BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 04:13 AM

Who knows? if you had understood the funny words, you might not type such twaddle.

Perhaps I didn't make it too clear. After all, so many misconceptions (starting with the emotive crap about labour camps, assassinating elected politicans blah blah...) I must admit, I did (for the first time here) get a bit disgruntled when some people thought it OK to say that paying what I owe in taxes isn't enough, and that not being on the scrapheap is something I should be ashamed of. I was told I was being dishonest by making sure I don't pay a penny more than I should. A number of times I pointed out that if anybody feels that to be the case, they can make voluntary Inland Revenue contributions, but I think I pay enough.

Hilarious to be told to pay more by those who claim to pay less. One of the problems with any society is the lust for greed, usually wrapped up in wanting a fairer society. Don't believe a word of it. The true colours of the would be dangerous (if they could get out of their armchairs) failed socialist weird beards are all on view for all to see on this thread and other contemporary ones, (usually started by Richard III.) Regular little Bonapartes...

Luckily, we live in a Western democracy, so the vast majority of decent thinking pragmatic people outnumber the silly little trots by a wide margin, so society can afford to marginalise you, ignore you and when it suits, point and laugh at you.

Why i am setting out to be so nasty to your point of view? Something about people here condoning violence, misrepresenting situations, black propaganda against an incompetent government, (you don't need to spout lies, they resemble a one legged man at an arse kicking contest without your ruddy help.)

The list goes on, but look at the average person, with his flat screen telly, PC, car that works and 2.3 kids. He isn't interested in your scare stories, even if they were factual he would say (and does say according to the polls) that something must be done because be buggered to funding an underclass with no sense of dignity of work. Something must be done to change the mindset..

Pity those with the chance of changing it are not capable, but we can't have it all ways, eh? The need for a look at society and all we get are ruddy Tories, ones that believe their own philosophy too, worse luck. I don't know what the answer is, but I bet it doesn't have a beard, and I bet it has to be elected too. Just like this lot were. (Oh, if you think they weren't then I cannot help with your failure to grasp the rules of Parliamentary democracy. Nobody has to like the outcome, but you place a bet on the understanding you might not back the winner.)

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,crowsister
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 12:01 PM

Hmm, in fact I reckon should start reading The Star, then maybe I could finally make something of myself! And to think of all the hours I wasted reading books with funny sounding words in.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,crowsister
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 11:41 AM

"Stop having opinions please, you are putting society back with your failed utopian nonsense."

Failed utopian nonsense, like a decent education for working-class / lower income folk presumably? Then again, as the criteria for being a *success* in life, is all about the money, fuck all that failed utopian education bullshit! Let's ensure young lowly educated lasses are a real *success* in life by doing work experience on how to be like Jordan instead!

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 11:33 AM

"your Camberwick Green / Trumpton world"

Again, so wide of the mark that it would have been better for those in the Van if you had been the gunner on duty.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 11:31 AM

"you must give the enemy a chance to kill you before you can kill them"

This could go on for ever ...

The guys who destroyed the Van weren't in Danger.

They had time and space to look for evidence of a threat from the Van.

"kill those who are about to kill your colleagues,"

There was no evidence that the Van was a threat of any sort.

Round and round and round we go, supporting discredited arguments with conclusions based on the same discredited argumnents.


There was no threat from the Van.

The guys who Dstroyed the Van saw no evidence of a threat from the Van.

The Guys who destroyed the Van were not under fire.

They had time to make an informed decision from the safety of 5 miles away.

So none of your arguments apply.


You're just making shit up.


The only evidence concerning their motivation is their eagerness to be allowed to destroy the van and their satisfaction once they have done so.


I suspect you will say something like "but they were at risk" or "but they were under fire" or "but they were defending their colleagues on the ground from attack" again, because you appear to be too thick to stop repeating it ad infinitum.

Go on say it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 11:03 AM

"The Canada Revenue Agency has significantly disenfranchised the tax avoidance/tax planning right of a tax payer by developing a general anti-avoidance rule (GARR), a vague provision that allows the tax agency to disallow a tax benefit if the tax payer's avoidance measure "abused" the Income Tax Act."

