A vote against this effete and frivolous Tory is a no-brainer by Polly Toynbee, The Guardian, Tuesday April 29 2008
Ken Livingstone has relentlessly worked to improve London’s lot. Boris Johnson is running only for fun and fame.
Vote for Ken
Men had spent on average £626 and women £519 on holidays and mini-breaks. Gay men also spent more than lesbians on clothing, £374 compared with £249, as well as furniture and fittings, where they typically spent £300 to women's £263.(source: the Guardian). Moving away from the headlines of the high earning capabilities of the community, we learn here that 8% of our community (identified as clerical and office workers) are likely to have a low income. Perhaps it was conducted on a very specific segment of the population (readers of magazines who can be expected to be from the higher and more affluent stratas of society), the survey does not mention manual workers and people with little qualification or the unemployed and the retired who are also all likely to be at the lower end of the pay ladder.
That reflects the fact that the typical gay man working full-time earns an average £34,168, compared to £24,783 for a lesbian. Both figures, though, are much higher than the salaries earned by the average male and female British worker of £24,236 and £18,531 respectively.
Among the respondents, 40 per cent of the women and 25 per cent of the men were professionals; 11 per cent of the women and 13 per cent of the men were managers; five per cent of the women and six per cent of the men were senior managers; and eight per cent of both sexes were clerical and office workers.
From December 5th 2005, LGB people who receive benefits, and live with their partner are treated in the same way as heterosexual people. They have been re-assessed as a consequence of their relationship. This has affected a significant number of people, who have been vocal in their objections to this joint income-assessment. This has indicated that there are LGB people in the UK who come from low-income backgrounds(Poverty and social exclusion, Stonewall).On the whole most people will find themselves better off as a result of Gordon Brown's exercise in juggling with the figures. However, the Institute of Fiscal Studies said that about 2 million people on lower wages - such as single people with no children earning between £12,000 and £18,500 - would lose out, as they would be harder hit by the abolition of the 10p starting rate.
We should stand up for Boris. So what if he has no grasp of detail and his management experience is limited to editing the Spectator magazine. He is a jolly funny chap and will be an inspiring ambassador for London.Johnson - or to give him his full name, Boris LOL!!!! what a legernd!! Johnson!!! - is a TV character loved by millions for his cheeky, bumbling persona. Unlike the cartoon MP, he's magnetically prone to scandal, but this somehow only makes him more adorable each time. Tee hee! Boris has had an affair! Arf! Now he's offended the whole of Liverpool! Crumbs! He used the word "picaninnies"! Yuk yuk! He's been caught on tape agreeing to give the address of a reporter to a friend who wants him beaten up! Ho ho! Look at his funny blond hair! HA HA BORIS LOL!!!! WHAT A LEGERND!!!!!!
- Martin Clerkenwell, London
I’d rather he spent £100M on new Routemasters than another penny on minority ethnic interests.
- Squiz, Islington
Doesn’t matter, I would much rather Boris spend the money on Routemasters unlike Ken who squanders our taxes on ‘focus groups’ for immigrants or visits to third world dictators.
- Kyle, London
So what if Boris got his sums wrong, I’d take someone who admits his error over someone who gets his team to lie for him so he doesn’t have to come clean…
- St, London
Boris all the way. He is funny and not politically correct which is great.
- David, Lincoln
Thank you for your e-mail regarding [sic]
I am sorry if you were offended by the content of 'Happy Mondays: The Don't Watch with Mother Sketchbook'.
I can assure you it's never our intention to deliberately upset its audience.
As you're no doubt aware and the programme title itself suggests the content often 'sails close to the wind'. However we can assure you the programme isn't intended to gratuitously shock and the humour contains no malice.
As a public service financed by the licence fee we must provide programmes which cater for the whole range of tastes in humour. We believe that there's no single set of standards in this area on which the whole of society can agree, and it is inevitable that programmes which are acceptable to some will occasionally strike others as distasteful.
The only realistic and fair approach for us is to ensure that the range of comedy is broad enough for all viewers to feel that they are catered for at least some of the time.
Nevertheless we appreciate that you felt this edition was in very poor taste and I'd like to assure you that we've registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.
Thanks again for taking the trouble to contact us with your concerns.
Ramble by Nicolas Chinardet at 16:34