They should have just refused the order on the basis that they did not want the business and kept the bigoted crap to themselves.
Or, you know, have the right to not express political opinions they disagree with.
Well, they have the right to hold whatever views they like, they should perhaps take up their right to separate their business from those views. We are a long way from B and B owners putting up signs saying 'no blacks'
Just looked at the Video again and not much evidence of trouser wearing in most of the attendees.
And somebody needed to ask why there were no ladies. They were waiting in the upstairs room perhaps?
As well as meeting my fellow posters the free pork pie and lovely beer were also highlights as well as my train journey back with Mr Herdson. Should be an interesting thread on Saturday
Ladbrokes now have every seat in England priced up. For anyone interested, here's a short bit about the possible seats changing hands in the West Mids: http://ow.ly/yTOyy
Just looked at the Video again and not much evidence of trouser wearing in most of the attendees.
And somebody needed to ask why there were no ladies. They were waiting in the upstairs room perhaps?
As well as meeting my fellow posters the free pork pie and lovely beer were also highlights as well as my train journey back with Mr Herdson. Should be an interesting thread on Saturday
King Cole, there was a lady bartender attending to the gathering's needs.
Edited extra bit: reminds me, on a more serious note, that Labour apparently want to 'educate' schoolboys to be feminists as part of sex ed. Meant to counter-act the misogyny of pornography, or suchlike.
I broadly agree but the rule that prosecution is only done in the public interest is there for a reason - prosecution for paedophilia as broadly understood is right, prison for teenage lovers clearly out of step with what most people want nowadays. It'd be possible to nail it down in legislation but I think a bit of margin at the edges to assess individual cases makes sense. The Sentencing Council does quite good work on this sort of thing.
It is worth going back to Hansard's report of the question concerning Sir Peter Hayman put by Geoffrey Dickens to the Attorney-General in 1983:
Mr. Dickens: "To ask Mr. Attorney-General, if he will prosecute Sir Peter Hayman under the Post Office Acts for sending and receiving pornogrpahic material through the Royal Mail."
The Attorney-General: "In 1978 a packet containing obscene literature and written material was found in a London bus. The subsequent police investigation revealed a correspondence of obscene nature between Sir Peter Hayman and a number of other persons.
Altogether, a total of seven men and two women were named as possible defendants in the report submitted by the Metropolitan Police to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Director advised against prosecuting any of the nine persons either under Section 11 of the Post Office Act, 1953, or for any other offence.
Among the consideration he took into account were the factors that the correspondence had been contained in sealed envelopes passing between adult individuals in a non-commercial context and that none of the material was unsolicited.
Subsequently, the Metropolitan Police submitted a further report which revealed that one of the nine, not Sir Peter Hayman, was also carrying on a correspondence with a tenth person.
The police investigation showed that the two shared an obsession about the systematic torture of young people and children.
In view of the extreme nature of the material they had sent each other, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to prosecute them for conspiring to contravene Section 11 of the Act. There is no evidence that Sir Peter Hayman has ever sent or received material of this kind through the post.
1. The law at the time applicable to the offence was limited to the Post Office Act 1953. Since 1983, further legislation has been passed to criminalise the possession of child pornography. Such law did not apply at time (1978) of the package of pornography being found.
2. Sir Peter Hayman (a former High-Commissioner to Canada) and a civil servant with a long distinguished career was only one of nine not prosecuted under the DPP's decision.
3. The reasons given for ruling that it was not in the public interest to prosecute seem valid for the time ("not for the state to pry into the affairs of consenting adults where no third party was damaged"). What has changed is move to the view (both legal and public) that a passive recipient of pornography is complicit in child abuse by creating demand for the pornographic product he consumes.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Change from 24th June Projection) :
Con 307 (-5) .. Lab 282 (+8) .. LibDem 30 (-2) .. SNP 8 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 1 (-1) .. Respect 0 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 19 seats short of a majority Labour 44 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - TCTC Pudsey - TCTC Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - Likely LibDem Hold Ipswich - TCTC Watford - TCTC Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold Enfield - TCTC Cornwall North - TCTC Great Yarmouth - Con Hold (From Likely Con Hold) Vale of Glamorgan - Likely Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - Likely Lab Hold (From TCTC)
Changes From 24th June - Great Yarmouth moves from Likely Con Hold to Con Hold and Ochil and South Perthshire moves from TCTC to Likely Lab Hold.
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 votes .......................................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
Not quite so keen on this week's ARSE, though it's comforting to see that the only viable coalition remains CONDEM!
In honour of the Ilkley bash you mustn't view my fortnightly outpouring as a regular GIN1138 beer and skittles event.
Somebody should give us the order of appearance in Mike's Ilkley video so we can put names to faces!
I am the one speaking and gesticulating (and I thought I was being quiet and reserved!)
They should have just refused the order on the basis that they did not want the business and kept the bigoted crap to themselves.
Anti-discrimination law is different in Northern Ireland, but I don't think this could happen in England and Wales and Scotland - certainly not under the Equality Act, anyway.
Surely I would have thought that the law is (quite rightly) to stop people discriminating against individuals based on their sexual orientation. I would have thought it would have been quite straight forward to produce a defence that the bakery was not discriminating against an individual and that if the message had been different they would have happily taken the work irrespective of whether or not the client was gay. It is simply a refusal to produce a product bearing a certain message and it does not appear to me that that is covered by the scope of the law either in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the UK.
I retired 91 days ago and yesterday was my 90th successive day without trousers (should any further clues be required) as to which one was me
I'm not surprised your projection is so left field with all that fresh air circulating undisturbed about your nether regions on such a regular basis.
Twas bound to cause immense difficulties in ensuring a more rounded result.
Does you good to get your ARSE (out of trousers) as often as possible in the warmer months IMHO.
Do you not attend the PB gatherings Jack? Although i suppose a group of men discussing your ARSE may not have gone down too well with the locals.
"Mrs BJ I am going to Ilkley to meet Jack and discuss why his ARSE and my BJESUS arent compatible can you pick me up from the station afterwards darling as i fear this will necessitate considerabe quantities of local ale to resolve."
King Cole, there was a lady bartender attending to the gathering's needs.
Edited extra bit: reminds me, on a more serious note, that Labour apparently want to 'educate' schoolboys to be feminists as part of sex ed. Meant to counter-act the misogyny of pornography, or suchlike.
“Aving a barmaid’s different. Natural for a woman to be looking after ’t men.
To be fair, it’s 55 years since I found a bar, let alone a pub, that was men only!
And, on your more serious note, a male university friend of my son, some 20 years ago, signed up for a feminist module as part of his degree course. The tutor(ess) initially tried to prevent him attending at all, but when it was pointed out that she couldn’t made things very difficult for him, making his essays down (he claims anyway!) and eventually he found that doing the course affected the class of degree.
Surely I would have thought that the law is (quite rightly) to stop people discriminating against individuals based on their sexual orientation. I would have thought it would have been quite straight forward to produce a defence that the bakery was not discriminating against an individual and that if the message had been different they would have happily taken the work irrespective of whether or not the client was gay. It is simply a refusal to produce a product bearing a certain message and it does not appear to me that that is covered by the scope of the law either in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the UK.
A very sensible post, but unfortunately sense doesn't seem to have reached as far as the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.
King Cole, there was a lady bartender attending to the gathering's needs.
Edited extra bit: reminds me, on a more serious note, that Labour apparently want to 'educate' schoolboys to be feminists as part of sex ed. Meant to counter-act the misogyny of pornography, or suchlike.
That's scary lefty mind control. Eeek! Couldn't we instead train boys to become men of the gentleman variety not the girlyman variety? Just saying...
reminds me, on a more serious note, that Labour apparently want to 'educate' schoolboys to be feminists as part of sex ed. Meant to counter-act the misogyny of pornography, or suchlike.
What they should be doing is commissioning less misogynistic porn.
They should have just refused the order on the basis that they did not want the business and kept the bigoted crap to themselves.
Or, you know, have the right to not express political opinions they disagree with.
Well, they have the right to hold whatever views they like, they should perhaps take up their right to separate their business from those views. We are a long way from B and B owners putting up signs saying 'no blacks'
Why should one have to separate one's opinions from one's business?
