Hi I am sure plenty of members are aware of Labours National Executive Committees (NEC)decision to bar all members who joined in the last 6 months (100,000 people approximately) from voting in the new leadership race? That is unless you pay a £25.00 membership fee within the next two days? The questions I would like to pose are, a)Is it illegal to, retrospectively, change the constitution/rules to deny the’ new’ labour party members a chance to vote? b) How much would it cost to mount a legal challenge against their decision? c) Would the new Labour party members be willing to pay an extra couple of quid to finance the challenge ?( here is my £2) d) Would anyone from CAG be able to assist in setting up a secure holding account etc etc if required? Now whether it’s Mark Twain, “If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.” Or Ken Livingston’s twist on it (I think?) “If voting made any difference they would ban it.” Both quotes and the labour parties NEC decision give me grave concern in this world of “open and transparent democracy”. Regards Biff

For the full article : - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34931128

Dear All I am disabled. I have not voted Labour for a long time or member due to their dreadful record. I saw a chance of change with Jeremy Corbyn. I helped support his nomination. I joined as supporter to vote for him. I was purged unjustly. Told I had to pay again to become full member and pay £10 for date they held on me. I did. Only objection was I asked Labour Ed Miliband in 2010 post election loss "Shouldn't Labour Sort Itself Out First, Before trying to Convince Anyone Else?" meaning its ethic and integrity from top to bottom, in national and local Labour Party. I was told I had no right to speak and another disabled who asked about equalitieds and discrimination at work. I was disappointed and wrote a letter to all newspaper, it was published in Telegraph Oct 2015. It was a very mild diplomatic letter given the circumstances, stealing of pensions and open assault on vulnerable and disabled and corruption. This was the only reason. Labour say I can do nothing about it, after all that. no one can do anything about being rejected, denied vote and subs being taken as donation while rejecting you. However, when many people got purged Matt Beresford and George Monbiot journalists set up a feedback survey of all those purged and reasons, It asked for contact details, facebook page, twitter account and email as well as reasons. It was well published and well shared round, many responded, maybe many thousands Later the survey was transfered to Jeremy Corbyn's team. Since Corbyn has been voted in there has been no release or publishing of these results and surveys. there is silence. I have written to Matt Beresford and Labour and Corbyn seems they can set up a survey, take information, not say how they are using it, not publish the results and tell people they can do nothing. I feel really will mislead and ripped off. I have read Data Protection Act in so many ways the survey has breached in and the management of respondents, their data and the use and failure to publish this data. Many thousands and maybe 100,000s were removed under false pretenses, had the right to vote taken away, had money taken then used as donation after person ejected. double subs asked and demanded £10 to access data held on them. Labour trolled personal online accounts and emails and private and personal information relationships and conversations. What can I do. I and all are just ignored and dismissed now. and can I get any legal aid? It is so wrong, both Labour and their purge and the survey and misuse of it. JBK

Just watching Victoria Derbyshire at friends house. Labour have had it haven't they :/

I recently ordered a Vanity unit from Bella Bathrooms (online store). After receiving and installing I found a pin hole size mould crack at the bottom of the sink (manufacturing fault). This was causing a leak under the wash basin. After contacting Bella Bathrooms they agreed to replace the damaged sink for a new one however I have following 2 issues 1) I will now have to pay one day plumber call out charges £100 for removing the old sink and replacing and sealing the new wash basin. 2) After agreeing to deliver the item I've now been told that they wouldn't have same item in stock until June which is nearly a month away. I will be suffering as currently installed sink is leaking due to having a mould crack. Can someone kindly advise if I am entitled to claim £100 that I would now have to pay to re install my wash basin (this doesn't even include any extra cost such as cost of silicone and other materials that I would have to pay to re seal the wash basin), and what are my options apart from waiting until June. Am I covered by any rights as this purchase was not physically made with in a store? At present I've contacted Bella Bathrooms to get compensated for £100 labour charges and they have blatantly refused saying its not their policy. Any help will be highly appreciated

