I don't see US drone strikes on untried people outside warzones on the list.
Terrorism is the targeting of civilians for the purpose of spreading a general terror among the population.
US drone strikes do not target civilians and are not done to spread a general terror.
In which case the attacks on the soldiers in Canada, nor most of the IRA's attacks, nor the attack on the USS Cole do not fall under the heading of terrorism.
And tell me: if you were in a country , perhaps a poor farmer, and missiles were falling on your country and regularly killing civilians (whether targetted on untargetted), do you think you would come to hate the country that cowardly killed without even putting themselves at risk?
The situation in Canada is not clear yet, so let's wait to see what happened. But I agree that things like the attack on the USS Cole were not terrorism.
As for your question, it would entirely depend on what caused the country in question to fire the missiles in the first place. If it was a legitimate response to armed groups in my country waging war against them for immoral reasons, then, no I would not hate them. It's also no less moral to kill someone with a missile than with a sniper bullet.
While agree with you on the second point, I think that Ron Paul is broadly right that we do create blowback. Let me give you an example: If a foreign government took out - say - Abu Hamsa with a precision bomb on Finsbury Park Mosque and killed 20 innocent bystanders, and then kept doing similar, then even if the targets were understandable, I would start getting pretty pissed off (and I would be pretty terrorised by the idea that a bomb might land on me thanks to some inaccurate 'intelligence'). Drone strikes are only precision in the same way that the Brighton Hotel bombing was a precision attack on the head of the British state.
Yes. If the collateral damage rate was 20 times that of the actual terrorists, it would be understandable to be pissed off. But that's overwhelmingly not the case with drone attacks. Over the entire lifetime of the drone program in Pakistan, more than 85% of the killings have been militants. There haven't been any civilian deaths at all since 2011:
Make all benefits insurance based. Require five years of NI payment for full benefits.
This will discourage benefit tourism - or indeed any immigration from people who are not coming to work. It will also motivate potential school leavers (and their parents) It will mean that everyone should get the experience of actually working. Too many people have simply never had the experience of routine that a job brings. It will help recreate civil society. It will save us money. The economy will benefit from more people being work suitable It can be phased in - 6 months, then 1 year, etc.
I can't say I agree.
The worker who is made redundant after two years of work seems to me to be no less deserving than he who has worked for five.
The eighteen year-old, kicked out by his parents, just left school, cannot access housing benefit.
The twenty-one year old mother can't get child benefit, whether or not she is married or single.
And if we were to construct some moral idea of desert, well, there would be no reason to suppose it correlated in the least with five years of work. The hardworking new school leaving is disparied at the expense of the fifty-year-old layabout who worked thirty years ago.
The drug addict who works down the cornershop on a Saturday is in a better position than the stay at home mum returning to work.
There are always "hard cases", but if something like this isn't done the welfare state will collapse within 20 years or be inflated away (so that benefits are worth about £10 a month in todays money).
Sometimes you have to leave the hard cases to the charities.
Welfare is suffering from lack of deterrence of "Moral Hazard" as much as the banks are
Interesting because ComRes didn't conduct any polls for Eastleigh, Newark, Clacton or Heywood. So we don't know how accurate they are as far as by-election polling is concerned.
In a few hundred years Islam may well experience the malaise that Christianity experiences today.
A small comfort to the many victims of islamist genocide in Iraq and Syria.
Head removed? Crucified? Raped and sold into slavery? Forced to convert and live a life of complete subjugation?
Just growing pains. We'll have to get used to it. It'll all blow over in a few hundred years...
Well of course you are right. But that does not mean that we cannot try to prevent the same level of deaths that we went through in our religious wars (and these are intra islamic wars). You can take your pick about the number killed in the 30 Years' War 7.5 million seems typical. 20% of the population of Germany is quoted. The Muslims have a long way to go yet. Its sad but it does seem necessary that nations must go through some terrible upheaval before coming to some sense. The English Civil War was a terrible thing but in the end it and the 30 Years War put an end to wars of 'christian' religion.
So if they´re destined to fight it out. Why should we import them here.
I don't see US drone strikes on untried people outside warzones on the list.
Terrorism is the targeting of civilians for the purpose of spreading a general terror among the population.
US drone strikes do not target civilians and are not done to spread a general terror.
Two words: Shock and Awe
As I said before, when countries do it it's not called terrorism but war. The only difference is how you call it, the act remains the same.
What does 'shock and awe' have to do with terrorism? It applies more to something like blitzgrieg, eg concentional war, rather than terrorism.
Terrorism is the non state condoned use of violence - against anyone convenient - in the pursuit of policy. That is, violence outside the rules of war.
I don't see US drone strikes on untried people outside warzones on the list.
Terrorism is the targeting of civilians for the purpose of spreading a general terror among the population.
US drone strikes do not target civilians and are not done to spread a general terror.
?
The situation in Canada is not clear yet, so let's wait to see what happened. But I agree that things like the attack on the USS Cole were not terrorism.
As for your question, it would entirely depend on what caused the country in question to fire the missiles in the first place. If it was a legitimate response to armed groups in my country waging war against them for immoral reasons, then, no I would not hate them. It's also no less moral to kill someone with a missile than with a sniper bullet.
While agree with you on the second point, I think that Ron Paul is broadly right that we do create blowback. Let me give you an example: If a foreign government took out - say - Abu Hamsa with a precision bomb on Finsbury Park Mosque and killed 20 innocent bystanders, and then kept doing similar, then even if the targets were understandable, I would start getting pretty pissed off (and I would be pretty terrorised by the idea that a bomb might land on me thanks to some inaccurate 'intelligence'). Drone strikes are only precision in the same way that the Brighton Hotel bombing was a precision attack on the head of the British state.
Yes. If the collateral damage rate was 20 times that of the actual terrorists, it would be understandable to be pissed off. But that's overwhelmingly not the case with drone attacks. Over the entire lifetime of the drone program in Pakistan, more than 85% of the killings have been militants. There haven't been any civilian deaths at all since 2011:
I wonder what the Ofsted reports on Rotherham say.
No wonder conspiracy theories exist.
Indeed. It's plainly obvious that local authorities can not be trusted to investigate this stuff. Any sane country would have a national police investigation led by a credible figure, and then followed up by an independent inquiry once all convictions have been secured. The only reason this isn't happening is because of a lack of moral fiber on behalf of leading politicians. Clegg and Cameron can't pass the buck for this, as they are ultimately responsible.