No business owner should be positively compelled to promote a political or religious message that they disagree with. For example, a business owner with atheist beliefs should be entitled to decline to promote a Christian message.
reminds me, on a more serious note, that Labour apparently want to 'educate' schoolboys to be feminists as part of sex ed. Meant to counter-act the misogyny of pornography, or suchlike.
What they should be doing is commissioning less misogynistic porn.
I didn't realise Labour were commissioning misogynistic porn. Harman must be appalled, or unaware.
They should have just refused the order on the basis that they did not want the business and kept the bigoted crap to themselves.
Anti-discrimination law is different in Northern Ireland, but I don't think this could happen in England and Wales and Scotland - certainly not under the Equality Act, anyway.
Surely I would have thought that the law is (quite rightly) to stop people discriminating against individuals based on their sexual orientation. I would have thought it would have been quite straight forward to produce a defence that the bakery was not discriminating against an individual and that if the message had been different they would have happily taken the work irrespective of whether or not the client was gay. It is simply a refusal to produce a product bearing a certain message and it does not appear to me that that is covered by the scope of the law either in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the UK.
I imagine that the defence would be that they would decline to produce that particular message irrespective of whether or not the customer was gay.
King Cole, there was a lot of feminism and feminist lecturers at my university. It varied a bit from the sound to the mad (one spoke of throwing men out of the way so women could escape a theoretical burning building), and the silly (history = his story... except it doesn't, it comes from historia, which is Latin. And feminine).
King Cole, there was a lot of feminism and feminist lecturers at my university. It varied a bit from the sound to the mad (one spoke of throwing men out of the way so women could escape a theoretical burning building), and the silly (history = his story... except it doesn't, it comes from historia, which is Latin. And feminine).
Hmmm. Actually the burning building one isn’t too daft on a "far edges” basis. If you have a society which is in imminent danger of destruction, do you save the females or the males? Clearly you need SOME males but the species survival depends on females with several years breeding potential.
Which is quite wrong. Whether you agree with them or not (and I don't) UKIP and their equivalents represent a significant strand of the voters across Europe and deserve appropriate representation at all levels of Parliament.
(And before anyone says, this is the equivalent to the Tories/LDs shutting Labour out of all Select Committee chairs, not the existence of the Coalition per se)
"it’s 55 years since I found a bar, let alone a pub, that was men only"
Thirty-five years ago the bar of the Southfields Working Man's Club (CIU Affiliated) was men only and access to the billiard and card rooms was through the bar - effectively putting them out of bounds to ladies. There was a hatch to the lounge though through which ladies could purchase refreshments.
Of course, there are still clubs in the area of St. James's which do not allow lady members and so there are rooms and areas that are men only. Brighton has many men only clubs but lady guests have, in most, been more than welcome. As young man I was a member of a couple as were most of my locally based friends. They were good, safe places to get a drink in the afternoon when the pubs were shut and excellent, very discreet, places to entertain ladies who were married to someone else.
Greetings all from cloudy Middlesbrough. Ilkley gathering was great fun, wish I could have stayed longer. It has encouraged me to post more. I'll try to post the photo I took but that was a bit later than video so not everyone in it.
"it’s 55 years since I found a bar, let alone a pub, that was men only"
Thirty-five years ago the bar of the Southfields Working Man's Club (CIU Affiliated) was men only and access to the billiard and card rooms was through the bar - effectively putting them out of bounds to ladies. There was a hatch to the lounge though through which ladies could purchase refreshments.
Of course, there are still clubs in the area of St. James's which do not allow lady members and so there are rooms and areas that are men only. Brighton has many men only clubs but lady guests have, in most, been more than welcome. As young man I was a member of a couple as were most of my locally based friends. They were good, safe places to get a drink in the afternoon when the pubs were shut and excellent, very discreet, places to entertain ladies who were married to someone else.
Indeed Mr Llama, I’ve known of several men only clubs. Rotary was until relatively recently, of course. My sister was among the first lady rotarians.
King Cole, there was a lady bartender attending to the gathering's needs.
Edited extra bit: reminds me, on a more serious note, that Labour apparently want to 'educate' schoolboys to be feminists as part of sex ed. Meant to counter-act the misogyny of pornography, or suchlike.
The tutor(ess) initially tried to prevent him attending at all
King Cole, there was a lady bartender attending to the gathering's needs.
Edited extra bit: reminds me, on a more serious note, that Labour apparently want to 'educate' schoolboys to be feminists as part of sex ed. Meant to counter-act the misogyny of pornography, or suchlike.
The tutor(ess) initially tried to prevent him attending at all
Tutrix surely?
Yup. Probably should have been tutor, on the “actor/actress” basis!
I retired 91 days ago and yesterday was my 90th successive day without trousers (should any further clues be required) as to which one was me
I'm not surprised your projection is so left field with all that fresh air circulating undisturbed about your nether regions on such a regular basis.
Twas bound to cause immense difficulties in ensuring a more rounded result.
Does you good to get your ARSE (out of trousers) as often as possible in the warmer months IMHO.
Do you not attend the PB gatherings Jack? Although i suppose a group of men discussing your ARSE may not have gone down too well with the locals.
"Mrs BJ I am going to Ilkley to meet Jack and discuss why his ARSE and my BJESUS arent compatible can you pick me up from the station afterwards darling as i fear this will necessitate considerabe quantities of local ale to resolve."
I should advise you that OGH has, quite correctly, banned me from PB events as he was unwilling to contribute to the extensive policing costs should I attend.
Neither would I wish my hordes of ARSE followers to swamp an event as they do tend to the raucous and lively in my presence.
There is also the consideration that "TimeTeam" have requested a presence at any JackW attended function where the possibility of an opening of a Scottish nobles wallet would likely cause an archaeological sensation.
Doc., when you were doing you medical research work into drug effectiveness, did you do any work or see any figures about the relative effectiveness or side effects of generic drugs. That is to say drugs whose patents had expired and were being produced and marketed by different manufacturers?
Doc., when you were doing you medical research work into drug effectiveness, did you do any work or see any figures about the relative effectiveness or side effects of generic drugs. That is to say drugs whose patents had expired and were being produced and marketed by different manufacturers?
Charles is the specialist here, but when I worked for Novartis I never heard anyone suggest that European generic copies weren't just as good - the company would have liked longer protection against them to recoup costs and make a profit, but didn't use an argument that the generics might be inferior. They are normally by definition exactly the same, like the hundred or so types of aspirin on the market under different brand names.
It's a bit different in places where regulation is less systematic - in Brazil, for instance, the authorities fret that the stuff in the packet may not be what it says on the label. But that's a fraud issue rather than a medical one.
Doc., when you were doing you medical research work into drug effectiveness, did you do any work or see any figures about the relative effectiveness or side effects of generic drugs. That is to say drugs whose patents had expired and were being produced and marketed by different manufacturers?
In order to benefit from the expedited approval process, Gx manufacturers need to be able to prove bioequivalence. This is usually done by measuring the PK data, with a principle focus on the PKmax and the area under the curve as well as the time to peak concentration.
If they can't demonstrate that those are equivalent to the originator product, they don't get approval.
More important from your perspective is to understand where and who manufactured the product. With little white pills (i.e. solid dose oral products) I'd usually be pretty relaxed about CEE or India, but avoid China. With sterile injectables or biologicals I'd be a whole lot more careful because the risk of manufacturing variances are far higher.
(hope that's clear - if not I can try to translate from jargonese to English, but not always easy!)
edit: further to @NickPalmer's comment you don't want to be buying from Brazil! Colombia (surprisingly enough) is actually pretty good at (legal) drug manufacturing...
Doc., when you were doing you medical research work into drug effectiveness, did you do any work or see any figures about the relative effectiveness or side effects of generic drugs. That is to say drugs whose patents had expired and were being produced and marketed by different manufacturers?
Charles is the specialist here, but when I worked for Novartis I never heard anyone suggest that European generic copies weren't just as good - the company would have liked longer protection against them to recoup costs and make a profit, but didn't use an argument that the generics might be inferior. They are normally by definition exactly the same, like the hundred or so types of aspirin on the market under different brand names.
It's a bit different in places where regulation is less systematic - in Brazil, for instance, the authorities fret that the stuff in the packet may not be what it says on the label. But that's a fraud issue rather than a medical one.
Not a doctor, a pharmacist. No, NP is right. However there’s some reasonably robust anecdote that in some cases generic asthma inhalers don’t work as well as the original brand. My opinion is that the propellant ... the stuff that actually carries the drug out of the inhaler ..... is the problem. There’s also some evidence that different “fillers" in tablets can make a difference in a small number of patients.