IMHO the wrong turning in UK tax law was taken when the maxim "there is no equity in a taxing statute" was adopted. I thought it came from IRC -v- Westminster, but I maybe wrong. What there is, certainly, is a purpose.

In my view, tax evasion involves escaping the purpose of taxing statutes. Whatever steps are taken are taken with a view to reducing the payer's liability from what it would otherwise be, and thus the tax revenue raised below what it would otherwise be.

In all other statutory interpretation "the mischief rule" would allow the examination of purpose and the application of the statute so as to give effect to that purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 10:43 AM

Yes, Willie - we know which you prefer - which is why no doubt all your arguments seem directed to keeping YOU that way and sod everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 09:22 AM

"The MNF and Iraqi troops on patrol on the ground weren't 5 kilometers away though were they Lox?"

And they didn't Obliterate the van.

The guys who did weren't in any danger."

Oh sorry Lox I forgot in your Camberwick Green / Trumpton world you must give the enemy a chance to kill you before you can kill them, how bloody stupid of me.

What the hell do you think providing cover or support involves you fool, you, hopefully from a position of safety, undetected by the enemy, kill those who are about to kill your colleagues, and that Lox is exactly what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 07:55 AM

Willie hasn't got a bean actually, his real me has He is a silly name from a person who Willie is describing, someone who thinks it hilarious how sanctimonious whingers get irate if somebody has something they haven't.

The bloke behind this absurd Willie character has been skint and has been very comfortable, and I know which he prefers.

He has also earned not taken. in fact the only thing he ever took was, I suppose, child benefit.

In fact the only reason this came out was having to put up with self confessed moaners saying nobody is allowed money, nobody with a bean should have any say in anything blah blah.

Stupid hypocrites.

Stop having opinions please, you are putting society back with your failed utopian nonsense. And then, I will stop having mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 06:45 AM

"The MNF and Iraqi troops on patrol on the ground weren't 5 kilometers away though were they Lox?"

And they didn't Obliterate the van.

The guys who did weren't in any danger.

And your attempts to wriggle and squirm and change the subject to hide the fact that your argument has been utterly picked to pieces, and your assessment of the facts has been shown to be utterly off the mark won't change that.

Maybe the apaches were loaded for bear?

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 03:38 AM

"when you are under fire and under threat"

"... they were 5kn away in a nice cool air conditioned helicopter watching it on a TV screen."

The MNF and Iraqi troops on patrol on the ground weren't 5 kilometers away though were they Lox? Your Reuters men had hurried to the scene at the invitation of the insurgents so that Reuters could get their "scoop" and film the ambush from the insurgents side. That is why they were not wearing their vests and helmets - and that plus the company they were in is what made them legitimate targets - and that is what Reuters concluded after having seen the "evidence" within 14 days of the incident happening. The patrol had already come under fire which is why the helicopters were there.

Please Lox tell us about your experience of seeing what 30mm cannon fire can do, As I said I am absolutely dying to hear this fairy-story. You have been inside a house hit by 30mm fire? Standing near a house that was being hit? You were firing a 30mm cannon at a house? Or have you just seen video or photographs? If the latter then you would have to know what ammunition was being used to talk about the effects of that fire. Tell us all what ammunition was being used by the Apache's in the Reuters incident? I can and it would explain why nothing was "blown to bits".

But no murder - no war crime

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,crowsister
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 03:05 AM

'Oi am roight of course, because oi am so much richer than yow!'

Not quite Loadsamoney Ake, different characters. See here: Stanley and Pammy

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 09:31 PM

"when you are under fire and under threat"

Round and round in circles ...

... they were 5kn away in a nice cool air conditioned helicopter watching it on a TV screen.

Sorry mate, but NONE of your assertion stands up - not even the mealy mouthed whinge for sympathy.