There is no FBI in this country, and even if there was we would still have a british version of the x-files.
You can't call sitting on evidence an investigation.
The reason you don't hear much about the NCA investigating serious and organised crime is that like the Regional Crime Squads and the NCIS and the SOCA that were its forebears, it isn't very good at it. It costs a lot of money and spends huge resources developing intelligence and on analysis (particularly so-called strategic analysis), but when it comes to banging up serious villains they are pretty useless.
No, the reason you don't hear about what they're doing is because the NCA choose not to publicise their activities for operational reasons.
''Does anyone know what benefit Muslim immigration actually brings. That does not involve food or music. ''
UKIP posters talk far more about islam based issues than they do about Europe. And yet getting out of Europe will do nothing to solve this. Neither will any UKIP policy.
UKIP is a proxy for a large swathe of opinion that, whilst not wanting to appear racist, wants muslims to get the f8ck out.
The EU's rules on free movement mean that once non-EU citizens have been granted the right to settle in one EU country, they can then move anywhere else in the EU. Most of the UK's Somali population has come from Holland.
There were anecdotes, which I can't verify, that many Somalis settled in Holland, some becoming involved in accusations of benefit queries. Many came to the UK to follow friends & family. At the last report that I saw only a small percentage were employed.
Make all benefits insurance based. Require five years of NI payment for full benefits.
This will discourage benefit tourism - or indeed any immigration from people who are not coming to work. It will also motivate potential school leavers (and their parents) It will mean that everyone should get the experience of actually working. Too many people have simply never had the experience of routine that a job brings. It will help recreate civil society. It will save us money. The economy will benefit from more people being work suitable It can be phased in - 6 months, then 1 year, etc.
Stop letting in thousands of fundamentalist families originally from the world's warzones might also help.
This isn't just an immigration thing.
We have created a monster: a system that disincentives British people from working, with all the negative consequences that flows from that.
I think you are right and are making the key point. If someone is unemployable, then why should an employer take him on?
I don't see US drone strikes on untried people outside warzones on the list.
Terrorism is the targeting of civilians for the purpose of spreading a general terror among the population.
US drone strikes do not target civilians and are not done to spread a general terror.
In which case the attacks on the soldiers in Canada, nor most of the IRA's attacks, nor the attack on the USS Cole do not fall under the heading of terrorism.
And tell me: if you were in a country , perhaps a poor farmer, and missiles were falling on your country and regularly killing civilians (whether targetted on untargetted), do you think you would come to hate the country that cowardly killed without even putting themselves at risk?
The situation in Canada is not clear yet, so let's wait to see what happened. But I agree that things like the attack on the USS Cole were not terrorism.
As for your question, it would entirely depend on what caused the country in question to fire the missiles in the first place. If it was a legitimate response to armed groups in my country waging war against them for immoral reasons, then, no I would not hate them. It's also no less moral to kill someone with a missile than with a sniper bullet.
Of course the attack on the USS Cole was terrorism. It was a suicide bombing attempt by Al Qaeda members, a known TERRORIST organisation. I cannot understand all this semantic bullshit floating about. If you are so in hock to PC terminology, I feel for you.
Re contributors saying that a land value tax on landlords would become a tenant tax.
Sorry this is rubbish. Landlords rents are set by the market, ie how much people can pay, and this in turn is set by local wages (and distorted by landlord housing benefit).
Why else have houseprices tripled since 2001 yet rents changed little in most places?
In my pleasant little corner of Bedfordshire, house prices have more than doubled since I rented a place over a decade ago. Rents have if anything fallen.
If we had a land value tax and capital gains tax on main house sales tens of millions would benefit. A few hundred thousand would lose out.
The only real beneficiaries of high house prices are people who inherit the property of the dead and HM Government who don't have to pay care home fees for longer when the occupants are forced to sell their house.
HM Government can recoup their losses with a land value tax.
If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
Even setting aside how that organisation is a left-leaning lobby group, that organisation admits most killings are of combatants:
Our analysis has changed the public’s understanding of US actions and revealed that under Obama over 3,000 people, including nearly 500 civilians, have been killed by drones.
Terrorism is the non state condoned use of violence - against anyone convenient - in the pursuit of policy. That is, violence outside the rules of war.
So basically Terrorism is breaching the states closed shop on use of violence - against anyone convenient - in the pursuit of policy.
I don't see US drone strikes on untried people outside warzones on the list.
Terrorism is the targeting of civilians for the purpose of spreading a general terror among the population.
US drone strikes do not target civilians and are not done to spread a general terror.
Two words: Shock and Awe
As I said before, when countries do it it's not called terrorism but war. The only difference is how you call it, the act remains the same.
What does 'shock and awe' have to do with terrorism? It applies more to something like blitzgrieg, eg concentional war, rather than terrorism.
Terrorism is the non state condoned use of violence - against anyone convenient - in the pursuit of policy. That is, violence outside the rules of war.
There is also something called state terrorism, where a state will use a proxy, or a secret arm of the state to harm an enemy surreptitiously.
My guess for the rochester poll, based only on the betting market movements is;
UKIP 44-47 Tory 30ish Lab 20ish & the LD's bowled out for a duck
I hope the Green support level gets a mention. Green support in 2015 seems to me to be a big potential factor in LD Armageddon level and Lab fail level.
Blimey Betfair - Rochester has moved a lot while I've been out today. Labour not far behind Tory now on there so looks more like 40/28/25 which frankly means it's time for the pig dog thread asap to turn things around.
I don't see US drone strikes on untried people outside warzones on the list.
Terrorism is the targeting of civilians for the purpose of spreading a general terror among the population.
US drone strikes do not target civilians and are not done to spread a general terror.
In which case the attacks on the soldiers in Canada, nor most of the IRA's attacks, nor the attack on the USS Cole do not fall under the heading of terrorism.
And tell me: if you were in a country , perhaps a poor farmer, and missiles were falling on your country and regularly killing civilians (whether targetted on untargetted), do you think you would come to hate the country that cowardly killed without even putting themselves at risk?
The situation in Canada is not clear yet, so let's wait to see what happened. But I agree that things like the attack on the USS Cole were not terrorism.
As for your question, it would entirely depend on what caused the country in question to fire the missiles in the first place. If it was a legitimate response to armed groups in my country waging war against them for immoral reasons, then, no I would not hate them. It's also no less moral to kill someone with a missile than with a sniper bullet.
