GRIMLY FIENDISH

That's hardly an excuse for the wholesale destruction of communities and working class pride though.... -_- What Thatcher did was not out of supposed "necessity", it was purely ideologically-driven - "put the proles back in their place"... This current lot of elistist bast*rds we have now (bloody millionaires and priveleged w*n**rs the lot of them) are just as bad...

http://www.euronews.net/2011/10/05/us-outr...ndemning-syria/ US outraged as Russia, China veto Syria Condemnation Russia and China have used their veto against a European-drafted UN resolution condemning Syria. The move split the Security Council, revealing a fundamental difference in approach to the Assad regime’s six-month crackdown on anti-government demonstrations. For Russia and China, threatening sanctions is too confrontational. Russian Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin said: “We believe it unacceptable the threat of sanctions against the Syrian authorities. It’s against the principle of a peaceful settlement on the basis of a full Syrian national dialogue.” While Russia also claimed the move could have opened the door to a Libya-style military intervention, an outraged US counter claimed their veto was political. Susan Rice, US ambassador to the UN did not mince her words: “This is not about military intervention, this is not about Libya. That is a cheap ruse by those who’d rather sell arms to the Syrian regime than stand with the Syrian people.” While the protests continue across Syria, an unverified video showed support for the new Syrian opposition council recently formed in neighbouring Turkey. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, how dare these pesky Russkies and Chinese assert themselves and not go along with everything the West dictates... How is this, in essence, any different to the US using its veto against UN resolutions against Israeli oppression of the Palestinians for the past 60 years...? And to be quite honest, if anyone thinks that the situation in Syria is as simplistic as saying "Assad bad/Rebels good", then they fail utterly to understand what's actually going on in Syria... For a start there's very real evidence that a lot of these rebels are outside agitators, possibly being armed by Qatar, and there's evidence emerging that the rebels are actually committing atrocities of their own, many of the rebels are also Islamists... So, perhaps Russia and China are correct to advise caution before we end up with another Libya or Iraq.... http://www.worldnewstribune.com/2012/01/29...d-to-islamists/

I dont agree, I think it's a very clever use of the phrase (and, actually, about the only correct context in which the term has ever been used, as it originally meant 'in line with prevailing political thought or policy'..), it is rather the likes of the Daily Mail that incorrectly use the phrase when they attack perfectly sound measures to counteract still prevailing racism, sexism and homophobia... The Mail is want to throw around the phrase all the time, so I think it's kind of amusing that they're getting it thrown back in their face...

Actually, it's more like anyone overseas would be forgiven for thinking that we were still a Feudal Monarchy for all the fawning and brown-nosing BBC presenters do around the Royals.... -_-

You rather assume that everyone who's a Republican is left-wing.... And franky, I think that we should all be a bit more critical of the role of the BBC in spreading totally uncritical and one-sided royalist propaganda that's been basically drummed into us since we were kids.. I can still remember being a kid and all the hoo-hah surrounding the Silver Jubilee, the wedding of Charles and Di, Andy and Fergie, etc.. The BBC has basically functioned as the PR reps for the Royal Family since its inception and we've been conditioned and brainwashed into accepting the Monarchy.. Some of us, however, see through this conditioning and reject it...

Indeed... Aint gonna happen is it.. Not with the Biased Broadcasting Corporation who just seem to endlessly grovel and brown-nose every fecking time they see a Royal... Pathetic really.... Impartial broadcaster...? My arse.... -_-

Here we go, the "wit and wisdom" of Phil The Greek.... You look like you’re ready for bed!’ To the President of Nigeria, who was wearing traditional robes. ‘Do you still throw spears at each other?’ To Aboriginal leader William Brin during a visit to the Aboriginal Cultural Park in Queensland, 2002. ‘We don’t come here for our health. We can think of other ways of enjoying ourselves.’ On a trip to Canada in 1976. ‘You managed not to get eaten then?’ To a British student who was trekking in Papua New Guinea, during an official visit in 1998. ‘Aren’t most of you descended from pirates?’ To residents of the Cayman Islands in 1994. You can’t have been here that long — you haven’t got a pot belly.’ To a British tourist he met during a tour of Hungarian capital Budapest in 1993. ‘How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?’ To a Scottish driving instructor in 1995. ‘If you stay here much longer, you will go home with slitty eyes.’ To a British student on a visit to China in 1986. ‘So who’s on drugs here? He looks as if he’s on drugs.’ To a 14-year-old member of a Bangladeshi youth club in 2002. Oh, what an absolute card....

