Suffererof1crankymofo

I wouldn't necessarily put all the blame at the Tories but a lot of the new forms are tosh. What's even worse is some of the civil servants and/or the computer programs which don't understand plain English. Now did the Tories design the computer programs and the questions contained within the forms or the civil servants? Some might put forward the argument that it is the pressure on the civil servants working in job centres but is it the Tories' fault that they can't string a sentence together, let alone use punctuation? The fact there is no one in Lerwick Job Centre to help with queries can't be assisting those wanting to claim. And yep, giving up smoking can take time. So are the Sally Army saying that even if people have rolling tobacco instead of buying packets of cigarettes that they'll refuse a food parcel? Even with smoking/drugs/alcohol being self-inflicted, they're still people going hungry - showing them the door isn't really the Sally Army I know of old IF that is what they are doing. Sally Army shelters take in alcoholics and know that they continue drinking but don't allow them to drink on the premises. Not everyone has access to a garden or an allotment, some people don't even have access to Tesco's and have to rely on their local shop.

There's lots of data already out there done by such researchers (Rowntree, for example) regarding poverty. Many aid agencies do have unpaid volunteers who do work for nothing, if by nothing you are measuring it as being no money. I replied to a point made, I personally would not seek to make money at the expense of others' unfortunate situation - that's me. Not all journalists are exactly brilliant at reporting the facts these days, if anything, the standard of journalism has declined somewhat over the years into snippet misleading headlines. The OP may well indeed work for a charity but they don't say. Now, are you just trolling? I am not sure how my clear and succinct questions to you, which incidentally you did not answer, could be construed as trolling. This... ....on the other hand. Perhaps, next time you sit down with a fag, you should think a bit more about what trolling actually is. I'm gone now, lest I contribute to the continued destruction of this perfectly good thread for which I thoroughly commend Davie P for trying to salvage. I take it you missed the part where the OP typed "What do people think?" then? I replied with what I thought. Nice of you to comment on my earlier contribution to the thread (to which the OP thanked me and another, totally missing out Ghostrider though). Perhaps the next time you sit down with a pipe, you could look up flaming troll too but I won't bet on it.

Sssh, the SCT might hear ya and go for vegetable capital ... is that what the Green Investment Bank really is then?

Because writing an article about poverty and receiving payment for it just wouldn't sit right with me at all, that's why not. Do you expect journalists, academics, or researchers to work for nothing, or do you think that people just shouldn't write about poverty? What about charities and aid agencies which are devoted to fighting poverty, do you think that their staff should also work for nothing? As an aside the OP never said they were receiving payment for their article, did you have a point to make by raising that, or are you simply trolling? There's lots of data already out there done by such researchers (Rowntree, for example) regarding poverty. Many aid agencies do have unpaid volunteers who do work for nothing, if by nothing you are measuring it as being no money. I replied to a point made, I personally would not seek to make money at the expense of others' unfortunate situation - that's me. Not all journalists are exactly brilliant at reporting the facts these days, if anything, the standard of journalism has declined somewhat over the years into snippet misleading headlines. The OP may well indeed work for a charity but they don't say. Now, are you just trolling?

Because writing an article about poverty and receiving payment for it just wouldn't sit right with me at all, that's why not.

Some newspapers pay people to write articles ...

When you can only get a food parcel from a rather well off organisation (the Salvation Army) by going to local government (Social Services) or by using another charity (the CAB) to tick the necessary boxes, there's something fundamentally wrong. There's something fundamentally wrong in expecting smokers, drinkers, drug addicts to stop in order to qualify for a food parcel. This isn't the Salvation Army of years ago. The government is being criticised for saying that obese people on benefits should be forced to get help losing weight in order to get them off benefits, yet does anybody criticise the Salvation Army for basically adopting, on the face of it, a parallel stance? It's all well and good saying that the library has free internet access; it might have escaped the OP's notice but I'm willing to bet that there's a fair number of folk outwith Lerwick who don't even have the money to cover the bus fare to get to Lerwick. We shouldn't be in a situation where folk are reliant upon food parcels but by the same token, the Salvation Army shouldn't be relying upon others to do their assessments for them.