Of course the attack on the USS Cole was terrorism. It was a suicide bombing attempt by Al Qaeda members, a known TERRORIST organisation. I cannot understand all this semantic bullshit floating about. If you are so in hock to PC terminology, I feel for you.
I'm the last person to be "in hock to PC terminology". I just don't believe in using the word "terrorism" to mean "any bad military thing we dislike". Al Qaeda are terrorists, but that doesn't mean every attack they have done is terrorism. The attack on the USS Cole was evil and immoral, but it wasn't terrorism. To expand the word that far takes meaning out of it.
I don't see US drone strikes on untried people outside warzones on the list.
Terrorism is the targeting of civilians for the purpose of spreading a general terror among the population.
US drone strikes do not target civilians and are not done to spread a general terror.
In which case the attacks on the soldiers in Canada, nor most of the IRA's attacks, nor the attack on the USS Cole do not fall under the heading of terrorism.
And tell me: if you were in a country , perhaps a poor farmer, and missiles were falling on your country and regularly killing civilians (whether targetted on untargetted), do you think you would come to hate the country that cowardly killed without even putting themselves at risk?
The situation in Canada is not clear yet, so let's wait to see what happened. But I agree that things like the attack on the USS Cole were not terrorism.
As for your question, it would entirely depend on what caused the country in question to fire the missiles in the first place. If it was a legitimate response to armed groups in my country waging war against them for immoral reasons, then, no I would not hate them. It's also no less moral to kill someone with a missile than with a sniper bullet.
Of course the attack on the USS Cole was terrorism. It was a suicide bombing attempt by Al Qaeda members, a known TERRORIST organisation. I cannot understand all this semantic bullshit floating about. If you are so in hock to PC terminology, I feel for you.
I'm the last person to be "in hock to PC terminology". I just don't believe in using the word "terrorism" to mean "any bad military thing we dislike". Al Qaeda are terrorists, but that doesn't mean every attack they have done is terrorism. The attack on the USS Cole was evil and immoral, but it wasn't terrorism. To expand the word that far takes meaning out of it.
FPT ...... If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
Even setting aside how that organisation is a left-leaning lobby group, that organisation admits most killings are of combatants:
Our analysis has changed the public’s understanding of US actions and revealed that under Obama over 3,000 people, including nearly 500 civilians, have been killed by drones.
''Does anyone know what benefit Muslim immigration actually brings. That does not involve food or music. ''
UKIP posters talk far more about islam based issues than they do about Europe. And yet getting out of Europe will do nothing to solve this. Neither will any UKIP policy.
UKIP is a proxy for a large swathe of opinion that, whilst not wanting to appear racist, wants muslims to get the f8ck out.
The EU's rules on free movement mean that once non-EU citizens have been granted the right to settle in one EU country, they can then move anywhere else in the EU. Most of the UK's Somali population has come from Holland.
There were anecdotes, which I can't verify, that many Somalis settled in Holland, some becoming involved in accusations of benefit queries. Many came to the UK to follow friends & family. At the last report that I saw only a small percentage were employed.
Make all benefits insurance based. Require five years of NI payment for full benefits.
This will discourage benefit tourism - or indeed any immigration from people who are not coming to work. It will also motivate potential school leavers (and their parents) It will mean that everyone should get the experience of actually working. Too many people have simply never had the experience of routine that a job brings. It will help recreate civil society. It will save us money. The economy will benefit from more people being work suitable It can be phased in - 6 months, then 1 year, etc.
Stop letting in thousands of fundamentalist families originally from the world's warzones might also help.
This isn't just an immigration thing.
We have created a monster: a system that disincentives British people from working, with all the negative consequences that flows from that.
I think you are right and are making the key point. If someone is unemployable, then why should an employer take him on?
The founders of the Labour party talked about the problem of parasitical unemployables.
Interesting because ComRes didn't conduct any polls for Eastleigh, Newark, Clacton or Heywood. So we don't know how accurate they are as far as by-election polling is concerned.
That is a downer. However we will find out how accurate their marginals polling is, when the result is in.
I don't see US drone strikes on untried people outside warzones on the list.
Terrorism is the targeting of civilians for the purpose of spreading a general terror among the population.
US drone strikes do not target civilians and are not done to spread a general terror.
Two words: Shock and Awe
As I said before, when countries do it it's not called terrorism but war. The only difference is how you call it, the act remains the same.
Shock and awe is not focused on targeting civilians. There's certainly such a thing as state terrorism (Churchill supported doing it in Iraq), but the US doesn't do it.
''Does anyone know what benefit Muslim immigration actually brings. That does not involve food or music. ''
UKIP posters talk far more about islam based issues than they do about Europe. And yet getting out of Europe will do nothing to solve this. Neither will any UKIP policy.
UKIP is a proxy for a large swathe of opinion that, whilst not wanting to appear racist, wants muslims to get the f8ck out.
The EU's rules on free movement mean that once non-EU citizens have been granted the right to settle in one EU country, they can then move anywhere else in the EU. Most of the UK's Somali population has come from Holland.
There were anecdotes, which I can't verify, that many Somalis settled in Holland, some becoming involved in accusations of benefit queries. Many came to the UK to follow friends & family. At the last report that I saw only a small percentage were employed.
Make all benefits insurance based. Require five years of NI payment for full benefits.
This will discourage benefit tourism - or indeed any immigration from people who are not coming to work. It will also motivate potential school leavers (and their parents) It will mean that everyone should get the experience of actually working. Too many people have simply never had the experience of routine that a job brings. It will help recreate civil society. It will save us money. The economy will benefit from more people being work suitable It can be phased in - 6 months, then 1 year, etc.
Stop letting in thousands of fundamentalist families originally from the world's warzones might also help.
This isn't just an immigration thing.
We have created a monster: a system that disincentives British people from working, with all the negative consequences that flows from that.
I think you are right and are making the key point. If someone is unemployable, then why should an employer take him on?
The founders of the Labour party talked about the problem of parasitical unemployables.
That was before they realised the core vote potential of them if they gave them enough bread and circuses and warned at elections that the Wicked Tories would take the bread and circuses away.
For decades it worked, then they invented devolution and it all went wrong when they found themselves running the bread and circuses in Wales and botched them while the UK had a tory government that had stopped being conservative and aquired a taste of its own for bread and circuses....
