BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: mandotim
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 12:22 PM

I dutifully obeyed Norman Tebbit and 'got on my bike'. As a result, I've lived over 100 miles from my parents and my in-laws for most of my working life; this is the norm nowadays, extended families are rarely close enough to provide child care.
I'm with Lox here; this government is living the right-wing dream, having been afforded the opportunity by the sheer incompetence of the bankers. The rich have made a mess, so the poor must pay; this seems to be the way things are going. The opportunity is being taken to break the Welfare State once and for all. The right describe this argument as 'looney left shroud waving', but the scope and savagery of what is happening is breathtaking. This is a serious attempt to solidify the culture of privilege and inequality so that it can never again be dismantled without a full-scale revolution. The next major erosion will be civil rights, especially when appealing against official decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 12:24 PM

Happily, MLC-alike "Oh, I don't do that it's boring I'd rather look at pretty-trees" (or pretty tits) idiots are very rare.

Most claimants want work. I once knew a bloke who said "Why would I want to do that" - but he was in fact only lying to conceal his own difficulties. Sooner or later he got off the booze (mostly, except at weekends) moved away and is now, I gather from mutual friends, working.

The idle claimant is largely a figment of the imagination of the Daily Mail (although I do know one folkie claimant who bewails the lack of support to pay her mortgage but drinks two bottles of halfway decent wine a day and smokes up to 40 cigarettes a day. That's around £20 per day or £600 per month, and her mortgage is a lot less than that. But she is rare.)

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 12:31 PM

Actually leveller, it goes a bit further than just child minders. Carers in general.

As we have a welfare state, health and social care is for the vast majority, state funded. it is interesting that the most cost effective form of care is the casual carer. That is also one of my concerns, but not really for this debate.

Lox poses an interesting question. Unskilled miners went out in the 1950s. Every miner has extensive training in skilled and semi skilled engineering and civil groundworks. The scrapheap varies and indeed varied, and many small towns and villages where I was born and raised relied on the pit which was no longer there. Added to that, to move your family invariably meant moving to an area where house prices are far higher.

But many did. Very very many. I have worked around the world, and have always bumped into ex colleagues, from Australia to Doncaster and all points in between. One of my wife's consultant doctor colleagues left the pit when I did and was just young enough to get back to education to become a doctor. That mature entry system is all but impossible now sadly.

Opportunities where I lived? 4 miles from the M1. Nottingham / Sheffield / Derby all within 40 mins drive. Leeds / Manchester / Leicester / West Midlands within or just over an hour. When I chaired the health authority (PCT) my head of finance lived in Leicester, my director of public health in York, chief executive in Derby and many front line nurses and junior clerical on far less money seemed to be based anything up to an hour away.

Tebbit was a dangerous dog and his famous comment was patronising, but I have noticed that those who have got on have also been willing to look further than the end of their road. Even now, when I still interfere with a government body, (!) I travel to London and Leeds mainly, with some Newcastle thrown in.

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. My information is not The Daily Mail, but looking around me, in the pubs, in the supermarket, especially in Currys. Even getting Vodafone's tax bill settled doesn't address it, (though it goes a long way,) the country needs to look to BOTH ends of the cheating scale, not just the "eat the rich" that is sadly portrayed by some on this site.

Is the government clawing back money correctly? No. Whatever the reality, it is portrayed as concentrating on the poor whilst leaving the rich alone. My wife as a high earning public sector worker will take home over £200 per month less thanks to Osborne's statement and that's before her pension is looked at early next year when Hutton reports. We don't mind really, the country is in need of restraint and that, plus the voluntary work I do (I turned down being on the payroll when it was offered, I certainly don't need it,) is our bit. It would be nice for others to do their bit too, whether they be a large company with good accountants or a family who knock out kids for the financial benefits.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 01:21 PM

"I found it interesting that my eldest and two other lads were streets ahead of their classmates and since leaving school have done well for themselves, very well, and I am proud of my lad.

I wonder what the difference was between them and the others? Coincidence of being bright? No...   

Parents who took an interest, who asked them how school had been, who got them interested in the joy of reading, learning and expanding your horizons. They had the same teachers as those who now sit in the welfare supping their dole, moaning that they never stood a chance because of where they live, where they went to school, or whoever they blame that particular day.'''''

'''''That is why 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." Interesting to see the reaction when applied closer to home."



Your sons were extremely lucky. They had parents who loved them, and who still love them.

Many of those who fail in life these days have never known love.

THAT is the difference, SW.

How do you begin to believe in yourself if no-one has ever believed in you? How do you start to have pride in yourself, if no-one has ever had pride in you?

