pap

We're two episodes into Daredevil. Really liked the second episode, which nails a lot of the character. Has crap kicked out of him. Wins day. Would do it again.

I'm sure we'd get on fine. I just took particular exception to UJ saying that the disadvantaged weren't grafting enough, when his job is a relative doss compared to many. Mine too.

This article is pondering whether Swansea should get him back. Decent bit of background. Injury seems to have been his main problem. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/should-swansea-city-take-michu-8995002

I humbly acknowledge saint si as the originator of that link. Didn't see it when he posted it, and meant no offence, even if Torres is doing his best to find some.

My History teacher chaperoned a couple of kids to his House Of Fun game show, and did not give Pat Sharpe or the show a glowing report. Pat's was apparently mean to the other kids when the cameras weren't looking, and the show runners would leave kids caked in cold gunge for hours between takes. Look, the immediate thing to take away from this is "don't give Pat Sharpe more work". We can talk about the potential racism double standard thing later.

You've been saying that I’m driving you crazy, And I haven't been around for you lately, but I had a few things on my mind.

I think "But I am Sol Campbell" covers this. The principle of OBV seems alright, but crap implementation and questionable figurehead.

No, fair's fair. Getting May's Communication's Data Bill stopped was a good win for us all; it won't be reintroduced in the next Parliament. However, they leave themselves on dodgy ground in many areas. Their claim that they are cutting tax breaks for the rich is somewhat offset by the top rate of tax going down. Similarly, the pupil premium is dwarfed by the betrayal over tuition fees. They completely failed to deliver any sort of meaningful electoral reform, and while I can't blame them for the public not going for AV, once again, they could have dug their heels in and asked for PR to be put on the ballot. The latter really wouldn't have been an unreasonable demand; the public have to ratify it, after all. For a party so keen to trumpet its record on civil liberties, it's probably worth remembering that many of the Lib Dems against the main improvements in the Lobbying Bill. It's give away with one hand and take away with another. I'm happy to moderate (a bit) my statement about the Lib Dems not really using their power. I just wonder if they picked the right battles.

The Lib Dems got into power, but never really used it. They should have stood firm over tuition fees and didn't. They were done by 2011, imo. http://frigsociety.com/2011/05/10/where-next-for-the-liberal-democrats/

Wes, what is your point? You decry my style when I finally get exasperated with some of the content, moan at me for not producing figures, and yet, produce nothing evidentary apart from "where's your evidence?". Since then, I think we've more than established that it is a serious problem in London and elsewhere. So what is your fúcking beef, son?

Based on this Mirror report, which provides facts and figures outside of London. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/right-to-buy-housing-shame-third-ex-council-1743338

Right to Buy = Buy To Let in London. http://tomcopley.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/From-Right-to-Buy-to-Buy-to-Let-Jan-2014.pdf This is before the latest proposed change. UJ and Torres will be pleased to know that facts and figures are provided in some detail. I am looking forward to their detailed analysis. Go boys!

Ah, c'mon. You can hardly moan. You set it up, FFS!

No worries, Jeff. Got to have something to do while you wait for your devs to humour you

Given that all your content is assumption, and I've made an earnest effort at discovery, I'm happy enough. I know what they say about assumptions. Yes, you both are

Hmm. Doesn't look like those safeguards are working. 60,000 tenants targeted by a private firm and a 400% increase in right to buy fraud. Since the reforms.

No the figures don't tell us everything. I wish they did. But perhaps we can move away from the default fúcking assumption that I've done as much research as yourself, which is zero. Ta.

Those bold two words? Oh yeah, makes all the difference You ask me for facts and figures to prove my case, but offer nowt in return. What is your counter-evidence to something that the govt itself has recognised as "a major enough" problem to introduce four additional safeguards in 2012? Don't think so, mush. I think it's you with the real problem. Btw, I very have very much enjoyed your sweeping generalisations about coders, especially the socially inept part. That's a man with his finger on the pulse Not as accurate as my PM generalisations, but you can't have everything.

Let me get this straight. You're using your post as proof of something I've said. Right. Additionally, thou doth protest too much.

I find this post amusing, given that you have presented nothing in the way of facts and figures yourself. I did actually do a FOI request in 2012 in support of that blog piece. Believe me, I wanted some of this information just as much as you do. The figures we all want aren't there. 6th July, 2012 Dear Mr Taylor, Thank you for your FOI request of 25th June, 2012 requesting information on Housing Benefit expenditure specifically on former council property. I have, where appropriate, responded under each of the questions posed.  Total amount spent on Housing Benefit for tenants in privately-rented former council housing. Data not held.  Total amount spent on Housing Benefit for tenants in existing council stock. £36,898,098  Total number of former council properties now rented to DSS claimants by private landlords Data not held.  Total number of existing council properties rented to DSS claimants. 7387 claimants are receiving state benefits from Department for Work and Pensions.  Total number of council properties prior to introduction of right-to-buy schemes Approximate figure 30,000 as Right to Buy was introduced in 1980 and exact data no longer held. Now let's see your fúcking research and figures

Sorry mush, but I refuse to explain myself over things you've invented. All I said was that I never said what you'd attributed to me, which is true. At no point did I say, or have I ever said, "take my opinion as gospel". When I pointed that out, your limited project manager brain decided that meant that everything I had said up until that point therefore wasn't gospel, and therefore lies. Are you starting to see why you never made the cut as a coder?

I was simply pointing out that once again, Unbelievable Jeff was lying. Good luck with your new found, but thoroughly established reputation for mendacity.

Priceless.

Where did I say it should be treated as gospel? Please stop lying, mate.

It is a serious enough problem for the govt to have included four new safeguards against the practice in 2012. It's only a self-perpetuating loop because you won't accept that.