Even setting aside how that organisation is a left-leaning lobby group, that organisation admits most killings are of combatants:
Our analysis has changed the public’s understanding of US actions and revealed that under Obama over 3,000 people, including nearly 500 civilians, have been killed by drones.
Pretty similar to my, more trustworthy and impartial, source.
I'm talking about the whole drone campaign.
But your biases are showing.
It's the same in Yemen - you can check the pages on the same site I listed.
I'm not showing any biases. The Bureau Investigates openly paints itself as an organisation with agenda to show up government abuses. The organisation I linked just wants to get the facts out there. It's clearly the more reliable source.
I see the media are up to their usual tricks again with their groundless smears against UKIP. The Mike Read calypso is in the grand old tradition of British racial comedy - cf. the Black and White Minstrel Show. As for their alliance with Janusz Korwin-Mikke, it is ludicrous, as the liberal press have done, to label him a 'holocaust denier'. The man is rather an apologist for Hitler, which needn't be the same thing at all!
Indeed. He just think's Hitler was bit misunderstood that's all. No biggie.
As far as Mike Read and UKIP Calypso goes, I don't think it's racist but it does once again go to show that there are some very, very odd people in politics...
''Does anyone know what benefit Muslim immigration actually brings. That does not involve food or music. ''
UKIP posters talk far more about islam based issues than they do about Europe. And yet getting out of Europe will do nothing to solve this. Neither will any UKIP policy.
UKIP is a proxy for a large swathe of opinion that, whilst not wanting to appear racist, wants muslims to get the f8ck out.
The EU's rules on free movement mean that once non-EU citizens have been granted the right to settle in one EU country, they can then move anywhere else in the EU. Most of the UK's Somali population has come from Holland.
''Does anyone know what benefit Muslim immigration actually brings. That does not involve food or music. ''
UKIP posters talk far more about islam based issues than they do about Europe. And yet getting out of Europe will do nothing to solve this. Neither will any UKIP policy.
UKIP is a proxy for a large swathe of opinion that, whilst not wanting to appear racist, wants muslims to get the f8ck out.
The EU's rules on free movement mean that once non-EU citizens have been granted the right to settle in one EU country, they can then move anywhere else in the EU. Most of the UK's Somali population has come from Holland.
I didn't know that. If we were talking about tax, that'd be called a loophole.
If they have 'been granted the right to settle' does that mean they have Dutch passports?
FPT ...... If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
''Does anyone know what benefit Muslim immigration actually brings. That does not involve food or music. ''
UKIP posters talk far more about islam based issues than they do about Europe. And yet getting out of Europe will do nothing to solve this. Neither will any UKIP policy.
UKIP is a proxy for a large swathe of opinion that, whilst not wanting to appear racist, wants muslims to get the f8ck out.
The EU's rules on free movement mean that once non-EU citizens have been granted the right to settle in one EU country, they can then move anywhere else in the EU. Most of the UK's Somali population has come from Holland.
''Does anyone know what benefit Muslim immigration actually brings. That does not involve food or music. ''
UKIP posters talk far more about islam based issues than they do about Europe. And yet getting out of Europe will do nothing to solve this. Neither will any UKIP policy.
UKIP is a proxy for a large swathe of opinion that, whilst not wanting to appear racist, wants muslims to get the f8ck out.
The EU's rules on free movement mean that once non-EU citizens have been granted the right to settle in one EU country, they can then move anywhere else in the EU. Most of the UK's Somali population has come from Holland.
I didn't know that. If we were talking about tax, that'd be called a loophole.
If they have 'been granted the right to settle' does that mean they have Dutch passports?
Assuming they are not Dutch citizens, why do they get the right to come here without a visa? My wife, when she was a south African citizen with indefinite right to remain in the UK, still needed a visa to go to France or Spain.
Mr. Speedy, what a wibbling little weasel. I've never liked Umunna. I'd rather have Miliband as PM than him.
Mind you, Miliband's done a kosher hokey-kokey himself. He is a Jew, but he isn't, but he thinks he'll be the first Jewish Prime Minister (just a century or so after Disraeli, but he was a Conservative, so presumably he doesn't count).
That's why Farage is liked, or at least something new. He cocks stuff up, but he also speaks plainly instead of using wonkspeak or trying desperately not to tread on any toes.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, arguably.
Ptolemy stole the corpse from Perdiccas. Ptolemy's kingdom was the longest lasting as an independent state, after which the body was taken by Caesar to Rome. Whilst there, Rome enjoyed its greatest period of prosperity, but the body was lost, and the Dark Ages ensued.
I once suggested the hunt for Alexander's remains as a thriller storyline to Mr. T (who had asked for suggestions).
A recent find nearish Thessalonica[sp] is imagined by locals to be his resting place. I think it unlikely, but there we are.
I see the media are up to their usual tricks again with their groundless smears against UKIP. The Mike Read calypso is in the grand old tradition of British racial comedy - cf. the Black and White Minstrel Show. As for their alliance with Janusz Korwin-Mikke, it is ludicrous, as the liberal press have done, to label him a 'holocaust denier'. The man is rather an apologist for Hitler, which needn't be the same thing at all!
Indeed. He just think's Hitler was bit misunderstood that's all. No biggie.
As far as Mike Read and UKIP Calypso goes, I don't think it's racist but it does once again go to show that there are some very, very odd people in politics...
Why is everyone assuming West Indian = Black?
Isn't that just as racist as assuming British = White?
People seem to be unaware that there is a significant white community in the West Indies. Descended mainly from Catholic Irish who were transported by Oliver Cromwell et al, they suffered horrible discrimination and are still derogatively known as "Redlegs"
Strangely enough they also speak with a Carribean accent. Presumably if one of them decided to make a record our oh so right on leaders would deem them racist?
FPT ...... If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.
I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
I wonder what the Ofsted reports on Rotherham say.
No wonder conspiracy theories exist.
Indeed. It's plainly obvious that local authorities can not be trusted to investigate this stuff. Any sane country would have a national police investigation led by a credible figure, and then followed up by an independent inquiry once all convictions have been secured. The only reason this isn't happening is because of a lack of moral fiber on behalf of leading politicians. Clegg and Cameron can't pass the buck for this, as they are ultimately responsible.
There is no FBI in this country, and even if there was we would still have a british version of the x-files.
The NCA is not an 'FBI'. It is an organisation which investigates serious and organised crime. The FBI investigates specific 'federal crimes' in the USA which cross the jurisdiction of its 50 states and their own legislatures and state police forces. It acts as a kind of MI5 as well.
