BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?

Subject: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:37 PM

Right you 'orrible little man. No job, eh? I'll teach you to get a job! You WILL scrub lavatories, paint walls, pick up litter and used condoms (oh, sorry Dave) or starve to death. Many a man in my old regiment did worse.

Oh, what, 2.5 million like you and only half a million jobs? Not my problem you horrible little man. Not an excuse. Go and get a job. Answers permitted in this man's army are "Yes Sir!" or "No excuse Sir".




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?

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:40 PM

?? Those of us on this side of the pond might need a little clarification...

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:43 PM

"Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?"

Does that mean that all the Labour MP's will be put into a camp?

What a great idea :-) Send them to Butlins :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:49 PM

?? Those of us on this side of the pond might need a little clarification...

It's OK he's just talking drivel as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 06:06 PM

Mrzzy = Latest Con Dem wheeze is to make unemployed do Unpaid work or have their benefits withdrawn . Having already started laying off a good percentage of the work force .

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 06:11 PM

No, he's not. I heard it on the news too.


Forced, Compulsory 'Volunteer' work...


HELLLOOOO, DAVE!! There are NO fucking jobs in the first place!

Tell you what, let's get those criminal, fraudulent, cheating, 'stealing from the public purse to fund their expenses robbers', arrogant, hypocritical swines who DARE to call themselves politicians to do hard grinding manual compulsory foul nasty work instead, shall we?

Oh, and by the way, I've already cleaned up used condoms, in the little Dartmoor village of Horrabridge, where even years back the kids were swinging on lamposts, wrecking the park and benches and using their unused condoms down the pretty little path that led to the edge of the River Walkham, just beneath the ancient 14th century bridge....

Ian Duncan-Smith put my blood pressure up when he was last inpower' but this time, he's making the pressure sizzle and spit out of my mouth!

WHO THE FUCK DO THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE????!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Anne Lister
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 02:48 AM

I've just been wondering if this measure will join up with the housing benefit stuff and result in the creation of workhouses ... you know it makes sense ....

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,Ghost of Christmas Future
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:01 AM

The clerk, in letting Scrooge's nephew out, had let two other people in. They were portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold, and now stood, with their hats off, in Scrooge's office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him.

'Scrooge and Marley's, I believe,' said one of the gentlemen,   referring to his list. 'Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr Scrooge, or Mr Marley?'

'Mr Marley has been dead these seven years,' Scrooge replied. 'He died seven years ago, this very night.'

'We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,' said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.

'It certainly was, for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word liberality, Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.

'They are. Still,' returned the gentleman,' I wish I could say they were not.'

'The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?' said Scrooge.

'At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, 'it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.'
'Are there no prisons?"

'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

'And the Union workhouses.' demanded Scrooge. 'Are they still in operation?'

'Both very busy, sir.'

'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to hear it.'

'Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,' returned the gentleman, 'a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?'

'Nothing!' Scrooge replied.

'You wish to be anonymous?'

'I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. 'Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'

'Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'

'If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, 'they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

---

Poster identified as Crow Sister, who promised me she was going to stop posting under alternate names.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:12 AM

>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?

Or woman.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,CrowSister
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:26 AM

promised me she was going to stop posting under alternate names."

Nicely put.. As other people won't know this, I got pulled up once for posting joke messages on *a joke thread*.

Otherwise, the Dickensian spectre's vision certainly feels fitting.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Rafflesbear
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:33 AM

For those across this is the Story

When did street cleaning and painting stop being paid jobs and become work for volunteers?

Do employed street cleaners now go in fear of their jobs because they will be given as unpaid work to others?

If you are paying money to people on the condition that they do work, why not create the job and employ them to do it - or is it that you would then have to pay the minimum wage?

And why street cleaning and painting? Why not as MPs and reduce their numbers? That way we would ensure that unemployed people had a voice in parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:40 AM

Are they going to brand/tatoo people's forhead's?

Will this special workforce who can't find paid jobs so have to do unpaid ones wear a special uniform, so everyone else can poke fun at them and go "Hey, LOSER!", having been 'educated/encouraged/brainwashed to do so by The Corporate Political Bastards who are now in power?

