So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The Miliband juniors actually used a deed of variation on their father's will to avoid the tax. Miliband senior had nothing to do with it and I doubt he would have agreed with his sons' use of a tax dodge on their inheritance. It was hypocritical to the extreme for Ed to rage against Tory inheritance tax cuts when he had used legal trickery available only to rich people to do the same.
That legal trickery is available to almost everyone - a deed of variation isn't that difficult provided the executors are happy.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The Miliband juniors actually used a deed of variation on their father's will to avoid the tax. Miliband senior had nothing to do with it and I doubt he would have agreed with his sons' use of a tax dodge on their inheritance. It was hypocritical to the extreme for Ed to rage against Tory inheritance tax cuts when he had used legal trickery available only to rich people to do the same.
That legal trickery is available to almost everyone - a deed of variation isn't that difficult provided the executors are happy.
Amusingly, the government documents explain that tax minimisation is one of the expected uses of a Deed of Variation:
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
QED. The state of the Left. “We cannot be racist because we are good and superior.” Whatever
No, they are just saying that your argument in this case is fallacious. Which it clearly is.
But there are multiple people on the left on Twitter/FB etc etc saying "Yeah, this is racist"
eg
"Ms Emily Thornberry did acknowledge that many people she likes and respects had criticised the advert.
"Some felt very uncomfortable about it, some thought that it was racist - and I have to say I think they are wrong.""
They're certainly not all Corbynites. Are they mad, deluded, what?
I can't even believe we are having this argument. If the Tories did this with a picture of a south Asian Labour MP - associating him with unprosecuted pedophilia - it would obviously be a racist smear. No question. But because it is done by Labour it is not, by some weird process of lefty magic whereby anything they do is not racist even when it is
It's the exact same psychology that goes through Corbyn's brain when he is anti-Semitic. He can't be anti-Semitic because he's Jeremy Corbyn, a lefty, a man who fights racism. In the end it becomes tedious even trying to argue with people like Corbyn who are wilfully blind and cannot be cured; the argument here is the same
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
I don't agree. kinabalu is right.
Thank you, Stocky. Yes, the difference is subtle but important.
"I don't think this system should exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it, but given it does exist and my child will benefit I'll put family over politics and use it."
"I go around criticizing others for using this system even though I do it myself."
The 2nd is rank hypocrisy, the 1st isn't. The 1st is akin to arguing for a Wealth Tax but not paying it until there actually is one.
Or, let's have a right wing example, a free market absolutist using the NHS.
The 'H' word is used incessantly and sloppily - and I get animated about it because in political punditry it's forever being flung at the left.
Your right wing example isn't equivalent. A better one might be someone who argues for tighter immigration controls while employing cheap foreign labour.
Or someone who extolls the democracy dividend of Brexit (let’s face it, there isn’t much else left) while chortling about democracy being stymied in Scotland. Thankfully we don’t have that sort of big, fat aitch round here.
You HAD a referendum. You voted NO. The result has been honoured. Democracy is "not stymied in Scotland". Grow up
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
QED. The state of the Left. “We cannot be racist because we are good and superior.” Whatever
No, they are just saying that your argument in this case is fallacious. Which it clearly is.
But there are multiple people on the left on Twitter/FB etc etc saying "Yeah, this is racist"
They're certainly not all Corbynites. Are they mad, deluded, what?
I can't even believe we are having this argument. If the Tories did this with a picture of a south Asian Labour MP - associating him with unprosecuted pedophilia - it would obviously be a racist smear. No question. But because it is done by Labour it is not, by some weird process of lefty magic whereby anything they do is not racist even when it is
It's the exact same psychology that goes through Corbyn's brain when he is anti-Semitic. He can't be anti-Semitic because he's Jeremy Corbyn, a lefty, a man who fights racism. In the end it becomes tedious even trying to argue with people like Corbyn who are wilfully blind and cannot be cured; the argument here is the same
Endex
If you look at that ad and see not the PM, but 'a South Asian MP', then the problem is, I think, with you. Whether you're on the left or right.
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
How did they get caught cheating
They send lace abroad to be dyed - the additional 8% charge which is clearly a tariff not reclaimable VAT destroys the business.
It seems the company has decided it's not worth the hassle and is closing down - I would be doing the same...
And I've pointed this out earlier this year - I needed to import something from Germany and I wasted a whole day and paid 50% extra just to get what I needed because otherwise the company couldn't be faffed to sell to the UK because of the paperwork we insist on.
But the agreed trade deal between the UK and EU had no tarrifs and no quotas. So where is the 8% charge coming from?
This company sounds like they’re trying to play games with imports and exports, to prevent tarrifs based on the real origin of the goods.
or HMRC are the bunch of idiots that they seem to be every time I have the misfortune to deal with them.
An example - Chapter 10 IR35 that results in a tax bill of 45% or 95% depending on how willing the contractor is to solve the agency's problem (wish I was kidding but literally it has 2 end states depending on whether the agency can recover the money from the poor contractor who isn't involved because the decision is outside his hands).
Biggest advantage of working abroad, is not having to deal with HMRC.
My brother got done last year, for a company car allowance that his former company screwed up, to the tune of £10k over a number of years! IR35 was one of the biggest reasons I left the UK in the first place, and it’s got way worse since I left!
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
This is such bollocks. You’re on a roll today
If the Tories put out a poster with a picture of a south Asian Labour MP directly associating him unprosecuted pedophiles you’d immediately accuse them of racism. And you’d be right. They would be exploiting the understandable if regrettable public association of “south Asian men” with “Asian grooming gangs”. The poster would be a racist smear
And remember this poster was specifically and admittedly designed as a riposte to Braverman’s statements on the grooming gangs. So Labour knew full well what they were doing and the context
Plenty of people on the left have called out this poster as racist. It’s not a right wing reaction
As ever you are incapable of seeing racism in yourself or your own ranks because you are on the left and “the left is morally superior so cannot be racist”
The 'random South Asian MP' point is noncense. Sunak is the PM. We only have one. And those on the Left saying it's racist are all Starmer haters. The OJs, the Ash Sarkars. I like these people but they are one-eyed on SKS. I'm not blind to racism on 'my' side but I didn't detect it here. When I saw the poster I went to myself "Oh god, that's like the cheap ghastly Savile thing the other way, I do not like". Posted as much at the time. What I didn't think was "OMG they're implying Rishi is a child molestor cos he's Asian." But, you know, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm too sweet and pure for this world. It's possible, I suppose. People do say that sometimes.
Who knew that abusing your power to expel political opponents might have consequences - even in Tennessee ?
Tennessee Speaker admits his family lives hours away from the district he represents https://popular.info/p/update-tennessee-speaker-admits-his ...Gary Blackburn, an attorney who has practiced law in Tennessee since the 1970s, said that what Sexton is doing "violates the obvious spirit of this law" and is "contrary to the intent of the statute." Blackburn said, however, that enforcement may be difficult because of vague language in the residency statute. Nevertheless, according to Blackburn, the issue of Sexton's residency is "worthy of public discussion." He agreed that Sexton could face a court challenge in any subsequent run for office.
I thought America had pretty strict anti-carpetbagger rules.
IF you are taking about residency for purpose of voting and office holding, in just about all states (think it's all but not certain) a person can claim one address as their legal domicile = legal residence for voting & office - based on their INTENT to "permanently" reside there, until & unless they state intent to move to some other legal address.
Thus members of Congress can be maintain legal residences within their states (maybe their own house OR perhaps a relatives) while actually living in DC or vicinity.
Not sure re: actual facts re: the Tennessee House Speaker's situation. Which will be up to authorities in great Volunteer State to adjudicate.
As a practical political/electoral matter, the court of public opinion may render different decision than legal or quasi-legal tribunal.
In my humble experience, issues of residency matter more to rural voters, than to urban or especially suburban voters.
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
IANAL, but if you hung up a doll as an express positive reference to lynching, I could see how that might come under incitement to racial hatred, no? Whether this nutjob’s actions meet the required criteria, I don’t know.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
QED. The state of the Left. “We cannot be racist because we are good and superior.” Whatever
No, they are just saying that your argument in this case is fallacious. Which it clearly is.
But there are multiple people on the left on Twitter/FB etc etc saying "Yeah, this is racist"
They're certainly not all Corbynites. Are they mad, deluded, what?
I can't even believe we are having this argument. If the Tories did this with a picture of a south Asian Labour MP - associating him with unprosecuted pedophilia - it would obviously be a racist smear. No question. But because it is done by Labour it is not, by some weird process of lefty magic whereby anything they do is not racist even when it is
It's the exact same psychology that goes through Corbyn's brain when he is anti-Semitic. He can't be anti-Semitic because he's Jeremy Corbyn, a lefty, a man who fights racism. In the end it becomes tedious even trying to argue with people like Corbyn who are wilfully blind and cannot be cured; the argument here is the same
Endex
If you look at that ad and see not the PM, but 'a South Asian MP', then the problem is, I think, with you. Whether you're on the left or right.
So all these nice people in Labour that Emily Thornberry respects who said "Whoah that's racist", they're racists too? So Labour is riddled with nice, respectable racists. Glad we've cleared that up
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
How did they get caught cheating
They send lace abroad to be dyed - the additional 8% charge which is clearly a tariff not reclaimable VAT destroys the business.
It seems the company has decided it's not worth the hassle and is closing down - I would be doing the same...
And I've pointed this out earlier this year - I needed to import something from Germany and I wasted a whole day and paid 50% extra just to get what I needed because otherwise the company couldn't be faffed to sell to the UK because of the paperwork we insist on.
But the agreed trade deal between the UK and EU had no tarrifs and no quotas. So where is the 8% charge coming from?
This company sounds like they’re trying to play games with imports and exports, to prevent tarrifs based on the real origin of the goods.
Who told you that? There is a long list of tariffs that have to be paid on products. You have to match the product against the tariff code and declare that on the customs paperwork.
Even when the product attracts a 0% rate you still have to do all the paperwork to declare that you owe no money. Which costs money. So for the zero tariff products it is not zero cost as it was before. And for the products which attract a tariff, well...
