There seems to be no reporting of exactly how the Scottish Income Tax is actually going to work in practice.
Per Newsnight: Approx 7% of Income Tax is raised in Scotland at the moment.
Scotland is approx 9% of UK population and gets approx 10% of public spending.
So at the moment Scotland effectively gets 10% of the Income Tax raised.
Under the new arrangements, Scotland sets its own Income Tax. If rates are unchanged it will only collect the amount equal to 7%.
So what about the other 3% (ie 30% of the money Scotland now gets)? Is Scotland giving this money up? Surely not? It will still get it via the Barnett formula.
Result: Nothing changes. Scotland still gets an amount equal to 10% of UK Income tax receipts.
It's like giving a child £10 pocket money. You then say "look after yourself - do a paper round." The child earns £7 delivering papers. You then still give the child £3 to top them up. So they still end up with a total of £10.
So Scotland isn't actually going to be raising all of its Income Tax at all.
I guess it's all far too complicated for the BBC or anyone to actually report it in a way anyone will understand. But it is a total farce. Either Scotland should collect its own tax or it shouldn't.
The income tax calculation is easy but stupid.
Subtract how much money Scotland would have raised via income tax under the UK rates from using the Scottish rates. that is how much money extra/less Scotland will get from the block grant. So if Scotland doesn't vary Income tax rates it the block grant is unvaried.
The real WTF come in for something like Air Passenger Transport Duty. Say Scotland zero rates it - by how much should Scotland's block grant be reduced? For this year it is easy to calcualte - it would be reduced by the amount of APTD that was raised but for following years there is no reasonable calculation. If Scotland doubles the number of air passengers does that mean it's budget would be slashed by twice as much?
Mr. Speedy, Mitchell lost because he could not prove his innocence?
And here was I thinking guilt was the thing that had to be proved [not a go at you, incidentally, but the judge].
If there's no concrete evidence and that's ok then we might as well employ witchsmellers.
It's a libel case not a criminal trial. The judge decides on the balance of probabilities. Mitchell brought the case and so had to prove that the policeman lied when he said that Mitchell called him a pleb.
Why he brought the case, God knows, because until now all that anyone remembered was that he'd been a bit rude to the police but that the police had then behaved badly in how they had reacted. Whereas now all the police shenanigans will be forgotten.
His case was blown before he started it really was. He was never going to win this one.
Guido "Mr Justice Warby said evidence from Mitchell’s chums; Lord Coe, Sir Richard Ottaway MP and others expressing doubt Mr Mitchell would ever use the word ’pleb’, would be permitted. Submissions about Metropolitan Police officers creating fake witnesses were refused"
Never quite understood how such important evidence of potential false evidence was not allowed as a defence yet Plod could still use and report on all the hearsay incidents that were said to have occured previously to this incident in question?
They should have used the judge from the Nigel Evans trial. This whole story is indicative of public belief vs trial outcomes, most people thought that Evans was going to lose his trial and then he won, and most people thought that Mitchell was going to win and then he lost, in both cases as in most cases the judge's beliefs about the case are paramount to the outcome.
Ok and yes so it appears and of course no jury. Point made below don't sue for libel if you are the only witness.
Are there going to be loads of posts demanding apologies from posters who'd demanded apologies from those who had decided Mitchell was guilty, or will everyone wait to see if there's an appeal?
I was thinking that. We need apologies for demanding apologies.
Nah, not really. I was one of the first on here to say the story stunk when it first came out, and the police who have been thrown out of the force, disciplined and jailed indicates I was right - it was dodgy to hell.
Miliband chose to use this case in two PMQs, when the case was so evidently farcical and dodgy. He should have apologised. In fact, he still should.
I feel so sorry for Mitchell. The police should **** for this.
The polling on the kippers misjudging Asians/Muslims I've previously linked for you and is on the YouGov website.
Plus when I posted the Cathderal story one of your fellow travellers in UKIP said something along the lines of under LibLabCon it was inevitable that Westminster Cathedral would soon be a mosque.
Your claim that was that the UKIP lead over the Loonies was entirely down to "thick Kippers obsessed with Muslims/Islam". That's more than 90% of UKIP supporters.
Data on average IQs doesn't show that more than 90% of UKIP supporters are "thick". Having an unfavourable view of Muslims doesn't mean you are obsessed with Muslims, and a lot less than 90% of UKIP supporters didn't have such a view. One poster on a political online forum also doesn't count as more than 90% of UKIP supporters.
An intelligent non-thick person should be able to grasp this.
Mr. Speedy, Mitchell lost because he could not prove his innocence?
And here was I thinking guilt was the thing that had to be proved [not a go at you, incidentally, but the judge].
If there's no concrete evidence and that's ok then we might as well employ witchsmellers.
It's a libel case not a criminal trial. The judge decides on the balance of probabilities. Mitchell brought the case and so had to prove that the policeman lied when he said that Mitchell called him a pleb.
Why he brought the case, God knows, because until now all that anyone remembered was that he'd been a bit rude to the police but that the police had then behaved badly in how they had reacted. Whereas now all the police shenanigans will be forgotten.
KentOnline @Kent_Online 2h2 hours ago #Ukip South Thanet member 'no longer on twitter' after mistaking cathedral for mosque: http://bit.ly/1rqz7X8
If all the thick Kippers obsessed with Islam/Muslims disappeared UKIP would be polling behind the loonies.
