will approve payment, you know something is seriously wrong.
    I expect that a number of Trustees have had their relaxing summer holidays ruined - surely they knew something was amiss with cash flow?
    The trustees headed up by Yentob remain unquestioned by the media.
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    notme said:

    Scott_P said:

    @PeterMannionMP: It's all the fault of CIVIL SERVANTS...AND MINISTERS...AND THE MEDIA... AND AND... #Camilla #KidsCompany #R4Today

    @1jamiefoster: So Camila's point is that the only way to save children is to give her all the public money #r4today

    I find this situation very interesting, from a purely political perspective. Normally in such a situation, it doesnt matter who is in government, they get the blame as being heartless etc etc.

    What's interesting in this case is that it is the Government that is coming across as reasonable (though careless for giving them money in the first place). It's Batman woman who is coming across as unhinged, and that everyone involved is getting themselves incredibly fat, gorging themselves on the public grant buffet.

    Her pleas that everything was fine, and no one has ever raised concerns is clearly a falsehood. When the most senior civil servant tells the Prime Minister that he doesnt feel the PM's favourite charity is spending its money wisely and not 'providing value for money', and insists on a direction from a government minister before he will approve payment, you know something is seriously wrong.
    I expect that a number of Trustees have had their relaxing summer holidays ruined - surely they knew something was amiss with cash flow?
    The trustees headed up by Yentob remain unquestioned by the media.
    Thought that Yentob has refused to answer questions.
  • Options
    Off Topic: Tube Strike

    Had a pretty easy journey in again today, guess that's the luck of being on the north side of the river.

    IMHO I don't take a stance on the strike. It's a matter for TFL and the unions to sort out. The way the Tories always politicize this and demand Labour condemn the strike is pretty pathetic. As is their continued obsession with tube driver salaries.

    Yes the strike is a bit of a pain in the arse, but that's the point!
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    It's also worth noting that in fiction, hurting animals (or protecting them from harm) is a pretty much bulletproof indicator over whether someone's an utter **** or not. Harming humans to a great extent can be made explicable or even acceptable, but the same doesn't apply to animals.

    House of Cards [original programme] didn't get any complaints when FU murdered someone, but when he shot his dog (effectively putting it down as the hound as very old, and not shown on-screen) there were many. And that was [arguably, at least] humane.

    As an aside, I gave Sir Edric's manservant the name 'Dog'. Hopefully that conveys an immediate sense of closeness but also a very definite pecking order.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @VictoriaLIVE: "I'm being suppressed because I know about sexual abuse claims against senior people" says #KidsCompany founder http://t.co/Og9o8IUtAK
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758


    Is this BBC story wrong? They are now saying:-

    "Kids Company closed on Wednesday after ministers said they wanted to recover a £3m grant given to the charity."

    Which implies that the government caused it to close; when actually they only wanted recovery after KC had closed. Is this the new spin line?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    I think technically it's correct, but misleading.

    The sequence was:

    1. KC says it will close at the end of the day
    2. Government says it wants our money back
    3. KC closes

    Technically, 3 was after 2, but 2 was not the proxmiate cause of 3.

    PHEPH
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,215

    watford30 said:

    notme said:

    Scott_P said:

    @PeterMannionMP: It's all the fault of CIVIL SERVANTS...AND MINISTERS...AND THE MEDIA... AND AND... #Camilla #KidsCompany #R4Today

    @1jamiefoster: So Camila's point is that the only way to save children is to give her all the public money #r4today

    I find this situation very interesting, from a purely political perspective. Normally in such a situation, it doesnt matter who is in government, they get the blame as being heartless etc etc.

    What's interesting in this case is that it is the Government that is coming across as reasonable (though careless for giving them money in the first place). It's Batman woman who is coming across as unhinged, and that everyone involved is getting themselves incredibly fat, gorging themselves on the public grant buffet.

    Her pleas that everything was fine, and no one has ever raised concerns is clearly a falsehood. When the most senior civil servant tells the Prime Minister that he doesnt feel the PM's favourite charity is spending its money wisely and not 'providing value for money', and insists on a direction from a government minister before he will approve payment, you know something is seriously wrong.
    I expect that a number of Trustees have had their relaxing summer holidays ruined - surely they knew something was amiss with cash flow?
    Are any of them qualified to run a 'business' with such a turnover as KC?
    From KC website (yes, its still up, so the domain name bill must have been paid at least):

    "At Kids Company, we are extremely lucky to have the support of a Board of Trustees who are hugely dedicated to the charity:
    Alan Yentob
    Richard Handover
    Sunetra Atkinson
    Erica Bolton
    Francesca Robinson
    Jane Tyler
    Andrew Webster"

    I only know of Yentob, v senior BBC, so should at least be able to read a spreadsheet of budgets.
    Sunetra Atkinson is the wife of Rowan Atkinson. Erica Bolton is an arts publicist. And Francesca Robinson runs a recruitment company. That should come in useful anyway.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930

    Off Topic: Tube Strike

    Had a pretty easy journey in again today, guess that's the luck of being on the north side of the river.

    IMHO I don't take a stance on the strike. It's a matter for TFL and the unions to sort out. The way the Tories always politicize this and demand Labour condemn the strike is pretty pathetic. As is their continued obsession with tube driver salaries.

    Yes the strike is a bit of a pain in the arse, but that's the point!