I'm guessing what happened here is that prior to Brexit they paid the French firm a service fee for dying which was, of course, duty-free. After Brexit this service would have been liable to an 8% tariff. So instead they made an arrangement to sell the raw lace to the French (0% tariff) then buy it back again dyed (still 0%) 'bypassing' the tariff on the difference. The HMRC took one look at this and decided it was a clear case of evasion. But, of course, after two years a considerable debt had accumulated which they can't afford to pay out of current earnings.
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
This is a bit more complicated than that, because it's all about Rules of Origin and the percentage of value involved in the manufacture.
If you export a product, work on it abroad, and then reimport it, then there work involved in calculation whether it meets Rules of Origin and is granted tax free status.
If the increase in the value of the product is less than 100% (and I don't know the specific MID codes or specifics of the textiles tariffs so I am working off general principles), then it should have been covered by the existing Free Trade Agreement we have with the EU.
Presumably, the internal accounting of the firm was that the value uplift was (say) 80%, and therefore it was fine. HMRC has come in and said, no the value uplift was such x%, and therefore you don't get the RoO tax free benefit.
Hopefully over time there will be an increasing amount of case law that enables business and their advisors to make sensible decisions. But I think your presumption of fraud is simply incorrect.
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
How did they get caught cheating
They send lace abroad to be dyed - the additional 8% charge which is clearly a tariff not reclaimable VAT destroys the business.
It seems the company has decided it's not worth the hassle and is closing down - I would be doing the same...
And I've pointed this out earlier this year - I needed to import something from Germany and I wasted a whole day and paid 50% extra just to get what I needed because otherwise the company couldn't be faffed to sell to the UK because of the paperwork we insist on.
But the agreed trade deal between the UK and EU had no tarrifs and no quotas. So where is the 8% charge coming from?
This company sounds like they’re trying to play games with imports and exports, to prevent tarrifs based on the real origin of the goods.
Who told you that? There is a long list of tariffs that have to be paid on products. You have to match the product against the tariff code and declare that on the customs paperwork.
Even when the product attracts a 0% rate you still have to do all the paperwork to declare that you owe no money. Which costs money. So for the zero tariff products it is not zero cost as it was before. And for the products which attract a tariff, well...
I'm guessing what happened here is that prior to Brexit they paid the French firm a service fee for dying which was, of course, duty-free. After Brexit this service would have been liable to an 8% tariff. So instead they made an arrangement to sell the raw lace to the French (0% tariff) then buy it back again dyed (still 0%) 'bypassing' the tariff on the difference. The HMRC took one look at this and decided it was a clear case of evasion. But, of course, after two years a considerable debt had accumulated which they can't afford to pay out of current earnings.
I can't imagine they made any such arrangement. I suspect they continued you as they always have done and HMRC decided that because lace was being sent to the UK an 8% tariff was due even though the lace was manufactured in the UK and at all times belonged to the UK company.
Remember that the only reason you can take your laptop into a foreign country and back to the UK is because customs apply a bit of common sense. In law you should be paying import duty everytime you bring your laptop into this country.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
The racial angle was the timing - just after an upsurge in reporting about SE Asian grooming gangs. Attempting for guilt by association
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
This is a bit more complicated than that, because it's all about Rules of Origin and the percentage of value involved in the manufacture.
If you export a product, work on it abroad, and then reimport it, then there work involved in calculation whether it meets Rules of Origin and is granted tax free status.
If the increase in the value of the product is less than 100% (and I don't know the specific MID codes or specifics of the textiles tariffs so I am working off general principles), then it should have been covered by the existing Free Trade Agreement we have with the EU.
Presumably, the internal accounting of the firm was that the value uplift was (say) 80%, and therefore it was fine. HMRC has come in and said, no the value uplift was such x%, and therefore you don't get the RoO tax free benefit.
Hopefully over time there will be an increasing amount of case law that enables business and their advisors to make sensible decisions. But I think your presumption of fraud is simply incorrect.
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
I used to work in and around Grays. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if racism was involved!
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
The racial angle was the timing - just after an upsurge in reporting about SE Asian grooming gangs. Attempting for guilt by association
And that's where I'm less sympathetic towards the PM.
After all, the reason for the upsurge in coverage was the Sunak and Braverman raising the issue.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The Miliband juniors actually used a deed of variation on their father's will to avoid the tax. Miliband senior had nothing to do with it and I doubt he would have agreed with his sons' use of a tax dodge on their inheritance. It was hypocritical to the extreme for Ed to rage against Tory inheritance tax cuts when he had used legal trickery available only to rich people to do the same.
A deed of variation isn’t a tax dodge.
It’s changing a will after the event.
If someone no longer receives the inheritance why should they (or the estate) pay the tax?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
I’m not the most left wing person but that photo is pretty dodgy… I would have thought inciting racial hatred and/or public order offences might be a place to start
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
I used to work in and around Grays. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if racism was involved!
Maybe - but you send one officer in plain clothes to take a look and report back, rather than six in uniform to make a show of it - at a time when the police are complaining of being under-resourced.
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
This is a bit more complicated than that, because it's all about Rules of Origin and the percentage of value involved in the manufacture.
If you export a product, work on it abroad, and then reimport it, then there work involved in calculation whether it meets Rules of Origin and is granted tax free status.
If the increase in the value of the product is less than 100% (and I don't know the specific MID codes or specifics of the textiles tariffs so I am working off general principles), then it should have been covered by the existing Free Trade Agreement we have with the EU.
Presumably, the internal accounting of the firm was that the value uplift was (say) 80%, and therefore it was fine. HMRC has come in and said, no the value uplift was such x%, and therefore you don't get the RoO tax free benefit.
Hopefully over time there will be an increasing amount of case law that enables business and their advisors to make sensible decisions. But I think your presumption of fraud is simply incorrect.
We're also assuming that the initially exported product had 100% UK origin, which seems very unlikely so the non-zero tariff could easily be triggered if the value add from the French company and proportion of value derived from the original purchase country goes over 50%. Ultimately the solution for this company would have been to source domestically for more of their supply chain to ensure they didn't dip below any RoO thresholds that apply to zero tariff deals.
Personally I thought Michael Howard and the watch was racist (Faginesque), and the pigs one not. I think Corbyn’s mural was certainly racist. I think the Rishi paedo as is misjudged but not racist.
I think much of what comes out of Suella Braverman’s mouth is a deliberate attempt to stoke racist sentiment. She appears to have the full backing of Rishi Sunak.
The golliwog couple are obviously a pair of bad ‘uns but it would be nice to live in a country where free speech is a thing.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The Miliband juniors actually used a deed of variation on their father's will to avoid the tax. Miliband senior had nothing to do with it and I doubt he would have agreed with his sons' use of a tax dodge on their inheritance. It was hypocritical to the extreme for Ed to rage against Tory inheritance tax cuts when he had used legal trickery available only to rich people to do the same.
A deed of variation isn’t a tax dodge.
It’s changing a will after the event.
If someone no longer receives the inheritance why should they (or the estate) pay the tax?
They did receive the inheritance (the house). It was a pure tax dodge in their case, something Miliband Senior would absolutely have been against as a paid up socialist.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
The racial angle was the timing - just after an upsurge in reporting about SE Asian grooming gangs. Attempting for guilt by association
And that's where I'm less sympathetic towards the PM.
After all, the reason for the upsurge in coverage was the Sunak and Braverman raising the issue.
The country appears to be an economic wasteland and I’m not even sure I can see a clear recovery anymore. At one stage I still reserved a modicum of optimism.
Again, I urge all readers under the age of 45 to emigrate.
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
I used to work in and around Grays. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if racism was involved!
Maybe - but you send one officer in plain clothes to take a look and report back, rather than six in uniform to make a show of it - at a time when the police are complaining of being under-resourced.
Your first question was about sending 6 officers, but your second question was about whether this could ever be a criminal offence. Do you now accept that there could be circumstances where hanging up a doll in a pub could be committing a criminal offence?
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
I don't agree. kinabalu is right.
Thank you, Stocky. Yes, the difference is subtle but important.
"I don't think this system should exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it, but given it does exist and my child will benefit I'll put family over politics and use it."
"I go around criticizing others for using this system even though I do it myself."
The 2nd is rank hypocrisy, the 1st isn't. The 1st is akin to arguing for a Wealth Tax but not paying it until there actually is one.
Or, let's have a right wing example, a free market absolutist using the NHS.
The 'H' word is used incessantly and sloppily - and I get animated about it because in political punditry it's forever being flung at the left.
Your right wing example isn't equivalent. A better one might be someone who argues for tighter immigration controls while employing cheap foreign labour.
Or someone who extolls the democracy dividend of Brexit (let’s face it, there isn’t much else left) while chortling about democracy being stymied in Scotland. Thankfully we don’t have that sort of big, fat aitch round here.
You HAD a referendum. You voted NO. The result has been honoured. Democracy is "not stymied in Scotland". Grow up
Voted to have a second referendum, didn't we, on any count? And who ignored that? The Tory Unionists. QED.
Personally I thought Michael Howard and the watch was racist (Faginesque), and the pigs one not. I think Corbyn’s mural was certainly racist. I think the Rishi paedo as is misjudged but not racist.
Agree
Edit: although they must have known what they were doing also with the pigs one.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
QED. The state of the Left. “We cannot be racist because we are good and superior.” Whatever
No, they are just saying that your argument in this case is fallacious. Which it clearly is.
But there are multiple people on the left on Twitter/FB etc etc saying "Yeah, this is racist"
eg
"Ms Emily Thornberry did acknowledge that many people she likes and respects had criticised the advert.
"Some felt very uncomfortable about it, some thought that it was racist - and I have to say I think they are wrong.""
They're certainly not all Corbynites. Are they mad, deluded, what?
I can't even believe we are having this argument. If the Tories did this with a picture of a south Asian Labour MP - associating him with unprosecuted pedophilia - it would obviously be a racist smear. No question. But because it is done by Labour it is not, by some weird process of lefty magic whereby anything they do is not racist even when it is
It's the exact same psychology that goes through Corbyn's brain when he is anti-Semitic. He can't be anti-Semitic because he's Jeremy Corbyn, a lefty, a man who fights racism. In the end it becomes tedious even trying to argue with people like Corbyn who are wilfully blind and cannot be cured; the argument here is the same
Endex
'Endex' clearly meaning 'not engaging with the key point' because (again!) - Rishi Sunak is not a 'random south Asian MP' he's the PM. Our one and only. The supposed equivalent is a mile off.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
I don't agree. kinabalu is right.
