Charities Condemn IDS for FoodBank Snub

First topic message reminder :

Charities condemn Iain Duncan Smith for food bank snub
Requests for meetings with work and pensions secretary to discuss growing crisis have been refused

   Toby Helm, political editor
   The Observer, Saturday 21 December 2013 19.32 GMT

Iain Duncan Smith, the embattled work and pensions secretary, is refusing to meet leaders of the rapidly expanding Christian charity that has set up more than 400 food banks across the UK, claiming it is "scaremongering" and has a clear political agenda.

The news will fuel a growing row over food poverty, as church leaders and the Labour party accuse ministers of failing to recognise the growing crisis hitting hundreds of thousands of families whose incomes are being squeezed, while food prices soar.

Responding to requests for a meeting from Chris Mould, chairman of the Trussell Trust, which has provided food supplies to more than 500,000 people since April, Duncan Smith has dismissed claims that the problems are linked to welfare reforms and attacked the charity for publicity-seeking. In his most recent response on 22 November, Duncan Smith made clear that he had received enough letters from the trust and referred Mould to his previous answers. His deputy, Lord Freud, the minister for welfare reform, also explicitly rejected an invitation for talks on 30 August, telling the trust's chairman that he was "unable to take up your offer of a meeting".

Mould, whose organisation is struggling to keep up with ever-increasing demand for its services, said that he and his army of volunteers could not understand why ministers were refusing to listen to their suggestions for easing the plight of the hundreds of thousands of people in desperate need.

"To them, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to me either. We are deeply disappointed, but we are as open as ever to meet ministers in the hope that perhaps the new year will bring a fresh approach to what could so easily have been a fruitful dialogue." Mould also told Duncan Smith he is not opposed, for political reasons, to welfare reform.

In 2010, the Trussell Trust provided food to around 41,000 people, but in the past eight months the number has increased to more than half a million, a third of whom are children.

Mould first wrote to Duncan Smith in June, saying that many of the problems people were facing could be tracked back to changes in their benefits, and to delays in the payment of them.

Duncan Smith began his reply by criticising the "political messaging of your organisation", which "despite claiming to be nonpartisan" had "repeatedly sought to link the growth in your network to welfare reform". He said his department's record in processing benefit claims had improved and should do so further with the introduction of universal credit.

He rejected any suggestion that the government was to blame. "I strongly refute this claim and would politely ask you to stop scaremongering in this way. I understand that a feature of your business model must require you to continuously achieve publicity, but I'm concerned that you are now seeking to do this by making your political opposition to welfare reform overtly clear."

The standoff will further anger church leaders who were incensed by reports last week that the government had turned down a potential pot of £22m of EU funding for food banks, on the grounds that the UK did not want to be told by Brussels how to spend money for European structural funds.

Last week, in a Commons debate on food poverty, Conservative MPs recognised the gravity of the situation. Steve Baker, the Tory MP for Wycombe, said it was a "scandalous indictment of the safety net that is the welfare state" that so many people could be left hungry. "Some 12,000 children in Buckinghamshire live in income poverty and one in five children in Wycombe go to bed hungry – that increases to one in three in some parts of my constituency," he said.

The shadow secretary of state, Rachel Reeves, said: "Iain Duncan Smith should meet with the Trussell Trust and others who are on the frontline of dealing with the growing problem of food poverty in Britain, rather than burying his head in the sand.

"It's David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith's failure to tackle the cost-of-living crisis which has led to half a million people relying on food banks since April this year.

"Under the Tories, it's tax cuts for the rich and food banks for the poor. Only a Labour government would act to freeze energy prices, help more employers to pay a living wage, and expand free childcare to help more parents earn a living for their family."

The Department for Work and Pensions said: "The benefits system supports millions of people who are on low incomes or unemployed and there is no robust evidence that welfare reforms are linked to increased use of food banks. In fact, our welfare reforms will improve the lives of some of the poorest families … with the universal credit making 3m households better off – the majority of these from the bottom two-fifths of the income scale.

"The Trussell Trust itself says it is opening three new food banks every week, so it's not surprising more people are using them. They also agree that awareness has helped to explain their recent growth.

"The government has taken action to help families with the cost of living, including increasing the tax-free personal allowance to £10,000 which will save a typical taxpayer over £700, freezing council tax for five years and freezing fuel duty."

Meanwhile, the number of households living in bed and breakfast accommodation has increased by 124% since 2010, according to figures compiled by Labour from official statistics.