A business standing in the way of Tottenham Hotspur's £400m stadium redevelopment has lost its High Court challenge against a compulsory purchase order being used to force it out. Archway Sheet Metal Works, in Paxton Road, Tottenham, north London, asked a judge to quash the order. The firm argued the order was "unlawful and invalid". But Mr Justice Dove ruled there was "no legal flaw" in the decision-making process. If Archway - the last objector to the purchase order - had won it could have thrown plans for the new 56,000 capacity stadium into disarray. Instead, unless there is a successful appeal against the ruling, it is believed the way is now clear for Tottenham Hotspur to go ahead and build a "world-class" football venue. Josif Josif, 46, who runs the family business producing metal items for the catering and hospitality industry, was in court with other family members to hear the judge's ruling. In November a mystery fire gutted the Archway premises, located yards from the White Hart Lane ground.

Richer than anything the Tories can brag about

Hello All, Bought a used car recently which had 3 months Warranty as above. Had starter motor prob in 2nd month, the garage which have been excellent for customer service replaced motor without quibble. The 3 months warranty is expiring shortly and I am considering taking out the above named RAC Warranty, Gold Parts and Labour Cover at £299 for 12 months cover. I have always had the opinion, rightly or wrongly and reading press reports etc, that these Warrantys are not usually worth the paper they are printed on. The dealer I bought the vehicle at, have been as stated above. I would appreciate any further info/advice from the CAG team and posters, as to have the car Warranty cover policies improved or are they still tied up with Legalities as to why they will not/cannot pay for repairs. "EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

The minimum wage would rise to £8 an hour over the course of the next parliament if Labour wins the general election, the party has pledged. Leader Ed Miliband said it was "not good enough" that one in five people in the UK were on low pay. But the Conservatives said they had already delivered an above-inflation increase as, from October, the minimum wage will rise from £6.31 to £6.50. The minimum wage for adult workers was £5.80 at the time of the last election. Chancellor George Osborne suggested, in an interview with BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson in January, that the minimum wage would rise to £7 an hour in 2015 to return the level it was at before the economic downturn. 'Wealth creators' The rate is recommended by the Low Pay Commission, which is overseen by Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Vince Cable. "By crashing the economy, Labour made everyone poorer and they haven't learnt their lesson” Sajid Javid Conservative minister Government sources have suggested that the rate would probably rise to £8 by the end of the next Parliament if it continued on current trends. The TUC has called for the minimum wage to increase to £10 an hour. Mr Miliband announced the policy in interviews with the Sunday Mirror and Observer newspapers as Labour's annual conference got under way in Manchester. The party says the £1.50 per hour increase would be worth £60 a week, or £3,000 a year, for the lowest paid. "Too often people think that politics doesn't care about them," the Labour leader told the Sunday Mirror. "They are the wealth creators just as much as the top entrepreneurs and the top business people. And we've got to reward them." Tory cabinet minister Sajid Javid: "Ed Miliband would make people worse off." He said the party would show "how we can become a country that rewards hard work once again". In the Observer interview he added: "It is not good enough for us that one in five people in our country go out to work, make their contribution and are in low pay." But Conservative Culture Secretary Sajid Javid said people would not take "lectures" from Labour on helping people on low pay. "By crashing the economy, Labour made everyone poorer and they haven't learnt their lesson," he said. "Ed Miliband would make people worse off with the same failed policies that got us into a mess in the first place - more wasteful spending, more borrowing and higher taxes." 'Dangerous' The Liberal Democrats said the best way to help the low paid was to cut their taxes. "Labour has refused to back tax cuts for working people," a spokesperson added. Meanwhile, Mark Littlewood from free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs said the move would be "dangerous" for the economy. The national minimum wage is the lowest hourly rate at which workers must legally be paid, although there are lower levels for workers aged 18-20, those under 18 and those working on an apprentice scheme. It was introduced by Labour in 1997 and the level is reassessed annually by the Low Pay Commission, which then makes a recommendation to ministers. October's above-inflation increase of 19p (3%) - announced in March - will be the first time in six years that the rise is higher than inflation. The rate for 18 to 20-year-olds will go up by 10p to £5.13 an hour, a 2% increase. The rate for those aged 16 and 17 will rise by 7p to £3.79, also a 2% rise. Apprentices will earn an extra 5p an hour, taking their wages to at least £2.73. In August the Consumer Price Index rate of inflation was 1.5%. BBC So we could see people taking home less because they will move into the income tax bracket or less because employers will reduce hours or even less still as they will be made redundant because some employers won't be able to afford the rise.

