Benefit sanctions

[Antlion]

Surely it's not an English company but one from our proud family of nations?

As of the Tory conference, the "proud family of nations" has been suprceded by "one nation" with different "parts".

[kevthedee]

Yes - for perfectly unavoidable and understandable reasons that might be a little over your head. Are you feigning Scottish nationalism now? Surely, tendering rules aside, you would have been delighted for an "English" company to be involved? We are, as you wanted, one nation - why are you stoking the fires of division?

SNP press statement about scottish water.it may be 2 years ago but a good read all the same

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/feb/water-bill-keeps-scottish-water-public-hands

As for your"Stoking the fires of division" rubbish do you even read the majority of posts on here.

[kevthedee]

Stop posting please. Every one of your posts is misinformed.

A little suggestion on this particular one - see if you can find out who Business Stream are, what they do and why it went out to tender.

Say one thing do another thats the fm for you.

[AUFC90]

SNP press statement about scottish water.it may be 2 years ago but a good read all the same

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/feb/water-bill-keeps-scottish-water-public-hands

As for your"Stoking the fires of division" rubbish do you even read the majority of posts on here.

It was Scottish Labour that brought about the laws that required Scottish Water to set up business stream. I look forward to your condemnation of your party.

[Ad Lib]

This is the internet. If I can't indulge in meaningless hyperbole I'm not playing.

Fair.

I think if you believe the Tories are trying to make the best of a bad situation rather than having an ideological interest in crippling the public sector then you must have lived under a rock since 1979.

I understand your reticence to criticise though seeing as your party have been working hand in glove on the project for the past 5 years.

I'm not much interested in the NHS in England.

This sounds a lot like "I'm not interested in the situations where there's evidence they're doing something other than waging an ideological war against the public sector."

Local authorities in Scotland have had to make significant cuts year on year as a direct result of cuts in the block grant from Westminster. It amounts to a real terms reduction of 9% during the life of the last Westminster government. Just for clarity no Council tax rise would have kept pace with the impact of those cuts.

The net result has meant tens of thousands less posts in local public services in Scotland, a reduction in services and a pressurised demoralised workforce in what is left.

Some sacred cows like health and education have been protected from this. Although IMO should not have been and then would maybe have had an incentive to change practices that contribute to their piss poor outcomes for vulnerable families.

Sorry, but this is just bollocks. Local authority grants were cut by Holyrood, not Westminster. The SNP made it absolutely impossible for local authorities to take any steps to protect their revenue streams. A 9% cut is less than the average English departmental cut too. If there's an "ideological war" being fought here, the SNP are complicit by refusing to use their tax-powers or to let local authorities even begin to use theirs to mitigate those reductions in spending.

Cuts aren't automatically ideological either. Nor are cuts to public sector employment budgets evidence of an ideological desire to cut the state. Fiscal consolidation was not pursued out of ideology but overwhelmingly out of necessity. Other countries have found this to be true themselves even when they have elected politicians on ostensibly anti-austerity platforms, France arguably being the most pertinent example.

I think it is hugely disingenuous to say that the cuts in local government are "ideological" and complain about this, while casually dismissing significant and substantial efforts to preserve spending in two of the biggest areas of local government and public sector spending, in healthcare and schools. You can believe that the decision to prioritise them is wrong or misguided, but that is a much more subtle, much softer, and nuanced source of disagreement with the Coalition Government and now the Tory government, and one which does not warrant the rhetoric or antipathy of an "ideological war".

Glasgow needs to cut over £100 million over the next two years Or to put it another way the equivalent to 3000 jobs. Edinburgh also has to save over £100 million.

That's mostly the fault of Glasgow's Labour-run council for decades of inefficient budgeting and croneyism. It's hardly surprising that Edinburgh City Council is a basket-case after spunking all that money on the trams. You can't just punt the blame of this, as you have, "directly" on Westminster, when it's anything but direct. The closest thing to "direct" blame for local government cuts falls to the local authorities themselves and to the government that controls their block grant for failing to give them even a smidgeon of revenue raising freedom.

[Ad Lib]

1. And here we have it, Ladies & Gentlemen. Ad Lib could be an MP by now, yet he isn't even aware of a statute that was supported through Westminster by his Lib Dem colleagues in the last Coalition.

