Danny Alexander warns George Osborne will only cut top tax rate to 40p "over my dead body" http://huff.to/1fRTEub
I fear small shrines to little Danny will be being dismantled by heartbroken scottish tories as we speak.
No. All it means is there will be no mansion tax under this coalition.
The stand-off persists. The rest is pure party political positioning.
Stand off, eh?
So the Tories DO want to cut the taxes of the super-rich even further?
Go on Gideon, please, pretty please, do it!
I would expect Osborne's strategy for the highest earners would be to set rates of tax which maximise exchequer revenues taking all material factors into account.
At present we know that the reduction in the top rate from 50p to 45p has correlated with top rate tax payers paying a higher proportion of overall income tax (just under 30%) than any other group.
We also know that revenues from top tax band have increased by £8 bn.
What we don't know is the extent to which the change in rate has caused the uplifts.
Once the relationship between rate and yield has been established and is better understood, consideration will be given to setting the top rate at different levels, whether higher or lower.
Another factor is the signal the top rate of tax sends to business and the potential inbound investors. Currently the UK's top rate is higher than most other competing developed countries. If it can be made more competitive without diminishing the share of tax paid by high earners and without diminishing overall tax receipts, then there would be a strong reason to lower the rate to gain competitive advantage globally.
FGM generally involves clitoridectomy, which is far more radical than circumcision. Male circumcision is a seperate debate with considerable differences from the FGM campaign. One should not inhibit discussion of the other, or be used as a way of shutting down debate on the other.
Interesting that the phrase used is "female genital mutilation", which of course implies that the male version is acceptable.
There's a video on YouTube where Ayaan Hirsi Ali points out that not all forms of FGM are worse than male circumcision; she knows what she's talking about of course.
FGM generally involves clitoridectomy, which is far more radical than circumcision. Male circumcision is a seperate debate with considerable differences from the FGM campaign. One should not inhibit discussion of the other, or be used as a way of shutting down debate on the other.
Interesting that the phrase used is "female genital mutilation", which of course implies that the male version is acceptable.
There's a video on YouTube where Ayaan Hirsi Ali points out that not all forms of FGM are worse than male circumcision; she knows what she's talking about of course.
She's undergone male circumcision just so that she can compare?
Completely OT. Four Thought (or whatever the spelling is) on Radio 4 this evening was well worth a listen. Prof Heaven Crawley, an academic expert in asylum gave a very good talk on why we need to change our attitudes to asylum seekers.
It was perhaps a little light on detail but that was probably because of the time limit of 15 minutes.
In addition I would suggest that the best way to improve the reception of asylum seekers would be to cut out economic migration - which of course means leaving the EU so I would say that :-) - and I am not at all sure that
But as a plea for thinking our views of asylum seekers rather than relying on tabloids to set the agenda it was a very good talk.
Maybe I'm disappearing down a rabbit hole with one, but I really believe that the biggest news at the moment is Benefits Street, the Big Benefits Row, Katie Hopkins, White Dee and Co. and what it develops into. These things are gently politicising the lots of people who are locked out of the kind of debates Newsnight has about fiscal policy because they don't understand the language. But they do understand income tax and how it relates to the range of benefits that allow people not to work. As I said, I think it has the potential to develop. I bet IDS can't believe his luck.
Maybe I'm disappearing down a rabbit hole with one, but I really believe that the biggest news at the moment is Benefits Street, the Big Benefits Row, Katie Hopkins, White Dee and Co. and what it develops into. These things are gently politicising the lots of people who are locked out of the kind of debates Newsnight has about fiscal policy because they don't understand the language. But they do understand income tax and how it relates to the range of benefits that allow people not to work. As I said, I think it has the potential to develop. I bet IDS can't believe his luck.
My mate who is renting a room off me at the mo having split from his missus, is not into politics at all (votes conservative because he's got the contract to do their office air con) and he sky plussed the Matthew Wright debate on Ch 5 ft Katie Hopkins, so you have are onto something from what I can see
Do not interact/reference with MickPork for the rest of the month.
The same instruction applies to Mick as well.
I am sorry Moderator. but your requirement is an unreasonable interference in the freedom of PB posters to interchange with each other.
I fully understand the need for moderation to protect Mike Smithson against the threat of litigation arising out of potentially libelous statements.
I also accept that light-handed moderation can also assist a blog owner maintain a consistent and generally acceptable editorial policy.
But recent events have shown that the role of moderation on PB has become excessive, inconsistent and intrusive.
Mike and the moderation team need to rethink PB's moderation policy and practice as a matter of urgency.
Too many fine contributors to PB's success have recently left either as a result of injudicious moderator action or as a consequence of failure to act.
This needs to change if PB is going to survive as a leading non-aligned political blog.
Having said my piece I shall now leave the site, at the very least until next month, when I may look in again to see if the door is closed against me, and, if not, whether any sensible action has been taken on moderation policy.