Labour MP forced to apologise after aide insults the Queen for 'scrounging benefits for 60 years' on the day she celebrates accession http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...-scrounger.html An aide to a shadow minister was yesterday forced to apologise for a ‘shameful slur’ which likened the Queen to a benefit scrounger. Matt Zarb-Cousin, who works for shadow justice minister Andy Slaughter, provoked outrage by suggesting the Queen had been ‘scrounging benefits off the taxpayer’ for 60 years. As the Queen marked 60 years on the throne, Mr Zarb-Cousin wrote on Twitter: ‘Congratulations this morning to Queen Elizabeth II. 60 years of scrounging benefits off the taxpayer without being caught. But Mr Zarb-Cousin, who is also on the left-wing Fabian society’s youth committee, was later forced to apologise after he was given a dressing down by his bosses. Labour sources said that the aide had been given a ‘carpeting’ after Mr Slaughter became aware of his controversial remarks. Embarrassment: Shadow Justice minister Andy Slaughter described his aide's comments as 'totally unacceptable' Embarrassment: Shadow Justice minister Andy Slaughter described his aide's comments as 'totally unacceptable' Describing his behaviour as ‘totally unacceptable’, the Shadow Justice minister said: ‘The Queen has given great service to our country and these comments are totally unacceptable. I’ve spoken to the member of staff in the strongest terms and he has apologised for his comments.’ Admitting he had also been subjected to a ‘right barrage’ on Twitter, Mr Zarb-Cousin wrote: ‘To clarify earlier comments about the Queen: it was a joke & wasn’t meant to be taken literally. I didn’t mean to cause offence & apologise.’ A Labour spokesman confirmed that Mr Zarb-Cousin had been ‘disciplined’, but said he would not be sacked over the comments. He said: ‘He has been disciplined and has apologised. We are going to draw a line under it now.’ Tory MP Charlie Elphicke said people all over the country would have been ‘disgusted’ by the comments, adding: ‘This is a shameful slur against the Queen.’ But Graham Smith, from the anti-monarchy campaign group Republic, said: ‘This is political correctness of the very worst kind - it is nothing less than censorship. More than a quarter of the population think we’d be better off without the royal family. Are they not allowed to express their views?” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, right, whatever, a "shameful slur against the Queen", and, err, shall we f***ing count the "shameful slurs" and incredibly "off colour" and borderline racist comments her bloody husband the Duke of Edinburgh has made over the years, for which he had NEVER once personally apologised... Oh, but that's okay, cos the Daily Fail LOVES Phil cos he's so "politically incorrect" and he's "not afraid to speak his mind"... Well f*** YOU, THAT WORKS BOTH WAYS DAILY MAIL JOURNOS..... <_< <_< I'm personally sick to the back teeth of all this grovelling and bowing that elected officials and those in the media are still expected to do to this vomitous bunch of dysfunctional, inbred c'unts that we have forced upon us as our heads of State... Yes, I am a REPUBLICAN, and PROUD of it..... It's time to rid ourselves of this parasitical Royal vermin.....

Spot on.... But I share your doubts that this will likely never happen.... :(

Again, the rail bosses... It would be a bit of a nerve if they did take a bonus, the rail companies hardly provide a great service or value for money... But, in saying this, they're still not as shameless as the bankers.... Rail bosses dont tend to defraud their customers... -_-