Keep insulting the people you need to win back for a majority. It's pretty clear the Tories are the thick ones if that's their strategy.
Considering the insults you Kippers throw around without foundation....
You spend more time insulting Kippers than any Kipper poster on here does insulting Tories. And then you're surprised when other posters don't defend you.
Pointing out the facts isn't an insult.
Stick to blaming Theresa May for prison escapes
The "fact" that the vast majority of UKIP supporters are thick and obsessed with Muslims? Apparently you're too thick to be able to know what a fact is.
And Theresa May is so thick, she pledges to reduce immigration by 60% and ends up increasing it.
That was Cameron's pledge, not May's. He got to be PM by telling the voters what they wanted to hear and May got lumbered with the blame when they couldn't deliver it. Cameron may be full of shit, but neither of them is thick.
Theresa May has repeated the pledge herself. And even if she didn't agree with it, you have to be pretty damn useless to try to achieve major reductions in immigration and actually go backwards.
Don't get bogged down in the detail.
They pledged to reduce immigration, immigration went up.
They need to come up with a coherent response.
That said, I would not be surprised to hear EdM next Weds lead on this and somehow simultaneously be outraged that the Cons haven't brought down immigration and delighted that immigration is so "healthy". He has form.
I'm also having trouble getting a bet accepted. I want to bet on Idina Menzel being the Christmas number one, but I can't even persuade Ladbrokes to quote me a price.
The polling on the kippers misjudging Asians/Muslims I've previously linked for you and is on the YouGov website.
Plus when I posted the Cathderal story one of your fellow travellers in UKIP said something along the lines of under LibLabCon it was inevitable that Westminster Cathedral would soon be a mosque.
Your claim that was that the UKIP lead over the Loonies was entirely down to "thick Kippers obsessed with Muslims/Islam". That's more than 90% of UKIP supporters.
Data on average IQs doesn't show that more than 90% of UKIP supporters are "thick". Having an unfavourable view of Muslims doesn't mean you are obsessed with Muslims, and a lot less than 90% of UKIP supporters didn't have such a view. One poster on a political online forum also doesn't count as more than 90% of UKIP supporters.
An intelligent non-thick person should be able to grasp this.
Here's a challenge for you.
I'll give up mentioning Kippers being obsessed with Muslims and you stop talking about Muslims.
Pleased to see SNP prices falling all over Glasgow and Edinburgh. I'm late to the part compared to Pulpstar but I can now start greening (barring shock LD/Con wins) up if I wished.
Mr. Speedy, Mitchell lost because he could not prove his innocence?
And here was I thinking guilt was the thing that had to be proved [not a go at you, incidentally, but the judge].
If there's no concrete evidence and that's ok then we might as well employ witchsmellers.
It's a libel case not a criminal trial. The judge decides on the balance of probabilities. Mitchell brought the case and so had to prove that the policeman lied when he said that Mitchell called him a pleb.
Why he brought the case, God knows, because until now all that anyone remembered was that he'd been a bit rude to the police but that the police had then behaved badly in how they had reacted. Whereas now all the police shenanigans will be forgotten.
Has Rowland vs Mitchell been decided ?
No, I don't think so (see Guardian live blog). But it's not looking good for Andrew Mitchell!
There seems to be no reporting of exactly how the Scottish Income Tax is actually going to work in practice.
Per Newsnight: Approx 7% of Income Tax is raised in Scotland at the moment.
Scotland is approx 9% of UK population and gets approx 10% of public spending.
So at the moment Scotland effectively gets 10% of the Income Tax raised.
Under the new arrangements, Scotland sets its own Income Tax. If rates are unchanged it will only collect the amount equal to 7%.
So what about the other 3% (ie 30% of the money Scotland now gets)? Is Scotland giving this money up? Surely not? It will still get it via the Barnett formula.
Result: Nothing changes. Scotland still gets an amount equal to 10% of UK Income tax receipts.
It's like giving a child £10 pocket money. You then say "look after yourself - do a paper round." The child earns £7 delivering papers. You then still give the child £3 to top them up. So they still end up with a total of £10.
So Scotland isn't actually going to be raising all of its Income Tax at all.
I guess it's all far too complicated for the BBC or anyone to actually report it in a way anyone will understand. But it is a total farce. Either Scotland should collect its own tax or it shouldn't.
The income tax calculation is easy but stupid.
Subtract how much money Scotland would have raised via income tax under the UK rates from using the Scottish rates. that is how much money extra/less Scotland will get from the block grant. So if Scotland doesn't vary Income tax rates it the block grant is unvaried.
The real WTF come in for something like Air Passenger Transport Duty. Say Scotland zero rates it - by how much should Scotland's block grant be reduced? For this year it is easy to calcualte - it would be reduced by the amount of APTD that was raised but for following years there is no reasonable calculation. If Scotland doubles the number of air passengers does that mean it's budget would be slashed by twice as much?
Is Scotland going to have its own revenue collecting service (SHMRC), or is it all done by HRMC and just a different size cheque sent to Holyrood ?
So Mitchell probably did use the word Pleb. Damaging for him, and his wallet no doubt, but I have to say largely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Unlike even some Tories at the time, I don't feel insulting someone, even a police officer, is grounds to be sacked or to resign, even if a party leader decides that is the best option in an attempt to prevent any negative attention spread like a contagion. The same would apply of Thornberry's snobbish astonishment.