So many are slipping through the net..and nobody seems to care...Those who are in charge of the nets say it is merely their own fault.

It so often is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 01:40 PM

Bubblyrats point seems to be that if it wasn't for the feminists keeping men out, there would be better child care ...

This suggests that Bubblyrats Aunties, Grannies etc were men ...

Though as a single father bringing up a daughter on my own I must say I'm glad that feminism has resulted in our excellent and stable home relationship.


But frivility aside ...


According to my personal dogma, the three most important things a child needs to grow up into a capable happy person are, in this order, family (unconditional love), an education (the tools to survive in society) and travel (experience of the richness and diversity of this beautiful world).

If a child has all three, though they have no money, they have riches beyond measure.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:05 PM

I know at least one pretty successful capable happy well-rounded person whose route to success was ADHD, his single parent mother teaching him that that was not an excuse, but something he had to manage, protection rackets moneylending and drug dealing at school, dropping out of one university, finally getting the balance of marijuana at a second university to moderate his hyperactivity and get a first. Then paying off the student loan by growing the best skunk for miles around.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:08 PM

tee hee ...

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: mandotim
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:34 PM

Willie; I don't think I've ever advocated giving advantages to those who abuse the benefits system, nor do I deny they exist; but it's really a question of mathematics, and where the policy effort should be directed to achieve best results. Lox quoted the Monbiot article above; the benefit fraud bill is estimated at between £1bn and £3bn, depending on who you listen to; £3bn is the Daily Mail end of things. The tax avoidance/evasion bill is around £120bn every year. If you were a pragmatic government, and you were just interested in the economics of the thing, where would you concentrate your efforts in order to produce the best returns? Instead, the vast bulk of legislation is being aimed at areas where the returns are marginal at best. This government is not interested in securing the economic future; it is simply using the current situation to engage in a massive piece of social engineering intended to make the poor accountable for the ills of the country and to ensure a permanent and unbridgeable divide between the haves and the have nots. Banging on about the workshy doesn't get the economic job done; let's hear a lot more about the tax-shy!

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:44 PM

You'll never live like common people
You'll never do whatever common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
and then dance and drink and screw
because there's nothing else to do

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 04:44 PM

As for the liberals, I am counting the days till they are wiped from Parliament at the next election.

Talk about social cleansing? This will be electoral cleansing!

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 04:47 PM

I think that sort of sums up this elevated discussion VT.

We are about to be screwed again....and we are unable or unwilling to do anything about it......The Africans are worse off,,,aren't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Penny S.
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 05:14 PM

The tasks hat have been mentioned are the same as those given to people on community service because of their crimes - so people unable to find work will be labelled as criminals.

Something has been done before. When my mother was growing up in Sussex between the wars, during the Depression, she met gangs of men working on road making. Well educated men with degrees - and those were not easily got back then - professionals, labouring on the roads, and a lot of it hand work, not mechanical. The attitude seemed to have been that it was the government's duty to make work for those who had been thrown out of jobs by the financial situation. Not that the workless should be treated punitively as if it was their fault. And they were pretty good roads.

Clearly one of the past classics their public schools exposed them to was not Gibbon. Backed up by recent archaeology, it turns out, he posited an Empire destroyed from within. The homeless, workless, moneyless Bacaudae roamed Gaul and Britain, and the cities and the infrastructure fell apart. If there's nothing left to lose, people will turn resentment into action. Especially if they didn't vote for what those who are not sharing their hardships have imposed on them.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 05:25 PM

"If there's nothing left to lose, people will turn resentment into action."

Ah, but under capitalism, there's always something left to lose....no matter how small it is.

Its what keeps us above that other guy....you know!....the one who has fuck all!

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 05:52 PM

"Can there be ANY excuse for any honest man not now to invest in a sniper rifle and a flat overlooking the Houses of Parliament?"

Why is violence and the threat of violence always the "socialists" answer to problems?

"The tax avoidance/evasion bill is around £120bn every year."

There is no such thing as a "bill" associated with "Tax Avoidance" as that is perfectly legal, whereas "Tax Evasion" is not.

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

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

I have explained it all.

The election was stolen by lying propaganda (mostly Murdoch) - and the next one will be too.

The majority votes (and seats) were to reject stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

The Lib-Dems betrayed their voters, and thus the voters of the UK were betrayed.

There is no recourse for 5 years - and the first thing the unelected government did was to make itself secure from Parliamentary defeat for 5 years.

What choice is there? Don't tell me that overthrow of this government is undemocratic - democracy has failed the voters and the present government is undemocratic.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:41 PM

You call ME insane Richard!