My impression has been that Ashcroft has been corroborated by Populus on more than one occasion - not just yesterday - can anyone confirm this/ plot a graph?
If entirely uncorroborated it has surely been whacky enough to disregard until it cleans up its act (except when it correctly identifies a tory lead, of course).
And manufacturing led the decline, with output falling by an alarming 1.3% -- economists expected a 0.4% increase.
Usually means a North Sea oil field went down for unexpected maintenance....
No. What it is showing is monthly volatility.
May 2014 grew by 2.3% over May 2013. Apr 2014 grew by 2.9% over Apr 2014.
This mainly explains why May 2014 over Apr 2014 shows a decline of 0.7% (with manufacturing down 1.3%).
Variations caused by changing baseline comparators are not covered until the second year of Ben's economic degree course.
Avery , you have a flannel handy for every occurence, you were obviously a boy scout.
There are lots of former boy scouts about, Malcolm.
Here are some of the main ones:
Chris Williamson, Chief Economist at Markit, noted that the ONS data was in contrast to recent buoyant business surveys from the likes of the PMI, CBI and British Chambers of Commerce, which show the manufacturing sector to be in rude health.
...
"The decline in May was the largest seen since January 2013 and also contrasted with rising production in prior months. The ONS offered no explanation for the surprise collapse in production, so we suspect the May downturn is a rogue number and the sector will rebound again in June," Williamson said.
Martin Beck, senior economic advisor to the Ernst & Young ITEM Club, added that the latest figures "should not be a serious cause for concern" as, on an annual basis, industrial production and manufacturing output both continued to grow at a solid rate.
"Even if industrial production remains stable in June, it will still be above its Q1 levels. The sector only contributes around 15% to overall economic activity, so we would caution against reading too much into the weak monthly number.
“Overall, today’s numbers do not change our expectations of GDP growth of 1% in Q2, exceeding the pace seen in the first three months of the year.”
Also:
The figures are “unlikely to be a true reflection of what is happening in the sector,” said Rob Wood, an economist at Berenberg Bank and a former BOE official. It “is utterly at odds with strong survey readings. A big bounceback in output is possible next month,” he said.
I normally do not have much time for Michael Portillo except once in "This Week" he surprised me by his view on IHT.
As a Tory, he obviously prefers lower income tax or as he put it earned income. His view on "unearned" income was that it should be taxed at higher than the basic rate of tax precisely because it is not "earned".
Earned income, of course, can be both salaries as well as business profits.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Change from 24th June Projection) :
Con 307 (-5) .. Lab 282 (+8) .. LibDem 30 (-2) .. SNP 8 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 1 (-1) .. Respect 0 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 19 seats short of a majority Labour 44 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - TCTC Pudsey - TCTC Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - Likely LibDem Hold Ipswich - TCTC Watford - TCTC Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold Enfield - TCTC Cornwall North - TCTC Great Yarmouth - Con Hold (From Likely Con Hold) Vale of Glamorgan - Likely Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - Likely Lab Hold (From TCTC)
Changes From 24th June - Great Yarmouth moves from Likely Con Hold to Con Hold and Ochil and South Perthshire moves from TCTC to Likely Lab Hold.
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 votes .......................................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
IMO Enfield North should be in the Likely Lab Gain column.
Thank you, Gentlemen for your answers to my question.
The reason I asked was an incident that happened to me at the eye hospital last week and the subsequent conversation with the quack and another, very quiet one, with a nurse. That tied in with a life-threatening (emergency hospitalisation and much nastiness) reaction reaction that a couple of years ago I suddenly seemed to develop with a drug that had been taking, without any side effects, for thirteen years.
Mr. Charles, I don't buy medicines from anywhere. I just fork out for my season ticket and pick-up the five-a-day drug cocktail prescribed for me from the local pharmacist and of course accept whatever the people at the eye hospital drop or otherwise insert into me. However, it would seem from what I have learned in the past week that quality control in the NHS may not be what we might wish.
Some interesting Key Points from today's "Regional Economic Indicators" from ONS.
Part I (Part II to follow in separate post)
Regional output (GVA)
Nominal gross value added (GVA) increased between 2011 and 2012 for all regions and countries except for the East Midlands which was broadly flat. The South East saw the greatest increase in its total GVA, increasing by 3.3% from £196 billion in 2011 to £203 billion in 2012.
GVA growth between 2009 and 2012 was strongest in London, rising 11.1%, and weakest in Northern Ireland, rising by 3.4%.
London saw its share of UK GVA rise from 19.8% in 1997 to 22.8% in 2012. Over the same period, almost every other region and country saw a very slightly declining share of UK GVA.
Labour productivity
• In 2012, London and the South East were the only regions which were more productive than the UK average (by 31.2% and 7.7% respectively). The least productive country as measured by GVA per hour worked was Northern Ireland which was 17.2% below the UK average.
• There was a slight narrowing of the gap between the most and least productive between 2011 and 2012, London’s productivity fell by 3.3 percentage points and Northern Ireland’s productivity rose by 1.7 percentage points.
The labour market
• Since 2007, the South East, South West and East of England consistently experienced the highest employment rates. The North East and Northern Ireland tended to have the lowest rates.
• Between February to April 2013 and February to April 2014, the only statistically significant increases in the employment rate were in the North East, East Midlands, London and the South East.
• The largest fall in unemployment between February to April 2013 and February to April 2014 was in the West Midlands (falling 1.9 percentage points from 9.4% to 7.5%).
• London saw the highest percentage increase (15.8%) in workforce jobs between March 2007 and March 2014. The North East saw the largest percentage decline (-6.5%).
Income and Earnings
• In 2012, London had the highest Gross Disposable Household Income (GDHI) per head at £21,446. The lowest GDHI per head was in the Northern Ireland (£13,902 per head).
• Between 2002 and 2012, GDHI per head in London rose from 24.5% to 27.7% above the UK average. It fell in the East of England from 8.0% above to 5.0% above the UK average and in the South East from 16.9% above to 13.9% above the UK average.
• In 2013, London had the highest median full-time weekly earnings at £613 (residence based measure) and £658 (workplace based measure). Northern Ireland had the lowest weekly earnings, £463 (residence based) and £460 (workplace based).
I normally do not have much time for Michael Portillo except once in "This Week" he surprised me by his view on IHT.
As a Tory, he obviously prefers lower income tax or as he put it earned income. His view on "unearned" income was that it should be taxed at higher than the basic rate of tax precisely because it is not "earned".
Earned income, of course, can be both salaries as well as business profits.
IHT would be "unearned" income.
There is a certain logic to it.
My issue with IHT is that it falls on the estate, not on the recipient. So, if you leave 1/100th of your million pound estate to 100 people - whether they are earning nothing, £10,000/year, or £1m/year - the they each get the same. Because the tax has fallen on the estate.
If, on the other hand, the income they received from the bequest was treated as income, then the nothing person would pay no tax, the £10,000/year person would pay c. 20%. and the £1m/year person would pay 45%. This seems much more fair than the current system.
Farage gave an interview on LBC last night where he outlined a few of UKIPs policies for next year
Australian style points system for immigration, scrap IHT, cap GP pay, extend the school day, lower the licence fee, scrap HS2, go for it re Shale
Only one I would argue with is lower the licence fee, it should be scrapped altogether.
IHT should be abolished, and inheritance shocks be treated just like any other income, and be subject to income tax.
An inheritance wouldn't be taxed as income under current rules; there is no presumption that money received is income unless proven to be be something else (which is why lottery winnings are tax free). So what you are really saying is: IHT should remain, with its rates adjusted to those of income tax.
• From 2010 to 2012, the East Midlands had the largest proportion of innovation active businesses, at almost 50%. Northern Ireland had the lowest share at 40%.
• In 2012, business research and development (R&D) expenditure as a percentage of GVA was highest in the East of England (3.0%).
• R&D expenditure as a percentage of GVA has more than doubled in Northern Ireland, from 0.6% in 2007 to 1.4% in 2012.
Enterprise
• In 2012, London had the highest percentages of business births and business deaths as a share of active business enterprises (14.8% and 11.7% respectively). Northern Ireland had the lowest percentages of business births and deaths as a share of active business enterprises (7.0% and 9.4% respectively).