    Is it true they start on 50k and get 52 days holiday a year though o_O ?!
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    A small stat for you. Back when musical comedy movies were in their heyday [30-50s], the number of *action* movies was 6%ish. Now it's 60%ish according to IMDb.

    I used to love video nasties in the 80s, but got so desensitised to them that I began to wonder if it was having an effect on me that wasn't very nice. So I stopped completely. Now torture porn movies make me flinch. I prefer that.
    Financier said:

    I feel that we are living in a much more visually violent age - but with fewer people having personal experience of the results of violence (e.g WW2). So many films today are in-your-face and are quite violent and I presume that the same apples to gaming - but as I am not a gamer, I do not have that experience. However there is a lot of violence shown where the personal results of such actions are not evident.

    Plato said:

    Typically animal cruelty in youngsters is a sign of a potentially serious personality disorder. They're experimenting with inflicting pain, that often translates into doing it to humans in later life.

    ydoethur said:

    Plato said:

    Oh noes! A call to your local paper would also be a good idea - that may shame or expose the bugger.

    Hope she's on the mend very shortly. Years ago, two thugs kicked my ZsaZsa to death in the street. Sadistic bastards.

    Pulpstar said:

    Morning all.

    Some little bastard has shot one of our cats, she has a metal pellet lodged in her ear at any rate. Will inform the RSPCA and police but don't expect anything to come of it.

    For even more appalling animal cruelty, while I was at school (I'd have been about 15) some youths broke into the local infants' school, took Year 1's hamster out of its cage and used it as a football (literally, used it as a football - with goalposts and everything).

    If anyone has anything viler than that...maybe it's better not to spoil everyone's day by sharing it.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    MikeK said:

    The rumor is that Obama wants to stand for a third term. If this bastard can bendthe law, he will.

    http://newsexaminer.net/politics/obama-announces-plans-for-a-third-term-presidential-run/

    Process for a Constitutional Amendment would be tricky, especially given need for approval of a majority of State HoRs when these are controlled by the GOP
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited August 2015
    Scott_P said:

    @VictoriaLIVE: "I'm being suppressed because I know about sexual abuse claims against senior people" says #KidsCompany founder http://t.co/Og9o8IUtAK

    Widow Batman-Twankey seem incapable of taking any responsibility for the charity's collapse.

    PC Plod should have in her in for a chat about where our £3 million+ has gone, and she can fill them in on her latest revelations at the same time. And what she knows about child abuse allegations against KC.

    She should spill all if she really cares about the kiddies.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Mr. Financier, there was criticism of Grand Theft Auto 5 [unsurprisingly, and I haven't played it] for a scene in which you literally torture someone.

    Videogames can be odd. I was surprised at the time (late PS2 era, I think) when God of War 2, which cartoonish overblown violence, was an 18 but MGS3, which featured a torture scene including electrocution, blinding [not graphic] and a man suspended from the ceiling urinating in his trousers after said electrocution, was only a 15.

    Mind you, Dragon Age: Inquisition and The Witcher 3 are both 18s, but there's a hell of a lot more of an 18 feel to The Witcher 3.

    The forthcoming Fallout 4 (watched a video on it this morning) apparently enables blowing off the limbs of ghouls (think radioactive zombies) and they'll crawl towards you until they're finished off.

    [I may have written an unnecessarily detailed answer because I'm procrastinating due to struggling with two critical decisions outlining a plot...]
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    Off Topic: Tube Strike

    Had a pretty easy journey in again today, guess that's the luck of being on the north side of the river.

    IMHO I don't take a stance on the strike. It's a matter for TFL and the unions to sort out. The way the Tories always politicize this and demand Labour condemn the strike is pretty pathetic. As is their continued obsession with tube driver salaries.

    Yes the strike is a bit of a pain in the arse, but that's the point!

    Is it true they start on 50k and get 52 days holiday a year though o_O ?!
    I don't know but if they do fair play to them. I don't engage in wage envy.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Cyclefree said:


    Is this BBC story wrong? They are now saying:-

    "Kids Company closed on Wednesday after ministers said they wanted to recover a £3m grant given to the charity."

    Which implies that the government caused it to close; when actually they only wanted recovery after KC had closed. Is this the new spin line?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    I wouldn't believe a word KC is saying. According to the government the money was given to KC to help it restructure. It was not meant to be used to pay salaries. £800K was immediately paid out for the July payroll. It is not clear when they told the government they were going to close. But in any case the government said that it was seeking ways to recover the money it had given which had not been spent in the ways it was meant to be used.

    Undoubtedly KC will try to blame the government but if the government bears any blame it is in providing grants to an organisation which seems to have been incapable of running itself in a professional manner, whatever other good it may have done, but which had a huge sense of entitlement. There are - doubtless - other organisations which could provide some of the services/help to people in need which KC claimed to be doing but which did not have the advantage of having someone famous appearing on TV and ringing up Ministers personally to get hold of public funds without the proper scrutiny and proper controls on how - let's not forget - our money is spent, money raised from taxpayers who earn considerably less than the £90K p.a. which the founder paid herself.
    I think there is an argument that the £3m was money well spent.

    If the government had not given the grant then the story would have been "Evil government forces wonderful childrens' charity to close"

    Because of that grant, the story is very very different.