Labour wants payday loan price cap brought forward The FCA will take over payday loan regulation next April after the Government suffered defeat from Labour amendments to the Financial Services Act 2012. The Government amendment states the FCA will only introduce the payday loan cap on 2 January 2015, giving it time to consult on how to implement the cap. In its own House of Lords amendment, published today, Labour wants the date brought forward to 1 October 2014. Labour says the cap must be in place in time for next Christmas, highlighting Money Advice Service research showing more than one million people take out payday loans for Christmas. http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/news-and-analysis/politics/labour-wants-payday-loan-price-cap-brought-forward/2004156.article The cost of payday loans will be capped under a new law, George Osborne announced this . Sadly, he failed to tell the City watchdog which is currently reviewing the high-cost credit sector. The Financial Conduct Authority (fca) has been forced to hastily arrange meetings in the next few weeks with consumer groups and debt charities to discuss the practicalities of a cap. The Chancellor apparently caved in to demands to impose a cap in order to avoid a threatened parliamentary rebellion which was backed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby However, behind the political blustering is the fact that it will be more than a year before any cap will be introduced. At a debt discussion I attended in Westminster on Thursday, Christopher Woolard, director of policy, risk and research at the Financial Conduct Authority, revealed that a cap on the cost of payday loans won't be introduced before 2015. http://www.independent.co.uk/money/l...h-8973896.html Just found this,so at the moment it seems it will be another Christmas at least before anything is done. An opposition move to bring the date forward to October next year was rejected by 163 votes to 100, Government majority 63. Labour's Lord Mitchell said this would have prevented another "rip-off Christmas for consumers". But Lord Newby said the FCA was going as quickly as it could and must be allowed to "get it right". Opposition spokesman Lord Eatwell warned: "The Government has been dragging its feet for four years and it is really incumbent to take swift action." http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/news-and-analysis/politics/labour-wants-payday-loan-price-cap-brought-forward/2004156.article What was hoped for.Stopping the legal loan sharks targeting communities for another Christmas. It is little known that the payday lending companies are getting financial support from the City. I had read that Barclays had lent Wonga over £250 million, but when I investigated further I found that the number was very much higher. If you consider what the clearers in total and the other financial institutions lend to all the payday lending companies the number we are talking many billions of pounds. The City purports to have washed its hands of this grubby sector, but in truth they participate, using payday lenders as surrogates. Of course i may appear impatient,maybe the FCA does need another year to get it right. In that case the thought is. House of Lords kneecap payday lenders. One more year of 6,000% then no longer Wonga. Good day on the planet. Or-Not much longer, Wonga. http://www.labourlords.org.uk/90-day-challenge Just in case anyone wants to listen Peers discuss cap on interest for paydayloans and anti-money laundering compliance as banking reform bill continues Starts about 21-46 http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14355

What a surprise. Labour are siding with the conservatives to push through the communications bill, or "snoopers charter" They are blaming the death of that soldier killed in Woollwich as justification. This was not a terrorist incident, it was murder, and to put spin on it to justify redacting more of our civil liberties in the name of civil protection is abhorrent. Newspeak has wormed its way into the very fabric of our society. What is more worrying is that people are accepting it without question. They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Story here http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/author/johnnyvoid/ this is not just about people mandated on to the WP, this legislation has implications for all of us. If the government can break the law then retrospectively change the law what stops them applying this to anything else? There is no point now taking the government to court over anything, they could simply reverse court judgments by 'going back in time' and changing the rules, we are heading for a dictatorship, and there is no party with the guts to do anything about it.