"The election was stolen by lying propaganda (mostly Murdoch) - and the next one will be too."

Rubbish, I said years ago that Mr Camerons conservatives would win the next election. It is a reflexion on the quality of the conservative leadership, that the Labour defeat did not turn into the expected rout.
Due to Blair's War and Labour's general political hypocrisy the electorate had become sickened...they wanted them gone and now almost every one of them are gone.

Ironically, it was only the severity of the financial crisis partial engineered by Brown that frightened people into delivering a hung parliament.

If you are going to pose as a banner boy for socialism, for Christ sake try and show a bit of understanding of the fuckin' issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 07:18 PM

Teribus,

You really are a preposterous person.

Richrd jokes about wanting a sniper rifle and you criticize him for advocating violence.

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.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: mandotim
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 03:02 AM

Teribus; you show the usual right-wing inability to distinguish between 'legal' and 'moral'. Irrespective of whether tax avaoidance is legal or not, the non-payment of tax is a bigger contributor to the deficit than benefit fraud. Would you agree?

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 04:16 AM

Ake - which bit of "The conservatives did not get a majority" do you not understand?

Now, thanks the the Lib Dems participating on fraud on their voters, we are stuck with the conservatives (increasingly, we see, the Lib-Dems merely get dragged along on their coat-tails) - and pretty well the FIRST parliamentary proposal by the "coalition" was to limit the ability of Parliament to compel a change of government.

While that prevails, the conservatives press on with their plans to make the poor pay for the rich.

Those are the issues here.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 04:49 AM

You know there is a difference between sticking up for a system and sticking up for the incumbent.

Under Parliamentary rules, if you can get support of enough elected MPs to your way of thinking, you can pop over to Buckingham palace and get the seals of office. Cameron did just that. if Clegg had more fruitful discussions with labour, Brown would have sat in the same car.

I support democracy, I also support tweaking of democracy. Fixed term Parliaments are far more democratic than incumbent's privilege to go early if they feel it is to their advantage. No party should have the election date fixed to their advantage, ever. That part of the proposed bill is something I could support. (That said, I still believe in first past the post come the election.)

Regarding this discussion over the cost of benefit versus the cost of taxes either owing or should be owed. Two wrongs don't make a right, so to compare is futile. Both need addressing. I said somewhere above that I felt the emphasis is being seen as benefits rather than taxes, but that is a perception. When you read the detail, tightening up of tax law and chasing tax avoiders is there, with as many column inches in the plans as benefit reform.

I don't support this government, I think it is too radical too quick and is naive when it comes to judging the capacity of the private sector. I feel that will be its undoing.

Luckily, I don't think it will fall by a few armchair socialists standing in their sandals and socks shouting for revolution. Revolution is something that Johnny Foreigner occasionally entertains. We have Parliamentary democracy already, so our guns (bows & arrows at the last count) have morphed into votes. Less bloodthirsty and you can be home in time for the Yorkshires to have risen.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 05:41 AM

Problem is Willie, that democracy and capitalism do not sit well together.....we will never have democracy, or anything approaching democracy, while the "money system" is in operation.

That does not mean that we must replace it with a huge totalitarian oppression regime, it just mean that we must stop measuring people's worth in monetary terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: mandotim
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 07:09 AM

Well said Ake; I think that's the first time I've ever agreed with you unconditionally.
Tim

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 07:12 AM

As to the attempts of this government to make itself proof against democratic processes, you have forgotten the 55% rule Willie.

Turning now to tax and benefits, perhaps you would kindly point us to the equal or equivalent concentration on tax schemes and evasion? So far this government has let Vodafone off 6 billion and trumpeted as a triumph an agreement under which 1 billion in tax is recovered but 40 billion of evaded or concealed tax (if the figures applied to avoided tax they would be bigger) stays hidden in Swiss banks.

Has it proposed mandatory physical labour for the rich if they want to keep their tax allowances? Has it proposed fines for mistakes in tax returns and disqualification from tax allowances in the case of repeated overclaims of allowances? Has it proposed to make it harder to qualify for tax allowances (this is not the same thing as closing tax loopholes)?

What is has proposed is manual labour or starvation for benefits claimants (and indeed as far as I have seen, not only those who do not seek work or do not go to interviews) - and so far I have seen no recognition of the fact that many benefits claimants while they may be fit for some types of work may well not be fit for manual labour.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 11:35 AM

Well, do you want to do forced labour in order to keep your tax allowances?

Thought not.