I don't think there's anything left to mop up.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 06:14 PM

Please - as far as we know Willie acquired his money in zero sum games, so apparently he did not make it he took it.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 05:05 PM

"Evidence is the key Teribus and you're wilfully ignoring some very important evidence

Awww God Bless "Evidence is the key" when you are under fire and under threat - Don't you fuckin' believe it sunshine. I will tell you with absolute certainty when it kicks off and the bulets start flying, there is you, your mates and your shadow on the floor - evidence does not even enter into it, if you want to come out of it alive. But there again Lox I have been there you have not.

"I've seeen what 30mm cannon rounds can do to a house, much less a van"

Ohhh come on Lox I'd love to hear the story behind this fairytale!!!

You pal do not even have the foggiest bloody notion.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 03:59 PM

Loadsamoney!!!!!

Satire....but not as we know it, Captain!

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: mandotim
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 03:47 PM

Any one remember that Harry Enfield character, the nouveau-riche Brummy? 'Oi am roight of course, because oi am so much richer than yow!'

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,crowsister
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 01:28 PM

"at least they aren't failed weird beards with a warped view due to that ruddy great chip on their shoulder.
If we must have such a pissing contest, choose your weapons. Mine is a personal tax bill last year of £123K."

Well at least we're all clear about what precisely counts as "failure" and success for the likes of Bonzo and Willie. It's all about how much money you either do or do not make. Nice one.

Mind you, as another Mudcatter put it to me (not Richard incidentally) if Willie brays on about how fat his paycheck is in any more posts, s/he will also "start steaming".

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 01:14 PM

And you think, Willie, that having that money makes you a better person?

And why do you think that you have "made" money rather than "taken" it?

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 12:58 PM

Yep, I pay my taxes, every bit to the letter of the law.

That makes me dishonest then.

Luckily, as wrong as this government are on so many issues, at least they aren't failed weird beards with a warped view due to that ruddy great chip on their shoulder.

If we must have such a pissing contest, choose your weapons. Mine is a personal tax bill last year of £123K.

Good job for HM Treasury that I am so dishonest then.

Oh, and I know what money is too. I have made enough of the damned stuff, as some pathetic idiot pointed out in another thread.... Ah, but do i know the value? No. Can't say that I do. That's perhaps the one thing I have in common with armchair socialists, except my no concept of not appreciating value is that I believe in the concept of personal wealth, which is a bit more than I can say for Trotsky & co.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 12:12 PM

"The idea that the tories wouldn't have done exactly the same - if not worse - in Iraq is a joke."

Most of the lefty posters here are a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 10:16 AM

The idea that the tories wouldn't have done exactly the same - if not worse - in Iraq is a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 10:14 AM

"there was no way of knowing who or what was in that van"

"It was absolutely impossible for you or anybody else at the time to claim with any degree of confidence that it did not contain "dissidents"

"The gun thing came from the transcripts, the crews of the helicopters were of the opinion that guns and bodies were going to be removed."


Thank you Teribus.


Lets look at what you said.

1. There was NO EVIDENCE of who or what was in the van.

2. The Hlicopter crews OPINION was that the occuants were a threat.

Opinion based on what?

On No Evidence thats what.

In other words, shoot first and ask questions later.

Evidence is the key Teribus and you're wilfully ignoring some very important evidence ... the pilots desperation to be allowed to obliterate the Van and his satisfaction once he had done so.

The fact that it didn't blow up was just providence. I've seeen what 30mm cannon rounds can do to a house, much less a van - and if you are to be believed, you certainly know what 30mm shells are capable of - so you are as disingenuous as you are preposterous.

That attack was not motivated by any recognizable threat.

It was motivated by a desire to destroy.

There is no evidence of the former, but there is of the latter.

What we saw was a man dying and a van pulling up to pick him up, before attempting to drive off again before he was in properly, and some asshole begging to be allowed to rip it to pieces rather than allow their "kill" to escape and survive.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 09:06 AM

Well, it's entirely possible that my late wife did make it up, she was a Pisces and frequently followed by the CIA and FBI, and it's equally possible that Alex Campbell had by the time she took the words down from him adopted an Alan Francis revision, and was not letting on that the new version was not his. It's the sort of thing that a man would do with a pretty girl around.