Good article in The Independent over the weekend, which kind of pinpoints why we should never take our eye off the ball as far the banks go.. Don’t be distracted by Goodwin’s dishonour http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/02/02/...wins-dishonour/ Political distraction. That’s my basic view on the dishonouring of Fred Goodwin. The purpose is to divert public attention from the fact that ministers have failed to do anything about the scandal of the wholly undeserved pay of our too-big-to-fail bankers. The Government’s humiliation over the Stephen Hester bonus affair was total. Despite big talk earlier this very month about encouraging shareholders to be more activist over executive pay, when it came to reining in the bonus of the chief executive of a bank that was majority-owned by the taxpayer, our ministers simply sat on their hands. It was only when Labour said they would force a House of Commons vote on the subject, that the Royal Bank of Scotland boss himself backed down. Everyone knows that the Government had been resigned to letting Mr Hester pocket his remuneration package. And having demonstrated their impotence over Mr Hester, the chances of the Government now curbing the rewards of the equally overpaid traders and executives of the likes of Barclays and HSBC are negligible. The pay of bankers at large financial institutions – and not only those majority-owned by the taxpayer – represents a market failure of gargantuan proportions. When profits at these institutions were up in the boom, the bankers paid themselves a king’s ransom. When profits collapsed in the bust, they continued to enjoy lavish bonuses. And now that the share prices of their institutions are bouncing along the bottom, these same bankers are still in line for unfeasibly large rewards. There is no observable link between pay and performance here, and certainly none between employee remuneration and shareholder value. The only way to make money out of a big bank these days is to work for one. To end this racket, the Government would have to be brave. It would need to ignore all the hysterical threats about an economically crippling exodus of “talent”, and dare to interfere in the remuneration of the executives and employees of Britain’s giant banks. There are perfectly sensible ways of doing this which will not ruin the City of London. Andy Haldane, of the Bank of England, has suggested that remuneration packages should be linked to a bank’s “return on assets”, rather than “return on equity” (something that allows bankers to make large profits by holding a dangerously small amount of capital). But there is, sadly, no sign of the Government exploring any of this serious agenda. Instead, it has made a bid for short-term popularity by stripping an already discredited banker of his worthless gong. The public should not be fooled. We will know that the Government is serious about reforming the culture of reckless and overpaid finance when it stands up to a banker who still has some power. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Goodwin should've lost his gong ages ago (New Labour should've really done something about it while still in power to be honest), but it almost certainly does seem like it's a distraction from what the main issues are - people like Sinha who are still in the industry and still committing massive frauds, and the continuing, never ending saga of the "too big to fail banks".. The banking industry and certain parts of the media want us all just to forget and to stop "banker bashing". What I say is, we should never stop being vigilant and the pressure should be maintained until this mess is sorted out once and for all...

That's precisely what it is. And just how the feck they can get away with doing that anyway. The Police should've had them for obstruction...