Danny Alexander warns George Osborne will only cut top tax rate to 40p "over my dead body" http://huff.to/1fRTEub
I fear small shrines to little Danny will be being dismantled by heartbroken scottish tories as we speak.
A desperate attempt from Danny to distance himself from the heart of the coalition !
Of course. However, in doing so he's let the cat out of the bag by revealing to tory backbenchers that whatever Cammie may have told them about that tax cut happening before the election was a load of old cobblers. It won't happen. Simple as that.
I doubt they will be best pleased and they were far from that already.
FGM generally involves clitoridectomy, which is far more radical than circumcision. Male circumcision is a seperate debate with considerable differences from the FGM campaign. One should not inhibit discussion of the other, or be used as a way of shutting down debate on the other.
Interesting that the phrase used is "female genital mutilation", which of course implies that the male version is acceptable.
There's a video on YouTube where Ayaan Hirsi Ali points out that not all forms of FGM are worse than male circumcision; she knows what she's talking about of course.
She's undergone male circumcision just so that she can compare?
Maybe I'm disappearing down a rabbit hole with one, but I really believe that the biggest news at the moment is Benefits Street, the Big Benefits Row, Katie Hopkins, White Dee and Co. and what it develops into. These things are gently politicising the lots of people who are locked out of the kind of debates Newsnight has about fiscal policy because they don't understand the language. But they do understand income tax and how it relates to the range of benefits that allow people not to work. As I said, I think it has the potential to develop. I bet IDS can't believe his luck.
My mate who is renting a room off me at the mo having split from his missus, is not into politics at all (votes conservative because he's got the contract to do their office air con) and he sky plussed the Matthew Wright debate on Ch 5 ft Katie Hopkins, so you have are onto something from what I can see
Oh aye.
Was he a spark you "knock about with"?
Bet he never stops going on about grammar schools, flat taxes and taxi driver uniforms either.
Mate of mine thinks UKIP are a bunch of far right loons, and wouldn't dream of voting for the slightly unpleasant nutcases in a million years. Anecdotes eh.
How dare you mock such obvious 'truths'. Have you forgotten the massive political turmoil that the Jeremy Kyle Show unleashed on an unsuspecting political class? More fool you.
Maybe I'm disappearing down a rabbit hole with one, but I really believe that the biggest news at the moment is Benefits Street, the Big Benefits Row, Katie Hopkins, White Dee and Co. and what it develops into. These things are gently politicising the lots of people who are locked out of the kind of debates Newsnight has about fiscal policy because they don't understand the language. But they do understand income tax and how it relates to the range of benefits that allow people not to work. As I said, I think it has the potential to develop. I bet IDS can't believe his luck.
My mate who is renting a room off me at the mo having split from his missus, is not into politics at all (votes conservative because he's got the contract to do their office air con) and he sky plussed the Matthew Wright debate on Ch 5 ft Katie Hopkins, so you have are onto something from what I can see
Oh aye.
Was he a spark you "knock about with"?
Bet he never stops going on about grammar schools, flat taxes and taxi driver uniforms either.
Mate of mine thinks UKIP are a bunch of far right loons, and wouldn't dream of voting for the slightly unpleasant nutcases in a million years. Anecdotes eh.
What is wrong with knocking about with electricians?! Why do you say it as if I'm making it up or being insincere?
He is an air con engineer who votes conservative cos he has the contract at their office (in Burton?)
I'm sure you do have mates that think ukip are far right nutters, would be surprised if you didn't
Do not interact/reference with MickPork for the rest of the month.
The same instruction applies to Mick as well.
I am sorry Moderator. but your requirement is an unreasonable interference in the freedom of PB posters to interchange with each other.
I fully understand the need for moderation to protect Mike Smithson against the threat of litigation arising out of potentially libelous statements.
I also accept that light-handed moderation can also assist a blog owner maintain a consistent and generally acceptable editorial policy.
But recent events have shown that the role of moderation on PB has become excessive, inconsistent and intrusive.
Mike and the moderation team need to rethink PB's moderation policy and practice as a matter of urgency.
Too many fine contributors to PB's success have recently left either as a result of injudicious moderator action or as a consequence of failure to act.
This needs to change if PB is going to survive as a leading non-aligned political blog.
Having said my piece I shall now leave the site, at the very least until next month, when I may look in again to see if the door is closed against me, and, if not, whether any sensible action has been taken on moderation policy.
Perhaps good old Seth will be back as a 1 month stand in .
Maybe I'm disappearing down a rabbit hole with one, but I really believe that the biggest news at the moment is Benefits Street, the Big Benefits Row, Katie Hopkins, White Dee and Co. and what it develops into. These things are gently politicising the lots of people who are locked out of the kind of debates Newsnight has about fiscal policy because they don't understand the language. But they do understand income tax and how it relates to the range of benefits that allow people not to work. As I said, I think it has the potential to develop. I bet IDS can't believe his luck.