However, Conservative governments have got us involved in plenty of armed conflicts (Korea, Suez, Falklands etc, etc) and persistently have a more warlike persona. If you really really think that they won't do it again I think you will be disappointed, and I think history is on my side.

This thread is about the con-dems attach on welfare. Yesterday it came out that hardship payments will be withheld from those who refuse to do conscript community service. It really is a forced labour scheme.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 08:34 AM

Best tell Alan Francis that then Richard so that he can alter his notes, he seemed pretty certain that he had changed Alex campbell's original words.

But none of which detracts from the point made that it was a Labour Government that took us into armed conflict twice and they, hopefully, will not be in any position to do so again for a very long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 07:01 AM

Oh, incidentally, well googled Terry - but the words I used I have in my late wife's handwriting as she took them down from Alex Campbell personally.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 06:32 AM

20x20 hindsight is a marvellous thing Lox, absolutely fuck all use to you if you are charged with providing fire support for your colleagues who you know for a fact to be already under fire. You then observe an ambush being set up in their path of advance, you relay your gun camera pictures to your controller infroming him of what you are seeing, he then gives you permission to engage that target. That simple, anybody then coming onto that scene to render assistance to those engaged in setting up that ambush is to be considered an enemy - Again downright simple.

No murder - No war crime.

"If you care to ressurect that thread, you will see that I watched the video then too, and to me it was blidingly obvious that that van did not contain dissidents."

The only things that were blindingly obvious Lox was that there was no way of knowing who or what was in that van. It was absolutely impossible for you or anybody else at the time to claim with any degree of confidence that it did not contain "dissidents" (That word conjures up a picture of Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn crouched in the van dashing off a quick chapter on his way home).

Anyone arriving on the scene are not permitted to remove anything. The gun thing came from the transcripts, the crews of the helicopters were of the opinion that guns and bodies were going to be removed.

"And I remember your deep and insightful comments along the lines of "well those who died were idiots who deserved it for being thick."

Yep, absolutely right, the driver of that van was thick, bone thick in fact, and a downright lousy parent totally incapable of exercising good judgement to boot.

"one minute you are orgasming over the power of a 30mm cannon"

Well no actually Lox I just said that they were loud, the point being made was that it is pretty difficult not to hear them, and no "I did not see any vehicle being blown to bits" in the video I looked at.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 06:29 AM

100

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 06:09 AM

"Where did you attribute Akenaton's remarks to me? In the first line of your post, plus "as for this comment" and by ommission."

Bollocks.

What you infer and I imply are not to be confused.

I suggest you avoid confusing yourself with that distinctly deluded imagination of yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 06:06 AM

"Again only established AFTER the event."

Thats it Teribus.

Shoot first and ask questions later.

Pass the death sentence and then investigate the executed party.


If you care to ressurect that thread, you will see that I watched the video then too, and to me it was blidingly obvious that that van did not contain dissidents.

YOU claimed they were looking for guns aand survivors.

Yet there was no attempt to get guns.

So you made that shit up!

YOU were the onbe who made bliind assumptions - which were WRONG, while me deductions have been proved to be RIGHT.

And I remember your deep and insightful comments along the lines of "well those who died were idiots who deserved it for being thick.


No mate - you were wrong, and I was right.


The best you have on me is a spelling mistake.


WELL DONE!


It doesn't change the fact that you were WRONG.

Your assessment at the time was besed on WRONG assumptions.

Sticking to it now just confirms you as a preposterous fool.


And getting all high miinded because Richard JOKES about having a sniper rifle, when you STILL support the wanton destruction of a van by some blood thirsty assholes who were themselves in NO DANGER - being over 5km away - and who had AGES to analyze their target for risk.

The van stopped to help a screaming man and tried to leave straight away.


And Teribus, one minute you are orgasming over the power of a 30mm cannon, and the next you are saying "I did not see any vehicle being blown to pieces, if that had happened there would have been no survivors."


