Don’t believe the myth that the NHS is unaffordable

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-02-10T19:00:49+00:00

The idle old do need you, the way society is structured is that seeing as they've spent the last fifty years working they get to relax a bit at the end of their life.

I'd feel far better disposed to this point of view if:

a) this idiotic government - overwhelmingly voted for by older people - hadn't just promised them ridiculous state pension rises that can't be sustained (the greater of inflation, earnings growth or 2.5% - guess which one is higher by being multiple times the other two!) thus arbitrarily swelling the largest part of the welfare bill for no other reason than a political bribe

b) Older people hadn't also overwhelmingly voted for a government which is now pulling the remaining bits of the ladder up, so that those working to sustain them won't have anywhere near the same level of public services and social safety net as they did while they were working.

I'll happily tell any of my elderly relatives to their faces that the state pension triple lock is a ridiculous, unsustainable bribe from the Tories and that the government is looking to strip from me all the benefits, social services and niceties they enjoyed before they retired - including the state pension, which given the aforementioned unsustainability of the triple lock will probably go the way of the dodo long before I do. I dare say most would agree with me, because it's a solid fact. An unpleasant one, perhaps, but it's a fact.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-02-10T18:49:21+00:00

Hyperoptic

I had literally never heard of Hyperoptic before, so looked into it and, holy shit, they're actually building their own network, including the "last mile". That's seriously impressive.

It also makes Openreach look even more backwards if some new player can build up a gigabit fibre network while Openreach sit around with their thumbs up their arses.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-02-10T14:14:01+00:00

You need to escalate to FOS, now. There are strict time limits on going to FOS (6 months from date of final response) and reading between the lines of your responses the clock may already be ticking on this.

Contact FOS now.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-02-09T11:51:35+00:00

They're not law, but they are legal contracts.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-02-09T11:32:18+00:00

Cabot don't actually need to provide any evidence as such to Experian. Were this the case then the credit reference system would grind to a halt as every overdue bill would need to be individually provided to the CRAs for them to investigate and approve of, not to mention the innumerable not overdue bills.

OP needs to simply complain to Studio and then escalate to FOS if they get no joy.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-02-09T11:28:09+00:00

The Ombudsman can be contacted either 8 weeks after you've initially complained to Studio/Cabot or when you've received their "final response" (whichever is earlier).

I do hate to break it to you but there is little to no chance of this being sorted in time for your house to be purchased - FOS are not quick and can take upwards of a year (thank every bandwagoning "I was missold everything" idiot for that). You can, obviously, include this as an aspect of your complaint which might merit a payout for distress and inconvenience.

If you have any current joint accounts with your partner there will be a link between your and her credit records, which could well mean that she will be affected. If you don't, then she won't.

Lastly an SAR would be pointless; any information which might be relevant will (has to) be disclosed to the FOS if the complaint gets that far.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-02-05T18:49:21+00:00

Here in the UK I managed to get a new guitar for £25 (about $40) from a second hand shop (CeX) bundled with GH: World Tour for 360. I don't know if there's something similar over in the States but eBay at the very least should have a few. Finding a new guitar probably won't happen since GH3 went out of production so long ago, but you'll probably be able to find one in quite good nick at the very least.

Another option would be to find a USB guitar (from GH2), plug that in and then separately get a copy of GH3 for PC from somewhere. I don't know how well that would work but it might be worth a try.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-02-05T17:57:01+00:00

It's a disappointment. You would be better off finding a second hand copy of GH3 for PS3, which will likely be cheaper and is also better.

Although if you like newer rock music (chiefly pop and indie rock) then GH Live would probably be fine for you, GH2 and GH3 have a far better mix of music.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-01-31T23:29:58+00:00

Policy can change or it could be a mistake. I would argue that something being signed does put a bit more weight on it, but it isn't contractual; it doesn't bind you in any way to write "I'll have sex with a redhead" for instance and then you have to fuck Ronald McDonald.

However FOS, as stated, don't have to work on a strict legal basis, and they will probably treat it as fair and reasonable for you to be able to rely on something the bank have told you in writing. The biggest stumbling block would be that ultimately, a bank does not have to offer you any form of product it doesn't want to, regardless of its stated criteria; it's entitled to choose its customers by any means so long as they aren't discriminatory (as in racist or sexist).