My mate who is renting a room off me at the mo having split from his missus, is not into politics at all (votes conservative because he's got the contract to do their office air con) and he sky plussed the Matthew Wright debate on Ch 5 ft Katie Hopkins, so you have are onto something from what I can see
Oh aye.
Was he a spark you "knock about with"?
Bet he never stops going on about grammar schools, flat taxes and taxi driver uniforms either.
Mate of mine thinks UKIP are a bunch of far right loons, and wouldn't dream of voting for the slightly unpleasant nutcases in a million years. Anecdotes eh.
How dare you mock such obvious 'truths'. Have you forgotten the massive political turmoil that the Jeremy Kyle Show unleashed on an unsuspecting political class? More fool you.
Why would i be insincere about my mate watching the benefit street debate?
Maybe I'm disappearing down a rabbit hole with one, but I really believe that the biggest news at the moment is Benefits Street, the Big Benefits Row, Katie Hopkins, White Dee and Co. and what it develops into. These things are gently politicising the lots of people who are locked out of the kind of debates Newsnight has about fiscal policy because they don't understand the language. But they do understand income tax and how it relates to the range of benefits that allow people not to work. As I said, I think it has the potential to develop. I bet IDS can't believe his luck.
My mate who is renting a room off me at the mo having split from his missus, is not into politics at all (votes conservative because he's got the contract to do their office air con) and he sky plussed the Matthew Wright debate on Ch 5 ft Katie Hopkins, so you have are onto something from what I can see
Oh aye.
Was he a spark you "knock about with"?
Bet he never stops going on about grammar schools, flat taxes and taxi driver uniforms either.
Mate of mine thinks UKIP are a bunch of far right loons, and wouldn't dream of voting for the slightly unpleasant nutcases in a million years. Anecdotes eh.
How dare you mock such obvious 'truths'. Have you forgotten the massive political turmoil that the Jeremy Kyle Show unleashed on an unsuspecting political class? More fool you.
Why would i be insincere about my mate watching the benefit street debate?
Re Benefits St, Hopkins etc - from looking at facebook, the women's magazines in supermarket, the front page of the Daily Star, the conversations in the office... it's definitely a topic of conversation for people who are not usually in to politics.
What's also clear is that Labour hate it and want Hopkins banned, the programme off the telly and for any talk of welfare to only take place between intellectuals.
The Daily Star were saying today that White Dee might run for parliament. I hope so because it will keep it in the spot light. At minimum, she will end up in Big Brother or some other popular reality show. At least that will get her off the dole. If only til she gets voted out.
I doubt that Osborne will cut the top rate of tax in this Parliament, but I also fully expect both Cameron and Osborne to continue to set out their general election campaign stall by deliberately refusing to rule out yet more tax cuts in the future. Ed Ball's 50p top rate of tax gimmick backfired as it sent out a message that Labour would be more inclined to increase our taxes generally if they get elected to Office in 2015. On the other hand, the Labour party now also risk playing into the Conservatives hands by obsessing about whether Osborne would oversee a further reduction to the 45p tax rate any time soon, which just reinforces the Conservatives as being the party of low taxation while Labour opposes it.
At minimum, she will end up in Big Brother or some other popular reality show.
Dear god! This could being the entire political class crashing down to it's knees. If she then went on I'm a celebrity the contagion would never be stopped. Anarchy!!
Maybe I'm disappearing down a rabbit hole with one, but I really believe that the biggest news at the moment is Benefits Street, the Big Benefits Row, Katie Hopkins, White Dee and Co. and what it develops into. These things are gently politicising the lots of people who are locked out of the kind of debates Newsnight has about fiscal policy because they don't understand the language. But they do understand income tax and how it relates to the range of benefits that allow people not to work. As I said, I think it has the potential to develop. I bet IDS can't believe his luck.
My mate who is renting a room off me at the mo having split from his missus, is not into politics at all (votes conservative because he's got the contract to do their office air con) and he sky plussed the Matthew Wright debate on Ch 5 ft Katie Hopkins, so you have are onto something from what I can see
Oh aye.
Was he a spark you "knock about with"?
Bet he never stops going on about grammar schools, flat taxes and taxi driver uniforms either.
Mate of mine thinks UKIP are a bunch of far right loons, and wouldn't dream of voting for the slightly unpleasant nutcases in a million years. Anecdotes eh.
How dare you mock such obvious 'truths'. Have you forgotten the massive political turmoil that the Jeremy Kyle Show unleashed on an unsuspecting political class? More fool you.
Why would i be insincere about my mate watching the benefit street debate?
Maybe I'm disappearing down a rabbit hole with one, but I really believe that the biggest news at the moment is Benefits Street, the Big Benefits Row, Katie Hopkins, White Dee and Co. and what it develops into. These things are gently politicising the lots of people who are locked out of the kind of debates Newsnight has about fiscal policy because they don't understand the language. But they do understand income tax and how it relates to the range of benefits that allow people not to work. As I said, I think it has the potential to develop. I bet IDS can't believe his luck.