But no - you're right Richard should be ashamed of himself for making a joke about a sniper rifle.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 05:18 AM

By the way, we know it was a taxi because the litle girl who was in the Taxi who survived, has said "it was a taxi".

First instance of anybody knowing there was anybody inside the vehicle was when the US soldier looked inside, so nobody knew it was a taxi at the time, nobody knew it was carrying any children - TRUE??

"She also said it was going home."

Again only established AFTER the event.

"When they came near a dying man they stopped to help him as he was screaming in pain and dying."

Implies they just came across the incident in passing. Not so the van deliberately drove up to scene. No sign of movement before then, had they just been passing the van would have been spotted by at least one of the helo crews and reported.

"If I saw a man screaming in pain and dying I, unlike you, would also help him."

As you know absolutely nothing about me your assumption that I would not help is incorrect and insulting. Unlike you I have actually been present at the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack and had to deal with those maimed and wounded by it.

But to get back to the scenario you described, where you would rush to the poor man's assistance. Let us put this in context shall we:

1. You are driving home with your two children;

2. You are driving in a city that is experiencing the worst insurgent and sectarian violence it has experienced for four years, over one thousand people have been killed in this area inside a month;

3. As you have been driving home you have heard gunfire (30mm cannons make a bit of a din)

4. You come to a junction and you look one way and see a man crawling along the pavement and you see other bodies lying all over the place;

5. Not having a clue as to what caused this mayhem and whether it is safe to approach or not, you then decide to drive yourself and your children deliberately into a situation that is highly likely to be life threatening.

You Sir are a complete and utter idiot - pick-up your Darwin "Parent of the Year" award at the door.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 04:56 AM

"you can't place the quote. Ah well, hardly surprising."- RB

Alex Campbell song "Been on the Road So Long"

Although Campbell wrote:

"the lies and the greed of the leaders of men - those cheats who would take us to war again."

Your quote is the third verse as altered by Alan Francis.

Lox: "getting in dep??" What exactly is that?

Where did you attribute Akenaton's remarks to me? In the first line of your post, plus "as for this comment" and by ommission.

As to what you "specifically" referred to:

"You on the other hand watch a video of a taxi ferryig some kids home getting blown to pieces by a helicopter 5 miles away and salute the pilots who did it."

That in no way resembles the video I am talking about. but maybe you can clarify things slightly:

1. What identifies the vehicle as a taxi??

2. At any time in the video are passengers in general let alone any "children" seen?

3. I did not see any vehicle being blown to pieces, if that had happened there would have been no survivors.

4. I "saluted" the pilots who did it?? No I stated that they were not guilty of "murder" or of committing "War crimes". I ststed that that on the evidence shown by their gun cameras and the situation on the ground that they were perfectly justified in opening fire. Bit of a difference there Lox, if you cannot see that difference then discussion is over.

You were only able to go into print with this emotive crap courtesy of 20x20 hindsight a luxury not available to those present at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 04:27 AM

You're digging yourself in dep Teribus ...

I. I referred specifically to the "taxi" containing children that was glefully blown up by the pilots.

I didn't refer to any armed men.

"You on the other hand watch a video of a taxi ferrying some kids home getting blown to pieces by a helicopter 5 miles away and salute the pilots who did it."

Any mention there of armed or unarmed civilians?

No - so more ravings from the desperate delirious patriot clinging desperately on to his belief that it is right his son is in afghanistan because if he doesn't he fears he will go mad ... too late!

Methinks Captain Ahab should go into rehab!

By the way, we know it was a taxi because the litle girl who was in the Taxi who survived, has said "it was a taxi".

She also said it was going home.

When they came near a dying man they stopped to help him as he was screaming in pain and dying.

Just as I suggested.

So that means I was right and you Ahab were wrong.

If I saw a man screaming in pain and dying I, unlike you, would also help him.

2. As for my comment concerning the quote from Ake,

Where did I attribute it to you?

Nowhere.

I criticized the comment.