    I'm not thinking here about the government's reputation (I don't care) but about uncovering potential fraud and clear mismanagement in the third sector
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    She claimed all that last time she was caught in the media's pincers. It rang very hollow then.
    watford30 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @VictoriaLIVE: "I'm being suppressed because I know about sexual abuse claims against senior people" says #KidsCompany founder http://t.co/Og9o8IUtAK

    Widow Batman-Twankey seem incapable of taking any responsibility for the charity's collapse.

    PC Plod should have in her in for a chat about where our £3 million+ has gone, and she can fill them on her latest revelations at the same time. And what she knows about child abuse allegations against KC.

    She should spill all if she really cares about the kiddies.
  • Options

    Off topic.

    The Trent Bridge test is the most northern test this Ashes series.

    Bloody disgrace that there's no Ashes test at Headingley or Old Trafford.

    To be fair, Trent Bridge is a superior ground, although having 2 Midlands grounds hosting and no Northern one does seem a little odd.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Scott_P said:

    @VictoriaLIVE: "I'm being suppressed because I know about sexual abuse claims against senior people" says #KidsCompany founder http://t.co/Og9o8IUtAK

    Oh dear – Batman now in full on loony mode.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Mr. Financier, there was criticism of Grand Theft Auto 5 [unsurprisingly, and I haven't played it] for a scene in which you literally torture someone.

    Videogames can be odd. I was surprised at the time (late PS2 era, I think) when God of War 2, which cartoonish overblown violence, was an 18 but MGS3, which featured a torture scene including electrocution, blinding [not graphic] and a man suspended from the ceiling urinating in his trousers after said electrocution, was only a 15.

    Mind you, Dragon Age: Inquisition and The Witcher 3 are both 18s, but there's a hell of a lot more of an 18 feel to The Witcher 3.

    The forthcoming Fallout 4 (watched a video on it this morning) apparently enables blowing off the limbs of ghouls (think radioactive zombies) and they'll crawl towards you until they're finished off.

    [I may have written an unnecessarily detailed answer because I'm procrastinating due to struggling with two critical decisions outlining a plot...]

    Mr. Dancer, Content of video games does not make gamers violent. Lag makes gamers violent.
  • Options
    MikeK said:

    The rumor is that Obama wants to stand for a third term. If this bastard can bendthe law, he will.

    http://newsexaminer.net/politics/obama-announces-plans-for-a-third-term-presidential-run/

    I hope you realise this is a spoof article??!?
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited August 2015
    Plato said:

    Shameless name-dropper!

    Charles said:

    @Recidivist FPT

    Can I just point out that there have been some banks which have been quietly successful in private ownership

    I was thinking about Shawbrook and Aldermore!

    @Cyclefree Not like you to be jealous ;)
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930
    edited August 2015

    Pulpstar said:

    Off Topic: Tube Strike

    Had a pretty easy journey in again today, guess that's the luck of being on the north side of the river.

    IMHO I don't take a stance on the strike. It's a matter for TFL and the unions to sort out. The way the Tories always politicize this and demand Labour condemn the strike is pretty pathetic. As is their continued obsession with tube driver salaries.

    Yes the strike is a bit of a pain in the arse, but that's the point!

    Is it true they start on 50k and get 52 days holiday a year though o_O ?!
    I don't know but if they do fair play to them. I don't engage in wage envy.
    I think TFL has been too soft with the unions for ages, but the trains will be driverless in a couple of years anyway.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,215
    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Is this BBC story wrong? They are now saying:-

    "Kids Company closed on Wednesday after ministers said they wanted to recover a £3m grant given to the charity."

    Which implies that the government caused it to close; when actually they only wanted recovery after KC had closed. Is this the new spin line?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    I wouldn't believe a word KC is saying. According to the government the money was given to KC to help it restructure. It was not meant to be used to pay salaries. £800K was immediately paid out for the July payroll. It is not clear when they told the government they were going to close. But in any case the government said that it was seeking ways to recover the money it had given which had not been spent in the ways it was meant to be used.

    Undoubtedly KC will try to blame the government but if the government bears any blame it is in providing grants to an organisation which seems to have been incapable of running itself in a professional manner, whatever other good it may have done, but which had a huge sense of entitlement. There are - doubtless - other organisations which could provide some of the services/help to people in need which KC claimed to be doing but which did not have the advantage of having someone famous appearing on TV and ringing up Ministers personally to get hold of public funds without the proper scrutiny and proper controls on how - let's not forget - our money is spent, money raised from taxpayers who earn considerably less than the £90K p.a. which the founder paid herself.
    I think there is an argument that the £3m was money well spent.

    If the government had not given the grant then the story would have been "Evil government forces wonderful childrens' charity to close"

    Because of that grant, the story is very very different.

    I'm not thinking here about the government's reputation (I don't care) but about uncovering potential fraud and clear mismanagement in the third sector
    That is wonderfully cynical!! Do you think Letwin and Hancock were that Machiavellian? Or even capable of being so?

  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Mr. Financier, there was criticism of Grand Theft Auto 5 [unsurprisingly, and I haven't played it] for a scene in which you literally torture someone.

    Videogames can be odd. I was surprised at the time (late PS2 era, I think) when God of War 2, which cartoonish overblown violence, was an 18 but MGS3, which featured a torture scene including electrocution, blinding [not graphic] and a man suspended from the ceiling urinating in his trousers after said electrocution, was only a 15.

    Mind you, Dragon Age: Inquisition and The Witcher 3 are both 18s, but there's a hell of a lot more of an 18 feel to The Witcher 3.