I assume they were in the bars whilst the actual debate was going on, and just trooped down to go through the lobbies with their Tory chums when the division bell rang?

Or alternatively, there were more important things for me to pay attention to in the run-up to the 2015 General Election than a piece of legislation that largely consolidated other pieces of consumer protection law into once place, when the Act in question didn't even get Royal Assent until about a month before polling day.

Not having been an elected legislator at that stage, and that legislation not being likely to be subsequently amended under any of the parties' manifestos, and it not being a major campaign issue, I think it is perfectly reasonable for me not to have prioritised it in a busy election.

Still, perhaps you can make similar criticism of Natalie McGarry, who when asked a question about the Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Bill, being introduced by her own party, when appearing at a student union to debate the Scottish Government's record in office, refused to answer because she didn't know about it because she was only a Westminster MP.

2. Section 77, Schedule 5 and schedule 6.

3. You obviously haven't read the whole statute and are concentrating on the headline effects. The ideological measures are hidden away in the schedules.

In brief, the coalition declared "war" on public sector "red tape". Mainly, this "war" has consisted of consolidating legislation then declaring that "We've got rid of six pieces of legislation and replaced them with one". What they don't mention is that the one set of regulations faithfully replicates all the provisions of the six, with only minor changes in nomenclature. As an example, look at the new Petroleum (Consolidation) Regulations.

The CRA '15 takes this a step further. In the guise of consolidating powers available to Enforcement Officers, it introduces a requirement to notify traders 48 hours in advance of routine inspection.

Now, what would you do if you were a trader with counterfeit goods in your shop and you received a letter telling you that you were going to be inspected next Tuesday?

The letter also must contain a specific paragraph warning the trader about the obstruction offences. The legislation has only been in force for 10 days, but I'm aware that local authorities are already receiving complaints from legitimate traders.

The complaints fall into 3 main categories

a) Why are you wasting my council tax by writing to me to tell me you're coming to visit?

b) I'm a legitimate trader & welcome your visit. But why are you telling dodgy traders you're coming to visit?

c) Why are you warning me about obstruction offences in advance of the visit? We've always had a good relationship. Why the officious language in the letter?

I think it's pretty clear that this legislation has actually increased "red tape" in an attempt to further demonize public servants. Accordingly, I feel justified in describing it as ideological.

Right. So let's be clear. Of fucking course I've not read the whole statute. It's boring as f**k and is a consolidatory statute. I have better things to do with my time.

Secondly, every government ever elected has said they want to get rid of red tape. Sometimes ministers have even said they're going to go to war with red tape. It doesn't mean they're *ACTUALLY DECLARING WAR ON BUREAUCRACY*. This isn't ideology. It's a nice soundbite that makes busy-body small business-owners more likely to vote for you near an election.

As for the specific provisions of the statute you identfy, I agree they are bad pieces of administrative regulation. Where you jump the shark is when you try to insinuate that this is part of some grand conspiracy to make local government enforcement officers be hated by small busines owners. That is more tin foil hat than the post I saw from a guy who thought the UK government was trying to infect Glasgow with Ebola to undermine the independence campaign.

[Ad Lib]

Well they've pretty much got rid of all the nationalised industries since Thatchers day.

What's left other then the NHS?

Not much.

Postal service? Gone.

Railways? Gone.

Water? Gone in England and Wales.

Phone network? Gone.

The other poster was correct. It's voting sentiment which is preventing the Tories from privatising everything else.

They are idealogically opposed to nationalised industry of all forms.

If you don't know this you really should talk to their head office before joining their party.

You'll just end up frustrated again if you find out after you join.

"Public sector" is not the same as "nationalised industries".

No matter:

* The Post Office is still completely owned by the state. The Royal Mail is still partially owned by the state and is subject to a universal service obligation. There is no war on the postal service.

* The railways: the track, the stations and the signalling, almost all owned by NetworkRail, a state-owned company. The rolling stock companies are private, absolutely, and the end-user service provision is franchised, sure. But passenger numbers are at an all-time high and the infrastructure is light years ahead of where it was in the 1980s. Not perfect, but there has been no war on the railways.