Take your fingers out of your ears and stop shouting.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 04:25 AM

Gosh Terry, you can't place the quote. Ah well, hardly surprising.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 03:18 AM

"Simple Terry - the lies and the greed of the leaders of men - those fools who will take us to war again."

I take it that in referring to "the lies and leaders of men" Richard you are referring to the last Labour Government that the UK had to suffer under. That being so the second part of your post - "those fools who will take us to war again" - makes no sense at all as they are no longer in any position to "take us" anywhere, and I hope that that will continue to be the case for the rest of my natural life, the track record of Labour Governments in the UK has been nothing short of appalling, this last one however managed to take the biscuit in terms of corruption, incompetence and idiocy.

"You on the other hand watch a video of a taxi ferrying some kids home getting blown to pieces by a helicopter 5 miles away and salute the pilots who did it." - Lox

Well Lox having actually watched that video a couple of things are patently obvious:

1. The "innocent civilians" were armed, which made them and those in their company legitimate targets under the Rules of Engagement in force at the time, MNF troops having already come under fire.

2. At no point at all in that video did I (or the Apache crews) see any children.

So the contention outlined in the section of the post quoted above is bullshit.

As for this bit:

"As for this comment,

"try and show a bit of understanding of the fuckin' issues."

its a bit like watching a walrus lecture a seagull on how to fly. - Lox

That comment was Akenaton's nothing to do with me at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 09:19 PM

On another thread "the house of orange is pretty in offensive to be shot at" quoth Ollie.

He writes such ungrammatical unpunctuated illiterate gibberish that it is hard to be sure, but that looks like condoning shooting at people to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: ollaimh
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 08:50 PM

anyone who thinks the comment about sitting over parliament with a rifle is out of line and maybe out of their heads . the difference between doing it and talking about it is really the difference between a crimal threat and a tortious threat. you can sue for thast sort of thing as in individual,although people , especially politicians rarely do.

richard bridges is posting his usual nutter comments-does he ahve any education at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: mandotim
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 06:04 PM

My own distinction about tax; anyone who takes active steps to avoid paying tax which has been levied should be prosecuted. Receiving an allowance as legislated and intended in that legislation is (to my mind) complying with both the letter and spirit of the rules. The deliberate construction of elaborate schemes to avoid paying what is due is chearing, and in my view wholly dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 04:17 PM

Willie - you are outed. Those quotes were just on this thread.

Further - there are many concepts in tax. What tax planning does is to insert artificial transactions or constructions into what would otherwise be simple to reduce the tax bite. The old forestry trick to turn income into capital growth, the old preftrick to avoid tax on the issuance of shares, Non-D-ing companies to get round the old Section 261D ICTA (oh shit - about 1976). These tricks have not effectively been stopped up by judge-made law (as I said somewhere, it may have been above) but they upset government revenue predictions as effectively as evasion (or benefit fraud - which is rare and trivial in comparison.

You are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem (I think that's nearly a quote from the MC5).

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 04:07 PM

Willie,

You don't do your credibility any favours when you effectively state:

"I don't care if money is x, y, and z, I am going to keep saying it is a,b and c"

You may say that the sky is green or the sea is dry too if you like, but it would at least be worth acknowledging you you have made a mistake if it turns out you are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 10:45 AM

Well bugger me.

Well done, you certainly put some work into that set of selective quotes. You should give The Daily Mail a ring, they could do with somebody like you to write their leaders.

Mind you, I can't see your point in those posts, but am flattered all the same.

Sorry, onto more serious stuff;

Mandotim, I hear what you are saying but tax is, wrongly in my opinion, very complicated. Loop hole is a term that is very much abused. if you don't owe it, then paying it would be either silly or extreme altruism. To my knowledge, only HMQ does voluntary tax payment. the line between minimising and avoiding is, to be fair, a weird line but just because somebody earns more, they should only pay the tax due in that year. If the treasury want to change the rules to make you pay more, that's another issue, but paying what you owe under the rules is what everybody either does or should be doing. Where people cry about something being unfair yet allowed, they refer to it as a loophole. That is bad propaganda of the worst sort.