• In every region and country except London, the percentage of business births as a share of active businesses was lower in 2012 than it was in 2007. In every region and country, the percentage of business deaths was higher in 2012 than it was in 2007.
International Competitiveness
• In 2012, exports of goods as a percentage of GVA were highest in the North East (30.8%) and lowest in London (11.3%).
• Between 2007 and 2012, Wales saw the largest percentage point increase in exported goods as a share of GVA, from 20.3% to 28.1%. Northern Ireland saw the smallest percentage point growth, from 18.4% to 19.1%.
• Between 2007 and 2013, the absolute increase in value of goods exported to non-EU countries exceeded the increase to EU countries in every region and country.
Skills
• Northern Ireland had the highest percentage of 16 to 64 year olds without any qualifications (17.2%) in 2013. The lowest rates were in the South East (6.5%) and the South West (6.6%).
• London had the highest share of 16-64 year olds with NVQ level 4 or above (49.1%) and Northern Ireland and the North East had the joint lowest share (28.1%).
• In 2012/13, amongst the English regions, London had the highest percentage of pupils leaving Key Stage 4 with five GCSE A* to C grades including maths and English (65.1%). The North East and East Midlands had the joint lowest percentage (59.3%).
Thank you, Gentlemen for your answers to my question.
The reason I asked was an incident that happened to me at the eye hospital last week and the subsequent conversation with the quack and another, very quiet one, with a nurse. That tied in with a life-threatening (emergency hospitalisation and much nastiness) reaction reaction that a couple of years ago I suddenly seemed to develop with a drug that had been taking, without any side effects, for thirteen years.
Mr. Charles, I don't buy medicines from anywhere. I just fork out for my season ticket and pick-up the five-a-day drug cocktail prescribed for me from the local pharmacist and of course accept whatever the people at the eye hospital drop or otherwise insert into me. However, it would seem from what I have learned in the past week that quality control in the NHS may not be what we might wish.
I think I have more research to do.
Mr Llame this has to be very quick as we’ve a home problem but I’ve seen the same difficulties with vehicles for eye drops as I have with fillers of tablets. I’ll try and follow up later.
Farage gave an interview on LBC last night where he outlined a few of UKIPs policies for next year
Australian style points system for immigration, scrap IHT, cap GP pay, extend the school day, lower the licence fee, scrap HS2, go for it re Shale
Only one I would argue with is lower the licence fee, it should be scrapped altogether.
IHT should be abolished, and inheritance shocks be treated just like any other income, and be subject to income tax.
An inheritance wouldn't be taxed as income under current rules; there is no presumption that money received is income unless proven to be be something else (which is why lottery winnings are tax free). So what you are really saying is: IHT should remain, with its rates adjusted to those of income tax.
Yes & No.
I'm saying tax should fall on the recipient, not on the estate.
I think Merryn Somerset Webb sums up the issue much better than I do:
Farage gave an interview on LBC last night where he outlined a few of UKIPs policies for next year
Australian style points system for immigration, scrap IHT, cap GP pay, extend the school day, lower the licence fee, scrap HS2, go for it re Shale
Only one I would argue with is lower the licence fee, it should be scrapped altogether.
IHT should be abolished, and inheritance shocks be treated just like any other income, and be subject to income tax.
Why should the government have any moral right to confiscate private property?
Once the tax has been paid as it is originally owned it should be free to disperse as the original earner wishes. Just because he chooses to give it to a third party rather than spend it, why should the government stand in the middle of that transaction?
Farage gave an interview on LBC last night where he outlined a few of UKIPs policies for next year
Australian style points system for immigration, scrap IHT, cap GP pay, extend the school day, lower the licence fee, scrap HS2, go for it re Shale
Only one I would argue with is lower the licence fee, it should be scrapped altogether.
IHT should be abolished, and inheritance shocks be treated just like any other income, and be subject to income tax.
OK, treat inheritance like income. Sounds good and sensible. Now try thinking the idea through.
The (only) negative I can see is the difference in treatment between 1) my parents die when I'm 59 and working, I pay 45% tax, as opposed to (2) my parents die when I'm 60 and retired, when I pay much less.
I had a theory about IHT back in my leftier days...
No IHT on anything that has been earned but whack a huge tax on the money when it is inherited for a second time
Eg
Let's say Richard Branson built up his empire from nothing... He should be able to leave all of it to his children with no inheritance tax
But his children would only be able to leave the difference between their inheritance and the value of their estate tax free to their children, and the state can then take a big slice off Richard Branson's original will
I thought it would encourage kids of the wealthy to make the most of their (good) fortune rather than just live off the work of their parents
Farage gave an interview on LBC last night where he outlined a few of UKIPs policies for next year
Australian style points system for immigration, scrap IHT, cap GP pay, extend the school day, lower the licence fee, scrap HS2, go for it re Shale
Only one I would argue with is lower the licence fee, it should be scrapped altogether.
IHT should be abolished, and inheritance shocks be treated just like any other income, and be subject to income tax.
Why should the government have any moral right to confiscate private property?
Once the tax has been paid as it is originally owned it should be free to disperse as the original earner wishes. Just because he chooses to give it to a third party rather than spend it, why should the government stand in the middle of that transaction?
This is an absurd argument. Money endlessly circulates through the system. I pay tax on my income, does that mean that if I then use it to buy a good or service I shouldn't be taxed again by paying VAT?
Thank you, Gentlemen for your answers to my question.
The reason I asked was an incident that happened to me at the eye hospital last week and the subsequent conversation with the quack and another, very quiet one, with a nurse. That tied in with a life-threatening (emergency hospitalisation and much nastiness) reaction reaction that a couple of years ago I suddenly seemed to develop with a drug that had been taking, without any side effects, for thirteen years.
Mr. Charles, I don't buy medicines from anywhere. I just fork out for my season ticket and pick-up the five-a-day drug cocktail prescribed for me from the local pharmacist and of course accept whatever the people at the eye hospital drop or otherwise insert into me. However, it would seem from what I have learned in the past week that quality control in the NHS may not be what we might wish.
I think I have more research to do.
Opthalmics are usually sterile products - harder to manufacture and more at risk of contamination.
It's worth going to Boots and buying the Almus range if you can. The fact that you are handing Stefano a premium price always slightly sticks in the craw, but he does only buy from the best suppliers (mainly Teva and Zentiva from memory) and handles the quality control.
If you are buying from an independent pharmacy or one of the smaller chains (in your area it could be Day Lewis or Paydens I think) then they often engage in parallel importing / market sourcing of products, so you have more risk of less well known manufacturers supplying your products.
Farage gave an interview on LBC last night where he outlined a few of UKIPs policies for next year
Australian style points system for immigration, scrap IHT, cap GP pay, extend the school day, lower the licence fee, scrap HS2, go for it re Shale
Only one I would argue with is lower the licence fee, it should be scrapped altogether.
IHT should be abolished, and inheritance shocks be treated just like any other income, and be subject to income tax.
Why should the government have any moral right to confiscate private property?
Once the tax has been paid as it is originally owned it should be free to disperse as the original earner wishes. Just because he chooses to give it to a third party rather than spend it, why should the government stand in the middle of that transaction?
I normally do not have much time for Michael Portillo except once in "This Week" he surprised me by his view on IHT.
As a Tory, he obviously prefers lower income tax or as he put it earned income. His view on "unearned" income was that it should be taxed at higher than the basic rate of tax precisely because it is not "earned".
Earned income, of course, can be both salaries as well as business profits.
IHT would be "unearned" income.
There is a certain logic to it.
My issue with IHT is that it falls on the estate, not on the recipient. So, if you leave 1/100th of your million pound estate to 100 people - whether they are earning nothing, £10,000/year, or £1m/year - the they each get the same. Because the tax has fallen on the estate.
If, on the other hand, the income they received from the bequest was treated as income, then the nothing person would pay no tax, the £10,000/year person would pay c. 20%. and the £1m/year person would pay 45%. This seems much more fair than the current system.
I'm sympathetic to your argument, but what happens with a UK resident billionaire leaving assets his German-based children. He doesn't pay inheritance tax, and it will not be tax liable as income in Germany. I can imagine a lot of people setting up their affairs this way.
Farage gave an interview on LBC last night where he outlined a few of UKIPs policies for next year
Australian style points system for immigration, scrap IHT, cap GP pay, extend the school day, lower the licence fee, scrap HS2, go for it re Shale
Only one I would argue with is lower the licence fee, it should be scrapped altogether.