The statistics show that illegal use of B&B accommodation, where families are staying longer than six weeks, has risen by 800%.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/21/iain-duncan-smith-food-banks-charities

Complete arrogance in the face of people suffering.

feelthelove wrote:Hi Costa,

I think you've been on the receiving end of how the benefits system should work.  You found yourself out of work, you'd lived responsibly within your means in the past and the system tide you over until you were able to secure a new job

No-one wants to see people take the mickey out of the system and although people deny it there are people out there who live their lives on benefits with no intention of finding work or helping themselves.

There are equally those who deserve the help they need such as the ill and disabled who simply don't get sufficient financial assistance.

You need to be very rich or very poor, anything inbetween and lose your job and it results in severe hardship it seems  

Hi FTL

When I came back from living in Spain 3 years ago, after being out there for 9 years, I had to start from scratch, and used the majority of my savings setting up home again, deposits on a home and buying furniture etc.

I started work here and that was when I realised how much different the benefit system was, from before I left for Spain. I couldnt believe that even though I was earning a decent wage, the government were also topping it up with working/child tax credits.

You mention disabled people not getting enough financial assistance, well I can only speak from experience with regard to my Dad who receives the higher rate of DLA for both the care and mobility components, along with his government pension etc. I handle all my Dad's affairs as I am his POA, and he is quite comfortably off, through all the financial asistance he has received from the government. Recently, he has also received immense care from the social work dept too, I can't thank them enough as they have relieved a bit of the pressure off me.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:What I’m reading on here is the result of this government’s policy of blaming the poor, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed for the state this country is in and the circumstances they find themselves in. It’s the strivers versus the shirkers argument designed to what I see written on here and it stinks to high heaven. The council report is right on the button and tells the true picture of what it’s like in Kent and for that they should be applauded.  Just a pity that someone somewhere decided that it should be hidden from public view. What a bunch of chancers they are.
If all these additional people were not in difficulties before but they are now then something must have changed and it did. This bunch of chancers with their ill thought out policies  came along to hammer the people suffering the most  and now they laugh, sneer and snigger when someone stands up to discuss and point out the hardship that many people are enduring under their stewardship. The sooner we get rid of that smarmy git Duncan Smith and the rest of the cronies the better.
Never mind, Councils across the land will soon be banned by Pickle’s Tory Stasi state cops from publishing or criticising government policy so best get out as much as possible now before the hammer comes down and they are silenced.

Sorry to be so blunt but I only have a few minutes to spare at the moment.

Actually Irn what is wrong is people using pseudo science to claim measures in place have created the situations being claimed.

The council report is nothing but pseudo science and has not provided any real evidence, and as stated many of those who support Labour are clearly excusing the facts here of people being very poor with their money. Now are you going to tell me people do not live constantly on credit and live beyond their means? As seen many other people cope very well not only on benefits and minimum wage and yet these are quietly ignored because they do not fit the profile or agenda being argued here. They show quite clearly the only real factor here is how people manage their money, because if you have people in similar situations and some are not affected by the policies then there clearly is then another issue at hand, one that has been going on for years an ethos of people living their lives on credit. To ignore this is what is wrong, to say this is  blaming the poor, the sick, the disabled is absurd, as not once have I cast any such distinction here but only stated people are poor with money and this is where we really need to help resolve instead of ignoring this massive issue, as if it is not resolved, people will continue to be irresponsible. This is the root cause and this is where we should be looking to solve

No I'm sorry Didge, the report is very detailed and quite clear indeed it quotes specific numbers and reasons for the impact that the welfare reforms are having on the community and that's why it was decided to remove it from public view.
If all these people suffering now were not suffering before and were not a burden on the council or the government then what changed to put them in the position they are in now? Something happened that created this situation so what do you think it was?

It was extremely detailed and the fact that it was removed from public view is the most damning thing of all.

Sassy wrote:It was extremely detailed and the fact that it was removed from public view is the most damning thing of all.

Exactly!

That will tell the nasty party doffers something atleast!

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Actually Irn what is wrong is people using pseudo science to claim measures in place have created the situations being claimed.