Outrage as city fatcat that stole £1.4million escapes prosecution http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2...15875-23731769/ Vast payouts are clearly not the only bonus you get being a fatcat banker – you also apparently get away with fraud scot-free. Advertisement >> A City firm was yesterday accused of protecting a financier who stole £1.4million so he would not go to jail. Ravi Sinha, 47, was fined nearly £3million by the City watchdog for fraud but escaped criminal prosecution after his company JC Flowers allegedly refused to help police nail him. In a shocking contrast exposing the double standards protecting the rich, a shop worker who allowed friends to steal £10,000 worth of goods – a fraction of what the banker took – was last year jailed for nine months. City of London Police and JC Flowers yesterday blamed each other for the scandal – both accusing the other of having no appetite for prosecution. The extraordinary decision not to put Sinha before the courts was last night branded a disgrace. Sara George, a partner at law firm Stephenson Harwood, said: “The public will have difficulty understanding why a checkout girl who steals £10,000 from her employer should go to prison but a phenomenally wealthy individual who misappropriates millions should not.” Labour MP Teresa Pearce added: “This is another example of the banks thinking they operate in what they believe is their own moral code which is different from the one everybody else has to live by. “It’s inexcusable, it’s a good job he didn’t steal this money during a riot; he’d be in prison for the rest of his life.” Sinha earned £886,000 a year, with potential bonuses of £1.3million, before he was busted for taking £1.4million by claiming bogus advisory fees after losing a fortune on private investments. He ran the European arm of US private equity firm JC Flowers from 2005 to 2009, when he was sacked after the firm discovered his scam. JC Flowers called in the Financial Services Authority to investigate. And the regulator banned Sinha from working in the industry for life, fining him one of the biggest penalties in its history for “very serious” dishonesty. But when it passed its file to police a criminal prosecution did not follow. Under the Fraud Act, if convicted in court, Sinha would face between four and seven years’ prison. A police source said officers were very keen to prosecute him but dropped the case after his bosses refused to co-operate fully – making the chance of a prosecution difficult. A police spokesman said: “Having considered the matter, it was decided it would not be appropriate to take it any further.” But a police source said: “We spoke to JC Flowers and there was no appetite from them to support an investigation. “In a case of this nature without the full support of the victim company a successful conviction is highly unlikely. “So with that in mind, to put a lot of resources into it and spend a lot of taxpayers’ money on a case where we had little chance of a result, we decided not to take it further. “Without their support it would be very difficult in court.” However, a source close to JC Flowers dismissed the police claims and said the firm would co-operate if a prosecution is launched. He said: “If the police prosecute the company would happily assist, that’s always been the case.” Eddie Weatherill, chairman of the Independent Banking Advisory group, was amazed Sinha was not being put before the courts. He said: “For some reason we often find there’s a real lack of determination to criminally prosecute bankers who have done wrong.” David Fleming, Unite national officer, added: “It’s an utter disgrace for this wealthy banker to be walking away scot-free and avoiding any criminal investigation. “Frontline workers in bank branches are constantly penalised and challenged on their conduct under the harshest of conditions. “Why is it one rule for the rich bankers and another for ordinary staff?” Born in Patna, India, but raised in Walsall, West Midlands, Sinha studied philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford and did an MBA at Columbia University before embarking on a glittering career in the City. The father-of-five, who lists his hobbies as the opera and reading, worked at Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley before joining JC Flowers in 2003. During the financial crisis, Sinha led the JC Flowers team which tried to buy Northern Rock but the firm’s funds were themselves caught up in the meltdown and the bid was abandoned. Sinha ran into financial problems when the credit crunch hit, the FSA said. It added: “Sinha’s personal investments were also under pressure. “As their value declined and the income he received from them dried up, he had difficulty servicing his loans and meeting his financial obligations.” He had borrowed £7.47million to fund personal investments but when he struggled to meet the repayments he launched his scam. He was busted by JC Flowers in October 2009. Tracey McDermott, of the FSA, said: “Sinha exploited his position of trust as CEO to fraudulently obtain significant sums for his personal benefit. “He engaged in a dishonest, deliberate and sustained course of misconduct which lasted for several months. Such behaviour has no place in the financial services industry.” Sinha was bankrupted after being fired by JC Flowers, but was discharged last year. His financial penalty consists of paying back the stolen money and a fine. Sinha told the FSA the fine would cause him serious financial hardship and push him back into bankruptcy. But he still lives in a lavish townhouse in one of London’s most expensive streets in Chelsea. Sinha said: “I very much regret misleading JC Flowers over this issue and continue to offer my sincerest apologies to all those concerned. “It was a foolish action which I completely regret. I will bear the consequences of my actions long into the future.” JC Flowers stressed it had found the problem itself and the FSA had not criticised its systems or controls. A spokesman said: “Neither the company that paid the invoices nor investors in the funds advised by JC Flowers have suffered any loss as a result of Mr Sinha’s actions,” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This really does take the biscuit..... One really does have to wonder just who the hell the law is actually working for in this country. When you look at the way in which the rioters were dealt with, and people being sent to prison even for setting up Facebook pages and not even taking part in any of the rioting; and then you look at this being done in the open with a nod and wink, you just have to conclude the whole system is fukked and we need a new one.. Why should anyone have "respect" for the law when something like this happens..? You catch a thieving scumbag red-handed, and nothing happens. I dont care that he was fined or that he might not ever work again, that's irrelevant.. Would a bank-robber who stole £50 grand get away with a fine or paying the money back..? Of course not. As someone once said though, "the best way to rob a bank is to own one".... But it's really just another in a long line of instances of fraud and corruption that The City and Wall St bankers seem to get away with on a regular basis. Look to murky depths of what's been going on at MF Global.. Where over a billion dollars of investors money in segregated accounts has somehow "gone missing"..... http://www.forbes.com/sites/francinemckenn...rom-coming-out/ http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2012-0...d-a-crisis-plan http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/mf_g...iURrTtKEQvrzjdI And politicians have the nerve to talk about "benefit cheats..". I mean, really.....

Funny you should mention that. Someone on one of these panel discussion shows brought that very point up.... I thought to myself "hey, yeah, good idea..."