My mate who is renting a room off me at the mo having split from his missus, is not into politics at all (votes conservative because he's got the contract to do their office air con) and he sky plussed the Matthew Wright debate on Ch 5 ft Katie Hopkins, so you have are onto something from what I can see
Oh aye.
Was he a spark you "knock about with"?
Bet he never stops going on about grammar schools, flat taxes and taxi driver uniforms either.
Mate of mine thinks UKIP are a bunch of far right loons, and wouldn't dream of voting for the slightly unpleasant nutcases in a million years. Anecdotes eh.
Maybe I'm disappearing down a rabbit hole with one, but I really believe that the biggest news at the moment is Benefits Street, the Big Benefits Row, Katie Hopkins, White Dee and Co. and what it develops into. These things are gently politicising the lots of people who are locked out of the kind of debates Newsnight has about fiscal policy because they don't understand the language. But they do understand income tax and how it relates to the range of benefits that allow people not to work. As I said, I think it has the potential to develop. I bet IDS can't believe his luck.
My mate who is renting a room off me at the mo having split from his missus, is not into politics at all (votes conservative because he's got the contract to do their office air con) and he sky plussed the Matthew Wright debate on Ch 5 ft Katie Hopkins, so you have are onto something from what I can see
Oh aye.
Was he a spark you "knock about with"?
Bet he never stops going on about grammar schools, flat taxes and taxi driver uniforms either.
Mate of mine thinks UKIP are a bunch of far right loons, and wouldn't dream of voting for the slightly unpleasant nutcases in a million years. Anecdotes eh.
Has politics come down to choosing between the sour faced misery Katie Hopkins or the lager swilling, chain smoking tattooed benefit junkie White Dee ?????!!!!!!!!
Re Benefits Street again, Fraser Nelson puts it much better than me: "But one thing’s for sure: after years of being an incredibly dull policy area, welfare reform is now one of the hottest topics in Britain. It is capable of breaking out of the normal confines of Westminster debate, and into a wider realm where wilder beasts roam and many more millions pay attention."
Has politics come down to choosing between the sour faced misery Katie Hopkins or the lager swilling, chain smoking tattooed benefit junkie White Dee ?????!!!!!!!!
Let's have a look shall we. That's odd.. this bullshitometer appears to be going off the charts and indicating a 100% certain No
Must not be tuned in to Dancing on Ice featuring a celebrity who had a friend who once saw a black lesbian single mother shoplifting. That would explain it.
" I think it is a bit of a stretch to shoot wild animals and eat them then worry about how others are killed"
I don't know. Take deer, one moment it is wandering around my mate's field having a nice bit of lunch with not a care in the world, the next it is stone dead from a well placed full-bore rifle bullet. Time of suffering or anxiety? A second, maybe two, enough to perhaps feel the impact but not enough to react to it. That is about as clean a death as is possible and far better than most farm animals get. Taking wild animals for the pot is, providing it is done properly, a lot less cruel than the industrialised slaughter methods of modern farming.
I agree. For me there is an element of personal responsibility involved in shooting. I only use an air rifle and I only take a shot if I am close enough to ensure a clean head shot. With pigeons and rabbits this is not actually that hard as you can get pretty close to them. If there is any doubt then I don't shoot. This is mostly because I am so squeamish and would have difficulty dealing with a wounded creature but it also serves the purpose of ensuring a minimum of suffering for the animal. Chickens we rear ourselves for eggs and meat as I simply don't trust the free range labels. They put themselves to bed in their coop at dusk and we let them out when we get up. Apart from that they are entirely free range and although we have foxes around we have only ever lost two birds in a single attack. I think being free range actually gives them greater protection than being cooped up and trapped if a fox gets in.
Yes, when I was In Parliament I said several times (in the fox-hunting debate) that I didn't object to shooting for food but felt killing for fun was objectionable, and the same applied to fishing for fish you planned to eat or sell vs fishing with a view to sticking your catch on the wall. There was a view at the time that I was making a terribly damaging admission and the anglers of Broxtowe would lynch me. (Nobody in the constituency has ever mentioned it. Sometimes politicians worry too much about saying what they think.)
The Evening Standard has been running such a campaign for months. FGM is evil. All girls at risk should be examined at school and if harmed should be made wards of court and their parents prosecuted. It should be a strict liability offence: if a girl is mutilated, the parents are guilty.
Cons had won the argument on welfare - or rather reality and the Mail won it for them without them realizing - and then they blew it with unconcealed salivating at getting people back into workhouses however whoever was behind Benefits St. may have pulled it back a bit in their direction again - prob not enough to counter balance the policy of driving wages down though.
Has politics come down to choosing between the sour faced misery Katie Hopkins or the lager swilling, chain smoking tattooed benefit junkie White Dee ?????!!!!!!!!
The Evening Standard has been running such a campaign for months. FGM is evil. All girls at risk should be examined at school and if harmed should be made wards of court and their parents prosecuted. It should be a strict liability offence: if a girl is mutilated, the parents are guilty.
The time for faffing about is long over.