The council report is nothing but pseudo science and has not provided any real evidence, and as stated many of those who support Labour are clearly excusing the facts here of people being very poor with their money. Now are you going to tell me people do not live constantly on credit and live beyond their means? As seen many other people cope very well not only on benefits and minimum wage and yet these are quietly ignored because they do not fit the profile or agenda being argued here. They show quite clearly the only real factor here is how people manage their money, because if you have people in similar situations and some are not affected by the policies then there clearly is then another issue at hand, one that has been going on for years an ethos of people living their lives on credit. To ignore this is what is wrong, to say this is  blaming the poor, the sick, the disabled is absurd, as not once have I cast any such distinction here but only stated people are poor with money and this is where we really need to help resolve instead of ignoring this massive issue, as if it is not resolved, people will continue to be irresponsible. This is the root cause and this is where we should be looking to solve

No I'm sorry Didge, the report is very detailed and quite clear indeed it quotes specific numbers and reasons for the impact that the welfare reforms are having on the community and that's why it was decided to remove it from public view.
If all these people suffering now were not suffering before and were not a burden on the council or the government then what changed to put them in the position they are in now? Something happened that created this situation so what do you think it was?

I am sorry Irn, it is nothing more than pseudo science, formulated by those who wish to make a political statement.
Nothing changed Irn, the only thing that changed was people started to wake up to the reality they were living beyond their means, as people have always been living on borrowed time when it comes to credit, as at some point it always catches up on them

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

No I'm sorry Didge, the report is very detailed and quite clear indeed it quotes specific numbers and reasons for the impact that the welfare reforms are having on the community and that's why it was decided to remove it from public view.
If all these people suffering now were not suffering before and were not a burden on the council or the government then what changed to put them in the position they are in now? Something happened that created this situation so what do you think it was?

I am sorry Irn, it is nothing more than pseudo science, formulated by those who wish to make a political statement.
Nothing changed Irn, the only thing that changed was people started to wake up to the reality they were living beyond their means, as people have always been living on borrowed time when it comes to credit, as at some point it always catches up on them

Why on earth would Kent County Council want to make a political statement like that?

Nothing changed!!! Sorry Didge but that's just not true.

Very Conservative Kent County Council wanting to make a political statement?

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

I am sorry Irn, it is nothing more than pseudo science, formulated by those who wish to make a political statement.
Nothing changed Irn, the only thing that changed was people started to wake up to the reality they were living beyond their means, as people have always been living on borrowed time when it comes to credit, as at some point it always catches up on them

Why on earth would Kent County Council want to make a political statement like that?

Nothing changed!!! Sorry Didge but that's just not true.

Are you saying no council makes a political statement when they represent a political view and it is very true, you are backing pseudo science, which any scientist would laugh at.
Lets stop the bull here, if you call that evidence, I might as well say Elvis was the man on the grassy Knoll that shot Kennedy!

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Why on earth would Kent County Council want to make a political statement like that?

Nothing changed!!! Sorry Didge but that's just not true.

Are you saying no council makes a political statement when they represent a political view and it is very true, you are backing pseudo science, which any scientist would laugh at.
Lets stop the bull here, if you call that evidence, I might as well say Elvis was the man on the grassy Knoll that shot Kennedy!

What?   They are a Conservative Council, in Middle England, as Conservative as they come.   The only political statement they would want to make would be on behalf of the Conservative Party.   Pseudo science?   What are you on! They have given facts of what is actually happening, why it is happening and how much it worries them.

Are you telling me Sassy that now all Tories agree on everything?
Once again you present a failed concept.. The report is based upon opinions, not any real methodology, this is a fact with many claims, it is called a simple thing called conjecture, I suggest you look up the meaning!

You haven't read it have you, or you wouldn't be stupid enough to say that. Are you saying that Kent County Council is a renegade Tory Council. If they had have been, they wouldn't have taken it out of public view would they, they would have plastered it everywhere.

Sassy wrote:You haven't read it have you, or you wouldn't be stupid enough to say that.   Are you saying that Kent County Council is a renegade Tory Council.   If they had have been, they wouldn't have taken it out of public view would they, they would have plastered it everywhere.

I have read it hence why I know poor methodology when I see it, show me the mathematical connections to prove evidence of complicity to policies affecting people who they themselves have in many cases created their own financial mess?

As I am dying to see that formular

So give a detailed breakdown of the poor methodology please.

Sassy wrote:So give a detailed breakdown of the poor methodology please.

I am not the one providing poor methodology, that is you, as surely you can back the mathematical formula to back your science here and you want me to tell you why your maths is wrong, when you yourself do not know why it is wrong?
Surely that in itself shows that this claim is thus pseudo science, if not you could explain it!