Thank you, Stocky. Yes, the difference is subtle but important.
"I don't think this system should exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it, but given it does exist and my child will benefit I'll put family over politics and use it."
"I go around criticizing others for using this system even though I do it myself."
The 2nd is rank hypocrisy, the 1st isn't. The 1st is akin to arguing for a Wealth Tax but not paying it until there actually is one.
Or, let's have a right wing example, a free market absolutist using the NHS.
The 'H' word is used incessantly and sloppily - and I get animated about it because in political punditry it's forever being flung at the left.
Your right wing example isn't equivalent. A better one might be someone who argues for tighter immigration controls while employing cheap foreign labour.
Or someone who extolls the democracy dividend of Brexit (let’s face it, there isn’t much else left) while chortling about democracy being stymied in Scotland. Thankfully we don’t have that sort of big, fat aitch round here.
You HAD a referendum. You voted NO. The result has been honoured. Democracy is "not stymied in Scotland". Grow up
Voted to have a second referendum, didn't we, on any count? And who ignored that? The Tory Unionists. QED.
Sadly the people who promised you a second referendum lied to you because they weren't in a legal position that allowed a second referendum..
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
I used to work in and around Grays. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if racism was involved!
Maybe - but you send one officer in plain clothes to take a look and report back, rather than six in uniform to make a show of it - at a time when the police are complaining of being under-resourced.
Your first question was about sending 6 officers, but your second question was about whether this could ever be a criminal offence. Do you now accept that there could be circumstances where hanging up a doll in a pub could be committing a criminal offence?
There are almost no circumstances, under which it would be a criminal offence to hang up dolls up in a pub.
Perhaps, if there was a sign near the doll that said “We hang wogs here”, that would be the equivalent of the old “No blacks and no Irish” sign. The illegality being the signs rather than the dolls.
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
This is a bit more complicated than that, because it's all about Rules of Origin and the percentage of value involved in the manufacture.
If you export a product, work on it abroad, and then reimport it, then there work involved in calculation whether it meets Rules of Origin and is granted tax free status.
If the increase in the value of the product is less than 100% (and I don't know the specific MID codes or specifics of the textiles tariffs so I am working off general principles), then it should have been covered by the existing Free Trade Agreement we have with the EU.
Presumably, the internal accounting of the firm was that the value uplift was (say) 80%, and therefore it was fine. HMRC has come in and said, no the value uplift was such x%, and therefore you don't get the RoO tax free benefit.
Hopefully over time there will be an increasing amount of case law that enables business and their advisors to make sensible decisions. But I think your presumption of fraud is simply incorrect.
We're also assuming that the initially exported product had 100% UK origin, which seems very unlikely so the non-zero tariff could easily be triggered if the value add from the French company and proportion of value derived from the original purchase country goes over 50%. Ultimately the solution for this company would have been to source domestically for more of their supply chain to ensure they didn't dip below any RoO thresholds that apply to zero tariff deals.
or where that isn't practical shift all the production abroad so the only bits imported into the UK is the percentage destined for UK consumption...
I'm glad that all I do is write software so my work is invisible...
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
I don't agree. kinabalu is right.
Thank you, Stocky. Yes, the difference is subtle but important.
"I don't think this system should exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it, but given it does exist and my child will benefit I'll put family over politics and use it."
"I go around criticizing others for using this system even though I do it myself."
The 2nd is rank hypocrisy, the 1st isn't. The 1st is akin to arguing for a Wealth Tax but not paying it until there actually is one.
Or, let's have a right wing example, a free market absolutist using the NHS.
The 'H' word is used incessantly and sloppily - and I get animated about it because in political punditry it's forever being flung at the left.
Your right wing example isn't equivalent. A better one might be someone who argues for tighter immigration controls while employing cheap foreign labour.
Or someone who extolls the democracy dividend of Brexit (let’s face it, there isn’t much else left) while chortling about democracy being stymied in Scotland. Thankfully we don’t have that sort of big, fat aitch round here.
You HAD a referendum. You voted NO. The result has been honoured. Democracy is "not stymied in Scotland". Grow up
Voted to have a second referendum, didn't we, on any count? And who ignored that? The Tory Unionists. QED.
You should thank your lucky stars that is the case. Big mistake to refuse a second referendum at this point when Yes would not have had a chance in hell of winning it.
I'm guessing the "lets see if there is an absolute majority in favour of independence at the next GE" idea will also be quietly dropped standing recent polls.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The Miliband juniors actually used a deed of variation on their father's will to avoid the tax. Miliband senior had nothing to do with it and I doubt he would have agreed with his sons' use of a tax dodge on their inheritance. It was hypocritical to the extreme for Ed to rage against Tory inheritance tax cuts when he had used legal trickery available only to rich people to do the same.
A deed of variation isn’t a tax dodge.
It’s changing a will after the event.
If someone no longer receives the inheritance why should they (or the estate) pay the tax?
They did receive the inheritance (the house). It was a pure tax dodge in their case, something Miliband Senior would absolutely have been against as a paid up socialist.
No, it wasn't a 'tax dodge'.
And getting riled about it today is very odd.
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/12/did-ed-miliband-avoid-inheritance-tax-parents-home-deed-of-variation ...However, the changes in 2007 mean that a surviving spouse now inherits the tax-free sum that their partner did not use. Without the deed of variation, the beneficiaries of Marion’s estate would benefit from any of Ralph’s unused allowance as well as her allowance; with it, they will only get anything that wasn’t used. So there is no tax advantage...
The country appears to be an economic wasteland and I’m not even sure I can see a clear recovery anymore. At one stage I still reserved a modicum of optimism.
Again, I urge all readers under the age of 45 to emigrate.
You left the UK to go and live in a country which has recently come close to a coup, which is indicting its last president (suggesting more civil strife to come), which has cities imploding in an epidemic of homelessness and drug abuse, which has cities experiencing murder rates only otherwise experienced in places like Mexico which are roiled in drug wars, where mass shootings - often in schools - occur on an almost daily basis, which is riven by bitter racial discord now infecting every area of life, where the next election will be between a 80 year old dangerous lunatic and an 82 year old in senescent decline, and where life expectancy has brutally plunged to 76 (and is still falling, fast) unlike any other western nation) and where that same life expectancy is now lower than Thailand, Cuba or Panama, and will soon be overtaken by Vietnam
Oh, and you have by far the worst rate of traffic fatalities anywhere in the rich world - actually worse than Egypt, Uzbekistan and Jamaica
Personally I thought Michael Howard and the watch was racist (Faginesque), and the pigs one not. I think Corbyn’s mural was certainly racist. I think the Rishi paedo as is misjudged but not racist.
Agree
Edit: although they must have known what they were doing also with the pigs one.
Probably. Unpleasant - and completely unnecessary posters, given Howard's slim electoral chances.
Lab/LD/Green at 62% in the "Blue Wall" is pretty impressive though. In which previous parliament have we seen such a left preponderance in the True Blue Shires of southern England?
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
I don't agree. kinabalu is right.
Thank you, Stocky. Yes, the difference is subtle but important.
"I don't think this system should exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it, but given it does exist and my child will benefit I'll put family over politics and use it."
"I go around criticizing others for using this system even though I do it myself."
The 2nd is rank hypocrisy, the 1st isn't. The 1st is akin to arguing for a Wealth Tax but not paying it until there actually is one.
Or, let's have a right wing example, a free market absolutist using the NHS.
The 'H' word is used incessantly and sloppily - and I get animated about it because in political punditry it's forever being flung at the left.
Your right wing example isn't equivalent. A better one might be someone who argues for tighter immigration controls while employing cheap foreign labour.
Or someone who extolls the democracy dividend of Brexit (let’s face it, there isn’t much else left) while chortling about democracy being stymied in Scotland. Thankfully we don’t have that sort of big, fat aitch round here.
You HAD a referendum. You voted NO. The result has been honoured. Democracy is "not stymied in Scotland". Grow up
Voted to have a second referendum, didn't we, on any count? And who ignored that? The Tory Unionists. QED.
Referendums are a matter legally reserved for Westminster, as agreed in the Devolution Settlement. That's the UK Parliament at Westminster - where Scotland is fully and democratically represented by its MPs. That's democracy
“Britain has been given the biggest economic upgrade of any G7 country after forecasters at the International Monetary Fund were forced to concede they had been too gloomy.
“Stronger than expected economic performance so far this year means UK GDP is on track to contract by 0.3pc across 2023, half the 0.6pc fall the fund (IMF) forecast in January, according to its latest World Economic Outlook.
“Britain is still expected to have the weakest performance of any large economy. It had the best growth in the G7 last year and rivals are making up the gap.”
The country appears to be an economic wasteland and I’m not even sure I can see a clear recovery anymore. At one stage I still reserved a modicum of optimism.
Again, I urge all readers under the age of 45 to emigrate.
You left the UK to go and live in a country which has recently come close to a coup, which is indicting its last president (suggesting more civil strife to come), which has cities imploding in an epidemic of homelessness and drug abuse, which has cities experiencing murder rates only otherwise experienced in places like Mexico which are roiled in drug wars, where mass shootings - often in schools - occur on an almost daily basis, which is riven by bitter racial discord now infecting every area of life, where the next election will be between a 80 year old dangerous lunatic and an 82 year old in senescent decline, and where life expectancy has brutally plunged to 76 (and is still falling, fast) unlike any other western nation) and where that same life expectancy is now lower than Thailand, Cuba or Panama, and will soon be overtaken by Vietnam
Oh, and you have by far the worst rate of traffic fatalities anywhere in the rich world - actually worse than Egypt, Uzbekistan and Jamaica
Oh absolutely. I accept all that. Plus you haven’t mentioned the terrible food and the crassness of the culture, and the cost of education and healthcare.
I am currently writing from a drab hotel in the suburbs of Dallas which is kind of the epitome of banality.
But I still like it. I like the infinity of it. I like being in a country that is 80% “yes”. The UK, and it grieves me, seems to be in a kind of damp, isolationist death spiral.