I can honestly see a break-up of the United Kingdom happening under this "coalition" Govt if "call me" Dave isnt careful. We're not even two years into this Govt and already people in Scotland and Wales are increasingly getting fed up, now people in the North of England are registering discontent. The London-centric Parliament in Westminster is marginalising more and more of the regions. I wonder if Cornwall might even start to think about an assembly...

Benefit cuts are fuelling abuse of disabled people, say charities http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb...P=FBCNETTXT9038 The government's focus on alleged fraud and overclaiming to justify cuts in disability benefits has caused an increase in resentment and abuse directed at disabled people, as they find themselves being labelled as scroungers, six of the country's biggest disability groups have warned. Some of the charities say they are now regularly contacted by people who have been taunted on the street about supposedly faking their disability and are concerned the climate of suspicion could spill over into violence or other hate crimes. While the charities speaking out – Scope, Mencap, Leonard Cheshire Disability, the National Autistic Society, Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB), and Disability Alliance – say inflammatory media coverage has played a role in this, they primarily blame ministers and civil servants for repeatedly highlighting the supposed mass abuse of the disability benefits system, much of which is unfounded. At the same time, they say, the focus on "fairness for taxpayers" has fostered the notion that disabled people are a separate group who don't contribute. Scope's regular polling of people with disabilities shows that in September two-thirds said they had experienced recent hostility or taunts, up from 41% four months before. In the last poll almost half said attitudes towards them had deteriorated in the past year. Tom Madders, head of campaigns at the National Autistic Society, said: "The Department for Work and Pensions is certainly guilty of helping to drive this media narrative around benefits, portraying those who receive benefits as workshy scroungers or abusing a system that's really easy to cheat." He added that ministers such as the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, were being "deeply irresponsible" in conflating Disability Living Allowance (DLA), which helps disabled people hold down jobs, and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), a payment for those unable to work. This "scrounger rhetoric" was already having an impact on people's lives, Madders said, citing a woman who rang the charity to say a neighbour who formerly gave lifts to her autistic child had stopped doing so following press articles about disabled people receiving free cars under a government scheme. Some disabled people say the climate is so hostile they avoid going out, or avoid using facilities such as designated parking bays if they "don't look disabled". The government has committed to making significant cuts to disability benefits, including a 20% reduction in the DLA bill by 2015/16. Much of its public focus has been on alleged fraudulent claims or cutting benefits to those whose conditions have improved. Charities point to a series of ministerial statements arguing that the "vast majority" of new ESA claimants are able to work, while the disabilities minister, Maria Miller, said last month that £600m of DLA was overpaid each year, not mentioning that a greater sum is saved by others not receiving what they are due. This is "playing directly into a media narrative about the need to weed out scroungers," said Richard Hawkes, chief executive of Scope. "Our polling shows that this narrative has coincided with attitudes towards disabled people getting worse. "Disabled people tell us that increasingly people don't believe that they are disabled and suddenly feel empowered to question their entitlement to support." David Congdon, head of policy at Mencap, said the charity feared where this could lead. "We are concerned that this narrative of benefit scroungers or fakers connected to the welfare reform bill does risk stigmatising all people with a disability," he said. "The worry would be that this could lead to an increase in resentment against disabled people, and even an increase in hate crimes." There was "an incredibly strong focus on benefit fraud within the DWP", said Guy Parckar, policy manager for Leonard Cheshire. "It is mentioned at all possible opportunities. Of course, whenever there is fraud you want that to be tackled, but there should be some serious thought given to the long-term impact that this has. There is the impact of potential hate crime, and issues around that." Neil Coyle, head of policy for Disability Alliance, said his organisation was being told of increasing levels of verbal abuse, and worried this could lead to attacks. "There's a lot of concern that the level of abuse and harassment goes unrecorded because it's seen almost as a norm. It seems to be growing as a result of a mis-perception of much more widespread abuse of benefits than actually exists. That's being fed by the DWP in their attempts to justify massive reductions in welfare expenditure." A DWP spokeswoman said the department was committed to supporting disabled people but needed to "do more to change negative attitudes", and had begun a cross-government consultation on tackling discrimination. She said: "Our welfare reforms are designed to restore integrity into the benefits system and to ensure that everyone who needs help and support receives it." David Gillon from Chatham in Kent, said: "I think we've lost all the progress we made in the last 30 years in terms of acceptance." Gillon, whose chronic back condition forced him to give up a job with British Aerospace, recounts walking on crutches past a pub in the middle of the day and receiving shouts of: "We're going to report you to the DWP." He said: "When there's a bad article in the press, the next day you think, 'Do I really need to go out of the house?' We're being forced back into the attic, locked away from society." Fazilet Hadi, head of inclusion for the RNIB, said she also felt the tone was set by ministers: "I think they should be more careful. At the moment it feels like the government is not on the side of disabled people. Most people don't have that much exposure to disabled people. They don't see us in the lifestyle pages, they don't see us in the fashion pages. The only reference they see is in these stories. And that's why the language is so important." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ..And this is where dangerous and rather ill-informed rhetoric such as "undeserving poor" and "scroungers" has eventually led us to.. So, while we've had all these Govt attacks on benefits claimants and the disabled and the likes of ATOS with their degrading treatment which doesn't even take into account what the claimants doctors or medical experts have to say, let's contrast this with what's being said about fraud with regards to Corporations, banks and the likes of "poor Fred Goodwin"... Oh, we mustn't bash the bankers, we're told, they might up stick and move away to China or something... Even though it was them that got us into this mess to begin with.. Fukk em, let them move to China, they'll get a nasty shock when they find out that White-collar crims and financial Fraudsters get sentenced to death there, unlike here, where they get Knighthoods and OBEs and big bonuses.... -_- And, Corporations..? Oh, no, we cant criticise them, they provide jobs for people (well, some jobs)... Yeah, okay, and basically put all their profits offshore to avoid paying taxes, thereby taking the wealth created here OUT of the UK economy.... That's gratitude, innit...? We go to these places, like Tesco, like Apple, buy their shit, and they fukk us by avoiding Corporation tax by Off-shoring... Oh, and then they fukk us even more by taking manufacturing jobs away from us and to places like China because they dont have to pay their wage slaves a decent crust there and they can even make them work in incredibly shoddy conditions like something out of the 19th Century.... Yeah, okay, whatever.... Yeah, it's all the fault of these bloody scroungers, innit....