What? Examining the genitals of schoolgirls? Are you mad?
The Evening Standard has been running such a campaign for months. FGM is evil. All girls at risk should be examined at school and if harmed should be made wards of court and their parents prosecuted. It should be a strict liability offence: if a girl is mutilated, the parents are guilty.
The time for faffing about is long over.
There have been prosecutions in many European countries, and in the USA where it was only made illegal in 1997. We were one of the first countries to do so in 1985 (thanks to former Broxbourne MP Marion Roe), but paradoxically there haven't been any prosecutions. Personally I think one of the reasons is that so many people in this country simply don't want to think about it and hope it will just disappear over time without any action, which is ridiculous but does accord with a certain aspect of the British, or perhaps English, psyche. Other countries, on the other hand, realise that you have to actually do something to tackle the issue.
The Evening Standard has been running such a campaign for months. FGM is evil. All girls at risk should be examined at school and if harmed should be made wards of court and their parents prosecuted. It should be a strict liability offence: if a girl is mutilated, the parents are guilty.
The time for faffing about is long over.
What? Examining the genitals of schoolgirls? Are you mad?
But if that's the only way to prevent it happening, surely you have to accept it as a possibility?
They do it in France, and it's led to a number of prosecutions.
There have been prosecutions in many European countries, and in the USA where it was only made illegal in 1997. We were one of the first countries to do so in 1985 (thanks to former Broxbourne MP Marion Roe), but paradoxically there haven't been any prosecutions. Personally I think one of the reasons is that so many people in this country simply don't want to think about it and hope it will just disappear of its own accord, which is ridiculous but does accord with a certain aspect of the British, or perhaps English, psyche. Other countries, on the other hand, realise that you have to actually do something to tackle the issue.
Very simple, mate.
These girls will eventually have children. They will give birth in an NHS hospital (they are now). It will be very obvious whether FGM has taken place.
Funny how the NHS hasn't reported anyone to the police.
There have been prosecutions in many European countries, and in the USA where it was only made illegal in 1997. We were one of the first countries to do so in 1985 (thanks to former Broxbourne MP Marion Roe), but paradoxically there haven't been any prosecutions. Personally I think one of the reasons is that so many people in this country simply don't want to think about it and hope it will just disappear of its own accord, which is ridiculous but does accord with a certain aspect of the British, or perhaps English, psyche. Other countries, on the other hand, realise that you have to actually do something to tackle the issue.
Very simple, mate.
These girls will eventually have children. They will give birth in an NHS hospital (they are now). It will be very obvious whether FGM has taken place.
Funny how the NHS hasn't reported anyone to the police.
But then, they didn't report Jimmy Savile either.
Doctors do notice it but haven't been reporting it to the police, according to numerous reports.
Leaving it until they are pregnant is leaving it rather late.
Teachers are more likely to spot the warning signs at an age that can protect siblings. The children are often out of school for weeks afterwards. They are the ones that can tip off social workers and police to the possibility. Teachers are trained to pick up signs of child abuse, of which FGM is a particularly severe form. Saville did lasting psychological harm, but these girls have lasting physical harm and health problems as well as the psychological harm.
There have been prosecutions in many European countries, and in the USA where it was only made illegal in 1997. We were one of the first countries to do so in 1985 (thanks to former Broxbourne MP Marion Roe), but paradoxically there haven't been any prosecutions. Personally I think one of the reasons is that so many people in this country simply don't want to think about it and hope it will just disappear of its own accord, which is ridiculous but does accord with a certain aspect of the British, or perhaps English, psyche. Other countries, on the other hand, realise that you have to actually do something to tackle the issue.
Very simple, mate.
These girls will eventually have children. They will give birth in an NHS hospital (they are now). It will be very obvious whether FGM has taken place.
Funny how the NHS hasn't reported anyone to the police.
Leaving it until they are pregnant is leaving it rather late.
Teachers are more likely to spot the warning signs at an age that can protect siblings. The children are often out of school for weeks afterwards. They are the ones that can tip off social workers and police to the possibility. Teachers are trained to pick up signs of child abuse, of which FGM is a particularly severe form. Saville did lasting psychological harm, but these girls have lasting physical harm and health problems as well as the psychological harm.
There have been prosecutions in many European countries, and in the USA where it was only made illegal in 1997. We were one of the first countries to do so in 1985 (thanks to former Broxbourne MP Marion Roe), but paradoxically there haven't been any prosecutions. Personally I think one of the reasons is that so many people in this country simply don't want to think about it and hope it will just disappear of its own accord, which is ridiculous but does accord with a certain aspect of the British, or perhaps English, psyche. Other countries, on the other hand, realise that you have to actually do something to tackle the issue.
Very simple, mate.
These girls will eventually have children. They will give birth in an NHS hospital (they are now). It will be very obvious whether FGM has taken place.
Funny how the NHS hasn't reported anyone to the police.
But then, they didn't report Jimmy Savile either.
It is never too late to report a crime.
