Join the Labour Party and save your country!

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

Read it in the physical paper.

"The roots of the Windrush scandal".

Basically it was based in Croydon in the early '90s and the staff there were all about the "gotcha" moments.

David Blunkett didn't like the culture and so used that as pretext to move it to Sheffield, where they worked on a more common sense policy.

That worked for a bit, but, as the article explains, their ultimate day-to-day job is to make sure people aren't lying to them so by its nature you end up in a "gotcha" style culture, especially if the people who have more of a propensity to be sh!tty aren't reigned in.

The consensus was that those types were encouraged to behave that way post 2014.

I'm not sure I really buy that. There has been a mass shift from subjective interview type decisions to objective paper based decisions. The winners have been lawyers who know which bits of paper are required and the diligent who are capable of doing enough research to work it out. The losers are those who can't afford a lawyer and those without the time or capability to work out what is required.

It is much harder now for a case worker to refuse or accept an application based on a random prejudice as there is a large paper trail that goes with it.

Separately the paper requirements have been made stricter (hostile environment etc.) which leads to more refusals.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What are you saying Stevo, that buzzfeed has made up those quotes and admissions from HMRC?

Or did you take one look at the url and figured “nah” despite it being picked up by plenty of other outlets?

FWIW SC buzzfeed were the only outlet to report on all the suspicious Russian linked deaths in Surrey last year.

Read my posts above. You were quick to say that is a credible source: I showed you evidence that it isnt. Simple really...

That Americans didn't trust Buzzfeed a year ago is hardly evidence that the particular story isn't credible. It was run by the BBC and Sky to name two others. Oh, and the sainted FT.

Maybe, but the claim was that Buzzfeed was credible/reliable.

Also if you recall, if the initial source is duff then whoever reports it is not going to have a real story - if you recall, certain people were very quick to point out the EU 100bn divorce bill claim was duff, despite being reported by several reputable media outlets including the FT

rick_chasey

So to confirm, you don’t believe the story?

And you therefore don’t believe the quotes from HMRC or from the firm, which explicitly lays out the corruption?

Just to clear this up.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

So to confirm, you don’t believe the story?

And you therefore don’t believe the quotes from HMRC or from the firm, which explicitly lays out the corruption?

Just to clear this up.

Not sure, I'd need to do some research.

pblakeney

The Times.

"HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) refused to approve a request for help from prosecutors looking to enter the offices of Lycamobile as part of an investigation into alleged financial crime."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hmrc ... -lnhrnb78h

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So to confirm, you don’t believe the story?

And you therefore don’t believe the quotes from HMRC or from the firm, which explicitly lays out the corruption?

Just to clear this up.

Not sure, I'd need to do some research.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So to confirm, you don’t believe the story?

And you therefore don’t believe the quotes from HMRC or from the firm, which explicitly lays out the corruption?

Just to clear this up.

Not sure, I'd need to do some research.

That's an odd sense of humour you have.

If I haven't read the story how can I comment? You're assuming again.

Stevo_666

Seems a few on here have already made their minds up that there must be wrong doing, but that's to be expected really given who the story involves.

BBC report suggests it is an open issue, both on the question of whether Lycamobile has done anything wrong and on whether HMRC acted inappropriately.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43826386

Quote:
A HMRC spokesman said the application was rejected because it didn't satisfy the legal evidential requirements for a warrant, and the department was never influenced by political considerations.

Lycamobile has donated more than £2.1m to the Conservative Party.

The party stopped accepting donations in July 2016 following an investigation by French police into the two companies that make up Lycamobile France (SRL and Services).

French judicial sources said the investigation covered potential VAT fraud, money-laundering and the misuse of company funds.

That investigation is ongoing and so far nine people and the two companies have been placed under formal investigation. There have been searches of locations in Paris.

During a police raid on Lycamobile's Paris premises in Paris in June 2016, 19 employees were arrested and three were placed under formal investigation allegedly for re-selling Lycamobile cards for cash.

The company has been assisting the French authorities and denies any financial malpractice.

In March 2017, French officials asked HMRC to assist with investigations in the UK but the request was refused.

A spokesman said: "The application contained insufficient detail to satisfy the legal requirements to secure a warrant.

"After the French request was rejected, HMRC continued to liaise with the French Authorities to explain the statutory requirements for a UK search warrant, and offered to meet the French Judge face to face to explain those requirements.

"HMRC always investigates suspected rule breaking professionally and objectively and is never influenced by political considerations. The facts speak for themselves: last year alone we secured an additional £8bn in tax from the largest businesses by tackling avoidance, evasion and non-compliance."

Let's see shall we. At present it sounds like allegations only on two levels.

pblakeney

From the BBC.