* Water: this will be the commodity that the SNP has just gone back on its commitment barely 2 years ago not to put out to private tender a mere 2 years ago? Are they ideological enablers of the war on the public sector?

* Phone network: you're seriously telling me it's lamentable that British Telecom was broken-up? You don't deserve to be taken seriously.

[Baxter Parp]

Is that the scottish water thats just went to a private english company.

Fucking dimwit.

[lichtgilphead]

Right. So let's be clear. Of fucking course I've not read the whole statute. It's boring as f**k and is a consolidatory statute. I have better things to do with my time.

Interesting. You feel able & competent to discuss the provisions of a statute which you admit you haven't even read fully.

Do you consider that the Lib Dem MP's who voted for the bill might all have been in a similar state of ignorance?

As for the specific provisions of the statute you identfy, I agree they are bad pieces of administrative regulation. Where you jump the shark is when you try to insinuate that this is part of some grand conspiracy to make local government enforcement officers be hated by small busines owners.

I didn't say that.

I said that business owners were complaining to their local councils about:

1. Wasting money

2. Weakening their protection against competition from traders that are acting illegally

3. Sending them letters which warn them (in officious terms) against committing specific offences which none of them had ever considered committing.

And if you don't consider that the government are already attempting to demonize public servants, let me refer you to the Hampton Report (where Sir Philip Hampton states that a Trading Standards inspection costs a small business an average of £500 per visit) or to any article in the Daily Mail where RIPA or RIP(S)A powers have been used. Without fail, use of RIPA or RIP(S)A is described as "Local Councils using anti-terrorism legislation to snoop"

The new legislation is only 10 days old. I'm sure there will be a highly sensationalised story full of half-truths about the CRA'15 and "bumbling council officials" in your copy of the Daily Mail in the very near future.

[Mr Rational]

It's hardly surprising that Edinburgh City Council is a basket-case after spunking all that money on the trams

.

And whose fault was that again? Three times the SNP group tried to take it to a referendum to stop it, guess which party alongside it's unionist chums voted us down?

Enjoy oblivion out here. You deserve it.

[Ad Lib]

Interesting. You feel able & competent to discuss the provisions of a statute which you admit you haven't even read fully.

No. I did not claim that I felt able and competent to discuss the provisions of the statute. Stop saying false things.

Do you consider that the Lib Dem MP's who voted for the bill might all have been in a similar state of ignorance?

I have absolutely no idea what their state of knowledge was. I haven't spoken to any of them about it.

I would be interested to know why the SNP failed to remark on any of these provisions during the Commons debates on this Bill, instead allowing Pete Wishart to waste Parliamentary time talking about how digital rights were really important because he played in a band, don't you know? Are the SNP engaging in a war on public servants by omission?

I didn't say that.

I said that business owners were complaining to their local councils about:

1. Wasting money

2. Weakening their protection against competition from traders that are acting illegally

3. Sending them letters which warn them (in officious terms) against committing specific offences which none of them had ever considered committing.

Yes you did say that. You said:

"I think it's pretty clear that this legislation has actually increased "red tape" in an attempt to further demonize public servants. Accordingly, I feel justified in describing it as ideological."

This is literally saying that the government deliberately increased bureaucracy in the manners you described in order to demonise public servants. That is *what you said*.

1. And if you don't consider that the government are already attempting to demonize public servants, let me refer you to the Hampton Report (where Sir Philip Hampton states that a Trading Standards inspection costs a small business an average of £500 per visit)

2. or to any article in the Daily Mail where RIPA or RIP(S)A powers have been used. Without fail, use of RIPA or RIP(S)A is described as "Local Councils using anti-terrorism legislation to snoop"

1. Never attribute malice where incompetence will suffice. Bureaucracy is almost never the result of malice.

2. You have jumped the shark. The government did not pass RIPA as part of a conspiracy to make local government officers harass business owners. They certainly can't be blamed for the use of RIP(S)A since it is an Act of the Scottish Fucking Parliament!

The new legislation is only 10 days old. I'm sure there will be a highly sensationalised story full of half-truths about the CRA'15 and "bumbling council officials" in your copy of the Daily Mail in the very near future.