The parents responsible can be prosecuted and the victim is old enough to give evidence.
As for teachers reporting abuse to the police, are you really that naive?
Do not interact/reference with MickPork for the rest of the month.
The same instruction applies to Mick as well.
I am sorry Moderator. but your requirement is an unreasonable interference in the freedom of PB posters to interchange with each other.
I fully understand the need for moderation to protect Mike Smithson against the threat of litigation arising out of potentially libelous statements.
I also accept that light-handed moderation can also assist a blog owner maintain a consistent and generally acceptable editorial policy.
But recent events have shown that the role of moderation on PB has become excessive, inconsistent and intrusive.
Mike and the moderation team need to rethink PB's moderation policy and practice as a matter of urgency.
Too many fine contributors to PB's success have recently left either as a result of injudicious moderator action or as a consequence of failure to act.
This needs to change if PB is going to survive as a leading non-aligned political blog.
Having said my piece I shall now leave the site, at the very least until next month, when I may look in again to see if the door is closed against me, and, if not, whether any sensible action has been taken on moderation policy.
Perhaps good old Seth will be back as a 1 month stand in .
Perhaps so. Perhaps the fact that there was no real animosity displayed towards or coming from Avery tonight speaks volumes. Whatever else Avery did he certainly wasn't some far-right sleaze polluting everything with endless unsubtle 'debates' about Muslims and those who 'don't speak the language'. Not even close to being his style nor would he ever want to as far as I could tell. Avery spun a great deal but that's to be expected.
Do not interact/reference with MickPork for the rest of the month.
The same instruction applies to Mick as well.
I am sorry Moderator. but your requirement is an unreasonable interference in the freedom of PB posters to interchange with each other.
I fully understand the need for moderation to protect Mike Smithson against the threat of litigation arising out of potentially libelous statements.
I also accept that light-handed moderation can also assist a blog owner maintain a consistent and generally acceptable editorial policy.
But recent events have shown that the role of moderation on PB has become excessive, inconsistent and intrusive.
Mike and the moderation team need to rethink PB's moderation policy and practice as a matter of urgency.
Too many fine contributors to PB's success have recently left either as a result of injudicious moderator action or as a consequence of failure to act.
This needs to change if PB is going to survive as a leading non-aligned political blog.
Having said my piece I shall now leave the site, at the very least until next month, when I may look in again to see if the door is closed against me, and, if not, whether any sensible action has been taken on moderation policy.
Perhaps good old Seth will be back as a 1 month stand in .
Perhaps so. Perhaps the fact that there was no real animosity displayed towards or coming from Avery tonight speaks volumes. Whatever else Avery did he certainly wasn't some far-right sleaze polluting everything with endless unsubtle 'debates' about Muslims and those who 'don't speak the language'. Not even close to being his style nor would he ever want to as far as I could tell. Avery spun a great deal but that's to be expected.
Do not interact/reference with MickPork for the rest of the month.
The same instruction applies to Mick as well.
I am sorry Moderator. but your requirement is an unreasonable interference in the freedom of PB posters to interchange with each other.
I fully understand the need for moderation to protect Mike Smithson against the threat of litigation arising out of potentially libelous statements.
I also accept that light-handed moderation can also assist a blog owner maintain a consistent and generally acceptable editorial policy.
But recent events have shown that the role of moderation on PB has become excessive, inconsistent and intrusive.
Mike and the moderation team need to rethink PB's moderation policy and practice as a matter of urgency.
Too many fine contributors to PB's success have recently left either as a result of injudicious moderator action or as a consequence of failure to act.
This needs to change if PB is going to survive as a leading non-aligned political blog.
Having said my piece I shall now leave the site, at the very least until next month, when I may look in again to see if the door is closed against me, and, if not, whether any sensible action has been taken on moderation policy.
Perhaps good old Seth will be back as a 1 month stand in .
Perhaps so. Perhaps the fact that there was no real animosity displayed towards or coming from Avery tonight speaks volumes. Whatever else Avery did he certainly wasn't some far-right sleaze polluting everything with endless unsubtle 'debates' about Muslims and those who 'don't speak the language'. Not even close to being his style nor would he ever want to as far as I could tell. Avery spun a great deal but that's to be expected.
He was, in a way, the people's pole
We disgareed vehemently but Avery had little time for far-right BNP parasites and neither do I. In such a way he was indeed far more of the people than they will ever be.
Do not interact/reference with MickPork for the rest of the month.
The same instruction applies to Mick as well.
I am sorry Moderator. but your requirement is an unreasonable interference in the freedom of PB posters to interchange with each other.
I fully understand the need for moderation to protect Mike Smithson against the threat of litigation arising out of potentially libelous statements.
I also accept that light-handed moderation can also assist a blog owner maintain a consistent and generally acceptable editorial policy.
But recent events have shown that the role of moderation on PB has become excessive, inconsistent and intrusive.
Mike and the moderation team need to rethink PB's moderation policy and practice as a matter of urgency.
