Best Of

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14ev1z6d5go

Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?

It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England

We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back

Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .

I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.

But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.

It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.

I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire.
Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.

This is silly

It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that

The Normans also brought a lot to the English language

Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.

If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman

They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia

But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy

Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day

All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it

Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony

There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...

Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?

You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong

I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids

Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless

Glad you are enjoying Norway

That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.

Now can you have a word with @HYUFD .

You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest

God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.

I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.

But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.

So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.

So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.

In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did

Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.

I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes

But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.

You have no idea about any of this do you?

Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA

OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.

a) WFA did not exist then

b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.

You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.

And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.

I am not responding any more to this drivel.

WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.

You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax

And chance of some pension advice when you have a minute ?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-supreme-court-lifts-order-that-blocked-trumps-mass-federal-layoffs-2025-07-08/

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for President Donald Trump's administration to resume carrying out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government.

The justices lifted San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's May 22 order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called "reductions in force" affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds.

Another day when the power of elected congress as actual law makers and owners of the 'power of the purse' gets seriously diminished.

I'd love to know whether the individual supreme court judges really look forward to living in the country they are enabling.

'cos we 'aint in Kansas anymore Toto.

It's getting a bit more sticky for Mr Wallace:

Gregg Wallace has been sacked as MasterChef presenter as a result of an inquiry into alleged misconduct, BBC News understands.

It comes as 50 more people have approached the BBC with fresh claims about the TV presenter - including allegations he groped one MasterChef worker and pulled his trousers down in front of another. Wallace denies the claims.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewgz0qw77lo

So another of their most successful shows is once again put on the funeral pyre of political correctness.
I am really not sure that the BBC is in tune with its audience about this, just as they weren’t with Clarkson and Top Gear.
I will miss it and almost certainly not watch their attempts to revive the corpse.

I'm surprised at you. Have you read the BBC article? Wallace is obviously a dirty, gropey old man with a penchant for waving his bits around, abusing his power, and making many young women feel intimidated or worse.
Sod all to do with political correctness.

A lot of this seems to concern various celebs who appeared on the show. I’m not seeing any great disparity of power there. Staff is obviously different.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14ev1z6d5go

Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?

It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England

We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back

Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .

I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.

But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.

It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.

I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire.
Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.

This is silly

It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that

The Normans also brought a lot to the English language

Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.

If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman

They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia

But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy

Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day

All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it

Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony

There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...

Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?

You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong

I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids

Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless

Glad you are enjoying Norway

That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.

Now can you have a word with @HYUFD .

You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest

God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.

I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.

But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.

So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.

So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.

In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did

Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.

I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes

But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.

You have no idea about any of this do you?

Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA

OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.

a) WFA did not exist then

b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.

You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.

And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.

I am not responding any more to this drivel.

WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.

You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax

Yep I was right. You didn't understand a word of it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14ev1z6d5go

Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?

It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England

We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back

Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .

I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.

But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.

It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.

I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire.
Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.

This is silly

It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that

The Normans also brought a lot to the English language

Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.

If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman

They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia

But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy

Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day

All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it

Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony

There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...

Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?

You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong

I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids

Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless

Glad you are enjoying Norway

That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.

Now can you have a word with @HYUFD .

You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest

God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.

I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.

But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.

So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.

So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.

In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did

Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.

I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes

But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.

You have no idea about any of this do you?

Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA

I just popped in only to see your still at it after at least 2 days

Please can you give us all a break and move on

It is intensely tedious

He's painted himself into yet another corner Big_G, it could go on all week.

The one thing you can guarantee with HY is that he will never admit he is wrong.