Spot on... The "Square Mile" and the South seems to be all the Tories have ever cared about...

Well, there wasn't a Tory Govt in 2004... I imagine doing the referendum now would yield very different results...

Britain’s first benefit refugees Single mothers reliant on the state are among the first and biggest victims of the Government’s welfare reforms. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...expires_in=6571 Sandra Munoz finds it hard to sleep at night. Shortly before Christmas she received a letter from her landlord notifying her that the rent on her two-bedroom flat in Battersea, south London, had gone up. As a single mother of one she receives financial help to put a roof over her head. But rather than languishing on the already backlogged waiting list for social housing, she uses cash payments, known as local housing allowance, to put towards renting in the private sector. But as part of their series of welfare reform packages, the Government has capped the local housing allowance meaning people such as Ms Munoz and her five-year-old son Eduardo are now being evicted. "If we have to move out of the area it will be like returning to zero for me," she says. "We'll have to start all over again. I'm a single mother and I have a strong support network in Battersea that makes it easier for me to find work. If I move somewhere else I won't have any of that to fall back on." Much of the debate in recent weeks surrounding welfare reform has centred on plans to cap the overall amount of benefit that a family can receive at £26,000. The bill has floated back and forth between the two houses in Parliament with the Government promising to push it through with or without the support of the Lords. If the total benefit cap comes in, Britain could experience the largest peacetime movement of families since the creation of the post-Second World War new towns. Proponents of reform say the moves are necessary to save money and encourage families to pursue work, rather than rely on benefits. Critics say many of the benefits out there help keep parents in work and will push Britain towards a segregated future where the outer rings of expensive cities are populated with the poor while the centre of town is colonised by the rich. But in many ways that exodus is already under way. The Chartered Institute of Housing estimates that as many as 800,000 homes have already become unaffordable for low-income families now that the local housing allowance has been capped. The new caps came in on 1 January and will, depending on when each person's local housing allowance is assessed, impact households over the next 12 months. Across the country, families are receiving letters saying they must move into cheaper accommodation, wherever that may be. The new limits currently restrict the maximum amount of housing benefit payable weekly to £250 for a one-bedroom property, £290 for two bedrooms, £340 for three bedrooms and £400 for four bedrooms. The maximum anyone can receive in a year is £20,000. In many parts of the country the capped allowance is more than enough to find half-decent accommodation. But in London, parts of the South-east, the Home Counties and beyond – where property prices are often extremely high – the caps are making vast swathes of our cities unaffordable to poor families. Maida Vale, an affluent area of central London is a good example. Like many inner-city London suburbs, social housing is mixed up with Victorian and Edwardian mansion blocks that sell for millions. Andre Rostant, a hypnotherapist and father of eight, is being evicted because of the housing allowance cap and will likely have to move his entire family outside the city to somewhere in Kent or Essex. "The benefits systems needs reforming and streamlining, I don't think anyone disagrees with that," he says. "But I don't believe it has to be done in such a way where there are such huge displacements across the country." Much has been made of how the benefit caps will primarily target large families, but he believes the Government has used families such as himself to mask a wider agenda. "This whole policy has been pushed through on the back of propaganda that it's only large families and immigrants that will be affected," he adds. "My family is perfect tabloid fodder but there are single people, small families, people who work up and down the country that will be forced out of their homes." The