Anyone who gets hurt by the Daily Mail saying that local government is shit isn't cut out for interacting with the world outside of their bedroom. You are getting hysterical about one of the most innocuous pieces of bureacratic legislation ever to have been passed by a legislature in Western Europe.

[Ad Lib]

If different pieces of legislation were metaphorical weapons in a war against the public sector, I think the Consumer Rights Act 2015 would be the equivalent of the scissors in the First Aid kit sitting next to loaded AK-47s, hand-grenades and a tank.

[Ad Lib]

And whose fault was that again? Three times the SNP group tried to take it to a referendum to stop it, guess which party alongside it's unionist chums voted us down?

Enjoy oblivion out here. You deserve it.

I always said the trams was a bad policy. Edinburgh's Lib Dems took their fair share of the blame for it when a lot of the Councillors lost their seats.

Quite what relevance that has to the discussion here as to whether or not local government cuts are Westminster's fault or a result of Holyrood cutting their block grants and denying them the right to raise additional revenue through the council tax escapes me.

[lichtgilphead]

And, yet again, an attempt to debate with Ad Lib descends into semantics and long convoluted replies

No. I did not claim that I felt able and competent to discuss the provisions of the statute. Stop saying false things.

I didn't specifically say that you claimed ability or competence. You made responses that implied you knew what you were talking about. When your ignorance of the provisions of the act was pointed out to you, you hid behind your "I haven't read it all" excuse.

I have absolutely no idea what their state of knowledge was. I haven't spoken to any of them about it.

I would be interested to know why the SNP failed to remark on any of these provisions during the Commons debates on this Bill, instead allowing Pete Wishart to waste Parliamentary time talking about how digital rights were really important because he played in a band, don't you know? Are the SNP engaging in a war on public servants by omission?

SNP Baaaaad...

Yes you did say that. You said:

"I think it's pretty clear that this legislation has actually increased "red tape" in an attempt to further demonize public servants. Accordingly, I feel justified in describing it as ideological."

This is literally saying that the government deliberately increased bureaucracy in the manners you described in order to demonise public servants. That is *what you said*.

Oh, look! Libby has quoted from an earlier post of mine. I was specifically responding to his claim that I had insinuated that "this is part of some grand conspiracy to make local government enforcement officers be hated by small busines owners."

I said no such thing

1. Never attribute malice where incompetence will suffice. Bureaucracy is almost never the result of malice.

We agree on one thing then. The Coalition was incompetent.

2. You have jumped the shark. The government did not pass RIPA as part of a conspiracy to make local government officers harass business owners. They certainly can't be blamed for the use of RIP(S)A since it is an Act of the Scottish Fucking Parliament!

Where did I say that? You're flailing now.

It's obvious to anyone with a modicum of real life experience that I'm referring to the right-wing perception of RIPA/RIP(S)A, not to the legislation itself. Accordingly, it doesn't really matter which Parliament the legislation went through. Do you really believe that it's primarily anti-terrorist legislation?

Anyone who gets hurt by the Daily Mail saying that local government is shit isn't cut out for interacting with the world outside of their bedroom. You are getting hysterical about one of the most innocuous pieces of bureacratic legislation ever to have been passed by a legislature in Western Europe.

If you say so. That's pretty impressive considering that you didn't know that the legislation existed until today, don't know the LibDem position on it (apart from the fact that they voted for it) and haven't even read it.

Thanks for your input, but I'd rather debate the matter with someone knowledgeable. Further semantic crap from you regarding this matter won't be responded to.

[BFTD]

P&B is ever educational. I never would have dreamed that there was a single grown adult running around who didn't know that the Conservatives are ideologically opposed to public ownership of...well, anything...and that the only thing curbing this is democracy.

This is going to be a cracker to put on the election bumph next to that thing about it being OK for politicians to lie, just so long as they don't get caught.

[Gordon EF]

Who the f**k still reads Ad Lib's posts these days?