I keep saying it. Ask The Inland Revenue, they do accept voluntary contributions. Parts of the Crown Estate that in law come under Monarchy earnings are taxed by the voluntary route, and so can yours.

yes, the government may well, according to the financial statement, introduce new tax rules that bring in more money and tighten up on what are banded around as "loop holes." A loop[ hole is not tax avoidance, it is lawful self assessment of what you feel you owe, albeit not in the spirit of what Ministers proposed. Sticking two fingers up at Ministers' intentions is of course the theme of the thread about direct action, and Richard's stunt with a rifle at the top of this thread. No better or worse than loop hole stunts with your earnings. A lot of my earnings this year will be taxed at 50%, so yes, I do get a bit miffed at those who earn more and pay less, but there is a huge difference between paying the least you can lawfully and criminal intent.

Sadly, and ironically for one world socialists, it is a much smaller world. if a country taxes large corporations too much, they will up sticks and move to countries with better breaks for them. 27% of something is a better contribution to the exchequer than 75% of nothing.

Err.. yes, to fines for mistakes in tax returns. The real me had a tax tribunal years ago and I could give you verse and ruddy chapter...   I smiled at your suggestion that a government should make it difficult to qualify for tax allowances. if you qualify, is it the role of government to fetter your rights? Stop talking like a pillock.   

Everybody has to do manual labour eh? Not just those who refuse to engage with those giving them money?   Stop it, people might believe you.

Akenaton. What you say above is strictly speaking true to the best of my knowledge. I just don't see an alternative to what we have. Money is the barter system, and capitalism the creed. If the world is to trade, to engage with each other rather than fight each other every ruddy week, you need a common currency, and we have it. Money as representing national assets. It is the only system I can think of that works in all political systems. Even the North Koreans and the USA can speak to each other through trade if the will was there, and for that, you need currency.

Sadly, wealth is not measured in anything other than wealth. if it was, Bhutan would be further up the rankings and Russia would have their GDP.

I know, just as most others know, that the system is not perfect, but as you cannot have a perfect system, it is best trying to sort the system we have than to rattle on about a Utopia that can never come about. But as my past as a miner has been part of this thread, allow me to use my past to show my opinion of the future as dictated by some here;

It seems to be a choice between the likes of Thatcher and the likes of Scargill. As both are disgusting crooks, why bother moving deck chairs on the Titanic? Try re reading Animal Farm before getting misty eyed about a workers' paradise.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 02:33 PM

Workers paradise? are you fuckin' joking!

Who mentioned a workers paradise...isn't that an oxidisedmoron or whatever you college boys call it?....I dont happen to think that "work makes us free"

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 03:39 PM

"I smiled at your suggestion that a government should make it difficult to qualify for tax allowances. if you qualify, is it the role of government to fetter your rights?" But that's the point, Willie - you applaud making it difficult to qualify for benefits.

"Well, do you want to do forced labour in order to keep your tax allowances?" But that's the point Willie - you applaud forced labour to be able to keep your benefits.

That emigration route would not be open if Thatcher had not abolished exchange control. It should be re-enacted (overnight, with no pre-announcement, just like she abolished it).

And let me say again - I pay all my tax, and do not indulge in schemes to dodge it.




And Willie - money is NOT a barter system. Economics 101. It is a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a bon de commande.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 05:52 AM

Finding loop holes is paying all your taxes too. Keep spluttering if you must, but loop hole means it is not avoiding anything. If the loophole demonstrates you don't owe it, then how the hell are you avoiding paying what you owe? You can't dodge what you don't owe.

So, I applaud making it difficult to qualify for benefits? Oh, and I applaud forced labour? Tell you what, why don't you write my posts for me, it would confuse me less. Anybody other than you and I reading this might recall my comments above about the pitfalls of such a scheme. And to my knowledge, applauding making it difficult to get benefits might just jar a bit with a paper I wrote recently for Dept Health about the difficulties for people with a mental health diagnosis being assessed for personal budgets. I concluded (on behalf of a regulator) that the system must be made easier and more straight forward.

I might use a silly pen name on these threads, but I don't contradict the real me...

Economics 101 eh? Pedantry 101 more like. Money, (proxy token for inherent asset) is used to barter for goods. it would be a Professor of English using OED definitions that would try pulling me up, and then I would still stand by my point.

After all, I have to when what I do say is twisted so much.

Anyway, unless you pay more tax than you should, you have a tax allowance. So, using your own words... Would you do forced labour to keep your tax code above 0?

Thought not.

Anyway, the "rich" as you call many people in this country, don't have a tax allowance to speak of, you lose your allowance once you earn over £100K. Pillock.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:45 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 - 08:48 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 - 08:49 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 - 08:52 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 06:29 AM

100