Ultimately, insulting someone or being a generally unpleasant person is not of great concern. That multiple police officers lied and committed gross misconduct, which had to be forced out at the cost of millions and many many months of time, and other officers not even involved in the incident seized upon it for political purposes and also lied to achieve political goals, is much more of a concern than Mitchell being unpleasant, even now it is ruled he probably did say Pleb or words so close to the effect it makes no difference.
I'm also having trouble getting a bet accepted. I want to bet on Idina Menzel being the Christmas number one, but I can't even persuade Ladbrokes to quote me a price.
The polling on the kippers misjudging Asians/Muslims I've previously linked for you and is on the YouGov website.
Plus when I posted the Cathderal story one of your fellow travellers in UKIP said something along the lines of under LibLabCon it was inevitable that Westminster Cathedral would soon be a mosque.
Your claim that was that the UKIP lead over the Loonies was entirely down to "thick Kippers obsessed with Muslims/Islam". That's more than 90% of UKIP supporters.
Data on average IQs doesn't show that more than 90% of UKIP supporters are "thick". Having an unfavourable view of Muslims doesn't mean you are obsessed with Muslims, and a lot less than 90% of UKIP supporters didn't have such a view. One poster on a political online forum also doesn't count as more than 90% of UKIP supporters.
An intelligent non-thick person should be able to grasp this.
Here's a challenge for you.
I'll give up mentioning Kippers being obsessed with Muslims and you stop talking about Muslims.
Agreed?
In the past, when I have made factual errors and turned out to be wrong, I have had the good grace to admit my error - even knowing full well that less decent posters like yourself would continue to criticise me over such errors. Why can't you just admit you were wrong here? Is it so hard?
Not too many surprises in the Con-LD battleground. Two observations: -John Hemmings has the mother of all incumbency boosts. -Conservatives unchanged in Watford since last poll, the LD selection has tore into Labour share.
John Hemmings MP has posted on this site in the past (I got into a barney with him regarding Alchemy/Phoenix/Rover)
Well Mitchell accepted that he said something, from the Guardian feed:
"He said he would never call a policeman a pleb “let alone a fucking pleb” - although he agreed he muttered audibly under his breath ‘I thought you lot were supposed to fucking help us’ - but not at the officer." "
The polling on the kippers misjudging Asians/Muslims I've previously linked for you and is on the YouGov website.
Plus when I posted the Cathderal story one of your fellow travellers in UKIP said something along the lines of under LibLabCon it was inevitable that Westminster Cathedral would soon be a mosque.
Your claim that was that the UKIP lead over the Loonies was entirely down to "thick Kippers obsessed with Muslims/Islam". That's more than 90% of UKIP supporters.
Data on average IQs doesn't show that more than 90% of UKIP supporters are "thick". Having an unfavourable view of Muslims doesn't mean you are obsessed with Muslims, and a lot less than 90% of UKIP supporters didn't have such a view. One poster on a political online forum also doesn't count as more than 90% of UKIP supporters.
An intelligent non-thick person should be able to grasp this.
Here's a challenge for you.
I'll give up mentioning Kippers being obsessed with Muslims and you stop talking about Muslims.
Agreed?
In the past, when I have made factual errors and turned out to be wrong, I have had the good grace to admit my error - even knowing full well that less decent posters like yourself would continue to criticise me over such errors. Why can't you just admit you were wrong here? Is it so hard?
The best thing about plebgate on PB were the posters who said Dave would never fire a chum then swiftly changed direction to say Dave sat on evidence that would have cleared Mitchell
Good times indeed. In the same vein, I enjoyed the very real outrage at not firing him quickly enough, vs firing him too quickly as more facts emerged.
The polling on the kippers misjudging Asians/Muslims I've previously linked for you and is on the YouGov website.
Plus when I posted the Cathderal story one of your fellow travellers in UKIP said something along the lines of under LibLabCon it was inevitable that Westminster Cathedral would soon be a mosque.
Your claim that was that the UKIP lead over the Loonies was entirely down to "thick Kippers obsessed with Muslims/Islam". That's more than 90% of UKIP supporters.
Data on average IQs doesn't show that more than 90% of UKIP supporters are "thick". Having an unfavourable view of Muslims doesn't mean you are obsessed with Muslims, and a lot less than 90% of UKIP supporters didn't have such a view. One poster on a political online forum also doesn't count as more than 90% of UKIP supporters.
An intelligent non-thick person should be able to grasp this.
Here's a challenge for you.
I'll give up mentioning Kippers being obsessed with Muslims and you stop talking about Muslims.
Agreed?
In the past, when I have made factual errors and turned out to be wrong, I have had the good grace to admit my error - even knowing full well that less decent posters like yourself would continue to criticise me over such errors. Why can't you just admit you were wrong here? Is it so hard?
But I wasn't wrong.
You were wrong. 93% of UKIP voters are not thick and 93% of UKIP voters are not obsessed with Muslims/Islam. You're just too thick to understand that the evidence you cited didn't justify your statement.
They pledged to reduce immigration, immigration went up.
They need to come up with a coherent response.
That said, I would not be surprised to hear EdM next Weds lead on this and somehow simultaneously be outraged that the Cons haven't brought down immigration and delighted that immigration is so "healthy". He has form.