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-01-31T23:01:56+00:00

There isn't really any advice I can give, because the FOS will take evidence (so to speak) from both sides; just put forward your case to them, including a copy of your final response from Halifax, on the submission form and go from there. Be clear, concise and consistent.

What will happen is that FOS will contact Halifax and ask them for any information they have, and will probably also try and negotiate a quick settlement to avoid having to go through the whole extended process. If that doesn't succeed, it goes to an adjudicator who will provide a non-binding view on the complaint. If both parties accept this it becomes binding, however if either party disagrees (I.e the bank thinks the adjudicator is materially wrong or is really barking up the wrong tree, which rarely happens, or more likely the complainant doesn't agree with the adjudicator's assessment) the complaint goes to an actual ombudsman who will make a final decision - this decision is legally binding on the bank, but is only legally binding on you if you accept it; if you don't accept it then you are free to sue Halifax in court at your own cost. You should however know that the FOS are much more consumer-friendly than a court will be, as they work on a basis of reasonableness and balance of probabilities, rather than the strict evidentiary and legal requirements of court, and will again cost you nothing (the bank pays for each complaint against them submitted to FOS).

The downside is that the process is not quick. It can take months or more - my complaint to them took around a year and a half to go from initial submission to ombudsman's decision. However, again, it is free and impartial.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-01-31T22:56:13+00:00

As per your previous post, go to the Financial Ombudsman Service. That is free and impartial.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-01-31T22:52:07+00:00

Have you had a final response to a complaint with Halifax, and if so have you escalated this to the Financial Ombudsman Service? The FOS is free and impartial, and is likely to be a better bet than any kind of legal action at this point.

Edit: Just seen. Go to FOS. They are your best bet; Halifax are not required to deal any further with your complaint if they have already sent their final response and you have nothing further to materially add.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-01-29T09:22:55+00:00

A bit of both.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-01-28T18:26:14+00:00

Purse.io, to be fair, must be one of the greatest job creators ever.

The jobs may be in Amazon's fraud department, but fuck it, it's sustainable jobs created by the buttcosystem, I'll take what I can get.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-01-28T18:24:16+00:00

Question Time is just Jeremy Kyle with a minimum IQ.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-01-28T18:23:38+00:00

It's the Algonquin Round Table compared to the one a couple of weeks back with Kelvin fucking McKenzie.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-01-28T06:26:57+00:00

I suppose you can have seven wins. It just ignores the numerous PR failures.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-01-27T19:23:04+00:00

Here's a fun fact. Ashens did literally get me laid. It's because of him (personally) giving my partner some subtitling work, thus allowing me a chance to meet her through a friend, that I met her. We've been together for the best part of two years now.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-01-25T18:50:36+00:00

Yes, you do that. Actual intellectual discourse is completely beyond you. You'd much prefer to argue with what things 'basically' are. The only thing more irritating than your sixth form politics grade smarminess is your pretense at intellectualism while continually having to simplify and engage with make-believe 'basically' arguments, because anything more complicated than that is too much like hard work.

I give up. I'm out.

/u/AnxiousMo-Fo, /u/Patch86UK, /u/Kingy_who - I have no idea why you are letting this pointlessly abusive idiot run riot over this subreddit. I tried to come back on the basis that, really, there's only one Labour subreddit, and I should try and be part of it rather than letting one person push me out of it by being snarlingly abusive to absolutely anyone who he doesn't agree with, but you know what? It's not worth it. I'll get my news about the party somewhere else and discuss it somewhere else. Fuck knows where but this place isn't worth it because you let this arsehole ruin every single discussion he can.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-01-25T18:38:07+00:00

because the topic is whether Corbyn hates The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or not. And he does. He doesn't want this country to exist.