As for the issue of Baby P - this occured under Labour .
FPT ...... If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
its still redistribution of wealth not by the individuals choice but by state dictat..Its socialism. Forcing them to give the money to charity is no better these days than forcing them to give it to the government. Given government is one of the major sources of charity funding all you are doing is removing the middle man!
FPT ...... If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
its still redistribution of wealth not by the individuals choice but by state dictat..Its socialism. Forcing them to give the money to charity is no better these days than forcing them to give it to the government. Given government is one of the major sources of charity funding all you are doing is removing the middle man!
So what.
Nothing wrong with redistribution of wealth in principle. All societies have done it since the stoneage its whether it is fair and proportionate that matters.
If you don't want it to go to a socialist fake charity then don't leave it to one. There are plenty of decent ones, usually the smaller ones.
It is high time these large quasi charities were sorted. A maximum wage of £30,000 per annum for any charity worker would soon get rid of the leeches.
I've discovered an interesting fact (probably not that interesting). I was just looking at constituency maps and it turns out that my polling place is in a different parliamentary constituency from me!
Mr. Speedy, what a wibbling little weasel. I've never liked Umunna. I'd rather have Miliband as PM than him.
Mind you, Miliband's done a kosher hokey-kokey himself. He is a Jew, but he isn't, but he thinks he'll be the first Jewish Prime Minister (just a century or so after Disraeli, but he was a Conservative, so presumably he doesn't count).
That's why Farage is liked, or at least something new. He cocks stuff up, but he also speaks plainly instead of using wonkspeak or trying desperately not to tread on any toes.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, arguably.
Ptolemy stole the corpse from Perdiccas. Ptolemy's kingdom was the longest lasting as an independent state, after which the body was taken by Caesar to Rome. Whilst there, Rome enjoyed its greatest period of prosperity, but the body was lost, and the Dark Ages ensued.
I once suggested the hunt for Alexander's remains as a thriller storyline to Mr. T (who had asked for suggestions).
A recent find nearish Thessalonica[sp] is imagined by locals to be his resting place. I think it unlikely, but there we are.
The Comres/ITV poll today had UKIP by far as the most unprofessional party, perhaps that is some of their appeal to normal people.
On the tomb of Alexander the Great, the corpse was still in Alexandria as late as 1491 as it was visited by Leo the African. So it's probably still there and I can personally assure you it should still be there.
I see the media are up to their usual tricks again with their groundless smears against UKIP. The Mike Read calypso is in the grand old tradition of British racial comedy - cf. the Black and White Minstrel Show. As for their alliance with Janusz Korwin-Mikke, it is ludicrous, as the liberal press have done, to label him a 'holocaust denier'. The man is rather an apologist for Hitler, which needn't be the same thing at all!
Indeed. He just think's Hitler was bit misunderstood that's all. No biggie.
As far as Mike Read and UKIP Calypso goes, I don't think it's racist but it does once again go to show that there are some very, very odd people in politics...
Why is everyone assuming West Indian = Black?
Isn't that just as racist as assuming British = White?
People seem to be unaware that there is a significant white community in the West Indies. Descended mainly from Catholic Irish who were transported by Oliver Cromwell et al, they suffered horrible discrimination and are still derogatively known as "Redlegs"
Strangely enough they also speak with a Carribean accent. Presumably if one of them decided to make a record our oh so right on leaders would deem them racist?
I have no idea but you've got to admit the whole thing is very bizarre and Mike Read is a very strange person generally...
I don't see US drone strikes on untried people outside warzones on the list.
Terrorism is the targeting of civilians for the purpose of spreading a general terror among the population.
US drone strikes do not target civilians and are not done to spread a general terror.
Two words: Shock and Awe
As I said before, when countries do it it's not called terrorism but war. The only difference is how you call it, the act remains the same.
Shock and awe is not focused on targeting civilians. There's certainly such a thing as state terrorism (Churchill supported doing it in Iraq), but the US doesn't do it.
Highly debatable, but at any rate, the US doesn't need to do terrorism -it employs terrorists to do that.
FPT ...... If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.
I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
I'd have more sympathy if people actually lived in the houses their parents passed onto them, rather than flogging them at the first opportunity and trousering the cash.
Why should cash passed on through bricks and mortar be exempt from inheritance tax?
If I choose to rent all my life and invest in shares, why should my identical savings be taxed differently from someone who invested in property?
FPT ...... If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.
I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
There might be a respectable argument that the lifetime allowance was say £200,000 ie equates to the UK average home price.
However I don't see why if Daddy owns a vast mansion and 40,000 acres then you as offspring should have the right to get it free of charge and live off the income it generates.
Particuarly as in many such cases Daddy only got it because he was the descendent of a ruthless exploitative mill or mine owner or the descendent of were cronies of William I when he disposessed the Saxons or Henry VIII when he looted the monasteries and handed the land out to their mates.
I've discovered an interesting fact (probably not that interesting). I was just looking at constituency maps and it turns out that my polling place is in a different parliamentary constituency from me!
The place where you vote should be in the same constituency as your residence.
David JackVerified account @DJack_Journo Dramatic pic shows Conservative Party caucus room mins after #OttawaShooting began wi chairs piled up as barricades
Otto English @Otto_English 4h4 hours ago Extraordinary fly on wall footage of gunfire being exchanged inside Parliament building in Ottawa http://youtu.be/XrGqoISd-do #OttawaShooting
FPT ...... If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
its still redistribution of wealth not by the individuals choice but by state dictat..Its socialism. Forcing them to give the money to charity is no better these days than forcing them to give it to the government. Given government is one of the major sources of charity funding all you are doing is removing the middle man!
So what.
Nothing wrong with redistribution of wealth in principle. All societies have done it since the stoneage its whether it is fair and proportionate that matters.
If you don't want it to go to a socialist fake charity then don't leave it to one. There are plenty of decent ones, usually the smaller ones.
It is high time these large quasi charities were sorted. A maximum wage of £30,000 per annum for any charity worker would soon get rid of the leeches.
Not interested. Thank god UKIP do not think like that!
No, the reason you don't hear about what they're doing is because the NCA choose not to publicise their activities for operational reasons.