EU Directives regarding renewable energy targets: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028 Member states due to report progress June 2015.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/344446/UKG_ISLANDS_FRAMEWORK_-_15_August.pdf "Energy 18. The three island groups are vital to meeting the UK’s energy needs. Oil reserves around the island groups are well-established, with significant facilities on Shetland and Orkney to support the oil and gas industry. The UK Government is committed to working with the Islands Councils to assist strategic decision-making on future priorities for the oil and gas industry. The Islands Councils have a clear interest in future decommissioning activity involving cost implications for local authorities, other major infrastructure alterations, environmental protection and marine safety. 19. The three Islands Councils are invited to send a representative to the UK Government-chaired PILOT Forum (the principal pan-UK government-industry body) for any meetings with a bearing on their interests. With agreement of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the PILOT secretariat, the Islands Councils may submit papers through the Secretary of State for Scotland to inform Forum meetings. The UK Government also proposes to establish and host a dedicated Islands Oil and Gas Forum for the three Islands Councils and industry leaders examining strategic priorities for the industry and their impact on the islands. This forum, supported by the Department of Energy & Climate Change, will consider future strategic and operational activity, environment and safety matters, onshore and offshore decommissioning activity relating to the islands and support for community benefit. The islands have an important role supporting the oil and gas industry to thrive and succeed, and the UK Government will encourage industry to mitigate the impact of its activities on local communities. 20. Harnessing the power of wind, wave and tidal resources on and around the islands will power renewable energy generation, helping to meet the UK’s low carbon targets and reduce dependence on fossil fuels in the long term. The islands’ contribution is essential both to UK renewable energy deployment and to world-class research and development in this new industry. The UK is a world leader in wave and tidal technology, with real opportunities for tidal stream and tidal lagoon power to come on stream over the next decade. The islands play a very important role in these, and other forms of generation. 21. As part of the UK, the costs of subsidy for renewables deployment are shared across all Great Britain (GB) consumers. These subsidies take account of the costs of connecting different generation to the transmission network associated with, for example, offshore wind and renewables on the islands. The UK Government is committed to a series of actions to support renewables deployment at scale on and around Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles, and will pursue specific measures to support development of renewables in areas of Scotland with considerable energy potential but challenging conditions for developers. As part of the Contracts for Difference (CfD) incentive scheme, the UK Government announced its intention that onshore wind generators on Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles would be eligible for a higher level of support to overcome the additional costs faced by generators, including underwater transmission links and significantly higher operation costs. Noting the obligations imposed by EU Directives, the UK Government is committed to pursuing state aid approval for this tailored CfD scheme, allowing the higher capital and operational costs to be shared across the GB consumer base and generating greater commercial viability for renewables deployment on and around the islands. 22. The UK Government shares the three Islands Councils’ ambitions for deployment of renewable energy and for research and development activity, and we will work to ensure that obstacles to securing the necessary infrastructure are tackled effectively. The UK Government is committed to working with the Islands Councils to assist strategic decision-making on future priorities for the renewable energy industry affecting the Islands. The UK Government is working through the Scottish Islands Renewable Energy Delivery Forum, involving the Islands Councils, Scottish Government, industry and other key partners, to help deliver substantial progress on renewable deployment. Agenda, remit, membership and frequency of meetings will be set in consultation with other partners in the group. The Forum aims to reach agreement on a set of actions and timescales to work towards connecting the Scottish islands to the GB transmission grid and thereby enable the development of renewable energy at scale on the three island groups. The future of transmission links to the islands is a principal topic of consideration, as well as other ways to promote the success of the industry. Discussions will also cover consideration of future support mechanisms, exploration of R&D funding possibilities and a review of processes to give needs cases the best chance of success. 23. The UK Government is committed to a UK energy framework that ensures security of supply and reduces dependency on fossil fuels, while protecting the interests of consumers. As part of the UK’s approach to managing the energy system as a whole, consumers in Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles benefit from schemes which support and protect consumers and businesses. Specific provisions exist to support the operation of gas networks supplying Scottish customers not connected to the main Great Britain (GB) gas network. Domestic and non-domestic consumers in northern Scotland also benefit from protection from the high costs of distributing electricity over a remote and sparsely populated area. Following the review of the Common Tariff Obligation, the UK Government concluded that domestic consumers in northern Scotland, including Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles, should continue to be supported, and the UK Government is consulting on the best way to continue support for non-domestic consumers on Shetland. The UK Government’s proposed intervention would provide long-term regulatory certainty for non-domestic consumers. The UK Government will work with the Islands Councils on how best to support these objectives in their areas. 24. The UK Government is supportive of the principle of ensuring communities benefit from exploitation of the resources in their local area and recognise the value of greater community ownership, in giving communities a greater share of the benefits of renewable electricity generation and increasing support for deployment. Through the Community Energy Strategy, the UK Government is supporting local authorities and community groups to lead action locally, recognising the lead role of the Islands Councils in securing equitable benefit for their communities, particularly for major development. The UK Government has a Community Energy Contact Group made up of expert practitioners from across the UK and, in addition, the UK Government has convened an industry-led Taskforce to work with the community energy sector. This Taskforce is developing an action plan for substantially increasing the offer of shared ownership of renewables schemes to local communities. In case this is not successful, backstop powers will be introduced in the Infrastructure Bill 2014/15. If exercised these powers would give communities the right to buy a stake in their local renewable electricity schemes. The right to the offer of shared ownership would give communities the ability to invest in the power system on their doorstep – reaping the financial investment and ensuring these developments stay tethered to their local communities. The UK Government will work closely with the Islands Councils to ensure that their interests are considered in this context." Or alternatively, we need to meet our targets laid down by Europe. Does that mean as long as a windfarm has capacity to generate electricity, they've ticked the EU box? We'd like to sell you the idea that the community can reap the rewards and the profits ... but it also means if it doesn't make a profit, it'll be your money that has been lost and not our problem.