If somebody breaks the rules, Inland Revenue are obliged to serve notice they are in breach of the law. I never break any rules and pay a hell of a lot more of my income in tax than the average. I hold my head high in that regard.   I was shocked though to read a few months ago that my income puts me in the top 1.5%. Tell you what, the spread of that 1.5% is a wide one then, as I don't pay too much at 50%. Perhaps there is more wealth in the country than Osborne is reckoning. Certainly the Bank of England report that he is being pessimistic in order to push through draconian political reform.

You see, that's what irritates the likes of Richard III, they hate the idea of somebody with a different view in general having something in agreement with him. I hold no candle at all for how this government is going about tackling the deficit. I genuinely feel they are using it as an opportunity for pushing through extreme political policies.

Anyway, bored with this now. The number of people who debate from the stance that if you don't agree with them you are the AntiChrist is getting a bit boring.

Inzz fac... zzzz   t, I think I neeeeeedd zzzzzzz 40 w.....anks...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:52 PM

"No, there are not enough jobs for full employment but by the same standard, there are more than some people are willing to look for. As the post above from bubblyrat points out; something needs to be done. I for one look to a government to spend my taxes well, and as there is not enough money available for continuing care, for baseline social care or for making the aims of Surestart a reality... I find it wrong that many people refuse to even look for work and release some of those funds for more appropriate use."

Quoth Willie.


Outed, methinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:49 PM

"I have huge problems with apologists for those in less fortunate positions; you are in grave danger of keeping them where they are rather than finding ways to help them on. Many third world charities have used the slogan, "A hand up, not a hand out." "

Quoth Willie

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:48 PM

"You see, this is a land of opportunity, where you can get off your arse and do something. "

Quoth Willie

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:45 PM

"Where do you apply to have a task force of these people come to work? I reckon councils should put out feelers to the local communities for ideas of what needs doing."

Quoth Willie

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:40 PM

http://www.slideshare.net/Geckos/uses-and-characteristics-of-money-presentation

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:37 PM

The truth about the personal allowance clawback.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/personal-allow.htm#3

Pillock.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 01:56 PM

Where is the work going to come from for these benefits recipients? Public sector? Dustmen, street sweepers, support workers, cleaners, maintenance staff, office admin, library staff made redundant and their jobs done by welfare recipients.

What then happens to those who have been sacked? No jobs! They have to claim benefits. Then they are doing the job they once were paid a living wage for, but they are doing it in order to get benefit.

Another thing to think about.   Do you really want a someone who is forced to be a carer/support worker looking after you or your loved ones?

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: mandotim
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 11:42 AM

The tax system is so convoluted that generally speaking a professional accountant is needed to work out the best strategy. How many people on minimum wage do you know who employ an accountant? One of the reasons why the poor pay a greater proportion of the tax charged than do the rich. Willie; how can you say 'finding loopholes' is 'paying all your taxes'? That's avoiding tax, and I don't give a damn whether or not it is legal; it might well be legal, but in my view it is immoral and despicable. The wealthiest 5% in this country pay less than a tenth of the tax (as a proportion of income) that the poorest 10% of earners pay. That is failing to pay your way in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: theleveller
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:31 AM

As was pointed out on the BBC Today programme this morning, the government is putting itself in an untenable position with its benefit reforms. For a start, such draconian reforms have never been tried in a period of recession so they are, quite literally, gambling with people's lives. Secondly, the reforms hinge around getting people back into work. What work is that? There are simply not enough jobs out there and the government has no money for job creation schemes or even 'back-to-work' schemes that find people employment that they are capable of doing and provide retraining. So, are the hundreds of unsuccessful applicants for the scant number of jobs to be penalised? Are people to be forced to take jobs for which they are physically and mentally unsuited just to make their Job Centre's figures look good?

The only result that I can see is more social unrest, more demonstrations and, I'm very much afraid, more violence. And who will control this when the police force is being drastically cut?

Like I said, an untenable position.