bridge too far

It's very scary, isn't it!

Exactly so - but it does give us more background information. I am, and would continue to be horrified if people were denied such an opportunity because of their political views. Foster parents generally do a stirling job and goodness knows there's a dire shortage of people willing to undertake such a crucial role. I guess I'm really saying that we're all guilty of knee-jerkism and I certainly was in this case. I still believe it was wrong, but this article does give enable me to have a more informed and rounded view. It hasn't changed my mind though.

It doesn't change the headline fact - that, allegedly, the children were removed from the foster parents because of the foster parents' UKIP membership. But it does report that a) it was a short term emergency placement because of alleged abuse of one of the children by its father and because the father had, apparently, threatened the children's mother (implying therefore that the UKIP foster parents were aware that it was an emergency placement - and sometimes these can be as short as 48 hours) and b) the brief for a permanent placement included the requirement that the more permanent foster parents be Roma speakers. I haven't changed my mind about the apparent rights and wrongs about how the council's social workers handled the case (although, of course, social workers are damned if they do and damned if they don't) but it does suggest that the circumstances were not quite as cut and dried as first reported. And I'm always in favour of considering all angles where possible.

A surprise? You mean the fact that a newspaper bothers to consider all facts of the case rather than rely on sensationalist headlines? It is a rarity, I'll grant you. Did you actually READ the article?

More information on this case http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/30/ukip-row-many-reasons-children-removed Demonstrating that, sometimes, things are not as cut and dried as they first seem

Having googled his name, I can't see precisely what he's been 'accused' of, and it seems ATM he's been released without charge. Let's just say that in our opinion (as dancers) he was somewhat suggestive and familiar. But then so was the guy who 'ate' a hamster (and I used to be on nodding terms with his ex wife). When doing a gig at Lakeside, we did actually lock our dressing room door! But of course, we weren't under age so it was just something we dealt with in our inimitable way

I had the (mis)fortune to work with him once. I hasten to add that I wasn't at the receiving end of any impropriety but we were all quite uncomfortable in his presence.

Yep I've lost all streams too

This was the link for last Saturday's match http://socsports.no-ip.org/?yhytjtyhhrt Probably the best stream yet but don't know if it'll work tonight

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20516533

Not so sure about the 'wealthy area' bit TBH. Some parts of Shepherd's Bush around Loftus Road are dire

Aah of course! Instead of long term planning about the best way to use redundancy payments, some may well decide to spray their cash on a lost cause,. It's the Pompey way, after all

I wonder how many of those gallant fans who have made their down payment on their share will be affected by the rumoured closure of the BAE shipyard. That could knock a huge hole in the 'business plan'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20451176

Dreadful decision and good to see it's being condemned by all parties

As land ripe for housing development, FP would be worth a lot more. But it has a restrictive covenant on it. Did the Dell have such a covenant? If not, that would explain why it achieved the price it did.

Also in the running for the 'Half Glass Empty' award?

The most text effects poster of the year - Ottery, surely?

Oh Trousers, shame on you. Ploughing the Slough of Despair (with apologies to Milton - John that is, not Keynes)

No Trousers - we're having to borrow more because we're not spending / paying as much tax. Equals a downward spiral.

Uh oh! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20424492

Says it all

Good points, Pugwash. It took us 10 years to deliver a major capital project in Oxford. So many hoops to jump through. Firstly, it's necessary to get what's called Outline Business Case approval (theoretical approval for the idea but it has to stack up financially). Then a whole tranche of bodies have to approve it, apart from the Treasury. There has to be a series of consultations with local health purchasers (the old Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts) as well as local councils, residents and 'stakeholders' such as Associations for the Blind, Disability groups etc. etc. During this process, it's highly likely that there will have been a change of government and that new care pathways will have been introduced. A good example of this was the introduction of the requirement for single sex wards by the last government when we were half way through this consultation process. That meant a wholescale redesign. Eventually, hopefully, Final Business Case approval is sought and granted and then you have to go to the market and the whole EU procurement procedure. So up to 6 contractors could have to provide design and financial modelling to be shortlisted to 3 and then a preferred bidder selected. Constant changes of government and service led requirements, each requiring changes to design, can eat up so much time and effort. But, if this process didn't happen, then taxpayers' money would be spent without any accountability. It's a minefield!

Totally Loopy Areseholes?

Further charges http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20405915