[HTG]

There's not even an argument that these c***s are destroying public services for anything other than ideological purposes (and the fact that they're c***s). The reason the NHS and Schools are funded is nothing more than the cynical acknowledgement that they need to get funded because they're the 2 things that attract a lot of attention and even more noise from the range rover brigade and yummy mummy set. They're happy enough to kick f**k out of the weakest in society because that group doesn't have anyone to make a noise for it. They're utter b*****ds and Ad Lib and his ilk kept the fuckers hands on the keys for 5 years. If they remain an irrelevance for the rest of eternity it's no more than they deserve. This government will cause people to die.

[Ad Lib]

1. I did not make responses that implied I was qualified to talk about the minutiae and detail of the Act. I made responses that inferred the actual situation, which is that being a human being able to use Google, I can establish the main themes and focus of a piece of legislation when someone refers to it.

2. My reference to the SNP was not to insinuate "SNP" bad. It was specifically to counteract the suggestion that this piece of legislation is in some spiritual sense the successor to Mein Kampf. The notion that this is part of a concerted effort by Westminster to demoralise public sector workers is *obviously* nonsense. The triviality and relative innocuousness of the provisions in the bill hold out precisely because no one in Parliament seems to have shown any major objection to Schedules 5 and 6 of the Act. I know this because, being someone who prefers to be informed, I took a look at the debates at Second and Third Reading, on the Commons amendments and at Ping-Pong to see if the SNP or anyone else brought this up. They didn't. I don't believe the SNP are complicit by omission in an ideological war against the public sector for not scrutinising those parts of the Act and let's be honest, neither do you. Because it's not indicative of any such ideological war.

3. You did insinuate that the Act "is part of some grand conspiracy to make local government enforcement officers be hated by small business owners". You categorically did so. And I proved it by quoting the actual words with which you insinuated it. I will quote them again: ""I think it's pretty clear that this legislation has actually increased "red tape" in an attempt to further demonize public servants." That is what those words mean.

4. So just to be clear, you are saying that the Westminster government is deliberately getting the Daily Mail to misreport the way that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (and its Scottish Parliamentary equivalent) are reported, in order to insinuate that local authorities are snooping on the public, including small business-owners, in order to whip-up hysteria about how awful local government is, in order to wage war on the public sector? I think it's time we sectioned you.

5. RIPA absolutely is primarily anti-terrorist legislation. The clue is in the objects of the Act, which refers to purposes primarily concerned with the Secret Services and GCHQ. It is also an Act concerned with effective law enforcement in the broader sense, but the Act's objects make it clear that is not the primary intention. It has been misused and abused for other purposes by other government agencies and the police, including local authorities and bodies like Trading Standards, but I'm honestly not sure what relevance this has to whether or not Westminster is "waging an ideological war" on public servants. David Cameron isn't telling Trading Standards to use RIPA. These public sector bodies are choosing to use powers under RIPA. Are they in on the conspiracy too?

6. I chose to read through the Act in order to respond to your post. Not that that's the point. You are trying to suggest that a piece of consumer protection legislation which commits the heinous crime of being a bit shit, not being that effective at catching fraudsters and upsetting a few precious pound shop owners because they have to receive a letter warning them not to commit a crime before Trading Standards does an inspection is somehow part of a deliberate effort to demoralise public servants. You are literally suggesting that it is part of an "ideological war" against these people. It's a consolidation of the Sale of Goods Act for f**k's sake! This takes wackjob to a new level.

[lichtgilphead]

1. I did not make responses that implied I was qualified to talk about the minutiae and detail of the Act. I made responses that inferred the actual situation, which is that being a human being able to use Google, I can establish the main themes and focus of a piece of legislation when someone refers to it.

2. My reference to the SNP was not to insinuate "SNP" bad. It was specifically to counteract the suggestion that this piece of legislation is in some spiritual sense the successor to Mein Kampf. The notion that this is part of a concerted effort by Westminster to demoralise public sector workers is *obviously* nonsense. The triviality and relative innocuousness of the provisions in the bill hold out precisely because no one in Parliament seems to have shown any major objection to Schedules 5 and 6 of the Act. I know this because, being someone who prefers to be informed, I took a look at the debates at Second and Third Reading, on the Commons amendments and at Ping-Pong to see if the SNP or anyone else brought this up. They didn't. I don't believe the SNP are complicit by omission in an ideological war against the public sector for not scrutinising those parts of the Act and let's be honest, neither do you. Because it's not indicative of any such ideological war.