    The forthcoming Fallout 4 (watched a video on it this morning) apparently enables blowing off the limbs of ghouls (think radioactive zombies) and they'll crawl towards you until they're finished off.

    [I may have written an unnecessarily detailed answer because I'm procrastinating due to struggling with two critical decisions outlining a plot...]

    Mr. Dancer, Content of video games does not make gamers violent. Lag makes gamers violent.

    :smiley:

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Mr. StClare, I find it hard to take people seriously when they appear to have fallen into a paint factory a few minutes earlier.

    Mr. Llama, as mentioned previously a MUD I used to play had a Lag Monster that would appear (and could be slain).

    Mr. Rob, not the worst spoof article taken as real here. Not by a long shot.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Is this BBC story wrong? They are now saying:-

    "Kids Company closed on Wednesday after ministers said they wanted to recover a £3m grant given to the charity."

    Which implies that the government caused it to close; when actually they only wanted recovery after KC had closed. Is this the new spin line?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    I wouldn't believe a word KC is saying. According to the government the money was given to KC to help it restructure. It was not meant to be used to pay salaries. £800K was immediately paid out for the July payroll. It is not clear when they told the government they were going to close. But in any case the government said that it was seeking ways to recover the money it had given which had not been spent in the ways it was meant to be used.

    Undoubtedly KC will try to blame the government but if the government bears any blame it is in providing grants to an organisation which seems to have been incapable of running itself in a professional manner, whatever other good it may have done, but which had a huge sense of entitlement. There are - doubtless - other organisations which could provide some of the services/help to people in need which KC claimed to be doing but which did not have the advantage of having someone famous appearing on TV and ringing up Ministers personally to get hold of public funds without the proper scrutiny and proper controls on how - let's not forget - our money is spent, money raised from taxpayers who earn considerably less than the £90K p.a. which the founder paid herself.
    I think there is an argument that the £3m was money well spent.

    If the government had not given the grant then the story would have been "Evil government forces wonderful childrens' charity to close"

    Because of that grant, the story is very very different.

    I'm not thinking here about the government's reputation (I don't care) but about uncovering potential fraud and clear mismanagement in the third sector
    That is wonderfully cynical!! Do you think Letwin and Hancock were that Machiavellian? Or even capable of being so?

    Letwin's too otherworldly for that.

    But I wonder if Gorgeous George had a word with Matt?
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited August 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    Off Topic: Tube Strike

    Had a pretty easy journey in again today, guess that's the luck of being on the north side of the river.

    IMHO I don't take a stance on the strike. It's a matter for TFL and the unions to sort out. The way the Tories always politicize this and demand Labour condemn the strike is pretty pathetic. As is their continued obsession with tube driver salaries.

    Yes the strike is a bit of a pain in the arse, but that's the point!

    Is it true they start on 50k and get 52 days holiday a year though o_O ?!
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11786668/Driving-a-Tube-is-easy-and-not-worth-50000-a-year.-Lets-sack-the-lot-of-them.html
    A newly-qualified driver starts work, after a few months of training, on a salary of £49,673 a year. That, by the way, is for working a 36 hour week and with 43 days’ annual holiday. Yes, you read that correctly: 43. They also get extra perks like free travel for family and friends.
    I don't engage in wage envy either, but I do indulge in striking on a critical service in pursuit of an undeserved pay rise when already massively overpaid for the work done rage ;)
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Indigo said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Off Topic: Tube Strike

    Had a pretty easy journey in again today, guess that's the luck of being on the north side of the river.

    IMHO I don't take a stance on the strike. It's a matter for TFL and the unions to sort out. The way the Tories always politicize this and demand Labour condemn the strike is pretty pathetic. As is their continued obsession with tube driver salaries.

    Yes the strike is a bit of a pain in the arse, but that's the point!

    Is it true they start on 50k and get 52 days holiday a year though o_O ?!
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11786668/Driving-a-Tube-is-easy-and-not-worth-50000-a-year.-Lets-sack-the-lot-of-them.html
    A newly-qualified driver starts work, after a few months of training, on a salary of £49,673 a year. That, by the way, is for working a 36 hour week and with 43 days’ annual holiday. Yes, you read that correctly: 43. They also get extra perks like free travel for family and friends.
    I don't engage in wage envy either, but I do indulge in striking on a critical service in pursuit of an undeserved pay rise when already massively overpaid for the work done rage ;)

    And jobs haven't been advertised externally since 2008.

    They're only available to existing LUL staff. Cushy.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,215
    edited August 2015
    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Is this BBC story wrong? They are now saying:-

    "Kids Company closed on Wednesday after ministers said they wanted to recover a £3m grant given to the charity."

    Which implies that the government caused it to close; when actually they only wanted recovery after KC had closed. Is this the new spin line?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33800751

    I wouldn't believe a word KC is saying. According to the government the money was given to KC to help it restructure. It was not meant to be used to pay salaries. £800K was immediately paid out for the July payroll. It is not clear when they told the government they were going to close. But in any case the government said that it was seeking ways to recover the money it had given which had not been spent in the ways it was meant to be used.

    Undoubtedly KC will try to blame the government but if the government bears any blame it is in providing grants to an organisation which seems to have been incapable of running itself in a professional manner, whatever other good it may have done, but which had a huge sense of entitlement. There are - doubtless - other organisations which could provide some of the services/help to people in need which KC claimed to be doing but which did not have the advantage of having someone famous appearing on TV and ringing up Ministers personally to get hold of public funds without the proper scrutiny and proper controls on how - let's not forget - our money is spent, money raised from taxpayers who earn considerably less than the £90K p.a. which the founder paid herself.
    I think there is an argument that the £3m was money well spent.