It's rubbish. My guess is that the UK economy will in fact grow this year by a few tenths of a percent. All you can say about it is that it is not as wrong as the previous effort. BTW, it is not just the UK. Does anyone seriously believe that China is going to grow more than 5% this year as they struggle with the aftermath of Covid? If energy prices continue to fall the Russian economy is a much better candidate for shrinkage than the UK.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
QED. The state of the Left. “We cannot be racist because we are good and superior.” Whatever
No, they are just saying that your argument in this case is fallacious. Which it clearly is.
But there are multiple people on the left on Twitter/FB etc etc saying "Yeah, this is racist"
eg
"Ms Emily Thornberry did acknowledge that many people she likes and respects had criticised the advert.
"Some felt very uncomfortable about it, some thought that it was racist - and I have to say I think they are wrong.""
They're certainly not all Corbynites. Are they mad, deluded, what?
I can't even believe we are having this argument. If the Tories did this with a picture of a south Asian Labour MP - associating him with unprosecuted pedophilia - it would obviously be a racist smear. No question. But because it is done by Labour it is not, by some weird process of lefty magic whereby anything they do is not racist even when it is
It's the exact same psychology that goes through Corbyn's brain when he is anti-Semitic. He can't be anti-Semitic because he's Jeremy Corbyn, a lefty, a man who fights racism. In the end it becomes tedious even trying to argue with people like Corbyn who are wilfully blind and cannot be cured; the argument here is the same
Endex
'Endex' clearly meaning 'not engaging with the key point' because (again!) - Rishi Sunak is not a 'random south Asian MP' he's the PM. Our one and only. The supposed equivalent is a mile off.
As I said. why not take it up with all these "nice respectable people in Labour", friends of Emily Thornberry, who told her the poster is racist
Back from the hospital a couple of hours ago. Interesting chats.
Small number of pickets outside. My clinic appointment turned out to be with a senior Junior Doctor (7 years), who was more sympathetic to the previous Nurses' Strike than the Junior Doctors' one based on how Doctors make more money later. Brought up in May-denhead as a Labour voter, and will continue to do so. Introduced him to a bit of political history of the Ashfield area, the demographic shift and recent recent Tory flip; and how no one has a f*cking idea what will happen next time.
Excellent service, including a new blood test and an appointment in a fortnight to discuss further treatment (Leukemia, so priority), and added a prostate test to the request due to a possible symptom mentioned.
Strange shift in mask-wearing - the place has switched from masks imposed at the main door, to masks required by a BIG RED SIGN at the clinic door which says YOU ARE ENTERING A HIGH RISK AREA. WEAR A MASK, with a mask / sanitisation stand. Around 15% of patients or carers, some with obvious coughs / colds etc, not wearing masks or wearing incorrectly. Including one of the receptionists wearing her mask like a false beard all morning. This is in a haematology clinic where a significant number of patients will have significantly weak immune systems. Minor complaint required requesting proper enforcement by reception staff.
And I noticed a bizarre series of bollards which block off 20-25% of the pedestrian footpath on the main entrance to allow cars to overhang from the car park. WTF? They'll stop 2 mobility scooters passing safely. This is known as motor-normativity, and is a strange cultural assumption we have. They have been there for at least 10 years. They probably did not even think about it, any more than pavement parkers think about their forcing of wheelchairs and parents / buggies into the road. img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/87/yflyhwf1cx4b.png" alt="" />
Those bollards are there, because without them cars would park with their wheels against the kerb, overhanging the pavement in an irregular manner - which is more dangerous and potentially blocks more pavement.
Good luck with your ongoing treatment.
I know. Plan view below (best I can get) - it is a perfectly generous car park. The bollards should be in the car park just on the car park side of the kerb, so the footway retains it's full design width. There is no reason for the parked vehicles to overhang, or for any compromise whatsoever of the pedestrian space.
Thanks for the good wishes.
Also wanted to say good luck with your treatment. I’m 10 years in remission from APML. If you ever fancied chatting pm me.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The Miliband juniors actually used a deed of variation on their father's will to avoid the tax. Miliband senior had nothing to do with it and I doubt he would have agreed with his sons' use of a tax dodge on their inheritance. It was hypocritical to the extreme for Ed to rage against Tory inheritance tax cuts when he had used legal trickery available only to rich people to do the same.
A deed of variation isn’t a tax dodge.
It’s changing a will after the event.
If someone no longer receives the inheritance why should they (or the estate) pay the tax?
They did receive the inheritance (the house). It was a pure tax dodge in their case, something Miliband Senior would absolutely have been against as a paid up socialist.
It’s been years since I looked at this
But I thought the variation was that the kids received a share in the house when their father died rather than it all being left to their mother. So taking advantage of his nil rate band. That’s entirely legal and reasonable - their mother no longer owned 100% of the property
I had a nosey at the preparations for Joe Biden turning up at the new University of Ulster Campus right on he edge of Belfast city centre. Bearing in mind that he isnt due to be on the scene until tomorrow given his late arrival tonight sometime around 11, there were more broacast vans in place than cop cars. In fact the most overt sign of security was enough no parking road cones to go round the M25...
The country appears to be an economic wasteland and I’m not even sure I can see a clear recovery anymore. At one stage I still reserved a modicum of optimism.
Again, I urge all readers under the age of 45 to emigrate.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
I don't agree. kinabalu is right.
Thank you, Stocky. Yes, the difference is subtle but important.
"I don't think this system should exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it, but given it does exist and my child will benefit I'll put family over politics and use it."
"I go around criticizing others for using this system even though I do it myself."
The 2nd is rank hypocrisy, the 1st isn't. The 1st is akin to arguing for a Wealth Tax but not paying it until there actually is one.
Or, let's have a right wing example, a free market absolutist using the NHS.
The 'H' word is used incessantly and sloppily - and I get animated about it because in political punditry it's forever being flung at the left.
Your right wing example isn't equivalent. A better one might be someone who argues for tighter immigration controls while employing cheap foreign labour.
Or someone who extolls the democracy dividend of Brexit (let’s face it, there isn’t much else left) while chortling about democracy being stymied in Scotland. Thankfully we don’t have that sort of big, fat aitch round here.
You HAD a referendum. You voted NO. The result has been honoured. Democracy is "not stymied in Scotland". Grow up
The country appears to be an economic wasteland and I’m not even sure I can see a clear recovery anymore. At one stage I still reserved a modicum of optimism.
Again, I urge all readers under the age of 45 to emigrate.
You left the UK to go and live in a country which has recently come close to a coup, which is indicting its last president (suggesting more civil strife to come), which has cities imploding in an epidemic of homelessness and drug abuse, which has cities experiencing murder rates only otherwise experienced in places like Mexico which are roiled in drug wars, where mass shootings - often in schools - occur on an almost daily basis, which is riven by bitter racial discord now infecting every area of life, where the next election will be between a 80 year old dangerous lunatic and an 82 year old in senescent decline, and where life expectancy has brutally plunged to 76 (and is still falling, fast) unlike any other western nation) and where that same life expectancy is now lower than Thailand, Cuba or Panama, and will soon be overtaken by Vietnam
Oh, and you have by far the worst rate of traffic fatalities anywhere in the rich world - actually worse than Egypt, Uzbekistan and Jamaica
Oh absolutely. I accept all that. Plus you haven’t mentioned the terrible food and the crassness of the culture, and the cost of education and healthcare.
I am currently writing from a drab hotel in the suburbs of Dallas which is kind of the epitome of banality.
But I still like it. I like the infinity of it. I like being in a country that is 80% “yes”. The UK, and it grieves me, seems to be in a kind of damp, isolationist death spiral.
I used to think I could happily live in America, especially the sunny deserts of the South West - for the reasons you state. The wonderful sense of space and optimism and Yes. And the sunshine, But on my recent visits I no longer get that sense. I get a sense of obvious urban decline, increasing national unease, polarised politics which gets ever nastier - and then drugs and the crime and the guns. Jesus . And the desperate poverty of the bottom 10-20%, which is increasingly hard to ignore
But I concur that Britain is in a special malaise of its own, and it needs someone inspiring to yank us out of this pessimistic spiral. And right now it is hard to see that saviour. Starmer certainly is not it. Sunak is OK at holding the fort until we can work out how to solve our MAJOR problems
On the other hand, as we have said before, it is quite hard to point to any western nation and say Yeah, they're doing really well, that's a good place to be
Australia Switzerland - but it is so boring Maybe Canada, but I wonder Denmark, but it's also boring
And actually even Australis is troubled in the medium tern, with its climate change issues
Lab/LD/Green at 62% in the "Blue Wall" is pretty impressive though. In which previous parliament have we seen such a left preponderance in the True Blue Shires of southern England?
Hopefully in many of these the LDs will convince the electorate they are the main challengers (whether they are or not).
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
I don't agree. kinabalu is right.
Thank you, Stocky. Yes, the difference is subtle but important.
"I don't think this system should exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it, but given it does exist and my child will benefit I'll put family over politics and use it."
"I go around criticizing others for using this system even though I do it myself."
The 2nd is rank hypocrisy, the 1st isn't. The 1st is akin to arguing for a Wealth Tax but not paying it until there actually is one.
Or, let's have a right wing example, a free market absolutist using the NHS.
The 'H' word is used incessantly and sloppily - and I get animated about it because in political punditry it's forever being flung at the left.
Your right wing example isn't equivalent. A better one might be someone who argues for tighter immigration controls while employing cheap foreign labour.
Or someone who extolls the democracy dividend of Brexit (let’s face it, there isn’t much else left) while chortling about democracy being stymied in Scotland. Thankfully we don’t have that sort of big, fat aitch round here.
You HAD a referendum. You voted NO. The result has been honoured. Democracy is "not stymied in Scotland". Grow up
Voted to have a second referendum, didn't we?
Not meaningfully, no.
As always, 'meaningful' and 'democratic' mean what Unionists want them to mean.
The country appears to be an economic wasteland and I’m not even sure I can see a clear recovery anymore. At one stage I still reserved a modicum of optimism.
Again, I urge all readers under the age of 45 to emigrate.