IHT should be abolished, and inheritance shocks be treated just like any other income, and be subject to income tax.
Why should the government have any moral right to confiscate private property?
Once the tax has been paid as it is originally owned it should be free to disperse as the original earner wishes. Just because he chooses to give it to a third party rather than spend it, why should the government stand in the middle of that transaction?
If someone spends it, they pay VAT. If someone earns it, they pay income tax. If someone sells something, they pay capital gains.
Invariably, governments extract taxation at the point of money transfer. Now, why should the transfer of things from the dead to the living be exempt?
Personally, and even though it would be clearly negative for me personally, I quite like the idea of a wealth tax, because a 0.5% levy (for example) would discourage inefficient allocation of capital. If your asset is not earning a return for you, you are encouraged to sell it to someone who can earn a return.
I had a theory about IHT back in my leftier days...
No IHT on anything that has been earned but whack a huge tax on the money when it is inherited for a second time
Eg
Let's say Richard Branson built up his empire from nothing... He should be able to leave all of it to his children with no inheritance tax
But his children would only be able to leave the difference between their inheritance and the value of their estate tax free to their children, and the state can then take a big slice off Richard Branson's original will
I thought it would encourage kids of the wealthy to make the most of their (good) fortune rather than just live off the work of their parents
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss has been appointed to head the main 'paedophilia' inquiry.
An impeccable c.v. for the job, having headed the Family Division of the High Court of Justice, and having been the first woman to become a Lord Justice of Appeal.
She also chaired the inquiry into Cleveland child abuse in the late 1980s and was the initial head of the coroner's inquiry into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
Two comments though.
Butler-Sloss was born in 1933 and will be 81 in August, so although by all accounts her mind is as sharp as ever, it may be a hard task for her.
Her maiden name is Havers, being the daughter of the judge Sir Cecil Havers and brother to Michael Havers the Tory MP who later became Attorney-General and Lord Chancellor (as Lord Havers). As Attorney-General, Sir Michael Havers (as then titled) served from 1979 to 1987 and was involved in much of the decision making and provision of advice on the matters which will be the subject of the inquiry.
Not that anyone in the know would question either (or any) of the Havers's integrity, but I can hear now the undernet of conspiracy theorists spinning an 'establishment stitch-up' line on this basis alone.
Butler-Sloss is also uncle to the actor Nigel Havers, but this should not lead to any perceived conflict of interest even in the undernet.
Personally, and even though it would be clearly negative for me personally, I quite like the idea of a wealth tax, because a 0.5% levy (for example) would discourage inefficient allocation of capital. If your asset is not earning a return for you, you are encouraged to sell it to someone who can earn a return.
That's a bonkers argument, because the logic would hold if the rate of the wealth tax were set at 20%, 50% or indeed 80%. It is a tax on saving, and would deter investment, notwithstanding the level at which it was set.
I'm sympathetic to your argument, but what happens with a UK resident billionaire leaving assets his German-based children. He doesn't pay inheritance tax, and it will not be tax liable as income in Germany. I can imagine a lot of people setting up their affairs this way.
Good point: you could ameliorate that by saying that all donations to trusts or entities outside the UK were subject to witholding tax at 45%.
Which is quite wrong. Whether you agree with them or not (and I don't) UKIP and their equivalents represent a significant strand of the voters across Europe and deserve appropriate representation at all levels of Parliament.
(And before anyone says, this is the equivalent to the Tories/LDs shutting Labour out of all Select Committee chairs, not the existence of the Coalition per se)
Just another disgusting case of the EU refusing to acknowledge election results or the will of the general public. The whole system is rigged to exclude power from anyone who isn't a federalist. How can anyone rational hold this institution in anything except contempt?
Perverse as it seems but a lower (or no) IHT may mean societies inequalities decrease and a high IHT means they increase. If there is no IHT then people have less incentive to give before death. As the average person loses their last parent at about 60 (I would have thought) they have already had most of their life when they inherit it. If there is a high IHT then people would give money to children far earlier and therefore at an age where it could be used to gain a big advantage over people not inheriting (ie to buy qualifications, businesses etc)
Farage gave an interview on LBC last night where he outlined a few of UKIPs policies for next year
Australian style points system for immigration, scrap IHT, cap GP pay, extend the school day, lower the licence fee, scrap HS2, go for it re Shale
Only one I would argue with is lower the licence fee, it should be scrapped altogether.
IHT should be abolished, and inheritance shocks be treated just like any other income, and be subject to income tax.
Why should the government have any moral right to confiscate private property?
Once the tax has been paid as it is originally owned it should be free to disperse as the original earner wishes. Just because he chooses to give it to a third party rather than spend it, why should the government stand in the middle of that transaction?
This is an absurd argument. Money endlessly circulates through the system. I pay tax on my income, does that mean that if I then use it to buy a good or service I shouldn't be taxed again by paying VAT?
Technically the consumer isn't being taxed - the producer/retailer is being taxed on the Value Added (although they obviously try to pass this on in pricing).
The fundamental issue is double taxation of the same income.
Farage gave an interview on LBC last night where he outlined a few of UKIPs policies for next year
Australian style points system for immigration, scrap IHT, cap GP pay, extend the school day, lower the licence fee, scrap HS2, go for it re Shale
Only one I would argue with is lower the licence fee, it should be scrapped altogether.
IHT should be abolished, and inheritance shocks be treated just like any other income, and be subject to income tax.
Why should the government have any moral right to confiscate private property?
Once the tax has been paid as it is originally owned it should be free to disperse as the original earner wishes. Just because he chooses to give it to a third party rather than spend it, why should the government stand in the middle of that transaction?
I normally do not have much time for Michael Portillo except once in "This Week" he surprised me by his view on IHT.
As a Tory, he obviously prefers lower income tax or as he put it earned income. His view on "unearned" income was that it should be taxed at higher than the basic rate of tax precisely because it is not "earned".
Earned income, of course, can be both salaries as well as business profits.
IHT would be "unearned" income.
There is a certain logic to it.
My issue with IHT is that it falls on the estate, not on the recipient. So, if you leave 1/100th of your million pound estate to 100 people - whether they are earning nothing, £10,000/year, or £1m/year - the they each get the same. Because the tax has fallen on the estate.
If, on the other hand, the income they received from the bequest was treated as income, then the nothing person would pay no tax, the £10,000/year person would pay c. 20%. and the £1m/year person would pay 45%. This seems much more fair than the current system.
I'm sympathetic to your argument, but what happens with a UK resident billionaire leaving assets his German-based children. He doesn't pay inheritance tax, and it will not be tax liable as income in Germany. I can imagine a lot of people setting up their affairs this way.
There's an argument for an exit tax for money leaving the UK tax net (I don't know, but I'm sure they've already thought of this).
I had a theory about IHT back in my leftier days...
No IHT on anything that has been earned but whack a huge tax on the money when it is inherited for a second time
Eg
Let's say Richard Branson built up his empire from nothing... He should be able to leave all of it to his children with no inheritance tax
But his children would only be able to leave the difference between their inheritance and the value of their estate tax free to their children, and the state can then take a big slice off Richard Branson's original will
I thought it would encourage kids of the wealthy to make the most of their (good) fortune rather than just live off the work of their parents
I think that's an excellent idea.
Wouldn't Richard Branson just leave it directly to his grandkids?
Personally, and even though it would be clearly negative for me personally, I quite like the idea of a wealth tax, because a 0.5% levy (for example) would discourage inefficient allocation of capital. If your asset is not earning a return for you, you are encouraged to sell it to someone who can earn a return.
That's a bonkers argument, because the logic would hold if the rate of the wealth tax were set at 20%, 50% or indeed 80%. It is a tax on saving, and would deter investment, notwithstanding the level at which it was set.
No taxation system is perfect.
Income tax discourages work. VAT encourages you to spend your money in low tax domiciles (like Luxemburg and Amazon.com).
The point about a modest (i.e. sub 1%) wealth tax is that it would discourage inefficient allocation of capital (second homes, for example), while having only modest impact on most people. You can exempt pensions if you like.
Farage gave an interview on LBC last night where he outlined a few of UKIPs policies for next year
Australian style points system for immigration, scrap IHT, cap GP pay, extend the school day, lower the licence fee, scrap HS2, go for it re Shale
Only one I would argue with is lower the licence fee, it should be scrapped altogether.