3. You did insinuate that the Act "is part of some grand conspiracy to make local government enforcement officers be hated by small business owners". You categorically did so. And I proved it by quoting the actual words with which you insinuated it. I will quote them again: ""I think it's pretty clear that this legislation has actually increased "red tape" in an attempt to further demonize public servants." That is what those words mean.

4. So just to be clear, you are saying that the Westminster government is deliberately getting the Daily Mail to misreport the way that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (and its Scottish Parliamentary equivalent) are reported, in order to insinuate that local authorities are snooping on the public, including small business-owners, in order to whip-up hysteria about how awful local government is, in order to wage war on the public sector? I think it's time we sectioned you.

5. RIPA absolutely is primarily anti-terrorist legislation. The clue is in the objects of the Act, which refers to purposes primarily concerned with the Secret Services and GCHQ. It is also an Act concerned with effective law enforcement in the broader sense, but the Act's objects make it clear that is not the primary intention. It has been misused and abused for other purposes by other government agencies and the police, including local authorities and bodies like Trading Standards, but I'm honestly not sure what relevance this has to whether or not Westminster is "waging an ideological war" on public servants. David Cameron isn't telling Trading Standards to use RIPA. These public sector bodies are choosing to use powers under RIPA. Are they in on the conspiracy too?

6. I chose to read through the Act in order to respond to your post. Not that that's the point. You are trying to suggest that a piece of consumer protection legislation which commits the heinous crime of being a bit shit, not being that effective at catching fraudsters and upsetting a few precious pound shop owners because they have to receive a letter warning them not to commit a crime before Trading Standards does an inspection is somehow part of a deliberate effort to demoralise public servants. You are literally suggesting that it is part of an "ideological war" against these people. It's a consolidation of the Sale of Goods Act for f**k's sake! This takes wackjob to a new level.

I'll bet that no-one apart from me bothers to read through all of that long-winded, ridiculous & tedious response.

The main highlight for me was your mention of "Mein Kampf". Godwin's law would suggest that the debate is now over and that you are not the winner.

However, I was saddened by your need to read some parts of Hansard relating to the bill in an attempt to appear knowledgeable about a subject that you clearly have no knowledge about. Its a pity that you seem to have missed all the debate in the Lords, where the main discussion on Schedules 5 and 6 was held.

Your point 3 is purely semantic. I've already told you that I won't engage in tedious debate with you over your propensity to twist meanings.

Point 4 is playing the man, not the ball. Are you now reduced to suggesting that I should be taken into the care of the state on mental grounds because I suggest that the right-wing press make up stories about local government?

Your point 5 is just plain wrong. Look at the order in which the aims of the act are set out. Firstly, it refers to general enforcement matters relating to communications, then to surveillance, then to use of CHIS (informants), then to accessing electronic data, then to setting up a tribunal to oversee these arrangements. The last objective relates to the security services & GCHQ, yet you seem to believe that this is the primary objective. Why?

You also appear to believe that this act has been "misused and abused" by various bodies. Do you take all your soundbites from the Daily Mail, or was this specific quote from the Daily Express?

Your final point relates to the fact that a significant percentage of traders have seen fit to express their concern about the negative effects of the legislation. You dismiss their concerns, stating that they are "a few precious pound shop owners". Is this really the public face of the business-friendly Lib Dem Party in 2015?

[Ad Lib]

I'll bet that no-one apart from me bothers to read through all of that long-winded, ridiculous & tedious response.

The main highlight for me was your mention of "Mein Kampf". Godwin's law would suggest that the debate is now over and that you are not the winner.

However, I was saddened by your need to read some parts of Hansard relating to the bill in an attempt to appear knowledgeable about a subject that you clearly have no knowledge about. Its a pity that you seem to have missed all the debate in the Lords, where the main discussion on Schedules 5 and 6 was held.

Your point 3 is purely semantic. I've already told you that I won't engage in tedious debate with you over your propensity to twist meanings.

Point 4 is playing the man, not the ball. Are you now reduced to suggesting that I should be taken into the care of the state on mental grounds because I suggest that the right-wing press make up stories about local government?