You left the UK to go and live in a country which has recently come close to a coup, which is indicting its last president (suggesting more civil strife to come), which has cities imploding in an epidemic of homelessness and drug abuse, which has cities experiencing murder rates only otherwise experienced in places like Mexico which are roiled in drug wars, where mass shootings - often in schools - occur on an almost daily basis, which is riven by bitter racial discord now infecting every area of life, where the next election will be between a 80 year old dangerous lunatic and an 82 year old in senescent decline, and where life expectancy has brutally plunged to 76 (and is still falling, fast) unlike any other western nation) and where that same life expectancy is now lower than Thailand, Cuba or Panama, and will soon be overtaken by Vietnam
Oh, and you have by far the worst rate of traffic fatalities anywhere in the rich world - actually worse than Egypt, Uzbekistan and Jamaica
Oh absolutely. I accept all that. Plus you haven’t mentioned the terrible food and the crassness of the culture, and the cost of education and healthcare.
I am currently writing from a drab hotel in the suburbs of Dallas which is kind of the epitome of banality.
But I still like it. I like the infinity of it. I like being in a country that is 80% “yes”. The UK, and it grieves me, seems to be in a kind of damp, isolationist death spiral.
It was a few years pre-covid that I was last in the USA, but I agree. For all its many faults it is a land of possibility and optimism in a way that the UK is not, nor any other European country for that matter.
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
The corollary to the tedious and incessant cry of the right that everyone is too easily offended is that far too many are desperate to offend. Gollywog defenders tend to the ‘it ain’t racist’ line, but this prick* happily blew that one out of the water by linking it to slavery and lynchings.
*Let me correct that, stupid prick.
Yep very much so. It's all too common - both IRL and the digital one.
"I'm going to say lots of fruity 'non PC' things in a loud boomy voice cos I'm a very colourful and interesting person."
Then following the reaction - "C'mon I was joking! Where's your sense of humour? Such snowflakes. Can't say anything these days."
Or if no reaction - Increase the fruitiness and in an even LOUDER voice until there is.
Run a mile if you can but it's not always possible.
Lab/LD/Green at 62% in the "Blue Wall" is pretty impressive though. In which previous parliament have we seen such a left preponderance in the True Blue Shires of southern England?
Hopefully in many of these the LDs will convince the electorate they are the main challengers (whether they are or not).
By and large, people know who the main challenger is locally.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
I don't agree. kinabalu is right.
Thank you, Stocky. Yes, the difference is subtle but important.
"I don't think this system should exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it, but given it does exist and my child will benefit I'll put family over politics and use it."
"I go around criticizing others for using this system even though I do it myself."
The 2nd is rank hypocrisy, the 1st isn't. The 1st is akin to arguing for a Wealth Tax but not paying it until there actually is one.
Or, let's have a right wing example, a free market absolutist using the NHS.
The 'H' word is used incessantly and sloppily - and I get animated about it because in political punditry it's forever being flung at the left.
Your right wing example isn't equivalent. A better one might be someone who argues for tighter immigration controls while employing cheap foreign labour.
Or someone who extolls the democracy dividend of Brexit (let’s face it, there isn’t much else left) while chortling about democracy being stymied in Scotland. Thankfully we don’t have that sort of big, fat aitch round here.
You HAD a referendum. You voted NO. The result has been honoured. Democracy is "not stymied in Scotland". Grow up
Voted to have a second referendum, didn't we?
Not meaningfully, no.
As always, 'meaningful' and 'democratic' mean what Unionists want them to mean.
It should not be opaque to you which is the elected body which can grant a referendum...
Lab/LD/Green at 62% in the "Blue Wall" is pretty impressive though. In which previous parliament have we seen such a left preponderance in the True Blue Shires of southern England?
What it means is the Tories are distributing their vote more efficiently around the country. There's no point in getting big majorities in individual seats under FPTP.
The country appears to be an economic wasteland and I’m not even sure I can see a clear recovery anymore. At one stage I still reserved a modicum of optimism.
Again, I urge all readers under the age of 45 to emigrate.
You left the UK to go and live in a country which has recently come close to a coup, which is indicting its last president (suggesting more civil strife to come), which has cities imploding in an epidemic of homelessness and drug abuse, which has cities experiencing murder rates only otherwise experienced in places like Mexico which are roiled in drug wars, where mass shootings - often in schools - occur on an almost daily basis, which is riven by bitter racial discord now infecting every area of life, where the next election will be between a 80 year old dangerous lunatic and an 82 year old in senescent decline, and where life expectancy has brutally plunged to 76 (and is still falling, fast) unlike any other western nation) and where that same life expectancy is now lower than Thailand, Cuba or Panama, and will soon be overtaken by Vietnam
Oh, and you have by far the worst rate of traffic fatalities anywhere in the rich world - actually worse than Egypt, Uzbekistan and Jamaica
Oh absolutely. I accept all that. Plus you haven’t mentioned the terrible food and the crassness of the culture, and the cost of education and healthcare.
I am currently writing from a drab hotel in the suburbs of Dallas which is kind of the epitome of banality.
But I still like it. I like the infinity of it. I like being in a country that is 80% “yes”. The UK, and it grieves me, seems to be in a kind of damp, isolationist death spiral.
It was a few years pre-covid that I was last in the USA, but I agree. For all its many faults it is a land of possibility and optimism in a way that the UK is not, nor any other European country for that matter.
You need to go back. It has greatly changed, and not in a good way
Lab/LD/Green at 62% in the "Blue Wall" is pretty impressive though. In which previous parliament have we seen such a left preponderance in the True Blue Shires of southern England?
The point is can Sunak over the next 18 months change that and certainly he seems to be going in the right direction at present
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
I don't agree. kinabalu is right.
Thank you, Stocky. Yes, the difference is subtle but important.
"I don't think this system should exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it, but given it does exist and my child will benefit I'll put family over politics and use it."
"I go around criticizing others for using this system even though I do it myself."
The 2nd is rank hypocrisy, the 1st isn't. The 1st is akin to arguing for a Wealth Tax but not paying it until there actually is one.
Or, let's have a right wing example, a free market absolutist using the NHS.
The 'H' word is used incessantly and sloppily - and I get animated about it because in political punditry it's forever being flung at the left.
Your right wing example isn't equivalent. A better one might be someone who argues for tighter immigration controls while employing cheap foreign labour.
Or someone who extolls the democracy dividend of Brexit (let’s face it, there isn’t much else left) while chortling about democracy being stymied in Scotland. Thankfully we don’t have that sort of big, fat aitch round here.
You HAD a referendum. You voted NO. The result has been honoured. Democracy is "not stymied in Scotland". Grow up
Voted to have a second referendum, didn't we, on any count? And who ignored that? The Tory Unionists. QED.
The SNP said the 2014 referendum was a once in a generation opportunity to vote for independence.
Lab/LD/Green at 62% in the "Blue Wall" is pretty impressive though. In which previous parliament have we seen such a left preponderance in the True Blue Shires of southern England?
What it means is the Tories are distributing their vote more efficiently around the country. There's no point in getting big majorities in individual seats under FPTP.
Yes, but that gearing works both ways. There is a point where it becomes very inefficient.
The country appears to be an economic wasteland and I’m not even sure I can see a clear recovery anymore. At one stage I still reserved a modicum of optimism.
Again, I urge all readers under the age of 45 to emigrate.
You left the UK to go and live in a country which has recently come close to a coup, which is indicting its last president (suggesting more civil strife to come), which has cities imploding in an epidemic of homelessness and drug abuse, which has cities experiencing murder rates only otherwise experienced in places like Mexico which are roiled in drug wars, where mass shootings - often in schools - occur on an almost daily basis, which is riven by bitter racial discord now infecting every area of life, where the next election will be between a 80 year old dangerous lunatic and an 82 year old in senescent decline, and where life expectancy has brutally plunged to 76 (and is still falling, fast) unlike any other western nation) and where that same life expectancy is now lower than Thailand, Cuba or Panama, and will soon be overtaken by Vietnam
Oh, and you have by far the worst rate of traffic fatalities anywhere in the rich world - actually worse than Egypt, Uzbekistan and Jamaica
Oh absolutely. I accept all that. Plus you haven’t mentioned the terrible food and the crassness of the culture, and the cost of education and healthcare.
I am currently writing from a drab hotel in the suburbs of Dallas which is kind of the epitome of banality.
But I still like it. I like the infinity of it. I like being in a country that is 80% “yes”. The UK, and it grieves me, seems to be in a kind of damp, isolationist death spiral.
It was a few years pre-covid that I was last in the USA, but I agree. For all its many faults it is a land of possibility and optimism in a way that the UK is not, nor any other European country for that matter.
You need to go back. It has greatly changed, and not in a good way
I don't have a particular desire to go back any time soon, though quite fancy seeing Canada. With the Trans-Siberian out of bounds, I was thinking of the Trans-Canadian, then a trip round BC and up into the Yukon.
The country appears to be an economic wasteland and I’m not even sure I can see a clear recovery anymore. At one stage I still reserved a modicum of optimism.
Again, I urge all readers under the age of 45 to emigrate.
You left the UK to go and live in a country which has recently come close to a coup, which is indicting its last president (suggesting more civil strife to come), which has cities imploding in an epidemic of homelessness and drug abuse, which has cities experiencing murder rates only otherwise experienced in places like Mexico which are roiled in drug wars, where mass shootings - often in schools - occur on an almost daily basis, which is riven by bitter racial discord now infecting every area of life, where the next election will be between a 80 year old dangerous lunatic and an 82 year old in senescent decline, and where life expectancy has brutally plunged to 76 (and is still falling, fast) unlike any other western nation) and where that same life expectancy is now lower than Thailand, Cuba or Panama, and will soon be overtaken by Vietnam
Oh, and you have by far the worst rate of traffic fatalities anywhere in the rich world - actually worse than Egypt, Uzbekistan and Jamaica
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
The country appears to be an economic wasteland and I’m not even sure I can see a clear recovery anymore. At one stage I still reserved a modicum of optimism.
Again, I urge all readers under the age of 45 to emigrate.
You left the UK to go and live in a country which has recently come close to a coup, which is indicting its last president (suggesting more civil strife to come), which has cities imploding in an epidemic of homelessness and drug abuse, which has cities experiencing murder rates only otherwise experienced in places like Mexico which are roiled in drug wars, where mass shootings - often in schools - occur on an almost daily basis, which is riven by bitter racial discord now infecting every area of life, where the next election will be between a 80 year old dangerous lunatic and an 82 year old in senescent decline, and where life expectancy has brutally plunged to 76 (and is still falling, fast) unlike any other western nation) and where that same life expectancy is now lower than Thailand, Cuba or Panama, and will soon be overtaken by Vietnam
Oh, and you have by far the worst rate of traffic fatalities anywhere in the rich world - actually worse than Egypt, Uzbekistan and Jamaica
Oh absolutely. I accept all that. Plus you haven’t mentioned the terrible food and the crassness of the culture, and the cost of education and healthcare.