I wish that were true, Mr Watcher. However, if they were really putting away big time villains said criminals would be appearing in the courts and they are not. So my conclusion stands, and please don't give me all the tripe about disruption instead of prosecution. That was the the excuse in the Regional Crime Squad/NCIS days and it was tripe then as the Home Office found when they pushed for figures and facts. So they had a reorganisation and formed the National Crime Squad. That didn't work out any better so they amalgamated them with NCIS and we got SOCA. Still no better, so reorganise again and we now have the National Crime Agency and still a dearth of big time villains locked up, but I am sure mountains of intelligence about their activities.
FPT ...... If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.
I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
I'm not sure many people would define socialism as "Blocking basic human instincts", for various reasons. For starters, lots of basic human instincts should be blocked (racism is an obvious example). Secondly, many definitions of capitalism would also not allow large-scale inheritance. Lest we forget that a fundamental tenet of capitalism is competition, of wealth being fought for and earned, etc etc. Adam Smith, for example, strongly disapproved of rent-seeking and other methods whereby wealth begat wealth.
FPT ...... If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.
I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
There might be a respectable argument that the lifetime allowance was say £200,000 ie equates to the UK average home price.
However I don't see why if Daddy owns a vast mansion and 40,000 acres then you as offspring should have the right to get it free of charge and live off the income it generates.
Particuarly as in many such cases Daddy only got it because he was the descendent of a ruthless exploitative mill or mine owner or the descendent of were cronies of William I when he disposessed the Saxons or Henry VIII when he looted the monasteries and handed the land out to their mates.
I'm beginning to think you and I should start our own political party...
FPT ...... If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.
I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
I'm not sure many people would define socialism as "Blocking basic human instincts", for various reasons. For starters, lots of basic human instincts should be blocked (racism is an obvious example). Secondly, many definitions of capitalism would also not allow large-scale inheritance. Lest we forget that a fundamental tenet of capitalism is competition, of wealth being fought for and earned, etc etc. Adam Smith, for example, strongly disapproved of rent-seeking and other methods whereby wealth begat wealth.
Racism is a basic human instinct? What an odd point of view. Young children aren't racist -it's learned behaviour.
Mr. 1000, well, we know he likes classical stuff after those horrendous Labours of Putracles pictures.
The only possible response from the West is to send in Harrison Ford, and probably Chewbacca as well.
Mr. Gin, better to have eccentrics than not.
Mr. Speedy, I had not heard that, and feel somewhat dubious about first hearing it now. Wikipedia does agree with you... I remain a shade sceptical.
Alexander was the greatest general in all history. It's hard to imagine it going missing, as it were, so recently (the earlier time is more explicable due to the Crisis of the Third Century, fall of Rome, moving many things to Byzantium and the Dark Ages). Mind you, it doesn't mention the Caesar part, so perhaps I was entirely mistaken about that [I could've sworn he moved it though, and it would make sense for both him, Romans generally and fits Egypt becoming a Roman province].
I don't see US drone strikes on untried people outside warzones on the list.
Terrorism is the targeting of civilians for the purpose of spreading a general terror among the population.
US drone strikes do not target civilians and are not done to spread a general terror.
Two words: Shock and Awe
As I said before, when countries do it it's not called terrorism but war. The only difference is how you call it, the act remains the same.
Shock and awe is not focused on targeting civilians. There's certainly such a thing as state terrorism (Churchill supported doing it in Iraq), but the US doesn't do it.
Highly debatable, but at any rate, the US doesn't need to do terrorism -it employs terrorists to do that.
No its your assertion thats debatable. The 'Shock and Awe' phrase related to the initial bombing campaign at the start of the Iraq War. It was targeted at govt command control and intelligence buildings. It was more analagous to blitzkrieg than anything else and the damage was probably less sensational and widespread in the cold light of day than the flash and flame of the same images that were regularly repeated would have you believe. The buildings targeted were mostly empty.
FPT ...... If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.
I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
Inheritance tax is a difficult one. From the point of view of the person giving, supporting and providing for your family is a really basic and fundamental desire for your money. To have the government butting in, especially at the point of your death, feels like a particularly harsh intrusion.
But from the point of view of the person receiving, it's just a (potentially) huge chunk of unearned money. Getting that 100% intact, but then having to pay tax on the money you actually go out and earn for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, seems really strange. It's also a huge, really clear driver of inequality- especially once you get up to the super-rich, where whole empires can change hands without anybody ever having a chance to earn their way to getting a fraction of it.
Overall, the latter perspective is much more persuasive to me, but I can definitely see why inheritance tax is so unpopular. I do think that an exemption for a single home (maybe up to a certain value?) would be a good idea if the threshold was ever significantly lowered.
Eeek... soon Putin will have all the relics and will be INVINCIBLE. Which will please FalseFlag and LuckyGuy no end.
Which begs a question, will Boris from Goldeneye make a comeback in future Bond films since he was cryogenically frozen?(He would make a smashing villain with today's internet)
FPT ...... If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.
I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
I'm not sure many people would define socialism as "Blocking basic human instincts", for various reasons. For starters, lots of basic human instincts should be blocked (racism is an obvious example). Secondly, many definitions of capitalism would also not allow large-scale inheritance. Lest we forget that a fundamental tenet of capitalism is competition, of wealth being fought for and earned, etc etc. Adam Smith, for example, strongly disapproved of rent-seeking and other methods whereby wealth begat wealth.
Racism is a basic human instinct? What an odd point of view. Young children aren't racist -it's learned behaviour.
Grouping together by the lowest common denominator, rejecting outsiders and prioritising those like you. Be it nationalism, religious disputes, racial divides, or any other attribute, humans have been do it from the beginning of time.
FPT ...... If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.
I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
I'm not sure many people would define socialism as "Blocking basic human instincts", for various reasons. For starters, lots of basic human instincts should be blocked (racism is an obvious example). Secondly, many definitions of capitalism would also not allow large-scale inheritance. Lest we forget that a fundamental tenet of capitalism is competition, of wealth being fought for and earned, etc etc. Adam Smith, for example, strongly disapproved of rent-seeking and other methods whereby wealth begat wealth.
Racism is a basic human instinct? What an odd point of view. Young children aren't racist -it's learned behaviour.
It is reasonable to think that fear and mistrust of all outsiders is a basic human instinct, given the extraordinary prevalence of violent death in neolithic and earlier societies, and that racism is a perversion of that instinct.
Racism is a basic human instinct? What an odd point of view. Young children aren't racist -it's learned behaviour.
