Jump to content

Bob Arctor

Banned
  • Content Count

    2,263
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bob Arctor

  1. I'm not sure it's hurting him. The more frothing the Tories get about it and the more baseless it is shown to be, the worse the Tories look
  2. They will need a court order and so will need to have served valid notice. Some starter tenancies with housing associations are ASTs but they still need to use ground 8 during the fixed term. Edit: thinking about it, this may relate to the now common practice of HAs writing into the tenancy agreement that the tenant must be 2 weeks in front with the rent. They might argue that if a tenant were 6 weeks in arrears then they are effectively 8 weeks in arrears but they'd still have to use ground 8 and I'd be sceptical it would succeed on that basis.
  3. What a strange response. To give an example, many people will generate greater value for their employer and the wider economy than they would have had without a degree education, so the employer and the rest of us derive some benefit from that, as well as the graduate employee themselves. And people with medical degrees go on to do things that directly benefit us and the economy. Or so I would think. It would be good to know what wider benefit graduates provide to the rest of us, don't you think? That would help us to decide to what extent we should pay towards the cost of their education.
  4. Yes I know that, but that's not the point I was disputing (although non-white graduates earn less than white graduates with the same degree, so maybe we could have some income tax bands based on ethnic origin, that would stir things up!). No, my question was "do we know that graduates themselves are the primary beneficiaries of their education?" I asked this because the logic of a graduate tax or higher income tax bands for graduates seems to be that they are the primary beneficiary of their education. But is that just an assumption? If the rest of us significantly benefit from the outputs of their education then shouldn't we share the cost of it with them?
  5. It's not very noble, it's based on simple compassion and understanding, something you would think people working in social care might have. I grew up when people had thicker skins and didn't have this mania for judging people. I am also entitled to point out that councils have a statutory duty that can't be avoided, whether anyone else wants to hear that or not.
  6. Hi, Some idiot (me) painted a coat of matt emulsion on to bare plaster coving without priming it first (I know - I misunderstood something ) My question is - what should I do next? I am obviously worried about it starting to crack and flake at some point, although after doing some online research some people say they have got away with it. But I'm completely undecided as to whether to try to now seal the coat I've put on with something to try to avoid it flaking, or whether to just leave it and wait to see if it starts to crack, then remove the flaking paint, prime then re-paint. Any advice would be much appreciated
  7. Regardless of the circumstances, the local authority had a statutory duty to provide care. There is no get-out clause, the duty remains whatever the circumstances. I've worked with people with a wide range of needs all my life and had to deal with all sorts of stuff. There was one guy whose necrotic leg ulcer needed dressing everyday, and which was done to an accompanying volley of vile verbal abuse. I didn't refuse to do it, I just had to think about what had brought him to that point in his life and be grateful those things hadn't happened to me, whilst reminding him that he shouldn't swear at people and that I was helping him. There is no excuse for leaving people to die.
  8. Even this assumes that the primary beneficiary of a university degree is the graduate themselves. Do we know that for a fact, or is it an assumption?
  9. No, around two weeks. I have known them backdate a JSA claim as far as three months, providing you can convince them you have been actively looking for work, but giving the reason for not claiming as "it's not for me" is unlikely to help. I think you should claim - JSA is a form of insurance, no-one is too proud to claim on their car or life insurance.
  10. Surely it should be "All KFC are <removed>"
  11. That makes sense to me. I wonder if everyone who supports the idea of a sliding scale of loan repayments based on income level realises how similar that is to income tax. It's a short hop from there to just funding it through income tax. Do we really think it's only graduates who benefit from their education? I think we all benefit from people in our society being better educated, so why not just fund it through income tax and remove the incentive to pile 'em high and churn them through (I'm looking at you, Hallam) and incentivise the provision of high quality learning instead.
  12. Quite weird how the party of the free market created a market and are now expressing surprise that it behaves like other markets, i.e. they charge as much as they can and the people at the top pay themselves more than they are worth.
  13. Yes, but not to waste on you I'm afraid. It's like giving a donkey strawberries.
  14. Such a weak responose from you. You really are doing a great job of showing who is the biggest idiot in this thread. It's not a 'sideshow', because it highlights the moral hazard at the centre of the issue, which is that if the Labour MPs insanely paid the hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal costs for their successful libel action, probably bankruping themselves in the process, it would provide no deterrent to members of political parties libelling each other. Libelling is a form of proven lying, remember? So it would incentise lying among politicians - we have more than enough of that already. That's why you daren't answer the question. I'll answer yours though, because I'm the lesser idiot: Yes, I think it would be good for the democratic process. Politicians and their parties should take responsibility for their actions and those actions should have consequences. The more egregious the action, the more severe the consequence should be. This is an important principle not just in politics but in life in general, which has already been eroded by the banks largely getting away with their crashing of the economy in 2008. If UKIP were to be given exemption from it then it sends entirely the wrong message to everyone in Britain. The fact that UKIP get significantly more media coverage than the Green Party despite getting a similar number of votes suggests there are greater issues with the democratic process that you could be turning your attention to.
  15. As altus asked: who should pay the legal costs?
  16. It's a real eyesore and I can't see anyone ever moving into it. Is it scheduled to come down or will it just rot there?
  17. And yet it's all somehow Labour's fault
  18. And do we think the Republicans have been putting plenty of money into mental health services to reduce the overall level of risk from the small numbers of people who might do something like this?
  19. They always come out with "Now is not the time to talk about gun control" in the immediate aftermath, but funnily enough they never come back and say "ok, now is the time"
  20. Surely he deserves our respect and congratulations rather than criminal charges?
  21. They are collectively mad. What do we do with them apart from keep them as contained as possible in North America?
  22. That sounds pretty hair raising. Whoever is in that car is very much wanted by the sounds of it
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.