Department of Work and Pensions own estimates admit that 31 per cent of families affected by the various proposed welfare reforms will be families with two children or less. Karen Buck, Labour MP for Regent's Park and Kensington North, pictured, is also annoyed that much of the debate has been portrayed as only targeting the perennially unemployed. "The idea that welfare reform is about chasing the workshy out of Knightsbridge is a monstrous caricature," she says. "Between a quarter and a third of recipients of local housing allowances are employed." Ms Munoz is a good example. She has lived in Battersea for seven years and her son Eduardo goes to school locally. A trained filmmaker, she freelances when she can while looking after her son. The flat is a former council-owned property, one of millions of former social housing units that were purchased by landlords who now rent them back to tenants reliant on local housing allowances. Although Battersea is an up-and-coming-area of London just across the Thames from Chelsea, there are plenty of have-nots living on less than salubrious estates. The area's popularity, combined with a shortage of housing, has allowed landlords to increase their rents annually. In 2008 Ms Munoz's rent was £250 a month. It is now £350, beyond the maximum £290 a month she now receives through the local housing allowance. Faced with eviction from a private rented property, she had no choice but to join the social housing waiting list. But there are no guarantees she will be rehoused in Battersea, the closest thing she has to a support network. "I agree with the idea of a benefits cap, welfare shouldn't be unlimited," she says. "But caps need to be brought in that reflect the reality of circumstances and where you live. If you live in the countryside, £290 a week for a two-bedroom place might work well – in London that gets you very little. When I hear politicians say people won't actually suffer from these changes it makes me realise that they have no clue whatsoever about how people really live." That argument appears to have won favour with the Labour party, which after initially supporting a nationwide benefits cap of £26,000 has moved towards supporting one set locally. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As Shakespeare once said "O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain! My tables, meet it is I set it down, That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain;" Every time you see a Govt Minister, they just smile, dont they... And they smile even though they know that they're lying through their teeth.. And the facts of the matter are, they're lying about the Housing benefits caps, and here's the proof... They used one or two ridiculously extreme examples to try and make out like it's somehow the norm... Well, Battersea is not exactly a "posh" area, neither is Hackney, nor is Croydon. But rents in the private sector are absolutely ridiculous.. Private Landlords are basically coining it in and have been allowed to do so by a combination of the Tories and Labour while they've been in power. The Tories by selling off some of the best council properties in the land cheap as chips and not even allowing local councils to use the funds from sales to build replacement social housing, and Labour, by continuing the policy of not allowing councils to use the money, or really by building anything like enough social housing themselves, and also by not having the guts to impose a rent cap on how much these private scum-lords could charge people, oh, and of course the unsustainable housing bubble which saw property values inflate artificially. This has led to serious problems in Social Housing stock, with people languishing on waiting lists for years and years.. The Tories now come along with a "bull in a Chinashop approach" that will make cities like London basically only affordable for the super-rich, while everyone else is forced out.. Social Cleansing in essence.... Even bumbling Mayor Boris Johnson sees this as a serious problem and has said so.. I let no one off the hook here. All three parties have contributed to this unholy f***ing mess, the Tories and New Labour most of all, but the Lie Dems are scum as well for just going along with everything that Ian Duncan Donut says or does... Bottom line, we cant trust any of the main three parties on this issue, they all speak with a forked tongue....