    If the government had not given the grant then the story would have been "Evil government forces wonderful childrens' charity to close"

    Because of that grant, the story is very very different.

    I'm not thinking here about the government's reputation (I don't care) but about uncovering potential fraud and clear mismanagement in the third sector
    That is wonderfully cynical!! Do you think Letwin and Hancock were that Machiavellian? Or even capable of being so?

    Letwin's too otherworldly for that.

    But I wonder if Gorgeous George had a word with Matt?
    Yes - that figures. I wonder whether in the next Budget we might get a bit more tightening up of the whole charitable donation racket, as he tried before.

  • Options

    Mr. StClare, I find it hard to take people seriously when they appear to have fallen into a paint factory a few minutes earlier.

    Mr. Llama, as mentioned previously a MUD I used to play had a Lag Monster that would appear (and could be slain).

    Mr. Rob, not the worst spoof article taken as real here. Not by a long shot.

    The next article down was about Obama opening a Muslim museum! Some people will believe anything that drives their narrative.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125

    MikeK said:

    The rumor is that Obama wants to stand for a third term. If this bastard can bendthe law, he will.

    http://newsexaminer.net/politics/obama-announces-plans-for-a-third-term-presidential-run/

    I hope you realise this is a spoof article??!?
    Don't link MikeK to the Daily Mash - his blood pressure will never stand it!
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Mr. Rob, as the Labour leadership contest indicates ;)
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,215

    Scott_P said:

    @VictoriaLIVE: "I'm being suppressed because I know about sexual abuse claims against senior people" says #KidsCompany founder http://t.co/Og9o8IUtAK

    Oh dear – Batman now in full on loony mode.
    People who are terrified that the finger will be pointed at them often lash out in every direction. And what they say about others, well, sometimes it can tell you quite a lot - inadvertently - about them.

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,296
    Charles said:


    Letwin's too otherworldly for that.

    But I wonder if Gorgeous George had a word with Matt?

    THe man who gave us the word 'omnishambles'? I don't think we should get carried away.

    In any case, if that was the idea it hasn't really worked - the Grauniad is still pushing the 'Tories eat babies' line:
    'Kids Company closure: 6,000 children have lost support
    Charity’s founder blames civil servants, ministers and media for its demise, as government seeks alternative services for at risk youngsters
    ...Outside the charity’s premises in Camberwell, south London, Sharlene Reid, 27, who had been supported by Kids Company as a youngster and volunteered there herself, said the street outside had earlier seen protests by parents and children who relied on the charity’s services.

    She said: “You just drop the bomb like that and expect people to just move on? There’s people’s lives at stake here, as well as the children. What about them?

    “We have to make the government hear us. We were protesting. It was not planned, we all came here because they said it was shutting down, come and collect your things. My friend WhatsApped me this morning and I said, ‘it’s got that bad?’
    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/05/kids-company-closure-6000-children-have-lost-support
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850

    It's also worth noting that in fiction, hurting animals (or protecting them from harm) is a pretty much bulletproof indicator over whether someone's an utter **** or not. Harming humans to a great extent can be made explicable or even acceptable, but the same doesn't apply to animals.

    House of Cards [original programme] didn't get any complaints when FU murdered someone, but when he shot his dog (effectively putting it down as the hound as very old, and not shown on-screen) there were many. And that was [arguably, at least] humane.

    As an aside, I gave Sir Edric's manservant the name 'Dog'. Hopefully that conveys an immediate sense of closeness but also a very definite pecking order.

    Undoubtedly. Heroes and heroines in Grimdark fiction practice mass crucifixion, flaying, live burning, torture, and rape, without undermining their appeal to the general reader. But, hurting an animal would place them beyond redemption.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    MikeK said:

    The rumor is that Obama wants to stand for a third term. If this bastard can bendthe law, he will.

    http://newsexaminer.net/politics/obama-announces-plans-for-a-third-term-presidential-run/

    I hope you realise this is a spoof article??!?
    There was a bill entered in Congress to do exactly that in his first term, but it failed to gather much support

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hjres5ih/html/BILLS-111hjres5ih.htm
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,740
    Plato said:

    A small stat for you. Back when musical comedy movies were in their heyday [30-50s], the number of *action* movies was 6%ish. Now it's 60%ish according to IMDb.

    I used to love video nasties in the 80s, but got so desensitised to them that I began to wonder if it was having an effect on me that wasn't very nice. So I stopped completely. Now torture porn movies make me flinch. I prefer that.

    Financier said:

    I feel that we are living in a much more visually violent age - but with fewer people having personal experience of the results of violence (e.g WW2). So many films today are in-your-face and are quite violent and I presume that the same apples to gaming - but as I am not a gamer, I do not have that experience. However there is a lot of violence shown where the personal results of such actions are not evident.

    Plato said:

    Typically animal cruelty in youngsters is a sign of a potentially serious personality disorder. They're experimenting with inflicting pain, that often translates into doing it to humans in later life.

    ydoethur said:

    Plato said:

    Oh noes! A call to your local paper would also be a good idea - that may shame or expose the bugger.

