Food Banks

[Champ]

And what's that meant to mean?

[Scooby Dudek]

Or imagine if they were so keen to incentivise efficient payment instead of non-payment to deserving recipients.

 

Apparently anywhere up to £100bn in lost tax isn't incentive enough for massive investment in making HMRC work. Almost as if there's no real will to do it. Strange.

 

Wonder what Vodafones expenses for meals with HMRC bods ran to?

 

 

UK tax receipts are at their highest ever level.

 

Obviously someone somewhere is taking something seriously.

 

 

Really, how many times do I need to post details of the agreements the Treasury has signed with tax havens around the world? Twice isn't enough, clearly.

 

 

First of all, I want it known that I never actually said anything about record tax receipts being evidence that tax evasion is being taken more seriously. I'm being accused of making an unfounded claim I never actually made.

 

I would say the fact that tax receipts as a proportion of GDP are higher than they have been since 2008 is evidence that tax collection is being taken no less seriously under this government.

 

I would say the agreements we've signed with numerous tax havens is evidence that this government is taking evasion and avoidance more seriously than previous governments.

...

[Strontium]

If there's a point to your quoting a bunch of disparate posts out of context, I'm missing it.

 

All we have here is a difference of opinion. I think increasing the tax take from £486bn to £543bn in two years is a decent achievement; others don't. Whoopdy doo.

[Stu Monty]

No we have a clear display of your dishonest style of posting.

 

Then another claim to be such a poor wickle victim.

 

Boo hoo.

 

You post things you know are twisting facts then cry it in when you finally (and it usually takes two pages) are pinned down on them. Sack it off, it's fucking obvious and tedious.

[Strontium]

No dishonesty whatsoever. Everything I've posted is perfectly clear and documented. You have a right to your own opinion, not your own facts.

[Stu Monty]

Yep, clear and documented, and the only person who has read it who thinks you aren't playing the clown is you.

 

You made a statement knowing it was hyperbolic and meant very little but made the government sound good.

You were pulled on it.

You then played the victim in saying you had been misrepresented when you hadn't.

You then maoned that you never said something you were being acused of saying (when it was you that introduced the term to the debate).

You then said the misrepresentation was "implied" even though it had been the same simple question asked of you throughout.

Finally after pages of swerving you decided to specify that you though performance in one specific year being better than another year was what you actually were saying all along (everyone else was just too dumb not to know that was the point you were making when using completely different words and sentences).

 

Dishonest. Consistently.

 

This whole "Man of the facts!" thing has actually gone from being annoying to being funny. We haven't even got into the hilarity of you giving it the big one about causation before you posted your "Someone is taking something serious!" nonsense.

 

If you were thick I wouldn't bother. You're not, so it's dishonesty.

[Strontium]

Yep, clear and documented, and the only person who has read it who thinks you aren't playing the clown is you.

 

You made a statement knowing it was hyperbolic and meant very little but made the government sound good.

You were pulled on it.

You then played the victim in saying you had been misrepresented when you hadn't.

You then maoned that you never said something you were being acused of saying (when it was you that introduced the term to the debate).

You then said the misrepresentation was "implied" even though it had been the same simple question asked of you throughout.

Finally after pages of swerving you decided to specify that you though performance in one specific year being better than another year was what you actually were saying all along (everyone else was just too dumb not to know that was the point you were making when using completely different words and sentences).

 

Dishonest. Consistently.

 

This whole "Man of the facts!" thing has actually gone from being annoying to being funny. We haven't even got into the hilarity of you giving it the big one about causation before you posted your "Someone is taking something serious!" nonsense.

 

If you were thick I wouldn't bother. You're not, so it's dishonesty.

It's not dishonesty, it's genuine confusion on my part. I thought that you thought that I was talking about tax evasion. Not that anyone probably cares at this point.

[Carvalho Diablo]

[Beno]

Back on topic. Heard a very moving speech today from someone who works for a food bank. They've seen a seven fold increase in the last 12months in people relying on them. She gave a few examples of people who have gone to them for help and they were all basically people who had been fucked over by the DWP and had benefits stopped. 1was for a man whose dole was stopped because he missed signing on cos he was at his wife's funeral. Once you miss it and they stop it takes 13 weeks before you can claim again. She seen many examples of people who were clearly unfit or too ill to work , told they are by ATOS and had money stopped there and then. They then have to find work or claim dole which takes upto 6 weeks to sort out and in the meantime they have no money whatsoever.

Foodbanks issue 3days worth of food for people who qualify and rely mostly on donations so if you are in a shop and see a skip for donations please think about giving something.

[Carvalho Diablo]

Back on topic. Heard a very moving speech today from someone who works for a food bank. They've seen a seven fold increase in the last 12months in people relying on them. She gave a few examples of people who have gone to them for help and they were all basically people who had been fucked over by the DWP and had benefits stopped. 1was for a man whose dole was stopped because he missed signing on cos he was at his wife's funeral. Once you miss it and they stop it takes 13 weeks before you can claim again. She seen many examples of people who were clearly unfit or too ill to work , told they are by ATOS and had money stopped there and then. They then have to find work or claim dole which takes upto 6 weeks to sort out and in the meantime they have no money whatsoever.

Foodbanks issue 3days worth of food for people who qualify and rely mostly on donations so if you are in a shop and see a skip for donations please think about giving something.

 

That is just incorrect.

 

A Domestic Emergency / ES673 would cover the failure and excuse the guy from signing. Claims are not terminated if you miss signing on and contact the local officw within 5 working days, and anyone can claim at any time so the 13 weeks thing is just totally wrong. Not sure who gave you this "info"  but it is bollocks mate.