I mean??????????????????????????

Yes, Crow Sister, Scrooge is alive and well, as I said in some other post in some other thread, but can't for the life of me recall which one...Thanks for posting that.


By the way, Richard...I think this idea came from The New Labour labour camp originally....and that doesn't surprise me either. Basically, they're all the same, no matter their team colours...

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:44 AM

Interesting that not a single word has been mentioned on the BBC News about this today... ?????

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:49 AM

If they are looking for suggestions, the river bank down from where it cuts the corner of my land down towards the next village is in a bit of a state. Difficult to get a dredger to (although some oinks have managed to get enough litter down there,) and i was wondering..

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.

Sorry, have I missed the point again?

This idea of 100% employment was a wonderful post war idea but fatally flawed. Wilson was the last to advocate it as a virtue whilst in power, (Foot liked it, but never got the keys to No. 10.)

Nice to see the coalition is borrowing some socialist as well as conservative dogma in its ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:56 AM

Although I've seen only superficial commentary on a UK plan, it would appear that the earliest "modern" implementation of this policy may have been in Germany ca. 1938. They didn't directly say you had to work for nothing, but declining any job "offered" to you sent you to a labour camp where you then did work for nothing (for the brief time until you died, for the majority sent to most of the "camps").

The program quite successfully eliminated the "unemployment problem," since "convicts" weren't even counted - or so I'm told.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: theleveller
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 04:01 AM

"Otherwise, the Dickensian spectre's vision certainly feels fitting."

Nice one CS.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Stu
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 04:10 AM

Aye.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: C-flat
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:55 AM

HELLLOOOO, DAVE!! There are NO fucking jobs in the first place!

Ah!,.. Yes!,.. But!..
Massive cuts in the public sector budgets will lead to local authority job losses and reduction of services.
What better way to fill that gap than with forced labour that's already being paid for from the benefits budget!

You can see the way their minds are working...

Quite scary...

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 06:16 AM

So lets see...

A road sweeper loses his/her paid job, and is then forced to do the same job for no pay?

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: David C. Carter
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 06:27 AM

Exactly.

You got it in one.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 06:53 AM

"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.

Sorry, have I missed the point again?"


***THESE*** people???????????

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: C-flat
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 07:37 AM

Of course there will be hidden costs to this cunning plan.

Conscripted labour will require training and supervision. But, on a more positive note, the supervisors will be specially trained to identify those who demonstrate an unwillingness to participate, negative attitude or general disruptive behaviour and much of the training costs will be re-couped by stopping benefits to those lazy, work-shy chancers!!

Win! win!

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:30 AM

William Wilberforce later took on the cause of abolition in 1787 after the formation of the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, in which he led the parliamentary campaign to abolish the slave trade in the British Empire with the Slave Trade Act 1807. He continued to campaign for the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, which he lived to see in the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. Interestingly, one of his principal arguments was economic inefficiency.

The last known form of enforced servitude of adults (villeinage) had disappeared in Britain at the beginning of the 17th century.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Rafflesbear
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:43 AM

I'm with the sentiment Richard but at the moment the plan is only to enforce it if you want to claim unemployment benefit.

Not quite the same as being forced to do it, full stop

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

An outlaw could not simultaneously be a villein.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 04:29 PM

Just to be serious for a while... Although of course Richard III was not being serious, as somebody who talks of murdering politicians in his opening comment is being either ironic, symbolic or plain talking bollocks;

Whilst I have not read or heard of any labour camps anywhere other than in Richard's head, it is a fact that the government are considering having people earning unemployment benefit. I am not sure this is a good idea for two reasons.

First, if there is a role to be undertaken, it is best served by meaningful employment to achieve that aim. I accept Iain Duncan Smith's concern that such a scheme should not be purely to appease tax payers and any work must be work that needs doing anyway. So, if it needs doing, let's look at doing it professionally rather than with short term labour by people who are less than motivated to undertake it.

Secondly, unemployment benefit at present assumes the person is looking for work. This is hard to achieve if you are working anyway. By all means find ways to ensure those who can work are looking for it, but invest in ways to help them get work rather than this system.