    Hope she's on the mend very shortly. Years ago, two thugs kicked my ZsaZsa to death in the street. Sadistic bastards.

    Pulpstar said:

    Morning all.

    Some little bastard has shot one of our cats, she has a metal pellet lodged in her ear at any rate. Will inform the RSPCA and police but don't expect anything to come of it.

    For even more appalling animal cruelty, while I was at school (I'd have been about 15) some youths broke into the local infants' school, took Year 1's hamster out of its cage and used it as a football (literally, used it as a football - with goalposts and everything).

    If anyone has anything viler than that...maybe it's better not to spoil everyone's day by sharing it.
    The big shift came with the rise of TV and the end of the studio system.

    In Hollywood's 'Golden Age' the studios targeted women as their main audience - both in terms of viewers and 'who decided what the family watched' - so the 'gangster' or 'western' were small niche markets. With the rise of TV and the decline in audiences the studios floundered until 'Jaws' and the rise of the blockbuster - and the target audience shifted to teenage boys.....' Ironically it was teenage girls who floated Cameron's Titanic - multiple viewings (Di Caprio as the perfect boyfriend who dies before he can disappoint you) kept the box office healthy long after it would normally have tailed off.....
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,296
    edited August 2015
    Sean_F said:

    It's also worth noting that in fiction, hurting animals (or protecting them from harm) is a pretty much bulletproof indicator over whether someone's an utter **** or not. Harming humans to a great extent can be made explicable or even acceptable, but the same doesn't apply to animals.

    House of Cards [original programme] didn't get any complaints when FU murdered someone, but when he shot his dog (effectively putting it down as the hound as very old, and not shown on-screen) there were many. And that was [arguably, at least] humane.

    As an aside, I gave Sir Edric's manservant the name 'Dog'. Hopefully that conveys an immediate sense of closeness but also a very definite pecking order.

    Undoubtedly. Heroes and heroines in Grimdark fiction practice mass crucifixion, flaying, live burning, torture, and rape, without undermining their appeal to the general reader. But, hurting an animal would place them beyond redemption.
    Not just fiction. Remember the hero status bestowed on Sefton after the other 7 horses were killed by the IRA bomb in 1981? Apparently five guardsmen were killed as well, but they seemed to get less attention.

    It was even mentioned as the key part of the story in this very tragic follow-up:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9579686/Father-who-killed-children-was-rider-of-Sefton-survivor-of-Hyde-Park-IRA-bomb-attack.html
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Mr. F, also worth noting there's 'clean' fiction (think that's the right time) which has little to no swearing and seems to be for (Not being derogatory) nice people who don't like the dark way lots of fantasy is now. Occasionally see tweets about it and usually RT (it's a good idea. I like dark stuff, but others don't and it's handy for them to have places that offer less violent/nasty types of fiction).

    Speaking of grimdark, Jo Zebedee's Abendau's Heir is well worth a look. Sci-fi meets grimdark, in a nutshell.

    Disclaimer: I know Jo fairly well (she does beta-reading for Sir Edric*, though we've never actually met), but wouldn't be suggesting this if I didn't genuinely like the book. One scene in particular, about two thirds of the way in, is one of the best twisted/mind****ed things I've ever read [you'll know it when you see it].

    *Sir Edric is not grimdark. Sir Edric is more mirthjape.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,215
    edited August 2015
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:


    Letwin's too otherworldly for that.

    But I wonder if Gorgeous George had a word with Matt?

    THe man who gave us the word 'omnishambles'? I don't think we should get carried away.

    In any case, if that was the idea it hasn't really worked - the Grauniad is still pushing the 'Tories eat babies' line:
    'Kids Company closure: 6,000 children have lost support
    Charity’s founder blames civil servants, ministers and media for its demise, as government seeks alternative services for at risk youngsters
    ...Outside the charity’s premises in Camberwell, south London, Sharlene Reid, 27, who had been supported by Kids Company as a youngster and volunteered there herself, said the street outside had earlier seen protests by parents and children who relied on the charity’s services.

    She said: “You just drop the bomb like that and expect people to just move on? There’s people’s lives at stake here, as well as the children. What about them?

    “We have to make the government hear us. We were protesting. It was not planned, we all came here because they said it was shutting down, come and collect your things. My friend WhatsApped me this morning and I said, ‘it’s got that bad?’
    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/05/kids-company-closure-6000-children-have-lost-support

    The Guardian is not a serious newspaper. It decides its opinions regardless of any facts, frankly. Anything a Tory government does is wrong, in its eyes.

    The one thing I still don't understand: what services exactly did this charity provide? What did it actually do? What went on at its Camberwell premises? And are there really 6000 children in South London reliant on KC?

    The "6000 kids have lost support" line could mean just that. But it's vague enough to encompass: we have a library here available to 6000 kids and if it closes they can't use it even though in fact only 38 kids actually use it or, if it closes, they can go to another library a bit further away.

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,740
    Dair said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dair said:

    notme said:


    Your ugly use of sectarian language is starting to make this site unpleasant to view. Im going to ask you nicely not to. Then i'll just click 'ignore' and hope others will also.

    He also seems to have missed the point about "failed" loyalism. The unionists won last September, it is the seperatists who failed.
    The loyalist goal of preserving and sustaining the United Kingdom and avoiding its dissolution appears to be failing. The likelihood of the United Kingdom ceasing to exist is much higher today than at any point in its history.
    I hate to be pedantic Dair, but Scotland and England do not form the United Kingdom. They form the Kingdom of Great Britain (officially founded 1707, although used in some official documents before that for the sake of shortness - e.g. see the preamble to the King James Bible). This joined with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801 to form 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,' renamed 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' in 1949 when Eire became a republic.