Come on, you say it's poor, say why, what their method was and why it is poor.

Say what? That you have no scientific claim to your beliefs and rely on anger?
There you go I said it!

Erm, would you like to read that again? You said the methodology was poor, you keep on about, so I want to know why you think it is poor, in detail please, as you said you have read the report. What anger?

Sassy wrote:Erm, would you like to read that again?   You said the methodology was poor, you keep on about, so I want to know why you think it is poor, in detail please, as you said you have read the report.   What anger?  

Why detail surely as you believe it is firm evidence, you should be able to prove that it is with science?
Seriously, I have heard the concept of clutching at straws, but I guess you take it to new dimensions with barrels of hay

Didge, you were the one who said it was poor, so you need to say why, otherwise it is obvious you are just making it up as you go along.

Tell you what, I'll give you time to think about it, as I've got a couple of things to do. Maybe you can skim read it and come up with an answer. Oh, and while you do, show that Kent County Council is a renegade council that disagrees with the Government.

Sassy wrote:Tell you what, I'll give you time to think about it, as I've got a couple of things to do.   Maybe you can skim read it and come up with an answer.   Oh, and while you do, show that Kent County Council is a renegade council that disagrees with the Government.

I have no need to think about anything, you just tell me the science and methodology behind your claim and then I will be happy to accept your view, quite simple really.

Have to go, night!

You haven't read it have you, you just said that for effect because you didn't like the conclusions, and you have no idea how to set out a methodology.

Night.

Sassy wrote:You haven't read it have you, you just said that for effect because you didn't like the conclusions, and you have no idea how to set out a methodology.

Night.

Another failed argument born from poor accusations

Oh dear Didge, next time don't try and win and discussion by trying to sound clever when you obviously don't know what you are talking about and can't back it up.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Why on earth would Kent County Council want to make a political statement like that?

Nothing changed!!! Sorry Didge but that's just not true.

Are you saying no council makes a political statement when they represent a political view and it is very true, you are backing pseudo science, which any scientist would laugh at.
Lets stop the bull here, if you call that evidence, I might as well say Elvis was the man on the grassy Knoll that shot Kennedy!

Of course Councils make political statements. But this isn't a political statement, it's a detailed and accurate report compiled by the council showing the impact of the welfare reforms on the community. It's a terrible assessment on this government which is why they wanted it hidden.

A lot of it is psychological -- you have to be able to put up with feeling like a non-participating member of society, in some ways, to be able to put back money when you're on public assistance. Most people feel like they want to have at least a few things they're led to believe everyone else has in order to not feel like a nobody ...

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Are you saying no council makes a political statement when they represent a political view and it is very true, you are backing pseudo science, which any scientist would laugh at.
Lets stop the bull here, if you call that evidence, I might as well say Elvis was the man on the grassy Knoll that shot Kennedy!

Of course Councils make political statements. But this isn't a political statement, it's a detailed and accurate report compiled by the council showing the impact of the welfare reforms on the community. It's a terrible assessment on this government which is why they wanted it hidden.

You say it is accurate because you want it to be accurate, of which again clouds your ability to see whether it is is. For a start the Council in the report states that it cautions the findings are “fairly tentative”, but there is “potential for increased vulnerability of some residents” resulting from the changes.

Do you understand what tentative means?

In other words it is not concluded, agreed upon or fully worked out, that is not something that is accurate but something that is at best speculative and is seeking to link problems when it states potential, that I am afraid is pseudo science and nothing that you would class as conclusive.

So to sum up, every report that Didge doesnt agree with is flawed by pseudo science and poor methodology.
If the findings had been different Didge you would have trumpeted this report.

How is this report pseudo science anyhow?

NemsAgain wrote:So to sum up, every report that Didge doesnt agree with is flawed by pseudo science and poor methodology.
If the findings had been different Didge you would have trumpeted this report.

How is this report pseudo science anyhow?

Morning Nems

Try reading this part from the report again:

Council in the report states that it cautions the findings are “fairly tentative”, but there is “potential for increased vulnerability of some residents” resulting from the changes.

That is not conclusive evidence in fact far from it and people have been asking me if I have read the report, seems many have not here it seems

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Of course Councils make political statements. But this isn't a political statement, it's a detailed and accurate report compiled by the council showing the impact of the welfare reforms on the community. It's a terrible assessment on this government which is why they wanted it hidden.