My answer is too complicated, but isn't the only positive way to spin it that those bits of immigration they can control they have controlled.
And those that they can't - they're trying to change the rules so they can.
Admitting to powerlessness may be the best answer.
There seems to be no reporting of exactly how the Scottish Income Tax is actually going to work in practice.
Per Newsnight: Approx 7% of Income Tax is raised in Scotland at the moment.
Scotland is approx 9% of UK population and gets approx 10% of public spending.
So at the moment Scotland effectively gets 10% of the Income Tax raised.
Under the new arrangements, Scotland sets its own Income Tax. If rates are unchanged it will only collect the amount equal to 7%.
So what about the other 3% (ie 30% of the money Scotland now gets)? Is Scotland giving this money up? Surely not? It will still get it via the Barnett formula.
Result: Nothing changes. Scotland still gets an amount equal to 10% of UK Income tax receipts.
It's like giving a child £10 pocket money. You then say "look after yourself - do a paper round." The child earns £7 delivering papers. You then still give the child £3 to top them up. So they still end up with a total of £10.
So Scotland isn't actually going to be raising all of its Income Tax at all.
I guess it's all far too complicated for the BBC or anyone to actually report it in a way anyone will understand. But it is a total farce. Either Scotland should collect its own tax or it shouldn't.
The income tax calculation is easy but stupid.
Subtract how much money Scotland would have raised via income tax under the UK rates from using the Scottish rates. that is how much money extra/less Scotland will get from the block grant. So if Scotland doesn't vary Income tax rates it the block grant is unvaried.
The real WTF come in for something like Air Passenger Transport Duty. Say Scotland zero rates it - by how much should Scotland's block grant be reduced? For this year it is easy to calcualte - it would be reduced by the amount of APTD that was raised but for following years there is no reasonable calculation. If Scotland doubles the number of air passengers does that mean it's budget would be slashed by twice as much?
Is Scotland going to have its own revenue collecting service (SHMRC), or is it all done by HRMC and just a different size cheque sent to Holyrood ?
I believe there's a separate thing that's still part of HMRC being setup for the Scotland Act 2012 implementation. With all the millions of pounds of startup costs that involves.
The conclusion is off for 14 days until Mitchell decides what's next: 5RB Barristers @5RB Follow Mitting J: I don't entirely agree. Mitchell disappointed, deserves time to consider. 14 days & hearing if necessary in new year #plebgate
Mitting J: Mitchell to have 14 days to formulate undertaking to Rowland & court; 14 days too to agree next steps if not resolved #plebgate
Mitting J: Claimants in each action to come back to the court if not agreed. Browne QC: Costs - costs follow the event #plebgate 5:55 PM - 27 Nov 2014
Well Mitchell accepted that he said something, from the Guardian feed:
"He said he would never call a policeman a pleb “let alone a fucking pleb” - although he agreed he muttered audibly under his breath ‘I thought you lot were supposed to fucking help us’ - but not at the officer." "
On one of the rare occasions I actually used some profanity in a public situation where it was not appropriate, I also tried the 'I swore audibly but not at the person' defence, as this was indeed the case. I don't think it works very well though, people think you're splitting haris.
Anyone stupid enough to sue for libel when he himself was his only witness.. seems to lack a certain ability to make a judgement of the evident risk of failure..
Given that Mitchell appears to be a thoroughly rude and unpleasant person judging by the evidence presented by other politicians , he also appears to be suffering from a deluded sense of his own credibility.
It's difficult to disagree, but I can't help feeling extremely sorry for him. The ego is a terrible thing sometimes and can hinder calm evaluation. His reputation and career are now ruined because he could not walk away. It's a sad story and at least one truly unpleasant person looks like getting away with doing something very nasty.
The polling on the kippers misjudging Asians/Muslims I've previously linked for you and is on the YouGov website.
Plus when I posted the Cathderal story one of your fellow travellers in UKIP said something along the lines of under LibLabCon it was inevitable that Westminster Cathedral would soon be a mosque.
Your claim that was that the UKIP lead over the Loonies was entirely down to "thick Kippers obsessed with Muslims/Islam". That's more than 90% of UKIP supporters.
Data on average IQs doesn't show that more than 90% of UKIP supporters are "thick". Having an unfavourable view of Muslims doesn't mean you are obsessed with Muslims, and a lot less than 90% of UKIP supporters didn't have such a view. One poster on a political online forum also doesn't count as more than 90% of UKIP supporters.
An intelligent non-thick person should be able to grasp this.
Here's a challenge for you.
I'll give up mentioning Kippers being obsessed with Muslims and you stop talking about Muslims.
Agreed?
In the past, when I have made factual errors and turned out to be wrong, I have had the good grace to admit my error - even knowing full well that less decent posters like yourself would continue to criticise me over such errors. Why can't you just admit you were wrong here? Is it so hard?
But I wasn't wrong.
Trolling is only fun if you have to engineer a rise from someone. This is like dynamiting fish in an egg-cup.
When you join UKIP, I can only assume they surgically remove your sense of humour, and replace it with an outrage node.
There seems to be no reporting of exactly how the Scottish Income Tax is actually going to work in practice.
Per Newsnight: Approx 7% of Income Tax is raised in Scotland at the moment.