    So unless you take Northern Ireland with you on independence, there would still be a 'United Kingdom' left behind.
    I concede there is some interpretation here, I gave you mine.

    Of course what really matters is what other countries decide. And there would no doubt be more than enough who would decide that it is a new state (thus removing it as a UN Security Council member and likely leading to Security Council reform).

    Recognition is not a Security Council matter, it is a General Assembly matter and as such would only require one objection and a simple majority in the vote.

    I don't fancy England's chances.
    You mean like happened to Russia after the collapse of the USSR?
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's also worth noting that in fiction, hurting animals (or protecting them from harm) is a pretty much bulletproof indicator over whether someone's an utter **** or not. Harming humans to a great extent can be made explicable or even acceptable, but the same doesn't apply to animals.

    House of Cards [original programme] didn't get any complaints when FU murdered someone, but when he shot his dog (effectively putting it down as the hound as very old, and not shown on-screen) there were many. And that was [arguably, at least] humane.

    As an aside, I gave Sir Edric's manservant the name 'Dog'. Hopefully that conveys an immediate sense of closeness but also a very definite pecking order.

    Undoubtedly. Heroes and heroines in Grimdark fiction practice mass crucifixion, flaying, live burning, torture, and rape, without undermining their appeal to the general reader. But, hurting an animal would place them beyond redemption.
    Not just fiction. Remember the hero status bestowed on Sefton after the other 7 horses were killed by the IRA bomb in 1981? Apparently four guardsmen were killed as well, but they seemed to get less attention.

    It was even mentioned as the key part of the story in this very tragic follow-up:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9579686/Father-who-killed-children-was-rider-of-Sefton-survivor-of-Hyde-Park-IRA-bomb-attack.html
    Horses are a British thing.

    In the mid-1990s I shared an office with an American colleague. One morning, as we were starting to work, he expressed his bemusement at the front pages of the broadsheets covering the death of a racehorse. "Ah, but it's Red Rum", I said. "He was very special". He looked blank.

    One of my other colleagues walked in the room at this point and I filled her in on our discussion. "BUT IT'S RED RUM" she half-shouted.

    I don't think he ever really understood.
  • Options
    Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Link - The Times letters to the Editor - Page 24 August 6th 2015 ( Paper version)

    Absolutely Stunning first letter in the Times this morning from His Honour Judge Nigel Seed QC. He was the prosecuting council at the so called trial of the brothel keeper and the allegations against Ted Heath. He states the defendant said if the trial commenced allegations would be made.

    He explains that because of the allegation made at the time absolutely entirely unsubstantiated in any way, two witnesses refused to appear. One even when brought from Holloway refused to leave the court cell. There was no chance of any conviction let alone trial so his honour as the lead prosecutor decided to offer no evidence. and the defendant walked free without a trial. He states "the decision was mine and mine alone"

    So basically we have simply trashed a PM for absolutely no reason, no foundation, no evidence and hearsay. Why did Wiltshire police not just ask him instead of standing outside his house at a press conference and fanning a no existent fire ??

    I don't like Heath by the way but this goes way beyond this.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Mr. Antifrank, relic of the knightly esteem for horses? Symbol of chivalry and status and so forth. In the early US, weren't they rather more utilitarian for lots of people?

    On the other hand, maybe that chap was just less fussed about horses than you and your friend.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,296
    antifrank said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's also worth noting that in fiction, hurting animals (or protecting them from harm) is a pretty much bulletproof indicator over whether someone's an utter **** or not. Harming humans to a great extent can be made explicable or even acceptable, but the same doesn't apply to animals.

    House of Cards [original programme] didn't get any complaints when FU murdered someone, but when he shot his dog (effectively putting it down as the hound as very old, and not shown on-screen) there were many. And that was [arguably, at least] humane.

    As an aside, I gave Sir Edric's manservant the name 'Dog'. Hopefully that conveys an immediate sense of closeness but also a very definite pecking order.

    Undoubtedly. Heroes and heroines in Grimdark fiction practice mass crucifixion, flaying, live burning, torture, and rape, without undermining their appeal to the general reader. But, hurting an animal would place them beyond redemption.
    Not just fiction. Remember the hero status bestowed on Sefton after the other 7 horses were killed by the IRA bomb in 1981? Apparently four guardsmen were killed as well, but they seemed to get less attention.

    It was even mentioned as the key part of the story in this very tragic follow-up:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9579686/Father-who-killed-children-was-rider-of-Sefton-survivor-of-Hyde-Park-IRA-bomb-attack.html
    Horses are a British thing.

    In the mid-1990s I shared an office with an American colleague. One morning, as we were starting to work, he expressed his bemusement at the front pages of the broadsheets covering the death of a racehorse. "Ah, but it's Red Rum", I said. "He was very special". He looked blank.

    One of my other colleagues walked in the room at this point and I filled her in on our discussion. "BUT IT'S RED RUM" she half-shouted.