I am currently writing from a drab hotel in the suburbs of Dallas which is kind of the epitome of banality.
But I still like it. I like the infinity of it. I like being in a country that is 80% “yes”. The UK, and it grieves me, seems to be in a kind of damp, isolationist death spiral.
It really isn't, that just your confirmation bias talking.
I'd find more serious things to worry about in any of France, Sweden, Italy or the USA.
“Britain has been given the biggest economic upgrade of any G7 country after forecasters at the International Monetary Fund were forced to concede they had been too gloomy.
“Stronger than expected economic performance so far this year means UK GDP is on track to contract by 0.3pc across 2023, half the 0.6pc fall the fund (IMF) forecast in January, according to its latest World Economic Outlook.
“Britain is still expected to have the weakest performance of any large economy. It had the best growth in the G7 last year and rivals are making up the gap.”
I listened to the IMF live this pm and those were exactly the comments used, but of course the BBC, Labour and others home in on 'the weakest growth in the G7 this year' but omit that the rivals are making up the gap
Actually the IMF were more positive for UK then I expected
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
QED. The state of the Left. “We cannot be racist because we are good and superior.” Whatever
No, they are just saying that your argument in this case is fallacious. Which it clearly is.
But there are multiple people on the left on Twitter/FB etc etc saying "Yeah, this is racist"
eg
"Ms Emily Thornberry did acknowledge that many people she likes and respects had criticised the advert.
"Some felt very uncomfortable about it, some thought that it was racist - and I have to say I think they are wrong.""
They're certainly not all Corbynites. Are they mad, deluded, what?
I can't even believe we are having this argument. If the Tories did this with a picture of a south Asian Labour MP - associating him with unprosecuted pedophilia - it would obviously be a racist smear. No question. But because it is done by Labour it is not, by some weird process of lefty magic whereby anything they do is not racist even when it is
It's the exact same psychology that goes through Corbyn's brain when he is anti-Semitic. He can't be anti-Semitic because he's Jeremy Corbyn, a lefty, a man who fights racism. In the end it becomes tedious even trying to argue with people like Corbyn who are wilfully blind and cannot be cured; the argument here is the same
Endex
'Endex' clearly meaning 'not engaging with the key point' because (again!) - Rishi Sunak is not a 'random south Asian MP' he's the PM. Our one and only. The supposed equivalent is a mile off.
As I said. why not take it up with all these "nice respectable people in Labour", friends of Emily Thornberry, who told her the poster is racist
Because they're not the ones on here saying they see not the PM, but a 'south Asian MP'. Though they're equally wrong.
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
I used to work in and around Grays. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if racism was involved!
Maybe - but you send one officer in plain clothes to take a look and report back, rather than six in uniform to make a show of it - at a time when the police are complaining of being under-resourced.
Your first question was about sending 6 officers, but your second question was about whether this could ever be a criminal offence. Do you now accept that there could be circumstances where hanging up a doll in a pub could be committing a criminal offence?
There are almost no circumstances, under which it would be a criminal offence to hang up dolls up in a pub.
Perhaps, if there was a sign near the doll that said “We hang wogs here”, that would be the equivalent of the old “No blacks and no Irish” sign. The illegality being the signs rather than the dolls.
I don't agree with it being illegal to have golliwogs on display in a pub and, indeed, have seen them in old toyshops on the Isle of Wight. The police hugely overreacted.
However, that picture and Facebook post does come close to a public order offence IMHO.
I still wouldn't send six officers to investigate, but jokes about lynching in a public place aren't really OK in my view.
Lab/LD/Green at 62% in the "Blue Wall" is pretty impressive though. In which previous parliament have we seen such a left preponderance in the True Blue Shires of southern England?
Hopefully in many of these the LDs will convince the electorate they are the main challengers (whether they are or not).
3% swing is not to be sniffed at. Will save a few seats, making Rishi that bit safer and Boris that bit more "Who?".
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
QED. The state of the Left. “We cannot be racist because we are good and superior.” Whatever
No, they are just saying that your argument in this case is fallacious. Which it clearly is.
But there are multiple people on the left on Twitter/FB etc etc saying "Yeah, this is racist"
eg
"Ms Emily Thornberry did acknowledge that many people she likes and respects had criticised the advert.
"Some felt very uncomfortable about it, some thought that it was racist - and I have to say I think they are wrong.""
They're certainly not all Corbynites. Are they mad, deluded, what?
I can't even believe we are having this argument. If the Tories did this with a picture of a south Asian Labour MP - associating him with unprosecuted pedophilia - it would obviously be a racist smear. No question. But because it is done by Labour it is not, by some weird process of lefty magic whereby anything they do is not racist even when it is
It's the exact same psychology that goes through Corbyn's brain when he is anti-Semitic. He can't be anti-Semitic because he's Jeremy Corbyn, a lefty, a man who fights racism. In the end it becomes tedious even trying to argue with people like Corbyn who are wilfully blind and cannot be cured; the argument here is the same
Endex
'Endex' clearly meaning 'not engaging with the key point' because (again!) - Rishi Sunak is not a 'random south Asian MP' he's the PM. Our one and only. The supposed equivalent is a mile off.
As I said. why not take it up with all these "nice respectable people in Labour", friends of Emily Thornberry, who told her the poster is racist
Because they're not the ones on here saying they see not the PM, but a 'south Asian MP'. Though they're equally wrong.
Unlike you to outsource your arguments like that.
Oh I don't know, he has done that several times with me. Pick some irrational plonker on the internet to support his argument.
The country appears to be an economic wasteland and I’m not even sure I can see a clear recovery anymore. At one stage I still reserved a modicum of optimism.
Again, I urge all readers under the age of 45 to emigrate.
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
This is a bit more complicated than that, because it's all about Rules of Origin and the percentage of value involved in the manufacture.
If you export a product, work on it abroad, and then reimport it, then there work involved in calculation whether it meets Rules of Origin and is granted tax free status.
If the increase in the value of the product is less than 100% (and I don't know the specific MID codes or specifics of the textiles tariffs so I am working off general principles), then it should have been covered by the existing Free Trade Agreement we have with the EU.
Presumably, the internal accounting of the firm was that the value uplift was (say) 80%, and therefore it was fine. HMRC has come in and said, no the value uplift was such x%, and therefore you don't get the RoO tax free benefit.
Hopefully over time there will be an increasing amount of case law that enables business and their advisors to make sensible decisions. But I think your presumption of fraud is simply incorrect.
We're also assuming that the initially exported product had 100% UK origin, which seems very unlikely so the non-zero tariff could easily be triggered if the value add from the French company and proportion of value derived from the original purchase country goes over 50%. Ultimately the solution for this company would have been to source domestically for more of their supply chain to ensure they didn't dip below any RoO thresholds that apply to zero tariff deals.
Well, as you say, it depends on the origin of the products. It may be more advantageous to them to do everything off-shore. Difficult to know without knowing the details.
I also suspect that a lot of this stuff is new to HMRC, so they are busy getting up to speed too. And that means that both (a) people will make honest mistakes, (b) some people will try and game the system, and (c) without an established body of case decisions to work from, there's going to be a lot of uncertainty.
The country appears to be an economic wasteland and I’m not even sure I can see a clear recovery anymore. At one stage I still reserved a modicum of optimism.
Again, I urge all readers under the age of 45 to emigrate.
You left the UK to go and live in a country which has recently come close to a coup, which is indicting its last president (suggesting more civil strife to come), which has cities imploding in an epidemic of homelessness and drug abuse, which has cities experiencing murder rates only otherwise experienced in places like Mexico which are roiled in drug wars, where mass shootings - often in schools - occur on an almost daily basis, which is riven by bitter racial discord now infecting every area of life, where the next election will be between a 80 year old dangerous lunatic and an 82 year old in senescent decline, and where life expectancy has brutally plunged to 76 (and is still falling, fast) unlike any other western nation) and where that same life expectancy is now lower than Thailand, Cuba or Panama, and will soon be overtaken by Vietnam
Oh, and you have by far the worst rate of traffic fatalities anywhere in the rich world - actually worse than Egypt, Uzbekistan and Jamaica
Oh absolutely. I accept all that. Plus you haven’t mentioned the terrible food and the crassness of the culture, and the cost of education and healthcare.
I am currently writing from a drab hotel in the suburbs of Dallas which is kind of the epitome of banality.
But I still like it. I like the infinity of it. I like being in a country that is 80% “yes”. The UK, and it grieves me, seems to be in a kind of damp, isolationist death spiral.
It really isn't, that just your confirmation bias talking.
I'd find more serious things to worry about in any of France, Sweden, Italy or the USA.
Although the USA is amazing if given a choice of where to actually live rather than visit the first 3 win hands down.
The country appears to be an economic wasteland and I’m not even sure I can see a clear recovery anymore. At one stage I still reserved a modicum of optimism.
Again, I urge all readers under the age of 45 to emigrate.
You left the UK to go and live in a country which has recently come close to a coup, which is indicting its last president (suggesting more civil strife to come), which has cities imploding in an epidemic of homelessness and drug abuse, which has cities experiencing murder rates only otherwise experienced in places like Mexico which are roiled in drug wars, where mass shootings - often in schools - occur on an almost daily basis, which is riven by bitter racial discord now infecting every area of life, where the next election will be between a 80 year old dangerous lunatic and an 82 year old in senescent decline, and where life expectancy has brutally plunged to 76 (and is still falling, fast) unlike any other western nation) and where that same life expectancy is now lower than Thailand, Cuba or Panama, and will soon be overtaken by Vietnam
Oh, and you have by far the worst rate of traffic fatalities anywhere in the rich world - actually worse than Egypt, Uzbekistan and Jamaica
Oh absolutely. I accept all that. Plus you haven’t mentioned the terrible food and the crassness of the culture, and the cost of education and healthcare.
I am currently writing from a drab hotel in the suburbs of Dallas which is kind of the epitome of banality.