"Conservative MP Nicky Morgan said the Treasury select committee, which she chairs, would be looking into HMRC's handling of the investigation.
"This clearly raises all sorts of questions and is completely inappropriate," said Ms Morgan.
"I would expect the committee to look into this as part of our economic crime review and to have some early questions for HMRC about the correspondence that they sent.""

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

From the BBC.

"Conservative MP Nicky Morgan said the Treasury select committee, which she chairs, would be looking into HMRC's handling of the investigation.
"This clearly raises all sorts of questions and is completely inappropriate," said Ms Morgan.
"I would expect the committee to look into this as part of our economic crime review and to have some early questions for HMRC about the correspondence that they sent.""

It's right that these sorts of allegations should be looked at and we knew that was happening.

So your point is what?

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What are you saying Stevo, that buzzfeed has made up those quotes and admissions from HMRC?

Or did you take one look at the url and figured “nah” despite it being picked up by plenty of other outlets?

FWIW SC buzzfeed were the only outlet to report on all the suspicious Russian linked deaths in Surrey last year.

Deflection. As usual.

I think it's a bit harsh to claim that Rick is deflecting. I think he just didn't get the point I was making, which is not unheard of.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So to confirm, you don’t believe the story?

And you therefore don’t believe the quotes from HMRC or from the firm, which explicitly lays out the corruption?

Just to clear this up.

Not sure, I'd need to do some research.

After a whole 2 minutes of me researching the point on the internet, it appears that the laughing has stopped

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

From the BBC.

"Conservative MP Nicky Morgan said the Treasury select committee, which she chairs, would be looking into HMRC's handling of the investigation.
"This clearly raises all sorts of questions and is completely inappropriate," said Ms Morgan.
"I would expect the committee to look into this as part of our economic crime review and to have some early questions for HMRC about the correspondence that they sent.""

It's right that these sorts of allegations should be looked at and we knew that was happening.

So your point is what?

No reply - it would appear that you are pointless. But at least you're consistent

Frank the tank

In relation to the OP, labour will save the country, given the opportunity.

ballysmate

Frank the tank wrote:

In relation to the OP, labour will save the country, given the opportunity.

Nice to hear from you Frank.
You're still deluded but nice to hear from you just the same.

Stevo_666

Frank the tank wrote:

In relation to the OP, labour will save the country, given the opportunity.

Depends what from I suppose Welcome back Frank.

They didn't get the opportunity today anyway - a Labour campaigner type knocked on my door today trying to drum up support for the local elections next month. I told him not to waste his time on me, or his little leaflet as my recycling bin was getting full.

tailwindhome

Stevo 666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

In relation to the OP, labour will save the country, given the opportunity.

Depends what from I suppose Welcome back Frank.

They didn't get the opportunity today anyway - a Labour campaigner type knocked on my door today trying to drum up support for the local elections next month. I told him not to waste his time on me, or his little leaflet as my recycling bin was getting full.

Would it not have been more beneficial to engage the gentleman in conversation?

Stevo_666

TailWindHome wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

In relation to the OP, labour will save the country, given the opportunity.

Depends what from I suppose Welcome back Frank.

They didn't get the opportunity today anyway - a Labour campaigner type knocked on my door today trying to drum up support for the local elections next month. I told him not to waste his time on me, or his little leaflet as my recycling bin was getting full.

Would it not have been more beneficial to engage the gentleman in conversation?

Beneficial for who?

I did actually, it was just a bit brief.

tailwindhome

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

In relation to the OP, labour will save the country, given the opportunity.

Depends what from I suppose Welcome back Frank.

They didn't get the opportunity today anyway - a Labour campaigner type knocked on my door today trying to drum up support for the local elections next month. I told him not to waste his time on me, or his little leaflet as my recycling bin was getting full.

Would it not have been more beneficial to engage the gentleman in conversation?

Beneficial for who?

I did actually, it was just a bit brief.

Every minute your opposition spend talking to people who are never going to vote for them (in this case you) is a minute less they have to talk to people who might.

Stevo_666

TailWindHome wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

In relation to the OP, labour will save the country, given the opportunity.

Depends what from I suppose Welcome back Frank.

They didn't get the opportunity today anyway - a Labour campaigner type knocked on my door today trying to drum up support for the local elections next month. I told him not to waste his time on me, or his little leaflet as my recycling bin was getting full.

Would it not have been more beneficial to engage the gentleman in conversation?

Beneficial for who?

I did actually, it was just a bit brief.

Every minute your opposition spend talking to people who are never going to vote for them (in this case you) is a minute less they have to talk to people who might.