North-south divide grows as jobs are lost at four times the rate elsewhere http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/fe...P=FBCNETTXT9038 Jobs in the north of England are being lost at four times the rate in the rest of the country, deepening the economic divide and prompting new calls for devolution of powers to an elected assembly for the north. About 98,000 jobs were lost in the north-east, north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside in 2011, according to an analysis by the centre-left thinktank IPPR North. This was an 18% increase on the previous year, dwarfing the 4.5% rise in the rest of England. In the most extreme case, in the north-east, 12% of the working-age population are unemployed compared with 6.5% in the south-west, 6.4% in the south-east and 9.9% in London. The figures will bolster the growing movement calling for a "voice for the north" through an elected assembly. In the Observer, a letter from six Labour MPs from across the north, supported by parliamentary colleagues from other regions, says that the debate over Scotland's potential move to further devolution or independence should not "ignore the growing political marginalisation of the north of England, with a cabinet dominated by southern politicians who seem to know little, and care even less, of the economic and social problems of the north". It demands that the north is given a "stronger say in its own destiny" and calls for a debate on the benefits of directly elected regional government. The MPs, who are patrons of a new thinktank, the Hannah Mitchell Foundation, established to campaign for an elected assembly, said: "We need to move on from the pessimism that descended on politicians after the defeat of the referendum for north-east devolution in 2004, and recognise that the UK has changed." Barry Sheerman, the MP for Huddersfield and a signatory of the letter, said the movement aspired to create an assembly, but in the short term he believed that each region should have a commission made up of business and academic leaders to protect its particular interests. "I am very passionate about this. The north has a much larger population than Scotland, and look at London, which has an assembly and a powerful mayor to protect its interests. With the scrapping of the regional development agencies, we don't have a body to deal with strategic problems and issues for the north. "As I keep telling the prime minister and chancellor, the northern regions have been in recession for years." Linda Riordan, MP for Halifax, said: "The disparities between the north and south are widening and demand action and it is extraordinary that the government is getting rid of the regional development agencies that provided us with some support." The government is funding 164 projects through a regional growth fund, "creating and safeguarding" more than 330,000 jobs, supported by more than £6bn of private investment. In November, the chancellor announced an additional £1bn for the fund, bringing the total to £2.4bn. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm inclined to agree that the North of England should have its own assembly.. I mean, why not..? We have a Govt in Westminster who clearly dont care about the damage that their policies and "cuts programme" is going to cause to the people of the North, in fact, I think that we're going back to the bad old days of Thatcherism and the North/South divide. Scotland has its own Parliament now, so the canny Scots can be shielded from a lot of the excesses of Tory Westminster, but the people of the North have no such assembly to fall back on. How can they protect their services? Considering that the North of England has many more people than Scotland or Wales, it would seem a good idea for them to have their own voice in the UK... After all, Cameron is not able to dictate to Holyrood on a whole range of issues, surely Yorkshire, Tyneside, Teeside and Humberside should have their own protection...

Fine, that's their problem, still dont see why they need to get a public broadcaster involved in their dysfunction, or, conversely for the broadcaster to encourage said dysfunction and paranoia... If their so controlling, well, it's no wonder their kids are acting out...

I think he did Chris, he was being sarky.... :lol:

Precisely.. There's just something intrinsically wrong about the whole concept. We ARE presumably talking about people who are over the legal age of consent here, so, what gives their parents via a public broadcaster the right to spy on their privacy..? This is just pathetic "curtain twitcher" telly, shame on the BBC for doing it.... -_- No, I haven't watched, it, and no, I dont care to either, it could be the greatest programme in the world, that's irrelevant, it's the whole premise of parents spying on their legal consent kids' holidays that I have a problem with... Jesus, if you cant do stupid shit when you're young, when the hell are you supposed to do it...? I seriously feel bad for the "Reality TV" generation, thank fukk I never had this shit when I was that age. I'd've seriously gone off on one and stuck their cameras up their fukkin arseholes.... -_-

Oh, well, I suppose someone has to like them..... :P And that album cover is just well dodgy... They'll never get it past the Wal-Mart prudes..... :lol: :lol:

Indeed... The cops and the courts dont really like people lying to their faces... Funny that.... :lol: