My statement above might not be correct. Are there two separate processes, moderation and spam trap?

(1) Earlier this evening I got caught in moderation (for quoting the word “M*u*ppet”) – after submission the comment appeared on the page with a yellow label “your comment is awaiting moderation”. That hasn’t happened to me for ages, in fact it had been so long I’d forgotten all about this process.

(2) The posts that I mentioned in my previous comment are ones that have simply disappeared without trace at the time of submission (no feedback of any kind), but appear on the page maybe 1/2 an hour later. So I’m guessing now that is a separate spam trap process?

Anyway, the occasions that I mentioned in my previous comment are examples of (2) not (1).

I do get caught (when using links) in some kind of moderation occasionally Lynn, sometimes even for just one link. Not very often, but it does happen.

[lprent: I stand corrected. I wonder what it is deciding on. ]

[lprent: Try doing that way for a while. I'll keep an eye on the queue between coding. If it is at that level I'll find some time to put in a code fix. Otherwise try logging in. That is meant to get rid of the problem entirely. rOb is usually logged in (thats how he gets the grey eminence background) and he doesn't get caught in that trap at all despite the numbers of links he posts. ]

lprent: yep. Try a test for me – next time do it with the
My Title
I believe that fixes the problem.

I’ve done it that way and been caught as well. From my end it looks kinda random which probably means it has something to do with the algorithm.

I’ll try this one as a test.

Is it simple humanity to perpetrate a system that is premised on the needs of one being an automatic claim on the assets of another?

No it’s not CMR but that’s why I support the elimination of capitalism.

It works for me that way, every time.

[lprent: Yeah that is what I think happens. If you put a 'raw' link in, then you get the spam checker periodically and frequently. Link with a anchor and it works without problems. That is what Tev meant when she said 'clean' links - didn't click.]

[lprent: yep. Try a test for me - next time do it with the
<a href='url'>My Title</a>
I believe that fixes the problem. If it does then I can probably do something about it (I hope).
I can't test easily. For some reason the system never refuses me....]

http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com/2008/08/get-those-sole-parents-working.html

And the work will have to be just in term time. Kids do need to be supervised in school holidays, or otherwise, as Blogger on the Cast Iron Balcony Helen so fetchingly puts it, they will end up building meth-labs in the back yard. It will probably take a bit of legislation or maybe incentives for employers to make this happen too, so that might be another dead rat that National needs to swallow, given that traditionally, they’re all about “keeping government out of business” and “leaving people free to make their own decisions” and “cutting compliance costs for businesses.”

They do have to see the GP every 3 months to have the form signed. I would have thought GPs should actually address their health or lack of it, at those meetings- rather than just signing the form.

What is MUCH harder is the unemployable, not really sick, but not actually employable and never likely to get any kind of job. So they say they have a sore shoulder or back and hide out on the SB rather than the dole, because the dole is a nuisance, makes you get up in the morning and do ‘courses’. And if you are 63, and cant work as a labourer anymore, or 55 an immigrant with no English and no skills and unlikely to get them, and no role in this society – well SB is easier than the alternatives.

In the end for some ‘sickness’ it is their word against your findings. Add to that the main part of GPs role is to make relationships with people, not accuse or medicalise them with certificates of unfitness when they really arent. Doctors arent detectives. They do get a feel for the real sick and the turn up every 3 months to sign the forms sick.

We need another benefit, the Unemployable Benefit.

Neither party seems to want to taget young people “on a course”

The unemployed aren’t hidden on sickness benefits. They are hidden on low quality ‘courses’ up and down the country. We pay for their bums on seats and off the streets learning absolutely nothing.

Kids on ‘courses’ come into my office every day, wanting me to write some note of excuse about why they havent been turning up, but should keep getting the money. ‘Computer courses’ where they play cards all day and learn nothing at all.

Thats what both parties should address. But neither is interested in increasing the truly unemployed stats.

“Judith Collins has repeatedly claimed that people are moving off unemployment benefits onto sickness benefits, partially accounting for the drop in unemployment beneficiaries. In an excellent post today, Jafapete demonstrates that this does not appear to be happening. Sickness benefit statistics are doing what you would expect them to do – rise with the increase in population. I’m sure he is correct. I have never bought in to Judith’s argument. I suspect that unemployment closely follows our economic outlook and has little to do with our social policy.

Having said that, Judith is right that something is not right with the number and spread of people on sickness benefits.

…..

The real reason that all GPs blithely sign sickness benefit forms, even though we know they may not be genuine, is that we don’t know that they are not genuine, we only suspect. For most of the suspicious cases, you would need a number of investigations, or a specialist opinion to confirm your suspicion. Your patient will either refuse to go, or make appointments with the specialist and then simply not attend. And there is no way you can force them.

File under “too hard’. Sign the form.

The only way this can stop is if you compel sickness beneficiaries to have an annual (or six monthly) medical with an independent doctor, preferably a specialist. This is not only good politics, it is actually good medicine, as specialist review of long-term illness is good clinical practice. Frankly, I don’t see this as being unpopular with sickness beneficiaries, apart from the ones milking the system. The majority of them would love to get better and go back to work, if they could.”

http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/?p=84