    I don't think he ever really understood.
    Thank goodness it wasn't the Shergar case...
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850

    Mr. F, also worth noting there's 'clean' fiction (think that's the right time) which has little to no swearing and seems to be for (Not being derogatory) nice people who don't like the dark way lots of fantasy is now. Occasionally see tweets about it and usually RT (it's a good idea. I like dark stuff, but others don't and it's handy for them to have places that offer less violent/nasty types of fiction).

    Speaking of grimdark, Jo Zebedee's Abendau's Heir is well worth a look. Sci-fi meets grimdark, in a nutshell.

    Disclaimer: I know Jo fairly well (she does beta-reading for Sir Edric*, though we've never actually met), but wouldn't be suggesting this if I didn't genuinely like the book. One scene in particular, about two thirds of the way in, is one of the best twisted/mind****ed things I've ever read [you'll know it when you see it].

    *Sir Edric is not grimdark. Sir Edric is more mirthjape.

    I think these things go in cycles. One day, morally grey heroes, antiheroes, villain protagonists will fall out of fashion.

    Have you read anything by KJ Parker? I read the Hammer, a truly horrible piece of fantasy fiction (horrible in terms of what's described. It was very well written).
  • Options
    calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    Sensible move by Ruth D, unless there is a major in sentiment I can't see the Tories or LibDems getting a list seat in Glasgow. Tommy Sheridan is the wild card candidate.

    In terms of Lothian, she'll need to ensure she is at the top of the list to be sure of getting a seat, not sure what the process the Tories use to determine this though.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,215
    antifrank said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's also worth noting that in fiction, hurting animals (or protecting them from harm) is a pretty much bulletproof indicator over whether someone's an utter **** or not. Harming humans to a great extent can be made explicable or even acceptable, but the same doesn't apply to animals.

    House of Cards [original programme] didn't get any complaints when FU murdered someone, but when he shot his dog (effectively putting it down as the hound as very old, and not shown on-screen) there were many. And that was [arguably, at least] humane.

    As an aside, I gave Sir Edric's manservant the name 'Dog'. Hopefully that conveys an immediate sense of closeness but also a very definite pecking order.

    Undoubtedly. Heroes and heroines in Grimdark fiction practice mass crucifixion, flaying, live burning, torture, and rape, without undermining their appeal to the general reader. But, hurting an animal would place them beyond redemption.
    Not just fiction. Remember the hero status bestowed on Sefton after the other 7 horses were killed by the IRA bomb in 1981? Apparently four guardsmen were killed as well, but they seemed to get less attention.

    It was even mentioned as the key part of the story in this very tragic follow-up:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9579686/Father-who-killed-children-was-rider-of-Sefton-survivor-of-Hyde-Park-IRA-bomb-attack.html
    Horses are a British thing.

    In the mid-1990s I shared an office with an American colleague. One morning, as we were starting to work, he expressed his bemusement at the front pages of the broadsheets covering the death of a racehorse. "Ah, but it's Red Rum", I said. "He was very special". He looked blank.

    One of my other colleagues walked in the room at this point and I filled her in on our discussion. "BUT IT'S RED RUM" she half-shouted.

    I don't think he ever really understood.
    If he'd been from Kentucky he'd have understood.

    I have an American boss who's obsessed with racing. On those occasions when he's over, we often spend half our time looking at the Racing Post and discussing horses rather than anything as tiresome as work.

  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I saw that and was WTF? The whole circus started with a false premise.
    Moses_ said:

    Link - The Times letters to the Editor - Page 24 August 6th 2015 ( Paper version)

    Absolutely Stunning first letter in the Times this morning from His Honour Judge Nigel Seed QC. He was the prosecuting council at the so called trial of the brothel keeper and the allegations against Ted Heath. He states the defendant said if the trial commenced allegations would be made.

    He explains that because of the allegation made at the time absolutely entirely unsubstantiated in any way, two witnesses refused to appear. One even when brought from Holloway refused to leave the court cell. There was no chance of any conviction let alone trial so his honour as the lead prosecutor decided to offer no evidence. and the defendant walked free without a trial. He states "the decision was mine and mine alone"

    So basically we have simply trashed a PM for absolutely no reason, no foundation, no evidence and hearsay. Why did Wiltshire police not just ask him instead of standing outside his house at a press conference and fanning a no existent fire ??

    I don't like Heath by the way but this goes way beyond this.

  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850

    Mr. Antifrank, relic of the knightly esteem for horses? Symbol of chivalry and status and so forth. In the early US, weren't they rather more utilitarian for lots of people?

    On the other hand, maybe that chap was just less fussed about horses than you and your friend.

    Vito Corleone certainly didn't esteem horses very highly.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,296
    calum said:

    Sensible move by Ruth D, unless there is a major in sentiment I can't see the Tories or LibDems getting a list seat in Glasgow. Tommy Sheridan is the wild card candidate.

    In terms of Lothian, she'll need to ensure she is at the top of the list to be sure of getting a seat, not sure what the process the Tories use to determine this though.

    Nor do I, but I'm guessing that it's probably not names out of a hat and that being the leader may be of some small assistance to her.

    The list systems used in this country absolutely stink. They are the most blatant form of political patronage in elections - ignoring the Lords, for a minute - since the abolition of the rotten boroughs in 1832.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @afneil: Now the brothel-keeper, who sparked off the latest frenzy on Ted Heath and child abuse, says she's never met him and knows nothing about him

    @afneil: Having failed lamentably with Savile, Cyril Smith, Peter Morrison etc, police now seem desperate to grasp any straw in the wind.
Sign In or Register to comment.