Fair point tbh - although round our way I think New Old Labour are only going through the motions as they haven't got a hope in hell. So I don't feel too bad about not wasting his time. We did have a bit of a chat to the Lib Dems when they turned up though, as they're now lobbying the council to hurry up and do something we need sorting in the hope of securing our vote

pblakeney

MPs will investigate HMRC’s refusal to aid French prosecutors with a criminal investigation into telecoms company Lycamobile, after the taxman citied that the company “are the biggest corporate donor to the Conservative party.”

https://www.accountancyage.com/2018/04/ ... ed-by-mps/

rick_chasey

FT reporting food banks in areas with high universal credit usage have seen a 52% rise in usage after UC introduction.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

FT reporting food banks in areas with high universal credit usage have seen a 52% rise in usage after UC introduction.

Another situation that everyone said would happen but the policy was pushed ahead regardless.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

FT reporting food banks in areas with high universal credit usage have seen a 52% rise in usage after UC introduction.

So do you think we should try the Finnish 'universal income' idea that you mentioned not that long ago?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FT reporting food banks in areas with high universal credit usage have seen a 52% rise in usage after UC introduction.

So do you think we should try the Finnish 'universal income' idea that you mentioned not that long ago?

More simply I think any gov't ought to respond and adapt to obvious problems with something before they introduce them.

UC on paper makes sense if you're that way inclined. I'm not enormously in favour but you can see the logic. In practice it has been a shambles.

This shambles was predicted over and over and over again. If the issue is in the execution, then surely you wait, adjust, and then try again? Rather than push it through hurriedly before Brexit overtakes it as an issue.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FT reporting food banks in areas with high universal credit usage have seen a 52% rise in usage after UC introduction.

So do you think we should try the Finnish 'universal income' idea that you mentioned not that long ago?

I see that pilot has come to an end, but it's not entirely clear what the conclusions are.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FT reporting food banks in areas with high universal credit usage have seen a 52% rise in usage after UC introduction.

So do you think we should try the Finnish 'universal income' idea that you mentioned not that long ago?

More simply I think any gov't ought to respond and adapt to obvious problems with something before they introduce them.

UC on paper makes sense if you're that way inclined. I'm not enormously in favour but you can see the logic. In practice it has been a shambles.

This shambles was predicted over and over and over again. If the issue is in the execution, then surely you wait, adjust, and then try again? Rather than push it through hurriedly before Brexit overtakes it as an issue.

The most obvious problem was that recipients first UC payment was paid several weeks after benefits were stopped. Seeing as recipients of UC are almost by definition unlikely to have savings that they can live off for the intervening period, it seems blindingly obvious that this is going to lead to people falling into debt, resorting to food banks, etc. That would have been relatively straightforward to address.

Jez mon

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FT reporting food banks in areas with high universal credit usage have seen a 52% rise in usage after UC introduction.

So do you think we should try the Finnish 'universal income' idea that you mentioned not that long ago?

More simply I think any gov't ought to respond and adapt to obvious problems with something before they introduce them.

UC on paper makes sense if you're that way inclined. I'm not enormously in favour but you can see the logic. In practice it has been a shambles.

This shambles was predicted over and over and over again. If the issue is in the execution, then surely you wait, adjust, and then try again? Rather than push it through hurriedly before Brexit overtakes it as an issue.

The most obvious problem was that recipients first UC payment was paid several weeks after benefits were stopped. Seeing as recipients of UC are almost by definition unlikely to have savings that they can live off for the intervening period, it seems blindingly obvious that this is going to lead to people falling into debt, resorting to food banks, etc. That would have been relatively straightforward to address.

Does seem utterly stupid that bit.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FT reporting food banks in areas with high universal credit usage have seen a 52% rise in usage after UC introduction.

So do you think we should try the Finnish 'universal income' idea that you mentioned not that long ago?

I see that pilot has come to an end, but it's not entirely clear what the conclusions are.

Yes, seems the Finns didn't think it was worth continuing the pilot scheme. Hence by implication, not a success.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43866700

The OECD comments were quite telling.

morstar

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FT reporting food banks in areas with high universal credit usage have seen a 52% rise in usage after UC introduction.

So do you think we should try the Finnish 'universal income' idea that you mentioned not that long ago?

I see that pilot has come to an end, but it's not entirely clear what the conclusions are.

Yes, seems the Finns didn't think it was worth continuing the pilot scheme. Hence by implication, not a success.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43866700

The OECD comments were quite telling.

But there is a growing body of thought that with increased automation and less work to do there does need to be some different thought about how income is distributed.

From your article.
"Some powerful billionaire entrepreneurs are keen on the idea of universal basic income, recognising that job insecurity is inescapable in an age of increasing automation.

Among them are Tesla and Space X CEO Elon Musk, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Virgin Group boss Richard Branson.

US venture capitalist Sam Altman, who runs start-up funder Y Combinator, is organising a basic income experiment."

Whether basic income is the solution or not doesn't change the fact that it's not just idle feckers who increasingly need the state to support them and that some creative thought is needed.