IHT should be abolished, and inheritance shocks be treated just like any other income, and be subject to income tax.
Why should the government have any moral right to confiscate private property?
Once the tax has been paid as it is originally owned it should be free to disperse as the original earner wishes. Just because he chooses to give it to a third party rather than spend it, why should the government stand in the middle of that transaction?
If someone spends it, they pay VAT. If someone earns it, they pay income tax. If someone sells something, they pay capital gains.
Invariably, governments extract taxation at the point of money transfer. Now, why should the transfer of things from the dead to the living be exempt?
Personally, and even though it would be clearly negative for me personally, I quite like the idea of a wealth tax, because a 0.5% levy (for example) would discourage inefficient allocation of capital. If your asset is not earning a return for you, you are encouraged to sell it to someone who can earn a return.
If someone spends it they pay nothing: it's the retailer or the manufacturer that pays it.
If an individual generates wealth they either pay income tax or capital gains depending on the source of the wealth
Fundamentally, the government takes a share of *increases* in wealth, not on transfers.
I personally don' t think inherited or given money helps society. I just think its rather inevitable and IHT does little either way to affect it (see my point below)
Farage gave an interview on LBC last night where he outlined a few of UKIPs policies for next year
Australian style points system for immigration, scrap IHT, cap GP pay, extend the school day, lower the licence fee, scrap HS2, go for it re Shale
Only one I would argue with is lower the licence fee, it should be scrapped altogether.
IHT should be abolished, and inheritance shocks be treated just like any other income, and be subject to income tax.
Why should the government have any moral right to confiscate private property?
Once the tax has been paid as it is originally owned it should be free to disperse as the original earner wishes. Just because he chooses to give it to a third party rather than spend it, why should the government stand in the middle of that transaction?
This is an absurd argument. Money endlessly circulates through the system. I pay tax on my income, does that mean that if I then use it to buy a good or service I shouldn't be taxed again by paying VAT?
Technically the consumer isn't being taxed - the producer/retailer is being taxed on the Value Added (although they obviously try to pass this on in pricing).
Really? I'm fairly sure I pay tax on petrol rather than the Saudi Royal family...
I don't have much sympathy with the double taxation argument though. Its not as if Moses came down from Mt Sinai with the concept carved in stone is it?
I had a theory about IHT back in my leftier days...
No IHT on anything that has been earned but whack a huge tax on the money when it is inherited for a second time
Eg
Let's say Richard Branson built up his empire from nothing... He should be able to leave all of it to his children with no inheritance tax
But his children would only be able to leave the difference between their inheritance and the value of their estate tax free to their children, and the state can then take a big slice off Richard Branson's original will
I thought it would encourage kids of the wealthy to make the most of their (good) fortune rather than just live off the work of their parents
I think that's an excellent idea.
Wouldn't Richard Branson just leave it directly to his grandkids?
They used to be called the Rolling Irish Settlement Trust - essentially the settlor leaves it to a Trust for the benefit of his grandchildren (life interest) and their grandchildren (for value)*.
I don't think they work anymore, but this isn't an area of law I'm particularly familiar with.
* With a remainder clause in the event that their grandchildren have no issue or their issue no issue.
Odd to see people discussing IHT without even a passing reference to what other countries do (this is one of my bugbears - the press and politicians in the UK do it all the time on all sorts of issues).
Note that most countries do tend to levy the tax on recipients (a true 'Inheritance tax'), as opposed to the UK which, despite the name, is actually a tax on the estate.
What's perhaps more surprising is the number of countries which have abolished inheritance/estate taxes altogether.
Farage gave an interview on LBC last night where he outlined a few of UKIPs policies for next year
Australian style points system for immigration, scrap IHT, cap GP pay, extend the school day, lower the licence fee, scrap HS2, go for it re Shale
Only one I would argue with is lower the licence fee, it should be scrapped altogether.
IHT should be abolished, and inheritance shocks be treated just like any other income, and be subject to income tax.
Why should the government have any moral right to confiscate private property?
Once the tax has been paid as it is originally owned it should be free to disperse as the original earner wishes. Just because he chooses to give it to a third party rather than spend it, why should the government stand in the middle of that transaction?
If someone spends it, they pay VAT. If someone earns it, they pay income tax. If someone sells something, they pay capital gains.
Invariably, governments extract taxation at the point of money transfer. Now, why should the transfer of things from the dead to the living be exempt?
Personally, and even though it would be clearly negative for me personally, I quite like the idea of a wealth tax, because a 0.5% levy (for example) would discourage inefficient allocation of capital. If your asset is not earning a return for you, you are encouraged to sell it to someone who can earn a return.
If someone spends it they pay nothing: it's the retailer or the manufacturer that pays it.
If an individual generates wealth they either pay income tax or capital gains depending on the source of the wealth
Fundamentally, the government takes a share of *increases* in wealth, not on transfers.
VAT I would say is paid by the consumer not the shop. As to whether its charged depends on the consumer -For instance a non EU national does not pay VAT (or can claim it back) ie the tax seems to be on the consumer albeit collected by the retailer
Personally, and even though it would be clearly negative for me personally, I quite like the idea of a wealth tax, because a 0.5% levy (for example) would discourage inefficient allocation of capital. If your asset is not earning a return for you, you are encouraged to sell it to someone who can earn a return.
That's a bonkers argument, because the logic would hold if the rate of the wealth tax were set at 20%, 50% or indeed 80%. It is a tax on saving, and would deter investment, notwithstanding the level at which it was set.
No taxation system is perfect.
Income tax discourages work. VAT encourages you to spend your money in low tax domiciles (like Luxemburg and Amazon.com).
The point about a modest (i.e. sub 1%) wealth tax is that it would discourage inefficient allocation of capital (second homes, for example), while having only modest impact on most people. You can exempt pensions if you like.
Nightmare to administer, and in particular makes private company ownership a burden, encouraging people to take capital out of the business to pay the tax.
I'd restrict it to property, which can be relatively easily measured & probably captures the bulk of measurable wealth.
Most taxes are hard to collect especially taxes on wealth or inheritance or selling of assets. Not much is therefore raised anyway. To simplify things and to make it fair I would abolish these types of taxes and increase money supply by the equivalent to be borrowed for government spending (maybe 2-3%??) . This would dilute the wealth of people by that amount and evenly
Income tax discourages work. VAT encourages you to spend your money in low tax domiciles (like Luxemburg and Amazon.com).
The point about a modest (i.e. sub 1%) wealth tax is that it would discourage inefficient allocation of capital (second homes, for example), while having only modest impact on most people. You can exempt pensions if you like.
Of course, no system of taxation is perfect. The purpose of income tax is, however, to raise money. That it deters work is an incidental but unavoidable consequence of it being levied. My suspicion is that the purpose of a wealth tax would also be to raise money for the government, and that the arguments for its claimed economic benefits are meretricious. Your argument about the efficiency of the allocation of capital would hold if a wealth tax were set at 20% rather than 0.5%. After all, if your assets were not allocated 'efficiently', i.e. making a return in excess of 20%, you would be encouraged to sell them to someone who would allocate said capital more efficiently. It would be a great time to be in the Ponzi scheme business.
Comments
And somebody needed to ask why there were no ladies. They were waiting in the upstairs room perhaps?
As well as meeting my fellow posters the free pork pie and lovely beer were also highlights as well as my train journey back with Mr Herdson. Should be an interesting thread on Saturday
http://ow.ly/yTOyy
Twas bound to cause immense difficulties in ensuring a more rounded result.
Edited extra bit: reminds me, on a more serious note, that Labour apparently want to 'educate' schoolboys to be feminists as part of sex ed. Meant to counter-act the misogyny of pornography, or suchlike.
I broadly agree but the rule that prosecution is only done in the public interest is there for a reason - prosecution for paedophilia as broadly understood is right, prison for teenage lovers clearly out of step with what most people want nowadays. It'd be possible to nail it down in legislation but I think a bit of margin at the edges to assess individual cases makes sense. The Sentencing Council does quite good work on this sort of thing.
It is worth going back to Hansard's report of the question concerning Sir Peter Hayman put by Geoffrey Dickens to the Attorney-General in 1983:
Mr. Dickens: "To ask Mr. Attorney-General, if he will prosecute Sir Peter Hayman under the Post Office Acts for sending and receiving pornogrpahic material through the Royal Mail."