Scotland is approx 9% of UK population and gets approx 10% of public spending.
So at the moment Scotland effectively gets 10% of the Income Tax raised.
Under the new arrangements, Scotland sets its own Income Tax. If rates are unchanged it will only collect the amount equal to 7%.
So what about the other 3% (ie 30% of the money Scotland now gets)? Is Scotland giving this money up? Surely not? It will still get it via the Barnett formula.
Result: Nothing changes. Scotland still gets an amount equal to 10% of UK Income tax receipts.
It's like giving a child £10 pocket money. You then say "look after yourself - do a paper round." The child earns £7 delivering papers. You then still give the child £3 to top them up. So they still end up with a total of £10.
So Scotland isn't actually going to be raising all of its Income Tax at all.
I guess it's all far too complicated for the BBC or anyone to actually report it in a way anyone will understand. But it is a total farce. Either Scotland should collect its own tax or it shouldn't.
The real WTF come in for something like Air Passenger Transport Duty. Say Scotland zero rates it - by how much should Scotland's block grant be reduced? For this year it is easy to calcualte - it would be reduced by the amount of APTD that was raised but for following years there is no reasonable calculation. If Scotland doubles the number of air passengers does that mean it's budget would be slashed by twice as much?
Surely the point is that an entirely artificial arrangement is being created.
What Scotland actually gets (ie the final total it has to spend) is still going to be entirely subject to decisions taken at Westminster.
eg Whatever happens, down the road the Barnett formula could be changed which would change what Scotland gets.
In my view, the bottom line is that you either raise your own money or you don't. It seems clear that under these proposals Scotland is not raising its own money.
Weighing up the competing claims, the judge said PC Rowland was "not the sort of man who would have had the wit, imagination or inclination to invent on the spur of the moment an account of what a senior politician had said to him in temper
He may well be right about that, I take his word about PC Rowland, although apparently other officers involved in this whole affair did have the inclination to invent things about the whole affair, so apparently not all his fellows are of the same level of probity.
PC Rowland was also surely aware of misconduct of fellow officers given he was at the heart of the affair, and yet I guess it was not his responsibility to do anything about it.
Danny Shaw ✔ @DannyShawBBC Follow Gavin Millar for the Sun (News Group) also wants £200k as interim payment. I reckon total costs likely to be £2m - £3m. #plebgate
@Pong When the Tories romp home by 7% in Solihull and Clegg squeaks it by 4% in Hallam you give £6 to charity
What exactly is the bet you're offering to me?
@Pong got there first, and I don't want too much exposure ^_~
Bah no one is willing to bet on Clegg not winning Hallam
I will. Clegg wins I give you a quid. Someone else wins you give me a grand. :-)
That has to be the worst bet on here since Mark Senior offered Neil 8/1 on Caroline Lucas winning next year.
You ask a hundred women you don't know to have sex with you one will say yes! (The 'Yes' rate for a pretty woman asking men the same is 50%. Saw an amusing Youtube of this yesterday)
They pledged to reduce immigration, immigration went up.
They need to come up with a coherent response.
That said, I would not be surprised to hear EdM next Weds lead on this and somehow simultaneously be outraged that the Cons haven't brought down immigration and delighted that immigration is so "healthy". He has form.
My answer is too complicated, but isn't the only positive way to spin it that those bits of immigration they can control they have controlled.
And those that they can't - they're trying to change the rules so they can.
Admitting to powerlessness may be the best answer.
Otherwise it has to be a variant on "oops"
Brave but ultimately doomed attempt to defend the indefensible, Charles.
Btw, I must say what a pleasure it was to meet you at DD the other night. I would have liked to chat more to you but had to be away early. (Matron doesn't like me to be out much after 8.30pm.) Next time, maybe?
Edited extra bit: Mr. Indigo, Damien Walter, a Guardian chap [hardly an EU-hating stereotype] tweeted this: "Long story short, #vatmess will make selling ebooks and other digital goods IMPOSSIBLE. It's in contest for the shittiest law ever written."
They pledged to reduce immigration, immigration went up.
They need to come up with a coherent response.
That said, I would not be surprised to hear EdM next Weds lead on this and somehow simultaneously be outraged that the Cons haven't brought down immigration and delighted that immigration is so "healthy". He has form.
My answer is too complicated, but isn't the only positive way to spin it that those bits of immigration they can control they have controlled.
And those that they can't - they're trying to change the rules so they can.
Admitting to powerlessness may be the best answer.
Otherwise it has to be a variant on "oops"
The govt is clocking up a number of fails against the targets it set itself. Will be damaging in the GE campaign against future promises.
"Wallis, 53, was sentenced to 12 months in prison on 6 February having pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office following his arrest under Operation Alice. He had sent an email to his MP, conservative deputy chief whip John Randall, claiming to have witnessed Mitchell shouting obscenities at the police officers in Downing Street. Though a serving officer with the Diplomatic Protection Group (DPG), a police investigation found he was not present ....
They pledged to reduce immigration, immigration went up.
They need to come up with a coherent response.
That said, I would not be surprised to hear EdM next Weds lead on this and somehow simultaneously be outraged that the Cons haven't brought down immigration and delighted that immigration is so "healthy". He has form.
My answer is too complicated, but isn't the only positive way to spin it that those bits of immigration they can control they have controlled.