No, it is well meant, it begins to address the issue of people who will not work, but fetters the vast majority who are looking for meaningful employment.

it wont work anyway whilst idiot apologists for those who take the piss keep sensationalising and denigrating initiatives. Mind you, the idea is not fully thought through yet and is borne of the need to issue policy for short term political gain, even if the ideas are half baked.

I don't think murdering Ministers is the answer though. The ballot box is a much fairer way of declaring your views and you can join civilised society as a result, so winners all round eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 04:40 PM

Willie, to own a sniper rifle, or to have a point of vantage is not necessarily to use either. You can do better than that. If life on the dole is so rosy, why don't you try it?

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:14 PM

.


    But folks - don't you realize? ...


    This is the BIG SOCIETY where public services won't be necessary due to all the volunteers.


    Cameron just forgot to tell us that it will be the unemployed who make up the ranks of the volunteers ...

    ... and they will be volunteered on an ... um ... involuntary basis ...


    Rafflesbear ---->>   To say you have hit the nail on the head would be a gross understatement.


    Walls need painting and streets need cleaning, yet the government won't pay people the minimum wage to do the job.


    Instead they give these jobs to unemployed people as punishments for not having a job.


    So you want a job as a painter eh? well we don't have one ... howeverm if you can't find another job, we'll force you to do a painters job for a convicted criminals prison wage.


    The nightmare unfolding before us is sickening in its cruelty.


    I can't believe what I am reading!

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:21 PM

"it begins to address the issue of people who will not work, but fetters the vast majority who are looking for meaningful employment."

This is no accident.

University fees rocket upwards making a top education the preserve of those who can afford it, and then choice in the job market is fettered.

Further down the chain, the schools rebuilding program is cut, whilst top schools get extra funding and become unaccountable, and parents who have the time to spare to set up their own schools (not the ones in 3 jobs, or those "volunteering" to clean the streets) also get extra funding ...

and the government, who own the banks they bought as part of the "bail out" (buy out) have enough money to pay out bigger bonuses than have ever been paid before, totalling billions of pounds, but can't give a man a job as a cleaner, or build a playground for kids in a poor area ... or help a mother whose biological partner has died or left to provide a loving home and a supportive relationship to her child.


Lizzie   -    Recently I have been reading your posts and cheering out loud at your audacity and agreeing withh every word you say!

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:26 PM

Get used to it folks, its just capitalism with the skids under it.
It will soon turn into fascism, but there will be no class war this time....no commies left to die for freedom, only the "liberal" collaborators waiting their turn for the gas chambers.

In a couple of decades we will be competitive again and the wheel will have spun full circle
Britain will be a tourist destination for the Indians and Chinese....(the first coachload of Indian tourists arrived in Argyll last month)

Soon they will be sending in the aid parcels, unless we can find a strong trustworthy charismatic woman to lead us....and they're about as common as hens teeth.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:29 PM

Well said Lox.

Ake, your first two lines are correct.   The rest is (as usual) insanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:29 PM

Caroline Lucas would do me fine - with Tony Benn as her immortal leftenant.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:45 PM

PS - I keep hearing that "Bob Crow is no Arthur Scargill".

When the miners went on strike, they could be ignored and bullied.

Why?

Because whatever happened up north made no difference to the city.

On the other hand, if Bob Crows boys aren;t listened to, the ccity won't get off so easily.

I live in London and rely on the underground.

The most recent strike seriously botched up my life.

It was a warning shot.

The city can't function without fully operating infrastructure.

Even if the billionaires can get in to work in their daimlers, they'd be coming in to dirty unmaintained offices with faulty equipment, not to mention lavatories, canteens etc.

The RMT, despite Thatchers laws, is much more powerful than the NUM ever was.

Besides firing a warning shot, Crow has also let people know that there is a banner to stand behind and that it is already a force to be reckoned with.

Thatcherism has evolved, but so has the labour movement - and by that i don't mean the labour party, though it is interesting that the unions favourite became party leader ... so any cosying up won't look insincere ...

Desite my initial concerns, I am starting to believe that "red ed" will most likely be a more significant and effective leader of the opposition than his brother might have been, for the simple reason that he is less likely to suffer from his brothers blairite shame of the unions.

Why am I moving left?

Because I am being given no choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 04:33 AM

Well, first of all we have Richard accusing Akenaton of insanity. I had to pour myself another coffee before I got my head around the implications of that. Actually Richard, that isn't fair. Whilst I genuinely think you get revved up unnecessarily, at least my issue with you is that you come from a stand point of appearing educated and thinking through your position. Akenaton on the other hand has, as a new dancer once observed of another, something of the night about him.

That said, your distinction between sitting on a vantage point in Westminster with a snipers' rifle and actually firing it is a rather delicate distinction. I reckon the difference is about 8 - 10 years and earlier application for parole with the former.

Funnily enough, I was on the dole for a time, when I had a pregnant wife and small child. I did something about it though, and as my only qualifications at the time were that of a mining electrician, not much use elsewhere, this wasn't easy. But I did.

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

I said above that I don't agree with the proposed policy. But I don't even recognise the fantasy hate mongering that this thread seems to be discussing. Labour camps? Are you seriously suggesting I should be buying shares in Degesch?

I may sound an apologist for a government nobody even predicted, let alone embraced openly, but whilst not liking some of their policies, I will at least judge them by the actual policies rather than discuss construed propaganda of failed armchair socialist weird beards.

Isn't it interesting how many people here in The UK will laugh at the gullibility of USA citizens when we hear of how many reckon Obama is a Muslim, how we chortle at their naivety.

And yet the same people will swallow whole huge exaggerations if they distrust a UK government enough.

You know when I decided I could make a difference? When I became a floating voter. A marker pen is mightier than a snipers' rifle, and takes aim at reality rather than deluded fantasy.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 05:09 AM

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

But not equal opportunity.

A poor education and a lack of available opportunities does not just mean that one has to work a bit harder or go a bit further afield.

That would presuppose awareness of other opportunities and what/where they are.

And when you grow up surrounded by no opportunities, and when your education does not equip you to know what opportunities to look for, let alone how to recognize them when you see them, you have no chance.

The only opportunities they see are the X factor and selling drugs. If you can't get into those closed shops, then all thats left is to develop obesity and a drink habit and find someone to blame.

Willie, you and I and Richard were all lucky enough to get a glimpse out of the box and thats why we have a hunger to find out what else is out there.

Ambition and hope are things we take for granted - they help us and don't hurt us ... well not always ...

Hopeless inertia is something we have the tools to overcome.

Not so for many people living in what can literally be described as suburban dumps, where inconvenient people are dumped in squalid houses and destructive schools and kept at arms length and hidden as much as possible from view, until somebody fancies scoring a cheap political point by blaming them for the credit crunch.

In a way Ake is right to have sympathy for teapartiers and BNPers etc, but the mistake he makes is that he is unable to distinguish between sticking up for the poor and vulnerable on one hand and sticking up for the false ideologies that they are vulnerable to on the other hand.

You can understand how people could get drawn by these horrrendous ideologies, but that does not mean for one second that these ideologies should be allowed to get any tenure in the collective consciousness.

We call them Chavs and tell them to get on the bus and get a job. We tell them that they are repugnant in every facet of their existence, whether it be the way they enjoy themselves, their politics or their alleged sponging.

They are the perfect scapegoat.

And London is about to follow suit.

Dump the undesirables in the suburbs - keep them out of the eye of tourists and foreign investors.

Willie - you have to ask what the consequences of camerons policies are going to be and you have to ask if a civilized conscience can allow such misery to be inflicted in the name of an ideology of small government and capitalist freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,crowsister
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 05:14 AM

Lox is absolutely right. It's very simple logic and fits together perfectly neatly.
Cut paid council jobs. Compel the unemployed to do the same work.

As for London ditto. For any action to be effective it must cause pain to those who hold the strings. The Miners were easily othered as grubby irritants, no-body gave a shit about what was happening 'up there'.

If bankers insist on continuing to give themselves vast bonuses while everyone else is becoming unemployed and losing their homes, The City could become a target at some point in the future. But it won't be Muslim terrorists or dedicated anarchists blowing up Canary Warf, it'll be some quiet little man who's worked hard all his life, tried to be a decent father and husband, lost his job, lost his home, lost his wife and family, and now has nothing to live for.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 05:37 AM

The problem with targeting the bankers through disrupting the transport infrastructure is that in the end those on low pay suffer because they can't get to work to earn their minimum wage, and they don't have the option of taking taxis, those receiving care services suffer because their carers can't get to work, those who need emergency services have to wait longer because the roads are gridlocked.

At the same time the self-righteous in their glass towers complain about the unions 'screwing their business' while they continue to do the same themselves with their bloated bonuses.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 05:56 AM

SPB - I think you have identified the key battleground that we will be witnessing over the next couple of years.

The Bankers will have enough Cash to ride the storm ... possibly ... they will still need people to provide services that they can pay for ...

But more important will be the media war.

The Sun has been known to switch its allegiance, but most likely it will come out against the Unions and will ssupport the line that they are disrupting society and are the root cause of the discontent.

The telegraph, standard, mail, times etc etc will also all condemn the unions.

But will the public believe them or will they have sympathy for the workers?

If people considered for one minute that publicly owned banks were paying bonuses that equalled the amount to be saved by the cuts ...

... in other words, that the government were paying bankers billions whilst effectively paying menial workers £60 a week ...

... there would be outrage.


And we want Chavs to get off their arses and be inspired by Big Society?


What society?


This does not describe society, it describes the dissolution of society.


Compassionate conservatism?


When was the last time you heard that slogan used ... before the election thats when!

What compassion?

"We're all in this together ..."

What is Osborne in that I'm in?

It certainly isn't "the same boat"

Mine is just afloat and he thinks I don't need the plug.

His is moored off the Virgin Islands so he can keep tabs on his bank account.

Britain won't stand for this.

The only variable is, just how much like Thatcher is Cameron? ... how far is he prepared to go to crush dissent?


All I care about is that my Daughter gets through all of it unscathed.

But If I sit on the fence it could be worse.


Worrying times folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:05 AM

A little excerpt from an article by George Monbiot.

"It's arguable that the UK government does not have a spending crisis; it has a tax avoidance crisis. Official accounts suggest that the tax gap amounts to £42bn(2). Richard Murphy of Tax Research has demonstrated that this figure cannot be correct, as it contradicts other government statistics. He estimates that avoidance now amounts to £25bn a year, evasion to £70bn, and outstanding debts to the tax service to £28bn: a total of more than £120bn(3).

That's roughly three-quarters of the budget deficit(4). It's equivalent to 80% of the UK's revenue from income tax(5). By comparison, benefit fraud, which both the government and the rightwing press emphasised in order to justify the cuts, amounts to £1.1bn a year(6). No one would claim that all this missing money could be recovered. But even if only 20% were clawed back, the most damaging cuts could be reversed."

The rest of the article can be found here

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:15 AM

That's VERY annoying - a long and thoughtful post earlier eaten by the post fairy!

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:22 AM

PS - it looks like a little tea party is going on in the health service ...

... the so called "grass roots" think tank favoured by the current health minister is funded by those in the pharmaceutical industry who stand to profit when the health service is cut more.


Smashing the State tory style ...

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:28 AM

Lox, I ain't disagreeing with you. I am not naive enough to wonder why they don't eat cake, but by the same token, putting people in their "place" is nothing new.

I was told at school it was the army or down the pit. If I was clever enough, perhaps the glassworks.

After the strike, I got out of the pit. Never looked back, had some good luck, had some set backs, but however you value or count success, I am independent, comfortable, want for nothing and refuse to feel guilty about it. It isn't about silver spoons, it is about hard bloody work. In order to have a social program at all, a country needs the vast majority to get off their arses and create wealth. I am not quoting Adam Smith by the way, I am quoting Tony Benn.

My sons grew up in a small town with huge deprivation scores, (I chaired a local health authority, the public health figures were disturbing to say the least.) My sons went to the local comp' which had a bad reputation for attainment.

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.

Stereotyping? No more than those who harp on about why everything a government does or says is wrong because they "don't understand real people." Show me a government that does.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: GUEST,crowsister
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:32 AM

"just how much like Thatcher is Cameron? ... how far is he prepared to go to crush dissent?"

Well this will be the interesting thing. How many pressure groups and charities will decide to stand together in opposition? 'Northern agitators' and 'dirty hippies' were very easily othered, but a broad coalition of support from people from all walks of life will be harder to ridicule and condemn. And if dissent is crushed (a la Thatcher) the govt. needs the propaganda machine of the press to succeed in othering dissenting groups, in order not to risk casting itself as a tyranny opposed to 'the people'.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:45 AM

Great post Willie,

great questions raised.

The question isn't just what is the difference between your lads and teir peers, but also what is the solution to the problems in those areas.

This subject isn't "the plight of the poor victim" and I'm not looking for you or anyone to get the tissues out.

This subject is "punishing the poor for the crimes of the rich" and I hope we can stop it from happening.

The amount saved by cuts to social services is equalled by the amount to be paid in bonuses by the government to its emplyees in the banks it bought with our money last year.

And that amount is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of money in unclaimed tax that remains outstanding.

Cameron isn't out of touch, he's cruel.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Lox
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:52 AM

"I was told at school it was the army or down the pit. If I was clever enough, perhaps the glassworks."

And before that we had no vote, and before that we were serfs on feudal land, and before that we were sold as slaves and gladiators to the romans etc etc etc.

I don't know why you were different, maybe you succeeded where your ex colleagues failed and in doing so your sons had a leg up?

I don't mean that they had financial privilege, but they learned from watching you that hope is worth having.

How many opportunities were there to go round where you lived? and how many of your colleagues fell onto the scrapheap?

I don't know ... thats why I'm asking ... but I have a feeling that I can predict your answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: C-flat
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 09:11 AM

Interesting points raised on Radio 4 this lunchtime but I didn't hear anyone comment on childcare provisions.
One of the biggest obstacles in getting to work for some is the cost of child care.
Is that to be covered in "expenses" for those being asked to participate in the scheme?
It's difficult enough to find a job that pays well enough to justify the extra expense of child minding or after-school activities, let alone be forced to take these costs on.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: bubblyrat
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 11:02 AM

I grew up surrounded by Child minders ; their names were Granny--Nanny--Aunty---Uncle ,and they didn't cost much,either (or abuse anyone).In today's much -altered world, "Daddy" could easily be a child-minder for many working mums, but then are there enough "Daddies" to fill the role ?? Of course not; they've all been emasculated by the so-called "feminists",and other purveyors of the socio-political claptrap that's pervading modern society.
             As for the "Labour Camp" debate ? Well, my understanding of the proposals is that drastic action,in the form of a 3-month suspension of Job Seekers Allowance,will only apply to those who REFUSE to actively seek employment,or REFUSE to attend interviews for jobs that the authorities have applied for on THEIR behalf.In which case,some sort of corrective action certainly NEEDS to be taken , surely ??

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: C-flat
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 11:17 AM

Family certainly played a bigger role when I was a child, even neighbours were called "Auntie", but I don't see much of that kind of society these days.
I would agree that anyone refusing to seek work or attend interviews might reasonably expect their benefits to be stopped but I don't think that's all that under discussion here. After all, that system already exists!

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 11:28 AM

"their names were Granny--Nanny--Aunty---Uncle "

All of whom, thanks to this government, are now going to be expected to work until they're 66 (or forfeit their full state pensions). The age of 'cheap' childminders is well and truly over.

Subject: RE: BS: Next Con-Dem game - Labour Camps?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 12:17 PM

Willie - if only the most able or the most assisted by "the right sort of parenting" can escape you are still condemning most to long-lived misery, and you are adding to the injury the insult that they or their parents did not try hard enough.

Painting walls with a toothbrush, cutting lawns with scissors, cleaning lavatories, these maybe the army way (and even then the army way to punish) but they have no place in a civilised society.

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

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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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.)