The Attorney-General: "In 1978 a packet containing obscene literature and written material was found in a London bus. The subsequent police investigation revealed a correspondence of obscene nature between Sir Peter Hayman and a number of other persons.
Altogether, a total of seven men and two women were named as possible defendants in the report submitted by the Metropolitan Police to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Director advised against prosecuting any of the nine persons either under Section 11 of the Post Office Act, 1953, or for any other offence.
Among the consideration he took into account were the factors that the correspondence had been contained in sealed envelopes passing between adult individuals in a non-commercial context and that none of the material was unsolicited.
Subsequently, the Metropolitan Police submitted a further report which revealed that one of the nine, not Sir Peter Hayman, was also carrying on a correspondence with a tenth person.
The police investigation showed that the two shared an obsession about the systematic torture of young people and children.
In view of the extreme nature of the material they had sent each other, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to prosecute them for conspiring to contravene Section 11 of the Act. There is no evidence that Sir Peter Hayman has ever sent or received material of this kind through the post.
[to be continued]
Dickens and Hayman: Part II
I would make three observations:
1. The law at the time applicable to the offence was limited to the Post Office Act 1953. Since 1983, further legislation has been passed to criminalise the possession of child pornography. Such law did not apply at time (1978) of the package of pornography being found.
2. Sir Peter Hayman (a former High-Commissioner to Canada) and a civil servant with a long distinguished career was only one of nine not prosecuted under the DPP's decision.
3. The reasons given for ruling that it was not in the public interest to prosecute seem valid for the time ("not for the state to pry into the affairs of consenting adults where no third party was damaged"). What has changed is move to the view (both legal and public) that a passive recipient of pornography is complicit in child abuse by creating demand for the pornographic product he consumes.
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/pro-eu-parties-shut-out-farages-efdd-committee-chairs-303340
Do you not attend the PB gatherings Jack? Although i suppose a group of men discussing your ARSE may not have gone down too well with the locals.
"Mrs BJ I am going to Ilkley to meet Jack and discuss why his ARSE and my BJESUS arent compatible can you pick me up from the station afterwards darling as i fear this will necessitate considerabe quantities of local ale to resolve."
To be fair, it’s 55 years since I found a bar, let alone a pub, that was men only!
And, on your more serious note, a male university friend of my son, some 20 years ago, signed up for a feminist module as part of his degree course. The tutor(ess) initially tried to prevent him attending at all, but when it was pointed out that she couldn’t made things very difficult for him, making his essays down (he claims anyway!) and eventually he found that doing the course affected the class of degree.
Gets coat
I am wearing that hat Mr Holder is wearing to the next PB gathering
No business owner should be positively compelled to promote a political or religious message that they disagree with. For example, a business owner with atheist beliefs should be entitled to decline to promote a Christian message.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-pay-mps-100000-a-year-9591368.html
Does he also want Westminster to move from an expenses to an allowances system?
"Good afternoon, madam. I've come to assess the ethnic diversity of your business."
Australian style points system for immigration, scrap IHT, cap GP pay, extend the school day, lower the licence fee, scrap HS2, go for it re Shale
I am not exaggerating, I sat there with my jaw on the deck. Absolute horror
(And before anyone says, this is the equivalent to the Tories/LDs shutting Labour out of all Select Committee chairs, not the existence of the Coalition per se)
Thirty-five years ago the bar of the Southfields Working Man's Club (CIU Affiliated) was men only and access to the billiard and card rooms was through the bar - effectively putting them out of bounds to ladies. There was a hatch to the lounge though through which ladies could purchase refreshments.
Of course, there are still clubs in the area of St. James's which do not allow lady members and so there are rooms and areas that are men only. Brighton has many men only clubs but lady guests have, in most, been more than welcome. As young man I was a member of a couple as were most of my locally based friends. They were good, safe places to get a drink in the afternoon when the pubs were shut and excellent, very discreet, places to entertain ladies who were married to someone else.
Ilkley gathering was great fun, wish I could have stayed longer.
It has encouraged me to post more.
I'll try to post the photo I took but that was a bit later than video so not everyone in it.
Like the premise (and Kelly Hu), plot seems fine, some acting's a little ropey, but I'll watch it for a bit.
The yanks got red trainers on and the bloke from reform is in Birkenstocks! With shirt and tie????!!!
Neither would I wish my hordes of ARSE followers to swamp an event as they do tend to the raucous and lively in my presence.
There is also the consideration that "TimeTeam" have requested a presence at any JackW attended function where the possibility of an opening of a Scottish nobles wallet would likely cause an archaeological sensation.
Doc., when you were doing you medical research work into drug effectiveness, did you do any work or see any figures about the relative effectiveness or side effects of generic drugs. That is to say drugs whose patents had expired and were being produced and marketed by different manufacturers?
Mind you I've hosted enough of those in my time ....
It's a bit different in places where regulation is less systematic - in Brazil, for instance, the authorities fret that the stuff in the packet may not be what it says on the label. But that's a fraud issue rather than a medical one.
If they can't demonstrate that those are equivalent to the originator product, they don't get approval.
More important from your perspective is to understand where and who manufactured the product. With little white pills (i.e. solid dose oral products) I'd usually be pretty relaxed about CEE or India, but avoid China. With sterile injectables or biologicals I'd be a whole lot more careful because the risk of manufacturing variances are far higher.
(hope that's clear - if not I can try to translate from jargonese to English, but not always easy!)
edit: further to @NickPalmer's comment you don't want to be buying from Brazil! Colombia (surprisingly enough) is actually pretty good at (legal) drug manufacturing...
"First Minister Carwyn Jones said the actions were "poorly judged" and "inappropriate", opposition parties called the behaviour "disgraceful".
They accused Mr Davies of launching a "smear campaign" against political opponents and called for him to removed from his position as an AM."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-28206154
If entirely uncorroborated it has surely been whacky enough to disregard until it cleans up its act (except when it correctly identifies a tory lead, of course).
It is the Tory share that is all over the place.
Here are some of the main ones:
Chris Williamson, Chief Economist at Markit, noted that the ONS data was in contrast to recent buoyant business surveys from the likes of the PMI, CBI and British Chambers of Commerce, which show the manufacturing sector to be in rude health.
...
"The decline in May was the largest seen since January 2013 and also contrasted with rising production in prior months. The ONS offered no explanation for the surprise collapse in production, so we suspect the May downturn is a rogue number and the sector will rebound again in June," Williamson said.
Martin Beck, senior economic advisor to the Ernst & Young ITEM Club, added that the latest figures "should not be a serious cause for concern" as, on an annual basis, industrial production and manufacturing output both continued to grow at a solid rate.
"Even if industrial production remains stable in June, it will still be above its Q1 levels. The sector only contributes around 15% to overall economic activity, so we would caution against reading too much into the weak monthly number.
“Overall, today’s numbers do not change our expectations of GDP growth of 1% in Q2, exceeding the pace seen in the first three months of the year.”
Also:
The figures are “unlikely to be a true reflection of what is happening in the sector,” said Rob Wood, an economist at Berenberg Bank and a former BOE official. It “is utterly at odds with strong survey readings. A big bounceback in output is possible next month,” he said.
We obviously need a judge led public inquiry
As a Tory, he obviously prefers lower income tax or as he put it earned income. His view on "unearned" income was that it should be taxed at higher than the basic rate of tax precisely because it is not "earned".
Earned income, of course, can be both salaries as well as business profits.
IHT would be "unearned" income.
There is a certain logic to it.
Thank you, Gentlemen for your answers to my question.
The reason I asked was an incident that happened to me at the eye hospital last week and the subsequent conversation with the quack and another, very quiet one, with a nurse. That tied in with a life-threatening (emergency hospitalisation and much nastiness) reaction reaction that a couple of years ago I suddenly seemed to develop with a drug that had been taking, without any side effects, for thirteen years.
Mr. Charles, I don't buy medicines from anywhere. I just fork out for my season ticket and pick-up the five-a-day drug cocktail prescribed for me from the local pharmacist and of course accept whatever the people at the eye hospital drop or otherwise insert into me. However, it would seem from what I have learned in the past week that quality control in the NHS may not be what we might wish.
I think I have more research to do.