I would have thought it was. I agree young children don't do it, but I wouldn't be surprised if group identity and defensiveness kick in with adolescence. It's only natural that people do it on visible differences. I think it takes an enlightened mind to overcome those instincts.
Racism is fear, children are born without it, and learn it as they grow. It's why adults are usually blinkered, we have so many fears that we become irrational. Death is just natures way of trying to keep a little sanity in the universe.
Racism is a basic human instinct? What an odd point of view. Young children aren't racist -it's learned behaviour.
I would have thought it was. I agree young children don't do it, but I wouldn't be surprised if group identity and defensiveness kick in with adolescence. It's only natural that people do it on visible differences. I think it takes an enlightened mind to overcome those instincts.
FPT ...... If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.
I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
I'm not sure many people would define socialism as "Blocking basic human instincts", for various reasons. For starters, lots of basic human instincts should be blocked (racism is an obvious example). Secondly, many definitions of capitalism would also not allow large-scale inheritance. Lest we forget that a fundamental tenet of capitalism is competition, of wealth being fought for and earned, etc etc. Adam Smith, for example, strongly disapproved of rent-seeking and other methods whereby wealth begat wealth.
Most people work hard their whole lives for what they have. I believe they should be able to choose what they do with that, and not have it all confiscated from them upon death by the state. Thus making the toils of their lives utterly pointless.
The desire to build and pass on a legacy to your children is as reasonable as other human needs, such as companionship, self-worth, community and appreciation. To rob a family of a home, that might have been within their family for generations, only for someone wealthy to immediately buy it off them and live in it would be an injustice.
Racism is fear, children are born without it, and learn it as they grow. It's why adults are usually blinkered, we have so many fears that we become irrational. Death is just natures way of trying to keep a little sanity in the universe.
No, the reason you don't hear about what they're doing is because the NCA choose not to publicise their activities for operational reasons.
I wish that were true, Mr Watcher. However, if they were really putting away big time villains said criminals would be appearing in the courts and they are not. So my conclusion stands, and please don't give me all the tripe about disruption instead of prosecution. That was the the excuse in the Regional Crime Squad/NCIS days and it was tripe then as the Home Office found when they pushed for figures and facts. So they had a reorganisation and formed the National Crime Squad. That didn't work out any better so they amalgamated them with NCIS and we got SOCA. Still no better, so reorganise again and we now have the National Crime Agency and still a dearth of big time villains locked up, but I am sure mountains of intelligence about their activities.
Mr. 1000, well, we know he likes classical stuff after those horrendous Labours of Putracles pictures.
The only possible response from the West is to send in Harrison Ford, and probably Chewbacca as well.
Mr. Gin, better to have eccentrics than not.
Mr. Speedy, I had not heard that, and feel somewhat dubious about first hearing it now. Wikipedia does agree with you... I remain a shade sceptical.
Alexander was the greatest general in all history. It's hard to imagine it going missing, as it were, so recently (the earlier time is more explicable due to the Crisis of the Third Century, fall of Rome, moving many things to Byzantium and the Dark Ages). Mind you, it doesn't mention the Caesar part, so perhaps I was entirely mistaken about that [I could've sworn he moved it though, and it would make sense for both him, Romans generally and fits Egypt becoming a Roman province].
Alexandria was destroyed and remade many times in it's history, it suffered 5 major invasions, one by the Romans, one by the Persians, one by the Arabs, one by the Crusaders and one by the Turks, plus many major earthquakes, the city was mostly abandoned after the europeans circumnavigated Africa. Most of current Alexandria was build after Napoleon, so that is why the location of the tomb and the body was lost.
FPT ...... If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.
I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
I'm not sure many people would define socialism as "Blocking basic human instincts", for various reasons. For starters, lots of basic human instincts should be blocked (racism is an obvious example). Secondly, many definitions of capitalism would also not allow large-scale inheritance. Lest we forget that a fundamental tenet of capitalism is competition, of wealth being fought for and earned, etc etc. Adam Smith, for example, strongly disapproved of rent-seeking and other methods whereby wealth begat wealth.
Racism is a basic human instinct? What an odd point of view. Young children aren't racist -it's learned behaviour.
Grouping together by the lowest common denominator, rejecting outsiders and prioritising those like you. Be it nationalism, religious disputes, racial divides, or any other attribute, humans have been do it from the beginning of time.
Concerning scenes in Canada this evening, shows how important the tight security around Westminster is. Thankfully it could have been a lot worse
Yes although I don't think the Westminster Sergeant-at-Arms carries a gun, whereas the Canadian one obviously does (unless someone handed him a gun beforehand).
Comments
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/drones/pakistan/analysis
This is a lower collateral damage rate than any major ground war in history.
Sometimes you have to leave the hard cases to the charities.
Welfare is suffering from lack of deterrence of "Moral Hazard" as much as the banks are
@Luckyguy1983 and previous contributors to that thread.
Mindblowing if any element of truth.
Does anyone sell double layered tinfoil hats :-0
So if they´re destined to fight it out. Why should we import them here.
It applies more to something like blitzgrieg, eg concentional war, rather than terrorism.
Terrorism is the non state condoned use of violence - against anyone convenient - in the pursuit of policy. That is, violence outside the rules of war.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/10/16/only-4-of-drone-victims-in-pakistan-named-as-al-qaeda-members/
Re contributors saying that a land value tax on landlords would become a tenant tax.
Sorry this is rubbish. Landlords rents are set by the market, ie how much people can pay, and this in turn is set by local wages (and distorted by landlord housing benefit).
Why else have houseprices tripled since 2001 yet rents changed little in most places?
In my pleasant little corner of Bedfordshire, house prices have more than doubled since I rented a place over a decade ago. Rents have if anything fallen.
If we had a land value tax and capital gains tax on main house sales tens of millions would benefit. A few hundred thousand would lose out.
The only real beneficiaries of high house prices are people who inherit the property of the dead and HM Government who don't have to pay care home fees for longer when the occupants are forced to sell their house.
HM Government can recoup their losses with a land value tax.
If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.
Our analysis has changed the public’s understanding of US actions and revealed that under Obama over 3,000 people, including nearly 500 civilians, have been killed by drones.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/who/
Pretty similar to my, more trustworthy and impartial, source.
I think reaching the CL might be over rated
UKIP 44-47
Tory 30ish
Lab 20ish
& the LD's bowled out for a duck
Good old closed shops :-)
6000 year old temple found in ukraine.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/1022/Archaeologists-find-6-000-year-old-temple-in-Ukraine
Wonder if that's what putin was after?
http://news.sky.com/story/1358377/canada-shooting-sergeant-at-arms-hailed-as-hero
I remember that happened in the past.