You say it is accurate because you want it to be accurate, of which again clouds your ability to see whether it is is. For a start the Council in the report states that it cautions the findings are “fairly tentative”, but there is “potential for increased vulnerability of some residents” resulting from the changes.

Do you understand what tentative means?

In other words it is not concluded, agreed upon or fully worked out, that is not something that is accurate but something that is at best speculative and is seeking to link problems when it states potential, that I am afraid is pseudo science and nothing that you would class as conclusive.

It is quoting actual numbers and the word tentative I read as early indications as to how bad it may become.

Why did they remove it from public view? Any idea?

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

You say it is accurate because you want it to be accurate, of which again clouds your ability to see whether it is is. For a start the Council in the report states that it cautions the findings are “fairly tentative”, but there is “potential for increased vulnerability of some residents” resulting from the changes.

Do you understand what tentative means?

In other words it is not concluded, agreed upon or fully worked out, that is not something that is accurate but something that is at best speculative and is seeking to link problems when it states potential, that I am afraid is pseudo science and nothing that you would class as conclusive.

It is quoting actual numbers and the word tentative I read as early indications as to how bad it may become.

Why did they remove it from public view? Any idea?

Because it is pseudo science as I have explained and far from conclusive at all
i would also remove something that was not worth the paper it was written on

It is the method every council uses to assess big changes in and impacts on the people who it has to provide services for.

Lets have a look at the methodology:

The methodology in these reports is based on three main objectives:

a. Identify which local places and population are most affected through welfare reforms by loss of benefits as well as in-migration

b.  Evidence and understanding these impacts, to inform appropriate service response and use in regional and national networks or lobbying

c.  Inform risk management and understand the effects on finances and delivering outcomes on existing strategies.

The following key questions and sub-questions were developed to address these objectives.

a.  Are we seeing significant in-migration

 if so, how much is from London
 How much is 'incentivised' or results from homelessness placements

 Are certain areas in Kent affected more than others?

b.  What are the impacts on the people in Kent?

 Which population groups are most affected?
 Is there increasing homelessness?
 Is there evidence that extreme poverty is rising?
 Can we evidence the kinds of impacts this has on individuals/families in their day-to-day lives and how they are coping?

c.  Is there more demand for KCC & District services?

 Children's services?
 Services for disabled people?
 Services for housing-related support?  
 Other (higher-tier)services?
 Information/advices services?
 More pressure on our 'front desk' (all channels)?
 Are there 'new burdens'?  What are they and what are the cost estimates?
 Are these demands likely to be short, medium, or longer term?

d.   What are the impacts on places?

 Is deprivation becoming more concentrated/are 'poorer communities getting poorer/is housing in communities be.
 Are there changes in community safety/crime?

This report draws on a range of evidence sources to offer answers to these questions in an effort to assess and monitor the impact of the Welfare Reform on Kent's people, places and services.


There then follows a very detailed report, which as it says, although tentative so far, as the welfare changes have not been in very long and they only have one report and the moment, the key findings so far are listed.

The detailed report, based on the evidence they have received so far is damning.

Now, could you tell me

a) how this is pseudo science, it is fact finding in a method that all councils use to find out impacts of their communities of any big changes.

b) and how is they methodology poor.   The are gathering every fact they need to know, as widely and possible, and assessing how it is going to impact on the population they provide services for.

There is absolutely nothing in it that can be classed as a political statement, it is a working document to allow them to do their jobs properly.

PMSL

Lets go through and shows the flaws in the methodology.

Point a) How do you identify areas affected by benefits, when as stated there is no methodology behind if the affects of the benefits have are the cause of the affect?

Point B) What evidence, as yet and concluded this to be fairly tentative



Reading the rest is ion regards to the impract of immigration and again this is fairly tentative and not conclusive.


Seriously please present the methodology, that is not a methodology, it is based on many presumptions.

Thanks

FGS Didge, read the report before the spout the above rubbish.

a. It's not immigration, its in-migration, ie people moving from cities etc so that they can live in a smaller property as there are non to be had in London.

b. The rest of the report gives in great detail how they find out the areas affected by benefits.

It is only tentative at the moment, because they have had one report, so they have one report to base their findings on, the reports are going to be updated on a regular basis.

Stop showing your ignorance.

I read the report which clearly you missed this part by its own admission

Council in the report states that it cautions the findings are “fairly tentative”, but there is “potential for increased vulnerability of some residents” resulting from the changes.

