Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@mrs_teapot wrote:
Did someone say something??
I just laughed out loud, but I was trying something about laughter therapy off the telly. What have I missed?
@(f)politics? wrote:
. . . . perhaps some nice aftershave for ur mush…
balm not cologne, some of us are sensitive souls y’no!!
A friend of mine who works for a relevant government department (sounds so much better than ‘tax inspector’ doesn’t it?) Says basically the people at the top evade tax, the people at the bottom don’t have to pay it or have it balanced out by benefits.
The people in the middle on PAYE and those businesses who don’t evade tax basically pay for the country. A lot is raised through unavoidable revenues – VAT, fuel etc. And by the way money goes through the banking system, investments in currency, Government bonds and so on. However, the ebbs and flows of the balance between current income and current expenditure often have to be covered by borrowing.
I wonder how many highly paid journalists and media commentators who have their salaries paid through shell companies and evade paying tax themselves then condemn this and previous governments for borrowing money? How else are things going to get paid for?
Civil servants, don’t make the rules at that level, it would need ministerial approval at least, if not a vote in parliament to change the legal basis on which these schemes run.
All governments have a high percentage of millionaires, so it’s no surprise that they don’t put a lot of energy into reducing the chances of avoiding tax. Be under no illusion that not only do civil servants know about these schemes but that they have repeatedly recommended closing the loopholes, but it has been refused.
The constitutional change to the historical relationship with the Channel Islands on which these schemes operate would be major.
But Governments also are at the mercy of the electorate, who obviously don’t make it enough of an issue and as individuals show no enthusiasm themselves for paying tax – to the point in many cases of paying more to private providers for services than it would cost them in tax for quality state provision.
Jimmy Carr? Admire his wit and use of irony, I do think he goes too far sometimes. He’s by no means the only, first or even most obvious person using this scheme. The fact he’s disliked enough by the government for Cameron to pick him out makes me want to admire him more.
I understand if you use a similar scheme but maintain a safe posture you get an OBE. (Gary Barlow) or if you are an MP and use a similar scheme you get the full support of your leadership. (cough!)
Hang on to the world as it spins around
Just don’t let the spin get you down
Donny Hathaway
@rogue trader wrote:
i have been uncovering more facts about our here.C.B.FRY
1,cb once won a game of connect 4 in only 3 moves.
2,cb counted to infinity>>>>> twice!
3,cb was completely indifferent to marmite
4,cb had 5273 assination attempts on him, they all failed obviously.
5,cb had the idea to sell his urine as a canned drink, we now call this drink red bull
6,cb actually did kill 2 birds with one stone.
7,cb could unscramble an egg.
8,cb could gargle peanut butter.
cb once held his breath for 6 hours and 33 mins.
9,cb could boil water with his mind
10,cb could build snowmen out of rainwhat a fascinating bloke.right im up to chapter 3 in his biography, laters.
=D> =D>good one!
Pepper, I quoted an experience which was real in this forum and relevant to this thread. I felt that the treatment I had received had a similar impact as that to which f_pol was referring: inhibiting the freedom of certain people to address a particular topic.
I had no intention of ‘digging it up’ and only returned to the detail to answer your objection precisely. I still believe that if previous threads produce specific instances which are relevant, one should be free to refer to them. I did not characterise you by it nor insult you because of it. I am very pleased that you will not apologise for your feelings, that would be wrong.
I wish you had drawn on your litany of experiences at the time, it could have greatly expanded the conversation, taken it out of mere assertion with genuine rebuttal rather than insulting contradiction. I had tried to remain constructive and explained at the time why I eventually diverted from that path.
I am glad you acknowledge that the original comment was over the top. As such it left a strong impression. I acknowledge the passion in your comment. It is your right to comment in any style you choose at any time, but the consequences are not completely within your say-so..
@(f)politics? wrote:
. . . . you (cannot) know how it feels to . . . . feeling stifled of freedoms of speech under that umbrella,
Yes I can See my previous posting.
I’m not just the colour of my skin. As a middle aged, middle class, English, heterosexual male of Christian heritage and cultural allegiance (I do luvs my labels!), there are several debates from which others have tried to exclude me. Including debates about my own experiences and yes, ones about colour, based on an assumption that I am well served by the status quo.