And those that they can't - they're trying to change the rules so they can.
Admitting to powerlessness may be the best answer.
Otherwise it has to be a variant on "oops"
Dave will have to pledge to be able to cut EU immigration and the public will have to judge him on how well he does.
Or, as Pritchard says, back away from his pledge to reduce immigration.
@Isam - Nige had it spot on; Pritchard was on a hopeless brief.
"Wallis, 53, was sentenced to 12 months in prison on 6 February having pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office following his arrest under Operation Alice. He had sent an email to his MP, conservative deputy chief whip John Randall, claiming to have witnessed Mitchell shouting obscenities at the police officers in Downing Street. Though a serving officer with the Diplomatic Protection Group (DPG), a police investigation found he was not present ....
There seems to be no reporting of exactly how the Scottish Income Tax is actually going to work in practice.
Per Newsnight: Approx 7% of Income Tax is raised in Scotland at the moment.
Scotland is approx 9% of UK population and gets approx 10% of public spending.
So at the moment Scotland effectively gets 10% of the Income Tax raised.
Under the new arrangements, Scotland sets its own Income Tax. If rates are unchanged it will only collect the amount equal to 7%.
So what about the other 3% (ie 30% of the money Scotland now gets)? Is Scotland giving this money up? Surely not? It will still get it via the Barnett formula.
Result: Nothing changes. Scotland still gets an amount equal to 10% of UK Income tax receipts.
It's like giving a child £10 pocket money. You then say "look after yourself - do a paper round." The child earns £7 delivering papers. You then still give the child £3 to top them up. So they still end up with a total of £10.
So Scotland isn't actually going to be raising all of its Income Tax at all.
I guess it's all far too complicated for the BBC or anyone to actually report it in a way anyone will understand. But it is a total farce. Either Scotland should collect its own tax or it shouldn't.
The real WTF come in for something like Air Passenger Transport Duty. Say Scotland zero rates it - by how much should Scotland's block grant be reduced? For this year it is easy to calcualte - it would be reduced by the amount of APTD that was raised but for following years there is no reasonable calculation. If Scotland doubles the number of air passengers does that mean it's budget would be slashed by twice as much?
Surely the point is that an entirely artificial arrangement is being created.
What Scotland actually gets (ie the final total it has to spend) is still going to be entirely subject to decisions taken at Westminster.
eg Whatever happens, down the road the Barnett formula could be changed which would change what Scotland gets.
In my view, the bottom line is that you either raise your own money or you don't. It seems clear that under these proposals Scotland is not raising its own money.
I would agree. I am beginning to feel that a lot of us south of the border (In my case several thousand miles south of the border) are getting as tired of the whole affair as you are, most of us would rather you got your DevoMax++ or preferably independence, then you could find out the joys of running a balanced budget and none of it would be our fault! Full devolution or independence is clearly at the end of the road, its just wasting time and p155ing everyone off taking time to get there.
TSE - what odds would you offer on Clegg in Hallam? I think Labour are about 7/2 which seems fair, but I try not to bet on outcomes I favour. In fact I hardly bet at all but I'd be interested to know what you think is reasonable.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Indigo, Damien Walter, a Guardian chap [hardly an EU-hating stereotype] tweeted this: "Long story short, #vatmess will make selling ebooks and other digital goods IMPOSSIBLE. It's in contest for the shittiest law ever written."
When I first read about the change I thought the person who had wrote the article had completely misunderstood the law.
But then I slowly realised it was the shittest law ever written. Genuinely mind mindbogglingly awful.
When does the Rowland vs Mitchell verdict come in, there's a paradox in what the verdict should be based on the decision of the Mitchell vs the Sun case and the rule of never get involved in a libel action.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Indigo, Damien Walter, a Guardian chap [hardly an EU-hating stereotype] tweeted this: "Long story short, #vatmess will make selling ebooks and other digital goods IMPOSSIBLE. It's in contest for the shittiest law ever written."
Anyone stupid enough to sue for libel when he himself was his only witness.. seems to lack a certain ability to make a judgement of the evident risk of failure..
Given that Mitchell appears to be a thoroughly rude and unpleasant person judging by the evidence presented by other politicians , he also appears to be suffering from a deluded sense of his own credibility.
It's difficult to disagree, but I can't help feeling extremely sorry for him. The ego is a terrible thing sometimes and can hinder calm evaluation. His reputation and career are now ruined because he could not walk away. It's a sad story and at least one truly unpleasant person looks like getting away with doing something very nasty.
I don't have a dog in this fight, Southam, but I do have one small personal angle.
For a while I worked for a firm which came under the control of the Department which Mitchell headed. The widely held view of him was that he was exceptionally able but very abrasive. Many of his former underlings will no doubt be pleased at the trial outcome.
Personally I think nobody emerges from it with credit.
The polling on the kippers misjudging Asians/Muslims I've previously linked for you and is on the YouGov website.
Plus when I posted the Cathderal story one of your fellow travellers in UKIP said something along the lines of under LibLabCon it was inevitable that Westminster Cathedral would soon be a mosque.
Your claim that was that the UKIP lead over the Loonies was entirely down to "thick Kippers obsessed with Muslims/Islam". That's more than 90% of UKIP supporters.
