Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The thing that sadden me most about this whole sorry saga is that when an MP is caught “flipping” his/her homes so as to gain a financial advantage, they firstly refuse to apologise saying that it is all well within the allowed rules (stuff morality eh?) and then eventually, and with as much bad grace as possible – they offer to pay the money back ffs!!!…… ONLY after they’ve been caught red handed stealing our money!!!
We all know that this works with thieves doesn’t it? Sorry Mr Policeman, you caught me bang to rights – here’s the money back again and all is OK now isn’t it? Yeah ..right!!!
Take Hazel Blears as a classic example of this ‘post capture penitence’. So she’s caught bang to rights fiddling her Tax to avoid paying Capital Gains Tax (CGT) on the profit she made on the sale of a house she claimed (to HMRC) was her main home – and thus exempt from CGT. She told the Parliamentary authorities that it was her second home and thus spivved US into paying for all the bills on it…. which added to her ‘profit’.
Caught red handed with her fingers in the till – she offered to pay back the £13,300 or so to HMRC and even had the bare faced cheek to appear on camera holding up a cheque for this ‘stolen’ money.
What she DOESN’T tell us is that there are penalties for evading Tax and if you knowingly and deliberately do this the penalty is 100% of the Tax due. Unless she re-submits a tax return to put her tax situation right, HMRC can only accept her £13,300 as an advance payment of tax due in the future and she will get it back from them as an ‘overpayment’ later on.
Nice one Hazel Blears – good photo opportunity, bags of publicity …. and it won’t cost you a penny in the long run!!!
The rule is that you can only waffle on locked threads – problem is that we can’t think of a way to enforce this rule.
Maybe this is a bit too obvious …… but why not continue using Internet Explorer for your chatroom etc experience?
It comes ‘bundled’ with Windows so you won’t have uninstalled it when you installed Firefox.
You were very lucky that he didn’t charge you with “being in possession of breasts in a public place with intent to cause a breach of the peace” or perhaps (if it was a male collector) “being in possession of an offensive weapon”.
Anyway you were lucky it wasn’t a collection for Altzheimer’s …….. “Please give generously for …….erm ……..erm ……. well please give generously anyway!”
@melody wrote:
I’m sure we’ve all had at least one dog too
It is alleged that some have had several dogs.@jen_jen wrote:
……. Too many English people arrive in foreign countries without a word of the local lingo and expect to be instantly understood, ………..
Quite right too. The plain fact is that if you speak very loudly and slowly and wave your arms around a bit … “foreigners” invariably understand you. There is absolutely no need to mess about learning a foreign language and thereby exposing yourself to ridicule for making elementary grammatical errors.
If they become slightly over-excited or argumentative – as “foreigners” are wont to do – this can be easily resolved by administering a firm tap behind the ear with a rolled up copy of The Daily Telegraph !!!
@quiet_man wrote:
……..however they don’t catch drunk drivers, dangerous drivers or people doing stupid things in cars. they just monitor one aspect of the law and one that doesn’t cause a major problem in and of itself.
They replaced traffic cops cos they are more cost effective, they are purely revenue raisers and have nothing to do with safety.By definition, speed cameras only a monitor motorist’s speed. They are not and never were intended to address the other motoring offences that you mention.
Traffic junction cameras only monitor a motorist’s ability to detect a red light from a green one and stop when they are required to do so (or their ability to see a prohibited turn sign and comply with it). They don’t purport to detect a driver’s alcohol level, or whether they are driving dangerously etc etc.
I don’t believe that they “replace” traffic police – simply that they add to the effectiveness of traffic law enforcement.
Ther ‘standard’ bleat from a section of motorists is that they are “revenue raisers” ….. OK then the answer is really simple isn’t it? Keep within the posted speed limits and the cameras won’t be raising any revenue from you will they? Don’t ‘jump’ red lights and you won’t get photographed & fined. Is this so bloody difficult to understand???
If you feel an uncontrollable urge to break the law, then you should accept your punishment and pay up…… not whinge on about how unfair it all is etc!!!
Sorry people but I simply don’t accept all this stuff about driving along watching the speedometer in case a camera gets you and thereby putting yourself at higher risk of an accident. What a facile argument.
So what are you doing in areas where there aren’t any cameras???
The plain fact is that if you drive a vehicle on a public road, you have a legal duty to drive it within the relevant speed limit. If you exceed that speed limit you commit an offence for which you can be punished.
I have a suspicion that people object to speed cameras primarily because they are an effective way of catching those who break the speed limits.
It’s pretty simple, if you don’t like the fines & penalty points – don’t break the speed limit……. or is that a bit too complicated for some drivers????
I’ve never eaten “tead” …… what does it taste like???
I love the irony!!!
However, I suspect that the 40 schools mentioned would do far better teaching the core curriculum than promoting ‘climate change awareness’.
Being in touch with a bunch of misguided new-age climate change fascists does not compensate for having poor literacy & numeracy skills in the real world.