But I still like it. I like the infinity of it. I like being in a country that is 80% “yes”. The UK, and it grieves me, seems to be in a kind of damp, isolationist death spiral.
It was a few years pre-covid that I was last in the USA, but I agree. For all its many faults it is a land of possibility and optimism in a way that the UK is not, nor any other European country for that matter.
You need to go back. It has greatly changed, and not in a good way
I don't have a particular desire to go back any time soon, though quite fancy seeing Canada. With the Trans-Siberian out of bounds, I was thinking of the Trans-Canadian, then a trip round BC and up into the Yukon.
Cruises out of Vancouver are an excellent way to visit Alaska and in our case to continue on to Japan, South Korea and China
It's rubbish. My guess is that the UK economy will in fact grow this year by a few tenths of a percent. All you can say about it is that it is not as wrong as the previous effort. BTW, it is not just the UK. Does anyone seriously believe that China is going to grow more than 5% this year as they struggle with the aftermath of Covid? If energy prices continue to fall the Russian economy is a much better candidate for shrinkage than the UK.
Not that you will ever get the numbers to support that. The people who compile the Russian economy shrinkage figures keep falling out of 8th storey windows.
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
I used to work in and around Grays. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if racism was involved!
Maybe - but you send one officer in plain clothes to take a look and report back, rather than six in uniform to make a show of it - at a time when the police are complaining of being under-resourced.
Your first question was about sending 6 officers, but your second question was about whether this could ever be a criminal offence. Do you now accept that there could be circumstances where hanging up a doll in a pub could be committing a criminal offence?
There are almost no circumstances, under which it would be a criminal offence to hang up dolls up in a pub.
Perhaps, if there was a sign near the doll that said “We hang wogs here”, that would be the equivalent of the old “No blacks and no Irish” sign. The illegality being the signs rather than the dolls.
I don't agree with it being illegal to have golliwogs on display in a pub and, indeed, have seen them in old toyshops on the Isle of Wight. The police hugely overreacted.
However, that picture and Facebook post does come close to a public order offence IMHO.
I still wouldn't send six officers to investigate, but jokes about lynching in a public place aren't really OK in my view.
Lab/LD/Green at 62% in the "Blue Wall" is pretty impressive though. In which previous parliament have we seen such a left preponderance in the True Blue Shires of southern England?
What it means is the Tories are distributing their vote more efficiently around the country. There's no point in getting big majorities in individual seats under FPTP.
Yes, but that gearing works both ways. There is a point where it becomes very inefficient.
Yes I dream (and sadly it is only a dream where the LDs (particularly in the 80s when their vote was evenly distributed) would get 37% of the vote and win nearly every seat and go 'what do you think of fptp now? Fair?'
Lab/LD/Green at 62% in the "Blue Wall" is pretty impressive though. In which previous parliament have we seen such a left preponderance in the True Blue Shires of southern England?
Hopefully in many of these the LDs will convince the electorate they are the main challengers (whether they are or not).
3% swing is not to be sniffed at. Will save a few seats, making Rishi that bit safer and Boris that bit more "Who?".
Oh, and "crossover's coming, baby!"
Are you planning to keep saying "crossover's coming, baby!" on lots of future threads or will today see the last of it?
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
QED. The state of the Left. “We cannot be racist because we are good and superior.” Whatever
No, they are just saying that your argument in this case is fallacious. Which it clearly is.
But there are multiple people on the left on Twitter/FB etc etc saying "Yeah, this is racist"
eg
"Ms Emily Thornberry did acknowledge that many people she likes and respects had criticised the advert.
"Some felt very uncomfortable about it, some thought that it was racist - and I have to say I think they are wrong.""
They're certainly not all Corbynites. Are they mad, deluded, what?
I can't even believe we are having this argument. If the Tories did this with a picture of a south Asian Labour MP - associating him with unprosecuted pedophilia - it would obviously be a racist smear. No question. But because it is done by Labour it is not, by some weird process of lefty magic whereby anything they do is not racist even when it is
It's the exact same psychology that goes through Corbyn's brain when he is anti-Semitic. He can't be anti-Semitic because he's Jeremy Corbyn, a lefty, a man who fights racism. In the end it becomes tedious even trying to argue with people like Corbyn who are wilfully blind and cannot be cured; the argument here is the same
Endex
'Endex' clearly meaning 'not engaging with the key point' because (again!) - Rishi Sunak is not a 'random south Asian MP' he's the PM. Our one and only. The supposed equivalent is a mile off.
As I said. why not take it up with all these "nice respectable people in Labour", friends of Emily Thornberry, who told her the poster is racist
Because they're not the ones on here saying they see not the PM, but a 'south Asian MP'. Though they're equally wrong.
Unlike you to outsource your arguments like that.
Oh I don't know, he has done that several times with me. Pick some irrational plonker on the internet to support his argument.
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
Lab/LD/Green at 62% in the "Blue Wall" is pretty impressive though. In which previous parliament have we seen such a left preponderance in the True Blue Shires of southern England?
Hopefully in many of these the LDs will convince the electorate they are the main challengers (whether they are or not).
3% swing is not to be sniffed at. Will save a few seats, making Rishi that bit safer and Boris that bit more "Who?".
Oh, and "crossover's coming, baby!"
Are you planning to keep saying "crossover's coming, baby!" on lots of future threads or will today see the last of it?
I assume it depends on Sunak continuing his progress which does seem to be happening
Lab/LD/Green at 62% in the "Blue Wall" is pretty impressive though. In which previous parliament have we seen such a left preponderance in the True Blue Shires of southern England?
Hopefully in many of these the LDs will convince the electorate they are the main challengers (whether they are or not).
3% swing is not to be sniffed at. Will save a few seats, making Rishi that bit safer and Boris that bit more "Who?".
Oh, and "crossover's coming, baby!"
Are you planning to keep saying "crossover's coming, baby!" on lots of future threads or will today see the last of it?
Lab/LD/Green at 62% in the "Blue Wall" is pretty impressive though. In which previous parliament have we seen such a left preponderance in the True Blue Shires of southern England?
Hopefully in many of these the LDs will convince the electorate they are the main challengers (whether they are or not).
3% swing is not to be sniffed at. Will save a few seats, making Rishi that bit safer and Boris that bit more "Who?".
Oh, and "crossover's coming, baby!"
I'm putting a lot of faith on 'hopefully' and experience tells me I shouldn't? How is the LD/Tory battle in your neck of the woods for the locals? I have come to rely on your predictions locally (damn you).
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
I used to work in and around Grays. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if racism was involved!
Maybe - but you send one officer in plain clothes to take a look and report back, rather than six in uniform to make a show of it - at a time when the police are complaining of being under-resourced.
Your first question was about sending 6 officers, but your second question was about whether this could ever be a criminal offence. Do you now accept that there could be circumstances where hanging up a doll in a pub could be committing a criminal offence?
There are almost no circumstances, under which it would be a criminal offence to hang up dolls up in a pub.
Perhaps, if there was a sign near the doll that said “We hang wogs here”, that would be the equivalent of the old “No blacks and no Irish” sign. The illegality being the signs rather than the dolls.
I don't agree with it being illegal to have golliwogs on display in a pub and, indeed, have seen them in old toyshops on the Isle of Wight. The police hugely overreacted.
However, that picture and Facebook post does come close to a public order offence IMHO.
I still wouldn't send six officers to investigate, but jokes about lynching in a public place aren't really OK in my view.
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So the landlord had a doll hanging up in his pub six years ago - and that’s a reason to send six officers to the pub in 2023?
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
I used to work in and around Grays. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if racism was involved!
Maybe - but you send one officer in plain clothes to take a look and report back, rather than six in uniform to make a show of it - at a time when the police are complaining of being under-resourced.
Your first question was about sending 6 officers, but your second question was about whether this could ever be a criminal offence. Do you now accept that there could be circumstances where hanging up a doll in a pub could be committing a criminal offence?
There are almost no circumstances, under which it would be a criminal offence to hang up dolls up in a pub.
Perhaps, if there was a sign near the doll that said “We hang wogs here”, that would be the equivalent of the old “No blacks and no Irish” sign. The illegality being the signs rather than the dolls.
I would agree that there are almost no circumstances under which it would be a criminal offence to hang up dolls in a pub. I’m glad that you (implicitly) acknowledge that there may be some circumstances where it is.
I have no idea whether this publican broke the law, but I certainly wouldn’t want to go to his pub.
The country appears to be an economic wasteland and I’m not even sure I can see a clear recovery anymore. At one stage I still reserved a modicum of optimism.
Again, I urge all readers under the age of 45 to emigrate.
You left the UK to go and live in a country which has recently come close to a coup, which is indicting its last president (suggesting more civil strife to come), which has cities imploding in an epidemic of homelessness and drug abuse, which has cities experiencing murder rates only otherwise experienced in places like Mexico which are roiled in drug wars, where mass shootings - often in schools - occur on an almost daily basis, which is riven by bitter racial discord now infecting every area of life, where the next election will be between a 80 year old dangerous lunatic and an 82 year old in senescent decline, and where life expectancy has brutally plunged to 76 (and is still falling, fast) unlike any other western nation) and where that same life expectancy is now lower than Thailand, Cuba or Panama, and will soon be overtaken by Vietnam
Oh, and you have by far the worst rate of traffic fatalities anywhere in the rich world - actually worse than Egypt, Uzbekistan and Jamaica
Oh absolutely. I accept all that. Plus you haven’t mentioned the terrible food and the crassness of the culture, and the cost of education and healthcare.
I am currently writing from a drab hotel in the suburbs of Dallas which is kind of the epitome of banality.
But I still like it. I like the infinity of it. I like being in a country that is 80% “yes”. The UK, and it grieves me, seems to be in a kind of damp, isolationist death spiral.
It was a few years pre-covid that I was last in the USA, but I agree. For all its many faults it is a land of possibility and optimism in a way that the UK is not, nor any other European country for that matter.
You need to go back. It has greatly changed, and not in a good way
I don't have a particular desire to go back any time soon, though quite fancy seeing Canada. With the Trans-Siberian out of bounds, I was thinking of the Trans-Canadian, then a trip round BC and up into the Yukon.