[VladimirIlyich]

It can take 4-6 for a new claim to be processed for JSA after being taken off ESA. 6 weeks without money is a hell of a long time.

[Strontium]

I agree with you Vlad. There is no excuse in this day and age for any claim to take more than a few days to process. People should get what they are entitled to much, much quicker.

[Gnasher]

I agree with you Vlad. There is no excuse in this day and age for any claim to take more than a few days to process. People should get what they are entitled to much, much quicker.

Well that will soon be impossible as you will no longer be allowed to claim benefits for the first seven days from the day you put in a claim.

[Gnasher]

Well that will soon be impossible as you will no longer be allowed to claim benefits for the first seven days from the day you put in a claim.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23058853

 

This will hit people on short term contacts who work in jobs for a short period of time, construction workers, temps, carers etc. Why would a bricklayer take a weeks work when he knows he will be punished when he goes back on benefits by being unable to claim money for seven days when he IS unemployed? Ridiculous coalition policy.

[VladimirIlyich]

I agree with you Vlad. There is no excuse in this day and age for any claim to take more than a few days to process. People should get what they are entitled to much, much quicker.

Thats quite Ironic as its your government which have made it ten times worse and swamped the people who have to deal with the claims with mountains more paperwork while either maintaining staff levels or even cutting them.

 

[melons]

Thats quite Ironic as its your government which have made it ten times worse and swamped the people who have to deal with the claims with mountains more paperwork while either maintaining staff levels or even cutting them.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, what have the lib-dems done for us whilst in coalition with the Tories during this election? And, had they not got into bed with them, would the Tories have had the power in the first place to implement the policies they have done? 

[Stu Monty]

Why would they not have got into bed with them?

 

It's a chance to influence policy in the country; what sort of politician isn't in it to do that?

 

It's what you give away to get into bed that's the issue for me, not the act itself.

[melons]

Why would they not have got into bed with them?

 

It's a chance to influence policy in the country; what sort of politician isn't in it to do that?

 

It's what you give away to get into bed that's the issue for me, not the act itself.

 

Whats the saying, Lay down with the dogs you get fleas? Something like that anyway... 

 

They spent 3 days or something negotiating this coalition government before they agreed to it, didn't they? So going to the latter point (I agree with the theory of what you're saying) what exactly haven't they given away?

[Jairzinho]

Who will vote Lib Dem at the next election? I'm not really asking people on this forum whether they will or not, but which sections of society are represented by the Lib Dems now?

[Stu Monty]

Whats the saying, Lay down with the dogs you get fleas? Something like that anyway... 

 

They spent 3 days or something negotiating this coalition government before they agreed to it, didn't they? So going to the latter point (I agree with the theory of what you're saying) what exactly haven't they given away?

 

They managed to get the bar on income tax raised and have been a small controlling element to some of the more crazy Tory policies but unfortunately they've given away their reputation. The collective responsibility of the cabinet and government has meant they haven't spoken against things they don't agree with vocally enough, and have had to swallow it up (almost certainly backing things they think are wrong). It'll be the death of them next time round.

 

How they form a coalition with labour next time round after calling them all but the devil and the cause of all the country's ills for five years is beyond me.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Who will vote Lib Dem at the next election? I'm not really asking people on this forum whether they will or not, but which sections of society are represented by the Lib Dems now?

They have just been beaten by the buss pass elvis party in a by election apparently. Not that any fucker turns up to vote in those.

[Jairzinho]

They have just been beaten by the buss pass elvis party in a by election apparently. Not that any fucker turns up to vote in those.

 

Fucking hell. Thought you were making that up. 67 votes to 56.

[Strontium]

 

Thats quite Ironic as its your government which have made it ten times worse and swamped the people who have to deal with the claims with mountains more paperwork while either maintaining staff levels or even cutting them.

 

Yes, "my" government, all mine. They do everything I tell them, don't you know.

[Gnasher]

Yes, "my" government, all mine. They do everything I tell them, don't you know.

How many liberal mps voted against the welfare cuts, the bedroom tax and voted against the lowering of the 50p tax rate?

 

The Conservatives have not been given a democratic mandate to force through these policies on their own.

[Carvalho Diablo]

Isn't it usually if you break your JSA agreement twice in a year that they can enforce this rule. Seems to me it's all just to confuse the already confused....

 

No mate, it's not. People can declare a Domestic Emergency up to 4 occasions in the duration of their claim. A Domestic Emergency obviously can cover all sorts, but defo covers bereavements and funerals, they can be for a period of one week but they cannot run back to back.

 

This is quite seperate from periods of sickness which can be declared on a JSA 28 form. People can declare a maximum of 2 periods of sickness within a rolling 12 month period. Periods of sickness can last a maximum of 14 days and they cannot be declared back to back. If a person declares a 3rd period of sickness within their rolling 12 month period then their JSA claim would be terminated and they would be required to claim ESA (Sickness Benefit) until they became well enough to seek work again.

 

People can receive 13 week sanctions but if their date of transgression (eg the date they failed to sign on or the date they didn't start a mandatory course) is covered by a domestic emergency ES673 or a period of sickness JSA28 then the claimant's transgression can be treat as straightforward and no adverse decision making action will be taken.

 

That's why whoever said they received a sanction because they'd been to their wife's funeral, must've been telling porkies...unless they'd already declared 4 previous and seperate domestic emergencies within the previous 12 months !

 

Hope this makes sense ?!