Too many fine contributors to PB's success have recently left either as a result of injudicious moderator action or as a consequence of failure to act.
This needs to change if PB is going to survive as a leading non-aligned political blog.
Having said my piece I shall now leave the site, at the very least until next month, when I may look in again to see if the door is closed against me, and, if not, whether any sensible action has been taken on moderation policy.
Perhaps good old Seth will be back as a 1 month stand in .
Perhaps so. Perhaps the fact that there was no real animosity displayed towards or coming from Avery tonight speaks volumes. Whatever else Avery did he certainly wasn't some far-right sleaze polluting everything with endless unsubtle 'debates' about Muslims and those who 'don't speak the language'. Not even close to being his style nor would he ever want to as far as I could tell. Avery spun a great deal but that's to be expected.
He was, in a way, the people's pole
We disgareed vehemently but Avery had little time for far-right BNP parasites and neither do I. In such a way he was indeed far more of the people than they will ever be.
Good on you both. Good night and god save the queen x
Do not interact/reference with MickPork for the rest of the month.
The same instruction applies to Mick as well.
I am sorry Moderator. but your requirement is an unreasonable interference in the freedom of PB posters to interchange with each other.
I fully understand the need for moderation to protect Mike Smithson against the threat of litigation arising out of potentially libelous statements.
I also accept that light-handed moderation can also assist a blog owner maintain a consistent and generally acceptable editorial policy.
But recent events have shown that the role of moderation on PB has become excessive, inconsistent and intrusive.
Mike and the moderation team need to rethink PB's moderation policy and practice as a matter of urgency.
Too many fine contributors to PB's success have recently left either as a result of injudicious moderator action or as a consequence of failure to act.
This needs to change if PB is going to survive as a leading non-aligned political blog.
Having said my piece I shall now leave the site, at the very least until next month, when I may look in again to see if the door is closed against me, and, if not, whether any sensible action has been taken on moderation policy.
Perhaps good old Seth will be back as a 1 month stand in .
Perhaps so. Perhaps the fact that there was no real animosity displayed towards or coming from Avery tonight speaks volumes. Whatever else Avery did he certainly wasn't some far-right sleaze polluting everything with endless unsubtle 'debates' about Muslims and those who 'don't speak the language'. Not even close to being his style nor would he ever want to as far as I could tell. Avery spun a great deal but that's to be expected.
He was, in a way, the people's pole
We disgareed vehemently but Avery had little time for far-right BNP parasites and neither do I. In such a way he was indeed far more of the people than they will ever be.
Good on you both, Good night and god save the queen x
That might even be adorable if I cared what you think, but why lie? I don't care. Too bad.
The Evening Standard has been running such a campaign for months. FGM is evil. All girls at risk should be examined at school and if harmed should be made wards of court and their parents prosecuted. It should be a strict liability offence: if a girl is mutilated, the parents are guilty.
All girls at risk should be examined at school and if harmed should be made wards of court and their parents prosecuted. It should be a strict liability offence: if a girl is mutilated, the parents are guilty.
What an absolutely extraordinarily authoritarian attitude. A strict liability offence is one where the Crown are released from proving mens rea, and can establish criminal liability by proving that the defendant committed actus reus alone. For example, where a publication tends to interfere with the course of justice in active criminal proceedings, the publisher is criminally liable regardless of his intention. You are not actually proposing a strict liability offence at all. You are suggesting that the Crown should be dispensed from having to prove not merely the intention of the defendant, but also that the defendant committed the act at all. It is a vitiation of the presumption of innocence, and manifestly incompatible with the tradition of the common law of England, and article 6 ECHR.
If this argument holds, then parents should be criminally liable for any abuse at all inflicted on their children.
Who could disagree? But, perhaps it is hard to prove in a British court? presumably mutilation (barbaric as it is) is not illegal in Somalia for example- what if it was done there and not in the UK? The french do seem to be a little more gung-ho when it comes to following the letter of the law (see EU regulations passim) that might account for their greater success in prosecutions
Who could disagree? But, perhaps it is hard to prove in a British court? presumably mutilation (barbaric as it is) is not illegal in Somalia for example- what if it was done there and not in the UK? The french do seem to be a little more gung-ho when it comes to following the letter of the law (see EU regulations passim) that might account for their greater success in prosecutions
The existing law has complete extraterritorial effect in relation to British nationals.
Who could disagree? But, perhaps it is hard to prove in a British court? presumably mutilation (barbaric as it is) is not illegal in Somalia for example- what if it was done there and not in the UK? The french do seem to be a little more gung-ho when it comes to following the letter of the law (see EU regulations passim) that might account for their greater success in prosecutions
The existing law has complete extraterritorial effect in relation to British nationals.
Right, I stand corrected, thanks. Is that unusual, for British law? It sounds unusual. But I know very little of legal matters
Comments
So the Tories DO want to cut the taxes of the super-rich even further?
Go on Gideon, please, pretty please, do it!