Liverpool to win this 150/1 with Sportingbook.
I'm on
But your biases are showing.
However we will find out how accurate their marginals polling is, when the result is in.
You and I have disagreed on many things over the past six months on this site. But tonight I am in total agreement with everything you have written.
For decades it worked, then they invented devolution and it all went wrong when they found themselves running the bread and circuses in Wales and botched them while the UK had a tory government that had stopped being conservative and aquired a taste of its own for bread and circuses....
.
I'm not showing any biases. The Bureau Investigates openly paints itself as an organisation with agenda to show up government abuses. The organisation I linked just wants to get the facts out there. It's clearly the more reliable source.
As far as Mike Read and UKIP Calypso goes, I don't think it's racist but it does once again go to show that there are some very, very odd people in politics...
Mr. 1000, or the body of Alexander?
Liverpool are rubbish, I said on here before the season started they wouldn't make the top four and have backed accordingly.
If this is the British Obama then no wonder Obama's popularity is low.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 8m 8 minutes ago
"I do do God, yes. I am not immensely religious, but I was a chorister." @ChukaUmunna http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/comment/articles/2014-10/14/alastair-campbell-chuka-umunna-labour-mp-interview …
This is the worst interview ever, Alastair Cambell interviews Chuka Umunna.
What's next, Oliver Letwin interviewing George Osborne?
Mind you, Miliband's done a kosher hokey-kokey himself. He is a Jew, but he isn't, but he thinks he'll be the first Jewish Prime Minister (just a century or so after Disraeli, but he was a Conservative, so presumably he doesn't count).
That's why Farage is liked, or at least something new. He cocks stuff up, but he also speaks plainly instead of using wonkspeak or trying desperately not to tread on any toes.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, arguably.
Ptolemy stole the corpse from Perdiccas. Ptolemy's kingdom was the longest lasting as an independent state, after which the body was taken by Caesar to Rome. Whilst there, Rome enjoyed its greatest period of prosperity, but the body was lost, and the Dark Ages ensued.
I once suggested the hunt for Alexander's remains as a thriller storyline to Mr. T (who had asked for suggestions).
A recent find nearish Thessalonica[sp] is imagined by locals to be his resting place. I think it unlikely, but there we are.
Isn't that just as racist as assuming British = White?
People seem to be unaware that there is a significant white community in the West Indies. Descended mainly from Catholic Irish who were transported by Oliver Cromwell et al, they suffered horrible discrimination and are still derogatively known as "Redlegs"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlegs
Strangely enough they also speak with a Carribean accent. Presumably if one of them decided to make a record our oh so right on leaders would deem them racist?
I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
The Tories have a men's problem in Rochester.
As for the issue of Baby P - this occured under Labour .
Nothing wrong with redistribution of wealth in principle. All societies have done it since the stoneage its whether it is fair and proportionate that matters.
If you don't want it to go to a socialist fake charity then don't leave it to one. There are plenty of decent ones, usually the smaller ones.
It is high time these large quasi charities were sorted. A maximum wage of £30,000 per annum for any charity worker would soon get rid of the leeches.
On the tomb of Alexander the Great, the corpse was still in Alexandria as late as 1491 as it was visited by Leo the African.
So it's probably still there and I can personally assure you it should still be there.
I'm sure I will be able to find something not to your tastes before long again :-)
Why should cash passed on through bricks and mortar be exempt from inheritance tax?
If I choose to rent all my life and invest in shares, why should my identical savings be taxed differently from someone who invested in property?
Eeek... soon Putin will have all the relics and will be INVINCIBLE. Which will please FalseFlag and LuckyGuy no end.
However I don't see why if Daddy owns a vast mansion and 40,000 acres then you as offspring should have the right to get it free of charge and live off the income it generates.
Particuarly as in many such cases Daddy only got it because he was the descendent of a ruthless exploitative mill or mine owner or the descendent of were cronies of William I when he disposessed the Saxons or Henry VIII when he looted the monasteries and handed the land out to their mates.
David JackVerified account
@DJack_Journo
Dramatic pic shows Conservative Party caucus room mins after #OttawaShooting began wi chairs piled up as barricades
Otto English @Otto_English 4h4 hours ago
Extraordinary fly on wall footage of gunfire being exchanged inside Parliament building in Ottawa http://youtu.be/XrGqoISd-do #OttawaShooting
The only possible response from the West is to send in Harrison Ford, and probably Chewbacca as well.
Mr. Gin, better to have eccentrics than not.
Mr. Speedy, I had not heard that, and feel somewhat dubious about first hearing it now. Wikipedia does agree with you... I remain a shade sceptical.
Alexander was the greatest general in all history. It's hard to imagine it going missing, as it were, so recently (the earlier time is more explicable due to the Crisis of the Third Century, fall of Rome, moving many things to Byzantium and the Dark Ages). Mind you, it doesn't mention the Caesar part, so perhaps I was entirely mistaken about that [I could've sworn he moved it though, and it would make sense for both him, Romans generally and fits Egypt becoming a Roman province].
But from the point of view of the person receiving, it's just a (potentially) huge chunk of unearned money. Getting that 100% intact, but then having to pay tax on the money you actually go out and earn for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, seems really strange. It's also a huge, really clear driver of inequality- especially once you get up to the super-rich, where whole empires can change hands without anybody ever having a chance to earn their way to getting a fraction of it.
Overall, the latter perspective is much more persuasive to me, but I can definitely see why inheritance tax is so unpopular. I do think that an exemption for a single home (maybe up to a certain value?) would be a good idea if the threshold was ever significantly lowered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW02XmBGQw
It's why adults are usually blinkered, we have so many fears that we become irrational.
Death is just natures way of trying to keep a little sanity in the universe.
Paul Bristow, Karen Buckley, Tim Clark, Matt Warman.
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2014/10/the-final-four-in-the-boston-and-skegness-selection-are-named.html
The desire to build and pass on a legacy to your children is as reasonable as other human needs, such as companionship, self-worth, community and appreciation. To rob a family of a home, that might have been within their family for generations, only for someone wealthy to immediately buy it off them and live in it would be an injustice.
Most of current Alexandria was build after Napoleon, so that is why the location of the tomb and the body was lost.