SSE's interim results issued Nov.'14 http://sse.com/media/274910/SSE-Interim-results-for-6-months-to-30-September-14.pdf "Working on possible transmission links for the Scottish islands Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles all have the potential to host large scale renewable energydevelopments which could add significantly to the local economies and also contribute towards Scottishand UK renewable energy targets. Major new transmission infrastructure is, however, required to getthe electricity they would produce to market. SHE Transmission has engaged with all key stakeholders, including the Scottish and UK governments andOfgem, through the Scottish Islands Renewables Delivery Forum and played a leading role in therecognition that all of those represented on the Forum have a part to play in finding solutions for thisexceptionally complex situation. The Forum has been successful in bringing greater clarity and betterunderstanding about what needs to happen before SHE Transmission can produce a robust needs caseupon which capital funding approval can be secured from Ofgem. This in turn has facilitated improvedrelationships with key stakeholders around the Scottish islands issues. For its part SHE Transmission has made it clear that, in line with its operating licence, it would beprepared to submit a needs case to Ofgem for an appropriate transmission solution at the right time -but making such a case without greater certainty on the scale of development and its timing is notpractically possible." Roughly translated as "we're not committing to anything right now".

Should we not sort out the civil war in Shetland first?

2013, from the BBC: Cost of generating electricity £/MWh:- Nuclear - £92.50 (takes effect 2023 onwards taking into account new nuclear plant) Onshore wind - £100.00 (takes effect 2014) Gas/coal generated - £55.05 (takes effect 2014) Approximately 25,000 jobs being created in building a nuclear power station - how many for VE? Oh, 1,400 during construction and how many after construction?

Edit: subsidies, not subsidiaries! (Need more coffee)

And I think we'll be seeing the changes in parliaments and subsidiaries to windfarms becoming less and less and less and less.

There's a donate button on the left-hand side of the page: http://www.sustainableshetland.org/economics/index.htm

Nope, 1984.

The case can still be heard in the European Court. If you want to bankrupt Shetland, then back VE. It's not over yet.

paulb, he pleaded guilty. "deferred sentence" might not apply in this case but rather "adjourned diet". Edit: It's not like the sheriff said "you behave for 3 months and we'll let you walk". Deferring sentence is accepting the guilty plea; it's not a trial in the sense of proving innocence or not. (From the Judiciary of Scotland website) Deferred sentence A form of sentence in which the final decision about any punishment is deferred or put off to another date, usually some three to 12 months later. Where sentence is put off for a few weeks for further information, such as social enquiry reports, this is not a deferred sentence, but is properly called an "adjourned diet".

Apparently prices are affected by up to 14km away:- http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/apr/08/windfarms-reduce-house-prices-compensation

"full impact". Given that property prices are affected by having wind turbines in close proximity for starters, some supporters already feel that they have nothing to lose, not to mention flicker, etc. Are you not concerned too at the shrinking pot of the SCT? Can Shetland afford VE?

Stone a crow, FlyBe have updated their website; the cost was previously displayed: http://www.flybe.com/baggage/cargo.htm Info on measuring for an IATA crate: https://www.iagcargo.com/iagcargo/portlet/en/html/products/specialist_cargo/live_animals

£10 per dog and maximum crate size is on Flybe's website. However, despite LoganAir saying one thing and FlyBe saying another (plus the manufacturer saying the aircraft is suitable), they are NOT taking bookings for dogs on the new planes. There was a right old thread on Failbook about this and they are now coming up with the excuse that they have no facilities to look after dogs should the owner fail to turn up at Sumburgh ... yet surely that shouldn't be a problem if unaccompanied. So it looks like only tiny mutts that can go in the passenger section as opposed to the hold are only permitted at the mo. All that said, some people seem to be able to book and others don't; guess it depends on the route and whether or not it is the new plane or not! It is a bloody nightmare and needs sorting out. British Airways' cargo handler has a link on their website to a PDF which outlines the various breeds which can't fly, together with those breeds which require additional crate space and how to measure the crate. Hope the above helps.

Did they call in the Health & Safety Manager (who was no doubt on call) to do the risk assessment then? I mean, not that anyone lost anything off their roofs, the odd fence panel, wheelie bin, solar panel, and they wanted to dump it responsibly like. Updating the website to advise us mere plebs of the closure was obviously too much to ask, given that no SIC staff member ever works from home.

Based on the first link, I would have said no so listened to the second and thought a tad different ... so searched on youchoob and found this gem by 'em:- Excellent idea asking whether or not peeps are interested in seeing them.

Have a good one!