Part I (Part II to follow in separate post)
Regional output (GVA)
Nominal gross value added (GVA) increased between 2011 and 2012 for all regions and countries except for the East Midlands which was broadly flat. The South East saw the greatest increase in its total GVA, increasing by 3.3% from £196 billion in 2011 to £203 billion in 2012.
GVA growth between 2009 and 2012 was strongest in London, rising 11.1%, and weakest in Northern Ireland, rising by 3.4%.
London saw its share of UK GVA rise from 19.8% in 1997 to 22.8% in 2012. Over the same period, almost every other region and country saw a very slightly declining share of UK GVA.
Labour productivity
• In 2012, London and the South East were the only regions which were more productive than the UK average (by 31.2% and 7.7% respectively). The least productive country as measured by GVA per hour worked was Northern Ireland which was 17.2% below the UK average.
• There was a slight narrowing of the gap between the most and least productive between 2011 and 2012, London’s productivity fell by 3.3 percentage points and Northern Ireland’s productivity rose by 1.7 percentage points.
The labour market
• Since 2007, the South East, South West and East of England consistently experienced the highest employment rates. The North East and Northern Ireland tended to have the lowest rates.
• Between February to April 2013 and February to April 2014, the only statistically significant increases in the employment rate were in the North East, East Midlands, London and the South East.
• The largest fall in unemployment between February to April 2013 and February to April 2014 was in the West Midlands (falling 1.9 percentage points from 9.4% to 7.5%).
• London saw the highest percentage increase (15.8%) in workforce jobs between March 2007 and March 2014. The North East saw the largest percentage decline (-6.5%).
Income and Earnings
• In 2012, London had the highest Gross Disposable Household Income (GDHI) per head at £21,446. The lowest GDHI per head was in the Northern Ireland (£13,902 per head).
• Between 2002 and 2012, GDHI per head in London rose from 24.5% to 27.7% above the UK average. It fell in the East of England from 8.0% above to 5.0% above the UK average and in the South East from 16.9% above to 13.9% above the UK average.
• In 2013, London had the highest median full-time weekly earnings at £613 (residence based measure) and £658 (workplace based measure). Northern Ireland had the lowest weekly earnings, £463 (residence based) and £460 (workplace based).
If, on the other hand, the income they received from the bequest was treated as income, then the nothing person would pay no tax, the £10,000/year person would pay c. 20%. and the £1m/year person would pay 45%. This seems much more fair than the current system.
Innovation
• From 2010 to 2012, the East Midlands had the largest proportion of innovation active businesses, at almost 50%. Northern Ireland had the lowest share at 40%.
• In 2012, business research and development (R&D) expenditure as a percentage of GVA was highest in the East of England (3.0%).
• R&D expenditure as a percentage of GVA has more than doubled in Northern Ireland, from 0.6% in 2007 to 1.4% in 2012.
Enterprise
• In 2012, London had the highest percentages of business births and business deaths as a share of active business enterprises (14.8% and 11.7% respectively). Northern Ireland had the lowest percentages of business births and deaths as a share of active business enterprises (7.0% and 9.4% respectively).
• In every region and country except London, the percentage of business births as a share of active businesses was lower in 2012 than it was in 2007. In every region and country, the percentage of business deaths was higher in 2012 than it was in 2007.
International Competitiveness
• In 2012, exports of goods as a percentage of GVA were highest in the North East (30.8%) and lowest in London (11.3%).
• Between 2007 and 2012, Wales saw the largest percentage point increase in exported goods as a share of GVA, from 20.3% to 28.1%. Northern Ireland saw the smallest percentage point growth, from 18.4% to 19.1%.
• Between 2007 and 2013, the absolute increase in value of goods exported to non-EU countries exceeded the increase to EU countries in every region and country.
Skills
• Northern Ireland had the highest percentage of 16 to 64 year olds without any qualifications (17.2%) in 2013. The lowest rates were in the South East (6.5%) and the South West (6.6%).
• London had the highest share of 16-64 year olds with NVQ level 4 or above (49.1%) and Northern Ireland and the North East had the joint lowest share (28.1%).
• In 2012/13, amongst the English regions, London had the highest percentage of pupils leaving Key Stage 4 with five GCSE A* to C grades including maths and English (65.1%). The North East and East Midlands had the joint lowest percentage (59.3%).
I’ll try and follow up later.
I'm saying tax should fall on the recipient, not on the estate.
I think Merryn Somerset Webb sums up the issue much better than I do:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8738cac0-bbdc-11e3-84f1-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz36sscCrer
Once the tax has been paid as it is originally owned it should be free to disperse as the original earner wishes. Just because he chooses to give it to a third party rather than spend it, why should the government stand in the middle of that transaction?
But I'm happy to be educated.
No IHT on anything that has been earned but whack a huge tax on the money when it is inherited for a second time
Eg
Let's say Richard Branson built up his empire from nothing... He should be able to leave all of it to his children with no inheritance tax
But his children would only be able to leave the difference between their inheritance and the value of their estate tax free to their children, and the state can then take a big slice off Richard Branson's original will
I thought it would encourage kids of the wealthy to make the most of their (good) fortune rather than just live off the work of their parents
But if I have £100 and I give it to a relative , the govt will take £40 ?
It's worth going to Boots and buying the Almus range if you can. The fact that you are handing Stefano a premium price always slightly sticks in the craw, but he does only buy from the best suppliers (mainly Teva and Zentiva from memory) and handles the quality control.
If you are buying from an independent pharmacy or one of the smaller chains (in your area it could be Day Lewis or Paydens I think) then they often engage in parallel importing / market sourcing of products, so you have more risk of less well known manufacturers supplying your products.
If someone earns it, they pay income tax.
If someone sells something, they pay capital gains.
Invariably, governments extract taxation at the point of money transfer. Now, why should the transfer of things from the dead to the living be exempt?
Personally, and even though it would be clearly negative for me personally, I quite like the idea of a wealth tax, because a 0.5% levy (for example) would discourage inefficient allocation of capital. If your asset is not earning a return for you, you are encouraged to sell it to someone who can earn a return.
An impeccable c.v. for the job, having headed the Family Division of the High Court of Justice, and having been the first woman to become a Lord Justice of Appeal.
She also chaired the inquiry into Cleveland child abuse in the late 1980s and was the initial head of the coroner's inquiry into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
Two comments though.
Butler-Sloss was born in 1933 and will be 81 in August, so although by all accounts her mind is as sharp as ever, it may be a hard task for her.
Her maiden name is Havers, being the daughter of the judge Sir Cecil Havers and brother to Michael Havers the Tory MP who later became Attorney-General and Lord Chancellor (as Lord Havers). As Attorney-General, Sir Michael Havers (as then titled) served from 1979 to 1987 and was involved in much of the decision making and provision of advice on the matters which will be the subject of the inquiry.
Not that anyone in the know would question either (or any) of the Havers's integrity, but I can hear now the undernet of conspiracy theorists spinning an 'establishment stitch-up' line on this basis alone.
Butler-Sloss is also uncle to the actor Nigel Havers, but this should not lead to any perceived conflict of interest even in the undernet.
If there is no IHT then people have less incentive to give before death. As the average person loses their last parent at about 60 (I would have thought) they have already had most of their life when they inherit it.
If there is a high IHT then people would give money to children far earlier and therefore at an age where it could be used to gain a big advantage over people not inheriting (ie to buy qualifications, businesses etc)
The fundamental issue is double taxation of the same income.
Income tax discourages work. VAT encourages you to spend your money in low tax domiciles (like Luxemburg and Amazon.com).
The point about a modest (i.e. sub 1%) wealth tax is that it would discourage inefficient allocation of capital (second homes, for example), while having only modest impact on most people. You can exempt pensions if you like.
If an individual generates wealth they either pay income tax or capital gains depending on the source of the wealth
Fundamentally, the government takes a share of *increases* in wealth, not on transfers.
I don't think they work anymore, but this isn't an area of law I'm particularly familiar with.
* With a remainder clause in the event that their grandchildren have no issue or their issue no issue.
Anyway, there's a useful summary here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_tax
Note that most countries do tend to levy the tax on recipients (a true 'Inheritance tax'), as opposed to the UK which, despite the name, is actually a tax on the estate.
What's perhaps more surprising is the number of countries which have abolished inheritance/estate taxes altogether.
I'd restrict it to property, which can be relatively easily measured & probably captures the bulk of measurable wealth.