Cruises out of Vancouver are an excellent way to visit Alaska and in our case to continue on to Japan, South Korea and China
True. Also note that British Columbia has an EXTENSIVE provincial ferry system, all up, down & across Strait of Georgia and Inland Passage.
Also recommend the BC section of Trans-Canadian Highway (including Vancouver Island section) as well as the highway across southern BC just north of US border from Crowsnest Pass west to Lower Fraser Valley and Vancouver. (At one point, border crossing with checkpoints is visible from highway.)
Fun fact about BC, is that epic topography that in US is spread out over 800 miles from Denver to Sacremento, is confined to about half that from Vancouver to Lake Louise. VERY twisty-turny, LOTS of ups and downs. For example, at it's origin the Columbia River flows northwest, then makes a hair-pin curve heading southeast then south. All due to titantic, techtonic, geological forces.
Driving tip - whenever possible, fuel up in the USA. Based on current exchange rates $$CN-US, gas in great Pacific Northwest is about 2/3 price south of the Medicine Line.
The country appears to be an economic wasteland and I’m not even sure I can see a clear recovery anymore. At one stage I still reserved a modicum of optimism.
Again, I urge all readers under the age of 45 to emigrate.
Someone seems to have hacked his account and turned him into a #FBPE drone.
I think you, yes you in particular, would thrive in the USA. You appear to be highly skilled in a lucrative industry, and you’re ambitious to get ahead.
I honestly commend it you. If you like, make a pile and then retire back in dear old Blighty.
Comments
https://www.gov.uk/alter-a-will-after-a-death
eg
"Ms Emily Thornberry did acknowledge that many people she likes and respects had criticised the advert.
"Some felt very uncomfortable about it, some thought that it was racist - and I have to say I think they are wrong.""
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65211469
They're certainly not all Corbynites. Are they mad, deluded, what?
I can't even believe we are having this argument. If the Tories did this with a picture of a south Asian Labour MP - associating him with unprosecuted pedophilia - it would obviously be a racist smear. No question. But because it is done by Labour it is not, by some weird process of lefty magic whereby anything they do is not racist even when it is
It's the exact same psychology that goes through Corbyn's brain when he is anti-Semitic. He can't be anti-Semitic because he's Jeremy Corbyn, a lefty, a man who fights racism. In the end it becomes tedious even trying to argue with people like Corbyn who are wilfully blind and cannot be cured; the argument here is the same
Endex
Is there any circumstance, under which someone hanging up a doll in a pub might be committing a criminal offence?
Whether you're on the left or right.
Thus members of Congress can be maintain legal residences within their states (maybe their own house OR perhaps a relatives) while actually living in DC or vicinity.
Not sure re: actual facts re: the Tennessee House Speaker's situation. Which will be up to authorities in great Volunteer State to adjudicate.
As a practical political/electoral matter, the court of public opinion may render different decision than legal or quasi-legal tribunal.
In my humble experience, issues of residency matter more to rural voters, than to urban or especially suburban voters.
If you export a product, work on it abroad, and then reimport it, then there work involved in calculation whether it meets Rules of Origin and is granted tax free status.
If the increase in the value of the product is less than 100% (and I don't know the specific MID codes or specifics of the textiles tariffs so I am working off general principles), then it should have been covered by the existing Free Trade Agreement we have with the EU.
Presumably, the internal accounting of the firm was that the value uplift was (say) 80%, and therefore it was fine. HMRC has come in and said, no the value uplift was such x%, and therefore you don't get the RoO tax free benefit.
Hopefully over time there will be an increasing amount of case law that enables business and their advisors to make sensible decisions. But I think your presumption of fraud is simply incorrect.
Labour leads by 2% in the Blue Wall. In 2019, Labour came THIRD in these seats.
Blue Wall Voting Intention (9 April):
Labour 37% (-2)
Conservative 35% (+4)
Liberal Democrat 20% (-1)
Green 5% (+1)
Reform UK 4% (–)
Other 0% (–)
Changes +/- 26 March
Sunak leads Starmer by 1% in the Blue Wall.
At this moment, which of the following do Blue Wall voters think would be the better PM for the UK? (9 April)
Rishi Sunak 38% (+1)
Keir Starmer 37% (–)
Don't Know 25% (-1)
Changes +/- 26 March
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton
Remember that the only reason you can take your laptop into a foreign country and back to the UK is because customs apply a bit of common sense. In law you should be paying import duty everytime you bring your laptop into this country.
After all, the reason for the upsurge in coverage was the Sunak and Braverman raising the issue.
What do PB's resident economic experts make of this?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65240749
It’s changing a will after the event.
If someone no longer receives the inheritance why should they (or the estate) pay the tax?
https://www.campaignlive.com/article/labour-denies-anti-semitic-claims-pigs-fly-ad/233819
I think much of what comes out of Suella Braverman’s mouth is a deliberate attempt to stoke racist sentiment. She appears to have the full backing of Rishi Sunak.
The golliwog couple are obviously a pair of bad ‘uns but it would be nice to live in a country where free speech is a thing.
The country appears to be an economic wasteland and I’m not even sure I can see a clear recovery anymore. At one stage I still reserved a modicum of optimism.
Again, I urge all readers under the age of 45 to emigrate.
Edit: although they must have known what they were doing also with the pigs one.
Perhaps, if there was a sign near the doll that said “We hang wogs here”, that would be the equivalent of the old “No blacks and no Irish” sign. The illegality being the signs rather than the dolls.
I'm glad that all I do is write software so my work is invisible...
I'm guessing the "lets see if there is an absolute majority in favour of independence at the next GE" idea will also be quietly dropped standing recent polls.
And getting riled about it today is very odd.
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/12/did-ed-miliband-avoid-inheritance-tax-parents-home-deed-of-variation
...However, the changes in 2007 mean that a surviving spouse now inherits the tax-free sum that their partner did not use. Without the deed of variation, the beneficiaries of Marion’s estate would benefit from any of Ralph’s unused allowance as well as her allowance; with it, they will only get anything that wasn’t used. So there is no tax advantage...
Oh, and you have by far the worst rate of traffic fatalities anywhere in the rich world - actually worse than Egypt, Uzbekistan and Jamaica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Unpleasant - and completely unnecessary posters, given Howard's slim electoral chances.
“Britain has been given the biggest economic upgrade of any G7 country after forecasters at the International Monetary Fund were forced to concede they had been too gloomy.
“Stronger than expected economic performance so far this year means UK GDP is on track to contract by 0.3pc across 2023, half the 0.6pc fall the fund (IMF) forecast in January, according to its latest World Economic Outlook.
“Britain is still expected to have the weakest performance of any large economy. It had the best growth in the G7 last year and rivals are making up the gap.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/11/imf-gives-british-economic-forecasts-biggest-upgrade-in-g7/
Plus you haven’t mentioned the terrible food and the crassness of the culture, and the cost of education and healthcare.
I am currently writing from a drab hotel in the suburbs of Dallas which is kind of the epitome of banality.
But I still like it. I like the infinity of it. I like being in a country that is 80% “yes”. The UK, and it grieves me, seems to be in a kind of damp, isolationist death spiral.
BTW, it is not just the UK. Does anyone seriously believe that China is going to grow more than 5% this year as they struggle with the aftermath of Covid? If energy prices continue to fall the Russian economy is a much better candidate for shrinkage than the UK.
But I thought the variation was that the kids received a share in the house when their father died rather than it all being left to their mother. So taking advantage of his nil rate band. That’s entirely legal and reasonable - their mother no longer owned 100% of the property
But I concur that Britain is in a special malaise of its own, and it needs someone inspiring to yank us out of this pessimistic spiral. And right now it is hard to see that saviour. Starmer certainly is not it. Sunak is OK at holding the fort until we can work out how to solve our MAJOR problems
On the other hand, as we have said before, it is quite hard to point to any western nation and say Yeah, they're doing really well, that's a good place to be
Australia
Switzerland - but it is so boring
Maybe Canada, but I wonder
Denmark, but it's also boring
And actually even Australis is troubled in the medium tern, with its climate change issues
"I'm going to say lots of fruity 'non PC' things in a loud boomy voice cos I'm a very colourful and interesting person."
Then following the reaction - "C'mon I was joking! Where's your sense of humour? Such snowflakes. Can't say anything these days."
Or if no reaction - Increase the fruitiness and in an even LOUDER voice until there is.
Run a mile if you can but it's not always possible.
I think the prediction of imminent collapse may be just a tad overstated.
I'd find more serious things to worry about in any of France, Sweden, Italy or the USA.
Actually the IMF were more positive for UK then I expected
Though they're equally wrong.
Unlike you to outsource your arguments like that.
However, that picture and Facebook post does come close to a public order offence IMHO.
I still wouldn't send six officers to investigate, but jokes about lynching in a public place aren't really OK in my view.
Oh, and "crossover's coming, baby!"
Someone seems to have hacked his account and turned him into a #FBPE drone.
I also suspect that a lot of this stuff is new to HMRC, so they are busy getting up to speed too. And that means that both (a) people will make honest mistakes, (b) some people will try and game the system, and (c) without an established body of case decisions to work from, there's going to be a lot of uncertainty.
You would have fitted right in at the end of Victoria's reign. "The Empire's not what it was...."
But now we have global warming to look forward to, making the SW glorious and Kent hotter than Hades.
New (and very interesting) thread
Such posters can work, but they have to ring true.
It's the new Kier
I have no idea whether this publican broke the law, but I certainly wouldn’t want to go to his pub.
Also recommend the BC section of Trans-Canadian Highway (including Vancouver Island section) as well as the highway across southern BC just north of US border from Crowsnest Pass west to Lower Fraser Valley and Vancouver. (At one point, border crossing with checkpoints is visible from highway.)
Fun fact about BC, is that epic topography that in US is spread out over 800 miles from Denver to Sacremento, is confined to about half that from Vancouver to Lake Louise. VERY twisty-turny, LOTS of ups and downs. For example, at it's origin the Columbia River flows northwest, then makes a hair-pin curve heading southeast then south. All due to titantic, techtonic, geological forces.
Driving tip - whenever possible, fuel up in the USA. Based on current exchange rates $$CN-US, gas in great Pacific Northwest is about 2/3 price south of the Medicine Line.
I honestly commend it you. If you like, make a pile and then retire back in dear old Blighty.
You are very lucky but your experience is not one enjoyed by most.