I would expect Osborne's strategy for the highest earners would be to set rates of tax which maximise exchequer revenues taking all material factors into account.
At present we know that the reduction in the top rate from 50p to 45p has correlated with top rate tax payers paying a higher proportion of overall income tax (just under 30%) than any other group.
We also know that revenues from top tax band have increased by £8 bn.
What we don't know is the extent to which the change in rate has caused the uplifts.
Once the relationship between rate and yield has been established and is better understood, consideration will be given to setting the top rate at different levels, whether higher or lower.
Another factor is the signal the top rate of tax sends to business and the potential inbound investors. Currently the UK's top rate is higher than most other competing developed countries. If it can be made more competitive without diminishing the share of tax paid by high earners and without diminishing overall tax receipts, then there would be a strong reason to lower the rate to gain competitive advantage globally.
Very simple if you think about it, Hugh.
Wow! That's dedication.
twitter.com/WorthingLibDems/status/431161408538288129
Tony Dyer selected for Greens in Bristol South:
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Greens-select-General-Election-candidate-Bristol/story-20563713-detail/story.html
It was perhaps a little light on detail but that was probably because of the time limit of 15 minutes.
In addition I would suggest that the best way to improve the reception of asylum seekers would be to cut out economic migration - which of course means leaving the EU so I would say that :-) - and I am not at all sure that
But as a plea for thinking our views of asylum seekers rather than relying on tabloids to set the agenda it was a very good talk.
A desperate attempt from Danny to distance himself from the heart of the coalition !
Hunted, on Channel 4 about how Russia is treating their gay population.
Link 20 gives an outline.
Channel 4 should be very proud of the programme they just aired.
I fully understand the need for moderation to protect Mike Smithson against the threat of litigation arising out of potentially libelous statements.
I also accept that light-handed moderation can also assist a blog owner maintain a consistent and generally acceptable editorial policy.
But recent events have shown that the role of moderation on PB has become excessive, inconsistent and intrusive.
Mike and the moderation team need to rethink PB's moderation policy and practice as a matter of urgency.
Too many fine contributors to PB's success have recently left either as a result of injudicious moderator action or as a consequence of failure to act.
This needs to change if PB is going to survive as a leading non-aligned political blog.
Having said my piece I shall now leave the site, at the very least until next month, when I may look in again to see if the door is closed against me, and, if not, whether any sensible action has been taken on moderation policy.
Of course. However, in doing so he's let the cat out of the bag by revealing to tory backbenchers that whatever Cammie may have told them about that tax cut happening before the election was a load of old cobblers. It won't happen. Simple as that.
I doubt they will be best pleased and they were far from that already.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/oct/14/designer-vagina-surgery
He is an air con engineer who votes conservative cos he has the contract at their office (in Burton?)
I'm sure you do have mates that think ukip are far right nutters, would be surprised if you didn't
What's also clear is that Labour hate it and want Hopkins banned, the programme off the telly and for any talk of welfare to only take place between intellectuals.
The Daily Star were saying today that White Dee might run for parliament. I hope so because it will keep it in the spot light. At minimum, she will end up in Big Brother or some other popular reality show. At least that will get her off the dole. If only til she gets voted out.
So the Tories DO want to cut the taxes of the super-rich even further?
Go on Gideon, please, pretty please, do it!
If she then went on I'm a celebrity the contagion would never be stopped. Anarchy!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZOKDmorj0
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together..MASS HYSTERIA!
*tears of laughter etc.*
It's pointless and not funny at all.
Mother of God...
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/fraser-nelson/2014/02/my-night-with-white-dee-and-the-big-benefits-row/
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/07/michael-gove-voodoo-pincushion-etsy-25-picture_n_4057634.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=2696121,b=facebook
Must not be tuned in to Dancing on Ice featuring a celebrity who had a friend who once saw a black lesbian single mother shoplifting. That would explain it.
The time for faffing about is long over.
They do it in France, and it's led to a number of prosecutions.
These girls will eventually have children. They will give birth in an NHS hospital (they are now). It will be very obvious whether FGM has taken place.
Funny how the NHS hasn't reported anyone to the police.
But then, they didn't report Jimmy Savile either.
Teachers are more likely to spot the warning signs at an age that can protect siblings. The children are often out of school for weeks afterwards. They are the ones that can tip off social workers and police to the possibility. Teachers are trained to pick up signs of child abuse, of which FGM is a particularly severe form. Saville did lasting psychological harm, but these girls have lasting physical harm and health problems as well as the psychological harm.
The parents responsible can be prosecuted and the victim is old enough to give evidence.
As for teachers reporting abuse to the police, are you really that naive?
shame to see Avery go. Hope he returns next month indeed.
Awrabest, minna-san
May you ever grow in our hearts
He was the messenger
Of the yellow box
...................................
And it seems to me he lived his
posting life like George's
candle in the wind !
Farage distances himself from Batten according to Grauniad
If this argument holds, then parents should be criminally liable for any abuse at all inflicted on their children.
Preposterous and authoritarian.