Data on average IQs doesn't show that more than 90% of UKIP supporters are "thick". Having an unfavourable view of Muslims doesn't mean you are obsessed with Muslims, and a lot less than 90% of UKIP supporters didn't have such a view. One poster on a political online forum also doesn't count as more than 90% of UKIP supporters.
An intelligent non-thick person should be able to grasp this.
Here's a challenge for you.
I'll give up mentioning Kippers being obsessed with Muslims and you stop talking about Muslims.
Agreed?
In the past, when I have made factual errors and turned out to be wrong, I have had the good grace to admit my error - even knowing full well that less decent posters like yourself would continue to criticise me over such errors. Why can't you just admit you were wrong here? Is it so hard?
But I wasn't wrong.
Trolling is only fun if you have to engineer a rise from someone. This is like dynamiting fish in an egg-cup.
When you join UKIP, I can only assume they surgically remove your sense of humour, and replace it with an outrage node.
There seems to be no reporting of exactly how the Scottish Income Tax is actually going to work in practice.
Per Newsnight: Approx 7% of Income Tax is raised in Scotland at the moment.
Scotland is approx 9% of UK population and gets approx 10% of public spending.
So at the moment Scotland effectively gets 10% of the Income Tax raised.
Under the new arrangements, Scotland sets its own Income Tax. If rates are unchanged it will only collect the amount equal to 7%.
So what about the other 3% (ie 30% of the money Scotland now gets)? Is Scotland giving this money up? Surely not? It will still get it via the Barnett formula.
Result: Nothing changes. Scotland still gets an amount equal to 10% of UK Income tax receipts.
It's like giving a child £10 pocket money. You then say "look after yourself - do a paper round." The child earns £7 delivering papers. You then still give the child £3 to top them up. So they still end up with a total of £10.
So Scotland isn't actually going to be raising all of its Income Tax at all.
I guess it's all far too complicated for the BBC or anyone to actually report it in a way anyone will understand. But it is a total farce. Either Scotland should collect its own tax or it shouldn't.
The real WTF come in for something like Air Passenger Transport Duty. Say Scotland zero rates it - by how much should Scotland's block grant be reduced? For this year it is easy to calcualte - it would be reduced by the amount of APTD that was raised but for following years there is no reasonable calculation. If Scotland doubles the number of air passengers does that mean it's budget would be slashed by twice as much?
Surely the point is that an entirely artificial arrangement is being created.
What Scotland actually gets (ie the final total it has to spend) is still going to be entirely subject to decisions taken at Westminster.
eg Whatever happens, down the road the Barnett formula could be changed which would change what Scotland gets.
In my view, the bottom line is that you either raise your own money or you don't. It seems clear that under these proposals Scotland is not raising its own money.
Exactly. It is a sham.
Real power and responsibility would be Scotland raising and keeping all it's own revenue and cutting a cheque to the Treasury for shared UK services.
That would be Scotland standing on it's own two feet.
They pledged to reduce immigration, immigration went up.
They need to come up with a coherent response.
That said, I would not be surprised to hear EdM next Weds lead on this and somehow simultaneously be outraged that the Cons haven't brought down immigration and delighted that immigration is so "healthy". He has form.
My answer is too complicated, but isn't the only positive way to spin it that those bits of immigration they can control they have controlled.
And those that they can't - they're trying to change the rules so they can.
Admitting to powerlessness may be the best answer.
Otherwise it has to be a variant on "oops"
The govt is clocking up a number of fails against the targets it set itself. Will be damaging in the GE campaign against future promises.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Indigo, Damien Walter, a Guardian chap [hardly an EU-hating stereotype] tweeted this: "Long story short, #vatmess will make selling ebooks and other digital goods IMPOSSIBLE. It's in contest for the shittiest law ever written."
When I first read about the change I thought the person who had wrote the article had completely misunderstood the law.
But then I slowly realised it was the shittest law ever written. Genuinely mind mindbogglingly awful.
Indeed so.
However, as a reality check, it's worth pointing out that leaving the EU would make absolutely no difference at all on this particular piece of insanity.
TSE - what odds would you offer on Clegg in Hallam? I think Labour are about 7/2 which seems fair, but I try not to bet on outcomes I favour. In fact I hardly bet at all but I'd be interested to know what you think is reasonable.
Mr. Speedy, Mitchell lost because he could not prove his innocence?
And here was I thinking guilt was the thing that had to be proved [not a go at you, incidentally, but the judge].
If there's no concrete evidence and that's ok then we might as well employ witchsmellers.
It's a libel case not a criminal trial. The judge decides on the balance of probabilities. Mitchell brought the case and so had to prove that the policeman lied when he said that Mitchell called him a pleb.
Why he brought the case, God knows, because until now all that anyone remembered was that he'd been a bit rude to the police but that the police had then behaved badly in how they had reacted. Whereas now all the police shenanigans will be forgotten.
TSE - what odds would you offer on Clegg in Hallam? I think Labour are about 7/2 which seems fair, but I try not to bet on outcomes I favour. In fact I hardly bet at all but I'd be interested to know what you think is reasonable.
I wouldn't touch Labour even if they were 7/1.
The Lib Dems are very active in the seat, even the notorious Oakeshott poll had Clegg highly rated as their local MP.
Plus Labour have never won this seat in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire.
I know this sounds odd but because of the demographic of the seats Clegg's actions on Uni fees endeared him to the many Uni staff that live in the seat.