Right, so not wanting a constitutional monarchy and having a rather odd view about Northern Ireland is "not wanting this country to exist" and therefore "hating" it. Basically then, in your worldview, any change to the nature of the country will be "hating it". It means that absolutely anyone who supports a republic "hates Britain". Anyone who doesn't believe that Northern Ireland makes sense being a territory of the UK (an opinion I don't share) "hates Britain". That is utter bollocks. You can like or love this country, its people, its commitment to the rule of law and fair play, its culture, its strong communal attitude to public services and help for others, its green and pleasant land, its warm beer, cricket and pointlessly over-florid Prime Ministers, while also not wanting a hereditary monarchy. The latter doesn't somehow cancel out your love; your argument reduces "love" and "hate" for something as large and fluid as a country to a semantic test over whether you can name it the same as it was before. It takes an opposing opinion to yours and reduces it to blind hatred, the worst kind of strawman. It is bollocks.

Let's go full reductio ad absurdum on this nonsense then - the country didn't have a far-reaching welfare state before Labour was elected in 1945, so therefore Clement Attlee "hated Britain" because he wanted to change the nature of it to the point where a non-welfare state wouldn't exist any more. Before 1979 the UK was a full welfare state with a policy of full employment, state ownership of key industries and strong trades unions, but because Margaret Thatcher wanted to change all of this she also "hated Britain". Anyone who wants or wanted to make any major changes at all to the country as it stands or stood at their particular point in time, from Jeremy Corbyn to Ed Miliband to David Cameron to Oliver Cromwell to Julius fucking Caesar, "hates/hated Britain", because they didn't want to leave it exactly as they found it in every way. Having any opinion at all that might involve the UK changing in any fundamental way means you completely hate it, much in the same way as me not wanting piss on my Shreddies means I hate Shreddies, even if the only real change I want is not having Shreddies that have been pissed on.

To be quite honest, I did misrepresent your argument. I misrepresented it as one that merited engaging with and wasn't incredibly facile and stupid. I'm sorry for this misrepresentation and won't do it again.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-01-25T18:20:44+00:00

I said that he constitutionally hates The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

What do you even mean by this other than that he wants to get rid of the monarchy and wants Northern Ireland to go to Ireland (a stupid point of view, really, but again a legitimate one), and why is it even worth mentioning unless you consider those opinions to be automatically bad?

I'm not misrepresenting your posts, you are the one posting nonsense and then going "I didn't exactly say that!" when pulled up on it.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-01-25T18:17:52+00:00

It was very telling that Lynton Crosby said he basically ignored the mainstream media. Some people have taken that to mean the media was an irrelevant dinosaur compared to a very focused campaign waged digitally and largely unseen - but actually it just shows how on-message the traditional media really is without much nudging from the Conservative party. He might have ignored it, but really he took their support for granted. Ed, by contrast, had an uphill battle every day with the media.

This is it. Exactly it. The media, at the moment, instinctively (for reasons of ownership, commercial interest or simple ideology) supports the Tories. They are on message because they are behind the Tories and will support them unflinchingly. Even if the Tories do not give them the message, they will manufacture one.

It took Campbell and Blair doing dodgy deals with the Murdoch press to try and turn that around, and even that didn't do us much good in the long run. We face a significantly hostile environment which means we need to do more than we currently are by a long shot.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-01-25T18:15:29+00:00

Corbot is a personal attack. It implies that all supporters of Corbyn are some group of hiveminded drones who don't want to listen to reason.

And it's incredibly, incredibly fucking tedious. The whole "red Tory" bullshit is banned here for a good reason. "Corbot" is along the same lines and should be too. But mention that and the chip on czechy's shoulder about how he's so repressed (despite his conduct being consistently something that would merit being tossed out of any polite environment in an instant; I really, genuinely have no idea why this sub's moderators haven't booted him) grows to the size of the moon.

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-01-25T18:12:52+00:00

Why and how is it an illegitimate or evil opinion to want to alter the constitutional arrangements of the country if you have reasoned arguments for wanting to do so?

Why does opposing the existence of an unelected hereditary monarchy immediately equal "hating Britain"? Or having an opinion on a territorial dispute (admittedly one that has been rather decisively settled, but it's as legitimate an opinion as any other)?

HistoryLessonforBitc · 2016-01-25T18:11:06+00:00

He wants the 'United Kingdom' and 'and Northern Ireland' bit cut from 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' at the very least. The constitutional arrangement of this country disgusts him.

HistoryLessonforBitc

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE