BS: election uk

Subject: BS: Election UK
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 15 - 10:46 AM

UK has an election in six days.
It is the least predictable outcome for a generation and a really big issue for us.
Please may we be allowed to talk about it.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 15 - 10:33 AM

Cor, watch those old Beeb links, Keith. The 14-year-old one that caught me out was four years younger than yours. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 15 - 10:29 AM

Jim,
Keith is still busily trying to put the blame on he immigrants

Please show me a post where I have done that Jim.

Musket,
BBC.
What the Social Chapter is Not
Often attempts are made to link the minimum wage and the working time directive with the Social Chapter. The minimum wage has absolutely nothing to do with any EU legislation. The working time directive was adopted under the health and safety clause of the Single European Act, not under the Social Chapter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/news/06/0616/chapter.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 May 15 - 10:26 AM

Immigration is only a huge issue because the right wing media chose to make scapegoats of the immigrants instead of blaming their master, big business.

Third time may sink in. But I doubt it...

The (UN) High Commissioner noted that "while migration and refugee issues are completely valid topics for public debate, it is imperative that migration policy decisions that affect people's lives and fundamental human rights should be made on the basis of fact -- not fiction, exaggeration or blatant xenophobia. History has shown us time and again the dangers of demonizing foreigners and minorities, and it is extraordinary and deeply shameful to see these types of tactics being used in a variety of countries, simply because racism and xenophobia are so easy to arouse in order to win votes or sell newspapers."

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 15 - 09:54 AM

By the way
"myself and others relied on facts"
You have studiously avoided every single fact puyt to you and have offered none of your own
Keith is still busily trying to put the blame on he immigrants - as I said - Groundhog Day every day for some.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 15 - 09:49 AM

"Massive thread drift by Christmas, but he does like to splutter on about Thatcher."
Isn't it odd how whenever the going gets tough, the rightists scurry behind "thread drift" -every day is Goundhog Day for some people
o thread drift - today's Tories are the natural and enthusiastic heirs of the Countess, even though they had to ditch her when her extremism became an embarrassment (still get a buzz at the memory of her driving away from number 10 in tears, like a child whose favourite to had been taken away - happy day!!)   
"Minister of State for Education you have been given your allocation of resources from the Treasury"
Psst terminus - doesn't matter who gave her insufficient money - she chose to balance her books at the expense of children, those coming from working class homes.
"Damien Barr"
Why should someone declaring they don't like milk be in any way inconvenient - how pathetic can you get
Milk has always been promoted as being a health-giving asset to growing children and yet..... nice lady.
Maybe we should discourage vegetables because some kids don't like them - waddya think!!
Bit like describing the closing down of the mines and thowing thousands of them on the dole "for the benefit of the miners;' health, eh what?
Been happy to "splutter" about Mrs T whenever the subject of Toryism comes up, ever since she announced her dedication to fascism by declaring mass-murderer Pinochet her idea of democracy   
MY HERO PINOCHET
"Why didn't the Labour Government of Tony Blair reintroduce it?"
Because they have proved themselves as antagonistic to workers interests as she was - what are you suggesting - that it was o.k. to take milk from schoolkids?
None of which gets you any nearer to answering the point about the dangers of re-electing the present bunch of thugs, the fiasco of house sales, the decline in living standards that you claimed hasn't happened, the financial corruption and incompetence, Lady Porter's housing scam..... not even a murmur about the duck palaces.
Must be an election on the way
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 15 - 09:39 AM

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but immigration is a huge issue in the coming election, having a bearing on almost every facet of political policy......its not all about homosexuals you know.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 15 - 09:37 AM

Musket,
it is common knowledge that Labour policy was to enact the social chapter as enacted in The Maastrict Treaty. The concept of a minimum wage us contained within it.

It is not common knowledge.
It is bollocks.

Read this Institute For Government document.
You will find no mention of Maastricht, Social Contract or EU.

"A national minimum wage for the UK had been under debate in the Labour Party for decades.
However, in much of that time it was not only opposed by business, but also was a source of
controversy – or apathy – within the labour movement. The commitment to introduce a national
minimum wage featured in Labour's 1992 manifesto, but was a source of vulnerability rather than a
winning policy. Yet, two decades later, the machinery for setting the minimum wage established in
the early years of the Labour government survived a change of government and came top of our
poll of political studies academics for best policy of the last 30 years. This case study looks at how
this policy turnaround was achieved. "

http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_mimimum_wage.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 15 - 09:34 AM

When you've lived here 70 years you MIGHT learn how to spell the name.

There again absentee landlords don't need an to learn anything, just come "thundering in"

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Musket
Date: 01 May 15 - 09:16 AM

Our ego's what? Learn to write eh?

There are lots of valid points. You however have a knack of twisting everything to fit your somewhat unfortunate opinion of millions of people who don't deserve your hatred.

I would like this thread to be about the election and carry on, but it isn't easy to debate whilst you and the two idiots who see immigrants under the bed insist on going further than giving opinions and dragging up porkies to undermine others. I have no problem with Keith and his mate being right wing reactionary bigots, there are clearly many like them, but they shout down valid views. Are you meaning them when you complain?

Why do they do it?

Obviously because they lack conviction in what they type. You however could end up with a conviction if there is any justice in the world. I note that someone has just been given a suspended sentence and had to pay huge costs after Stonewall complained to the police over homophobic tweets.

Keep going. I'm looking for more properties to turn into holiday rents and last year bought my first Argylle property.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 01 May 15 - 09:15 AM

The poster posting as Guest is perfectly correct. How much you can borrow depends not just on the Loan To Value; but on your income and how the income is made up. If your income is made up of bonuses or overtime and not just basic salary then that can reduce your capacity to borrow. Not just current credit arrangements but student loans coming off your wages reduces the capacity to borrow. One person buying on a salary of £25K may be able to borrow less than 2 people with a combined £25K salary with some lenders. Also contract type is important. Many people are not on permanent contracts nowadays and it can be hard to get a mortgage at all under those circumstances. There would seem to be no reason to doubt someone when they say their son could only borrow a certain amount! Theoretically you can borrow up to 95% with many lenders but at that level the credit scoring needs to be very good. Not talking about bad credit just there needs to be a history of credit, not changed house too much, be on the electoral roll etc. If youngsters are living in areas with high prices it must be horrendous. Problem is live further away from the work place to reduce the house and lenders are now taking commuting costs into the affordability factor too. You can't compare getting a mortgage today with even five years ago,

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 15 - 09:07 AM

IRMC

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 May 15 - 08:57 AM

Ake, I am disappointed. You promised not to engage me again. Liar as well as bigot. Now go and fuck off.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 15 - 08:46 AM

My you ARE doing well lads, one more heave and you'll have the thread closed.

Do you find it impossible to seriously debate an awkward(for you) issue. Are your ego's so big that you can't even bring yourselves to acknowledge that others may have made a valid point?

Have you any idea how boring your smart arse jibes are to normal people.....Teribus is obviously right, you spend too much time watching and regurgitating TV "comedy".
Doesn't do a lot for your credibility, which was already shot by the forced admission that you were three second rate comedians rather than one.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 May 15 - 08:40 AM

Anyone taking odds on how long this thread will last?

:D

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Musket
Date: 01 May 15 - 08:19 AM

We have to promise not to laugh though Dave

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Musket
Date: 01 May 15 - 08:00 AM

He does check his sources. He goes out of the way to avoid uncomfortable truths.

Remember Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse's sketch "The Self-righteous Brothers"?

It was based on Keith and Terribulus sat in the best room of the pub shouting proclamations whilst Akenhateon shouts on support from the tap room.

Eeh. Fancy that. Most people got their knowledge of history from comedy script writers? How's that? Did they get it from you and Pte Acheson VD & Bar?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 15 - 07:56 AM

Oops, I'd better withdraw that last one. My source was a Beeb article which turned out to be less than accurate. I demand my licence fee back. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 15 - 07:45 AM

Er, no, it was Maggie under Heath (now there's a picture) who ended universal school milk, not Wilson. I thought you said you checked your sources.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 15 - 07:38 AM

You are the most aggressive and insulting name-caller on these threads, Teribus. Do think about casting out your plank.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 15 - 07:37 AM

"It is no surprise that Thatcher's first significant action in Parliament was to discontinue free milk for schoolchildren"

Massive thread drift by Christmas, but he does like to splutter on about Thatcher.

Pssst Christmas, you a Minister of State for Education you have been given your allocation of resources from the Treasury and you know savings have to be made, you can spend that money on:

1: Books
2: Teachers
3: Milk

As Minister of State for Education which of those three is least important to the education of the nations children?

Why didn't the local Labour city and town councils subsidise milk? Why didn't the Liebour Government of Tony Blair reintroduce it?

From memory even in my day most of it was wasted in any case.

Now some other inconvenient facts for you Christmas:

a) Margaret Thatcher was Minister of State for Education in 1971, when according to you she "snatched the milk" from the nation's primary school children.

b) Ever read Damian Barr's book "Maggie & Me" Christmas? If not perhaps you should and you could then explain to us how Damian Barr could be writing about how much he loathed the daily dose of "school milk" that he was forced to down in 1984?

c) The true story of milk's exit from the classroom is as follows:

- 1968, Harold Wilson's government removed free milk from all 11- to 18-year-olds
- 1971, the Heath administration took away milk from 7- to 11-year-olds in England and Margaret Thatcher was singled out for everlasting blame.
- 1980, was when milk was stopped for infant classes in England
- 1984 as recollected by Damian Bar, who was still drinking school milk aged eight, when his teacher announced to his class "The Prime Minister of England has stopped free milk in schools down there and now she's trying to stop it up here as well"

Liked this by journalist Rowan Pelling:

"No one ever mentions the fact that many schoolchildren loathed that beastly bottle. Indeed, I have always felt that Thatcher helped liberate children from the tyranny of "drink it all up!" But then no politician championed personal freedom as fiercely as she did."

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 15 - 07:34 AM

Well, Teribus, I can't speak for Guest and his son's circumstances as I don't know these folk (though I note that that particular impediment doesn't stop you from getting all judgemental...), but times have changed. When I bought my first house in 1978 I waltzed right into a 100% mortgage, scarcely a question asked, and I was at that time the only earner. Before that, there had been two massive house price booms, so when you were buying yours you were probably talking four figures or very low five figures for the house, right? A tad different today, huh? Ten percent deposit gets you a high interest rate today. Twenty percent gets you a better one but that means a deposit of 40 grand on a 200 grand house (not exactly a mansion anywhere, eh?) plus more renting plus removal costs. Yeah, he can always do a Tebbit and ride his bike to a different area, where his chances of getting a much better-paid job in today's climate are diddley-squat. And you have no right to make comments about his partner without knowing their precise circumstances, I reckon. Sadly, the world is not frozen in time in that rose-tinted era when you were buying your cheap houses, Mr Smugness-personified.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST
Date: 01 May 15 - 07:24 AM

I heard a suggestion that Thatcher sold people their council houses so they could not afford to go on strike. Mortgage lenders would not take the same view of missed payments as would a Labour controlled council.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 15 - 07:01 AM

"all it depends upon is having the will to do it and the determination to carry it through."
Utter rubbish in the present climate created by Tory and wannabe Tory Governments.
Most of it is Tebbitism in the extreme.
Secure employment is a thing of the past in Britain
The greatest and most cynical (and unimaginative) con this lot are putting forward is the 'by your council" house one - especially after the last catastrophic fiasco.
It is totally untrue that the Thatcher regime launched it because councils could not afford to maintain their housing stock - Thatcher deliberately capped council spending in order to destroy community facilities and throw those dependent on it to the privatised wolves.
I worked for Liverpool Corporation Housing Department as a maintenance electrician and for Manchester Council rewiring houses
The schemes were well-supervised, efficient, cheap and reliable and most importantly, they ensured that the houses were safe.
All that went with Thatcher's thugs.
Selling council houses was a vote-catching ploy devised to win votes from those who could afford to do buy.
It turned what had previously been homes into commodities - a supposed foot on the Capitalist ladder.
Instead, it brought about homelessness and hardship for the worst off (their own fault according to Terrytoon, for buying the lie and borrowing above their means)
One of the landmark atrocities was perpetrated by Thatcher's friend, Dame Shirley Porter.
She moved an entire group of residents out of their Council tower block in Westminster on the pretence that it would be modernised.   
She moved them into another block which was riddled with asbestos and modernised the original one to be sold off privately - to tenants who, she believed, would be more likely to vote Conservative, a gerrymandering, murderous ploy to secure Conservative control of the borough.
HOMES FOR VOTES SCANDAL
On being found out, she was fined forty-two million, paid only twelve of that and fled to Israel.
It is no surprise that Thatcher's first significant action in Parliament was to discontinue free milk for schoolchildren - stamp on 'em while they're young!!!   
This pair of clowns has not responded to one single fact of the reality of life for working peple other than suggest "Get on your bike".
Heard it, been there, done that and saw it create the present mess, which they choose to blame on immigration.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST
Date: 01 May 15 - 07:01 AM

So, I am called a liar, then interestingly Mr Teribus doesn't want to enter into further conversation perhaps he knows there is no answer to my son's dilemma but hasn't got the guts to admit it as it undermines his view of poverty in the UK today.

1. How the hell can my son save when the money he earns is barely enough to cover the expenses of living.

2. Very little opportunity for training in his particular field and neither is he academically inclined.

3. Move and get a job elsewhere,why do I think of Norman Tebbitt at this point.

4. Far too personal

5. It's not a requirement to have 40% as a deposit, the bank will only lend £98,000, not enough for any kind house round here.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 15 - 06:25 AM

I seem to remember that you relied on Keith for some of your facts about historians. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 15 - 06:14 AM

"Teribus - 30 Apr 15 - 12:26 PM

Last response to anonymous GUEST"

Only your word for it that you even have a son and could afford 227 pints a week in 1975 which is why you will not be getting any further comments from me. But as a parting shot here are a few suggestions:

1: He could try saving - do not say that it can't be done, hundreds of thousands of home owners started out that way - all it depends upon is having the will to do it and the determination to carry it through.

2: Think about acquiring skills that will lead to better paid work

3: Move and get a job elsewhere

4: His partner I take is part and parcel of this isn't she?

5: Since when was it a requirement to have a deposit of 40% of the purchase price of any property in order to get a mortgage? Last two I put down the requirement was only 10% - it helps if you talk to the right people.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Musket
Date: 01 May 15 - 05:56 AM

Whilst I am here. Anyone noticed that anything Terribulus is impressed with he reckons is true but anything doesn't want to believe gets the Mandy Rice Davies treatment?

I notice Jim said Keith is winning something. Keith took the sarcasm at face value which is predictable but funny. To date his "winning" seems to be the support of Terribulus and Akenhateon.

Well done. You ought to go out together for a pint and put the world to rights. 🙊🙉🙈

Just don't invite Jim or me eh? (or the Musket that enjoys winding Jim up. That would be too much...)

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Musket
Date: 01 May 15 - 05:48 AM

Musket's howler 😂😂😂

The reason everybody is laughing at you and not with you is that it is common knowledge that Labour policy was to enact the social chapter as enacted in The Maastrict Treaty. The concept of a minimum wage us contained within it. Of course Labour wished for it. Of course they enacted it. And by doing so ensured a future Tory government couldn't reverse it!

Were you really a teacher? Honest?

Says a lot about the piss poor applications for jobs by younger people I have waded through over the years..,

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST
Date: 01 May 15 - 05:40 AM

Mr Teribus, you have not answered my question as to how my son may accumulate the necessary £60,000 deposit he would need to obtain a mortgage of £98,000 to buy the cheapest house round here.

Perhaps he should rob a bank, mug a little old lady. Do you have any other suggestions from your vast fount of knowledge about poverty in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 15 - 05:11 AM

Isn't it amazing how Billyboy is so given to banging us all round the head with statistics all the time about wars and stuff, yet, when presented with findings that don't suit his prejudices, he has a hissy fit. And it wasn't even dead historians this time. It was his beloved Tory government.

Achmelvich, don't give up. Miliband had to say what he did in order to placate English voters. Post-election realpolitik, as ever, will be an entirely nother thing.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 01 May 15 - 05:02 AM

Achmelvich you are spot on. You could hardly make it up. Several weeks ago Scottish Labour were lambasting Sturgeon over the 'now discredited' leaked report that said she'd prefer to see Cameron as PM again rather than have the SNP actually work with Miliband as a PM. Now it seems that it is Miliband himself who would rather see Cameron as PM again.

I can see that this will go down well with hard edged never to be moved Labour supporters in Scotland. Kezia Dugdale is already hailing it as the SNP's bluff being called. Head in the sand stuff though. I imagine many ordinary voters will just shake their heads in disbelief and even more will switch over to the Nats. I honestly won't be surprised if Labour end up even behind the Tories sometime soon. And if they end up being also rans in Scotland long term then yes, they can still win a UK majority overall in the future, but the chances of them doing that gets so much harder.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 15 - 04:57 AM

Well, thanks for your unexpected support Jim.
To be fair, I am sure many others spotted Musket's howler but chose not to humiliate him.
What am I like?!

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 15 - 04:52 AM

Fascinating to see the die-hard right ignoring all the facts of life in Britain today and plough on with their "vote for us" - line
Must be an election coming up
And Keith is still "winning" something
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 15 - 04:17 AM

dave,
2014 is just one year. How many people have left the UK since EU borders opened? How many have arrived?

Oxford University Migration Observatory,

The accession of eight East European countries (A8 countries) to the EU in 2004 led to a significant increase in the inflow of EU citizens to the UK. The average annual Long-Term International Migration (LTIM) inflow of EU citizens (excluding British citizens) for 2004-2012 was around 170,000, compared to 67,000 during 1997-2003.
More...
LTIM estimates suggest that net migration of A8 citizens was 30,000 in 2012. During 2004-2012, LTIM data suggest that total net migration of A8 citizens was 423,000; however, the ONS has indicated that this is an underestimate.
More...
Results from the 2011 Census suggest that 2.7 million residents of the UK were born in other EU countries. About 1.1 million of those (42%) were born in countries which joined the EU in 2004 or afterwards.
More...
The number of A8 citizens working in the UK number was estimated at 723,000 in the third quarter of 2013 according to the Labour Force Survey (LFS).
More...

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 15 - 04:14 AM

"Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent"

To paraphrase the words of Mandy Rice-Davies "Well they would, wouldn't they".

Official "estimates" - Do you honestly expect any "Official" investigating their own departments standards, procedures and performance to come out with anything that would indicate they are doing anything other than a superb job!!! How naive can you get Stevieboy?? Had they done the job that you would like to make us think that they had done there would have been no bloody "estimate" about it they should have been able to tell to the penny the exact figure and extent of the abuse. The "Public" conception I would venture is not far from the mark.

Wriggle all you like Bridge tax avoidance by applying existing Government set rules to your own benefit is perfectly legal.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Musket
Date: 01 May 15 - 04:03 AM

"They throw you "gay marriage" (sic) and you think you have equality."

I don't know about you Bridge, but for me, saying you agree with something Akenhateon said requires very clear explanation because you get little gems like that laced in his waffle. It must be a form of Tourettes.

Mind you, your shared passion for saying your whole life is someone else's fault seems to resonate with an affinity. Just make sure you don't get labelled with his fear of people who are different eh? You Bridge, are at least a member of the human race .

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 01 May 15 - 03:51 AM

this is just crazy. i would want to vote green here in cumbria if there wasn't a chance that the tories might get in. as ever, i was thinking that i'll have to vote labour again to try to keep the tories out. now, i hear that labour would rather have the tories back in government than co-operate with another slightly left of centre party. well, that's me finished with any remaining hope that labour might be a bit better than the tories. i'll just have to get busy with my campaign to get the border moved south - more likely than labour remembering what they are supposed to be about.
why do all 3 of the largest westminster parties seem so keen to encourage the scottish independence movement - thought we were supposed to be 'better together'

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 May 15 - 03:45 AM

Oh dear. I have to agree with something Akenhateon wrote. It's probably the reason that no government has enacted a general anti-avoidance principle. It would cure a LOT of abuse by the rich if we simply reversed IRC -v- Westminster (which it the answer to Terribilis).

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 May 15 - 03:08 AM

Steve Shat: "- Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent - so the public conception is out by a factor of 34."

Think that's bad??...on this side of the pond, you should check out the latest reports of the Clinton's 'Charitable Organizations'..and the 'administrative costs', versus the actual money received in the actual 'charity work'.....

Umm, would you'd say that was 'political corruption?....or charitable organizations(in general)???

We must always consider the source, from where we form our opinions....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 07:43 PM

Here's one for Billyboy to chew over. Research done in 2013.

The research, carried out by Ipsos Mori from a phone survey of 1,015 people aged 16 to 75, lists ten misconceptions held by the British public. Among the biggest misconceptions are:

- Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent - so the public conception is out by a factor of 34.

Pick the bones out of that one, Terribilitas!

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 06:50 PM

I'm a patient man, Billyboy, so let me repeat. The government pursues benefit fraud (and pursuing it is a very popular pursuit now that Duncan-Smith has groomed the public) with enthusiasm and vehemence. Yet they can find less than one percent fraud. Google benefit fraud and see how they'd like us all to snoop on each other. Yet less than one percent, eh? Cor. All those claimants making the bankers and tax evaders look like they're nicking Spangles from Woolies! And you call me a clown...

Akenaton, go and have another six pints. Don't forget it's only Friday tomorrow, so you have to get up. Maybe things will look clearer to you in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 06:19 PM

"
Not only that, Richard, but the government targets suspected benefit fraud with legendary vehemence yet is notoriously soft on tax evasion."

Ha Ha Ha......of course they are soft on tax evasion....of course they bail out the banks which fail....of course the bent bankers avoid jail. Of course the system cannot be seen to be failing, so they throw you "gay marriage" and you think you have equality.

We vote for capitalism and that means the system trumps everything else, democracy, justice and the right to a meaningful life.
Don't sounds so surprised when they stick it up you, if you didn't see it coming, you deserve it.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 06:17 PM

Ah but as a lawyer Bridge you should know perfectly well that tax avoidance is perfectly legal, understandable and sensible - everyone should do it. You should also know that tax evasion is illegal. So how much of your £150 billion is legal avoidance and what portion of it is illegal tax evasion? The Government are the ones that make the rules governing tax, which makes them complicit in any case of tax avoidance - true? Any idea where the Kinnock's got their £millions, or the Blair's for that matter.

Stevie-boy stop spluttering, there's a good chap, benefit fraud that the authorities know about amounted to - what about the freeloaders they have yet to detect.

Bonzo just on inflation you are now working for one-tenth of what you were earning in 1975 and as the costs of damn near everything that needed to live in 1975 has gone up by 831.67% - I'd say that you should have starved to death sometime in the 1980s - you could of course have been a multi-millionaire in 1975, you could of course have been a man of independent means with no need to live off your wages, or you could of course just be bullshitting.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 06:10 PM

By the way:

for the benefit of Steve Shaw this has been copy pasted from paddy powers website

Doesn't benefit me. I'm not a betting man.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 05:45 PM

2014 is just one year. How many people have left the UK since EU borders opened? How many have arrived? Statistics in isolation do nothing. Anyone can blindly accept what they are told by 'experts'. I am happier questioning them.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 04:51 PM

Not only that, Richard, but the government targets suspected benefit fraud with legendary vehemence yet is notoriously soft on tax evasion. In spite of that, benefit fraud, last count, amounted to just over a billion, about 0.7% of the overall bill. Contrast that with what could be around 150 billion in unpaid tax. Billyboy has clearly fallen for the number one Tory softening-up tactic of demonising all benefits claimants in the eyes of the public before kicking some of the most vulnerable people in society in the bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 04:46 PM

I am amazed by how little some people seem to know of the real world.

36 years ago I was almost the same age as my son is now.
I worked at the time for the NHS, similar pay rates to councils
His work ethic is fine, he's a grafter and always has been

The cheapest property where we live is approx. £150,000

To get a mortgage he would need a deposit of £60,000, the options I have just looked at will not lend my son and his partner any more than £98,0000 (his partner is female just case there is a remote chance you that MIGHT be biased)

How the hell is he supposed to accumulate £60,000 when he can barely make ends meet a sit is.

Perhaps you should visit estates in Liverpool, Salford even Oxford and see how people have to cope. It seems you do not really have a clue.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 04:30 PM

I see the right wing idiots are rolling out again the lie that benefit fraud costs lots - while conveniently forgetting that tax avoidance and evasion costs the country FAR more and has FAR fewer resources devoted to it.

Opportunistic scum.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 15 - 03:12 PM

Dave, for year ending September 2014,
UK to EU 89000
EU to UK 251000