Do you understand what tentative means?

In other words it is not concluded, agreed upon or fully worked out, that is not something that is accurate but something that is at best speculative and is seeking to link problems when it states potential, that I am afraid is pseudo science and nothing that you would class as conclusive.


If insults are all you can offer, then I know very much I am right and you don't accept the fact again even the report claims it is not conclusive!
So I suggest you fully read something before posting

And do you understand why they said tentative? Because it is based on one report and they are waiting for more.

So, if you have read it, why do you think they are not collecting facts properly and from a wide source?

No its tentative full stop because it is based upon pseudo science and as seen has left out important factors like the demise of the crisis loan and if this has had an affect, thus not very concise at all.
Its up to you, sassy if you want to desperately cling to something not comprehensive, be my guest, as i have shown it is not concise at all

Its tentative because it is based on one report. It hasn't left out the crisis loan, it is dealing with what is happening now. You will do and say absolutely anything to try and uphold what the government are doing. You will not condemn them for anything. I wonder how far they would have to go before you would lift a finger. The report was comprehensive, they are waiting for the next one to see how much worse it is going to get.

Please explain you use of the term 'pseudo science' as this was a fact gathering exercise, done as comprehensively as it was possible to do.

It has left out the crisis loan being stopped and thus as seen is very tentative and its methodology leaves out many possibilities for the reasons behind poverty including the fundamental one where people are as seen very poor with their money being as 11 million people are in severe debt, which you cannot claim to me the vast majority of these is not down to they themselves with the management of their money! That is why the report is so flawed, it has failed to take many things into account!

You call it fact gathering I call it getting statistics and making poor conclusions from them!

PhilDidge wrote:It has left out the crisis loan being stopped and thus as seen is very tentative and its methodology leaves out many possibilities for the reasons behind poverty including the fundamental one where people are as seen very poor with their money being as 11 million people are in severe debt, which you cannot claim to me the vast majority of these is not down to they themselves with the management of their money! That is why the report is so flawed, it has failed to take many things into account!

You call it fact gathering I call it getting statistics and making poor conclusions from them!

One of the most comprehensive reports I have ever seen from a council citing 14 reference points for collection of its data to compile statistical evidence quoting actual numbers and the impact the welfare reforms are have on the community. KCC deserve respect for their detailed work and its a shame they have had to pull it from public view.

Soon they will be banned from publishing reports that are critical of government policy anyway which will no doubt be enforced by Pickle's state stasi cops.

Shameful.

So comprehensive it did not think for one minute there be many other factors which could be a cause.
Now that truly is shameful indeed Irn

It was comprehensive because they examined every bit of evidence they could get from every source. Just because they came to a conclusion you don't like, you can't then turn round and say that they didn't consider other factors. They considered EVERY factor.

PhilDidge wrote:So comprehensive it did not think for one minute there be many other factors which could be a cause.
Now that truly is shameful indeed Irn

With 14 different reference points having input to the report I'm sure they did Didge but you are just picking nits now.

Anyway, it's Christmas Eve so I don't want to argue anymore tonight or tomorrow so let's put our differences aside for a while and hope that we can all have a nice day tomorrow.

You're a tough nut Didge but pleae have a merry Christmas with your family and friends.

 

[quote="Irn Bru"]

PhilDidge wrote:So comprehensive it did not think for one minute there be many other factors which could be a cause.
Now that truly is shameful indeed Irn

With 14 different reference points having input to the report I'm sure they did Didge but you are just picking nits now.[/quote


Still avoids that other possibilities where not considered, that is evidence of which has been posted that shows it was not comprehensive.

You are ignoring the real problem, I find that to be even worse, because 11 million people are in debt and you do not seem to care about it!

I do

ALL possibilities were considered, they have to, they would not be doing their job if they didn't. Are you saying a Conservative Council is incompetent?

  

Sassy wrote:ALL possibilities were considered, they have to, they would not be doing their job if they didn't.   Are you saying a Conservative Council is incompetent?

As proven by the report itself, they were not!

As proven by the report, yes they did, they are waiting to see if the next report will show it getting worse.

Irn Bru wrote:Anyway, it's Christmas Eve so I don't want to argue anymore tonight or tomorrow so let's put our differences aside for a while and hope that we can all have a nice day tomorrow.

You're a tough nut Didge but pleae have a merry Christmas with your family and friends.

 

To think I said that a few minutes later he calls me a liar.