So inasmuch as any experience can be generic, yes, I can possibly know.
@Sgt Pepper wrote:
May I ask why my input on a different thread is being brought into this? This being a thread I havent contributed to, yet one (up till now) that I was enjoying reading. And in such a misinterpreted manner at that .. ranging from the accusatory to the condescending?
That thread finished in relatively good spirit did it not?
If there are still issues unresolved, I’m certainly unaware. And I was quite content to walk away agreeing to disagree.This is not a whinge, just an expression of exasperation. So, with all due respect, I’m asking that I be left out of this one.
As a favour.
I’d appreciate it.
Thanks.
It’s relevant to the subject Pepper. It’s relevant because it is ‘in our own backyard’ and an example of something which Poli claimed darker skinned people were not subject to.
Sorry if it spoils it for you Pepper but the words in bold are yours, in reply to “. . . think about the times you’ve been subjected to racism and you might recognise the corellation.”
you offeredI won’t grace such a stupendously idiotic remark with a response.
You later explained the tone of your contributions and offered an apology, I have accepted the apology, but that doesn’t un-say what you have said.
In any case, if the thread finished in a good spirit then why can’t it be quoted as an example of something that actually happened and was resolved?
Why is it accusatory or condescending to suggest that you might have been discriminated against because of your colour? (I realise you might not be white, so not included in f-pol’s assertion – but was she being condescending?)
Why is it accusatory or condescending to suggest that such experience might have given you insight to back up your authoritatively-phrased postings and disagreements with the comments made by panda and myself based on our separate experiences.
Why is it accusatory or condescending to refer to something you actually posted where it had the effect quoted?
I’m afraid one of the consequences of having a style that by your own admission might be seen as abrasive, is that it can have a harsh impact, even if not intended. Thus it tends to be memorable. I don’t expect you to change your style, but you put this ‘out there’.
Count yourself lucky, at least I simply referred to the actual impact of something you actually posted, and nothing further. I’ve become such a by-word in the eyes of one chatter, that being associated with me was used by him as an insult against someone else who hadn’t even mentioned me!
Poli, it’s not true to say someone of dark skin colour doesn’t get the same gagging if they mention colour. It can be misery indeed to be treated as a troublemaker with a chip on the shoulder for commenting on even the most obvious bias. And please be aware that the hypocrisy of uncaring PC can turn it’s ire on any black person that doesn’t toe the party line with equal or greater ferocity as it does to a white person in the same position.
We had a prolonged serious of postings on these boards where Panda was accused of playing the race card for mentioning racism. when I supported the point she was making I in turn was accused of the same thing. The intention on the part of those criticising was certainly to shut us up as there was no recognition of any validity to the points we tried to make.
Even when I tried to give Pepper grounds for some insight behind his rebuttals on the basis that he might have been on the receiving end of unfair treatment because of his colour – as you are claiming to be – he reacted as if it was an insult not worth peeing on.
Two sides of the same coin, whatever the target or the intention, anything that reinforces a sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’ and relegates ‘them’ to a position where they deserve lesser freedoms, fewer rights, a poorer quality of life and keeps them away from the inside knowledge which would help them to acclimatise reflects the bad side of cliques. The chances are any one of us has been treated like that at some time.
If you’re not aware of being on the receiving end of this treatment, either because you haven’t, because it’s forgotten, or because it’s been subtle, then observing other people assert themselves in the face of discrimination can seem over the top.
But I would suggest that if apparent unfairness in a thread on the boards can but that hurtful, imagine how it can feel out in the world where it can affect your job, housing, social integration or that of your children. Under those circumstances something inessential, like a marriage ceremony, might acquire disproportionate importance.
People who belong to, or associate with the ‘in’ crowd can be mystified by the perspective of those who don’t (do cliques of men ever understand women? Do cliques of women ever recognise the impact on men of some of their more dismissive comments?).
It takes listening and respect to change things. A long term view which allows patience and persistence also helps. That’s what we tend to do with people we care about. I hope the attempts to explain on both sides reflect that and are not simply defences to entrenched positions