Your point 5 is just plain wrong. Look at the order in which the aims of the act are set out. Firstly, it refers to general enforcement matters relating to communications, then to surveillance, then to use of CHIS (informants), then to accessing electronic data, then to setting up a tribunal to oversee these arrangements. The last objective relates to the security services & GCHQ, yet you seem to believe that this is the primary objective. Why?

You also appear to believe that this act has been "misused and abused" by various bodies. Do you take all your soundbites from the Daily Mail, or was this specific quote from the Daily Express?

Your final point relates to the fact that a significant percentage of traders have seen fit to express their concern about the negative effects of the legislation. You dismiss their concerns, stating that they are "a few precious pound shop owners". Is this really the public face of the business-friendly Lib Dem Party in 2015?

So just to be clear, you are saying that because of an issue that the SNP's MPs didn't think even so remotely important as to be worthy of comment (they of course have no Lords) this Act is so heinous that it amounts to evidence of "Westminster waging a war on the public sector"?

Point 3 is purely semantic, in the sense that it relates to the meaning of the words that you said. Are you saying you didn't mean the meaning of the words that you said?

Point 4 is not "playing the man and not the ball". It is passing comment that your point is ridiculous. I consider you to be a man of sufficient intelligence that for you to have arrived at your conclusion there must be something wrong with you. If you genuinely believe that the purpose or intention of this legislation was to trigger events, including Daily Mail articles, that would "demoralise public sector workers" then I think you need to be seen by a psychiatrist.

If on the other hand you don't think this, then I am left wondering what the point of your obscure and irrelevant contribution to the thread was. Either you seem to think that the Consumer Rights Act's changes to enforcement measures are in some way important evidence of the government seeking to demonise public sector workers, or you don't. And I have absolutely no idea why you think the Daily Mail is relevant to that.

On point 5 I am not plain wrong. The primary purposes are contained in the long-title to the Act. They include specific powers which were designed to assist with law enforcement in particular in relation to the investigation of suspected terrorist activity. It was passed alongside the Terrorism Act 2000 as part of a multi-pronged approach. As with almost all developments in this area, the Labour Government in particular attempted to knit those powers together with general investigatory powers, but the primary intent, purpose and justification for these powers was, both at the time and in the legislation, stipulated as being connected with terrorism and related serious organised crime. If it were not intended to deal with terrorism and security related offences, the Act would not have made reference to the Security Services or GCHQ. The Act's subsequent use and abuse is a matter of public record, but again, I fail to see how it relates to the question of whether or not "Westminster" is "waging a war" on "the public sector".

Yes, the Act has unequivocally been used and abused by other government bodies. Poole Council's activities on several matters were heavily criticised by the Information Commissioners' Office back in 2008 and the police have attempted to use it to obtain journalists' sources. This most notably happened after the police sought to retaliate against those undermining their accounts of Plebgate only a few years ago. It is also unquestionably true that the Secret Services and GCHQ themselves have been rampantly abusing the extent of their powers under RIPA, concerns that have been raised frequently by those in the legal profession and human rights advocacy.

There has of course been a crack-down in the use of the surveillance powers by local authorities to monitor actions of residents towards the end of the Labour term in government. This was because councils had been seen to be resorting to the powers for matters that were relatively trivial and not of the severity envisaged by the framers of the Act.

For what seems like the 472nd time on this forum, it appears I am under an obligation to remind you and others that I am not "the public face of" the Liberal Democrats. I am not a spokesperson for them. I am merely an ordinary party member who happened to stand as a candidate in a no-hope seat for them at an election in the past.

I did not "dismiss their concerns". I specifically acknowledged that the act was "a bit shit" and that it "failed to catch fraudsters". What I "dismissed" were your hysterical attempts to elevate a few small businesses being upset by a letter clearly stating the legal obligations of someone subject to a Trading Standards inspection was somehow evidence of a concerted government act to "demoralise the public sector". Your words. Not mine.

I have absolutely no idea what you thought you were going to achieve by suggesting that Trading Standards letters to shop-owners was a critical part of us as a forum establishing whether Westminster was waging an ideological war against public services, but I'm sure somewhere underneath your tinfoil hat it made some sense to you.