Mr. Alistair, it's ****ing insane. I've skimmed some info on it, I may withdraw my e-books from sale prior to the law coming into effect. I need to find out more, and see how Cable reacts.
.......
Mr. Indigo posted the UKIP link as a joke, but if it's as bad as many are saying then I might ****ing well join the purples. It's hard enough trying to make a success of being a writer without having this kind of bullshit.
There seems to be no reporting of exactly how the Scottish Income Tax is actually going to work in practice.
Per Newsnight: Approx 7% of Income Tax is raised in Scotland at the moment.
Scotland is approx 9% of UK population and gets approx 10% of public spending.
So at the moment Scotland effectively gets 10% of the Income Tax raised.
Under the new arrangements, Scotland sets its own Income Tax. If rates are unchanged it will only collect the amount equal to 7%.
So what about the other 3% (ie 30% of the money Scotland now gets)? Is Scotland giving this money up? Surely not? It will still get it via the Barnett formula.
Result: Nothing changes. Scotland still gets an amount equal to 10% of UK Income tax receipts.
It's like giving a child £10 pocket money. You then say "look after yourself - do a paper round." The child earns £7 delivering papers. You then still give the child £3 to top them up. So they still end up with a total of £10.
So Scotland isn't actually going to be raising all of its Income Tax at all.
I guess it's all far too complicated for the BBC or anyone to actually report it in a way anyone will understand. But it is a total farce. Either Scotland should collect its own tax or it shouldn't.
The real WTF come in for something like Air Passenger Transport Duty. Say Scotland zero rates it - by how much should Scotland's block grant be reduced? For this year it is easy to calcualte - it would be reduced by the amount of APTD that was raised but for following years there is no reasonable calculation. If Scotland doubles the number of air passengers does that mean it's budget would be slashed by twice as much?
Surely the point is that an entirely artificial arrangement is being created.
What Scotland actually gets (ie the final total it has to spend) is still going to be entirely subject to decisions taken at Westminster.
eg Whatever happens, down the road the Barnett formula could be changed which would change what Scotland gets.
In my view, the bottom line is that you either raise your own money or you don't. It seems clear that under these proposals Scotland is not raising its own money.
That would be Scotland standing on it's own two feet.
Which is called 'independence'.
The advantage of 'the Union' is a pooling of resources and a sharing of risks - so things like pensions stay within the Union - as do oil revenues. Devolving either would lead to growing problems for Scotland (unless it had its own currency) - political and currency unions without fiscal transfers don't tend to have an easy time of it.....
Breaking PB News: Farage 'unlikely to be elected God this year' -UKIP in dismay Further Breaking PB News: Lib Dem triumph as pollsters predict 'Most to still be alive' after May 2015
Breaking PB News: Farage 'unlikely to be elected God this year' -UKIP in dismay Further Breaking PB News: Lib Dem triumph as pollsters predict 'Most to still be alive' after May 2015
Mr. Indigo, thanks very much for that link [I'm very much a layman at this sort of thing].
This bit stuck out: "After January 2015 if Tom sells an ebook to a customer in Germany with no VAT number he has to charge VAT at the German rate. This is because the “place of supply” for a digitally delivered service is changing to be the customer’s country NOT the supplier’s.
He also has to pay the VAT due to the German authorities, meaning he needs to register for VAT in Germany. In the UK however, as a VAT registered business, he will be able to register for the “Mini One Stop Shop” (MOSS), submit a return and pay the VAT due to them, and then MOSS will distribute it to each country."
The main lessons to learn from Plebgate are these:-
1. A bit of politeness - to staff and from staff to those they are serving - does no-one any harm at all and makes pretty much everything easier. 2. Wheeling your bike a few yards more is hardly a big ask; nor is opening a gate. 3. Never get involved in litigation unless you absolutely have to. (I am a litigator, btw, so I know what I'm talking about. I'm not worried about not being busy, either.)
Breaking PB News: Farage 'unlikely to be elected God this year' -UKIP in dismay Further Breaking PB News: Lib Dem triumph as pollsters predict 'Most to still be alive' after May 2015
While I am one who believes there is a tendency for Kippers to, shall we say, overreact to things - there is possibly more provocation to do so - that is solid gold right there. In any case, we all know UKIP would not be in dismay were Farage not elected God this year, because the divine elections take place every 3 years, holy trinity and all that.
Breaking PB News: Farage 'unlikely to be elected God this year' -UKIP in dismay Further Breaking PB News: Lib Dem triumph as pollsters predict 'Most to still be alive' after May 2015
They don't like it up 'em.
That is the same argument some of the more aggressive Nats use too.
Breaking PB News: Farage 'unlikely to be elected God this year' -UKIP in dismay Further Breaking PB News: Lib Dem triumph as pollsters predict 'Most to still be alive' after May 2015
While I am one who believes there is a tendency for Kippers to, shall we say, overreact to things - there is possibly more provocation to do so - that is solid gold right there. In any case, we all know UKIP would not be in dismay were Farage not elected God this year, because the divine elections take place every 3 years, holy trinity and all that.
As a kipper I can say with hand on heart that it is going better for us than I could have possibly dreamt
Breaking PB News: Farage 'unlikely to be elected God this year' -UKIP in dismay Further Breaking PB News: Lib Dem triumph as pollsters predict 'Most to still be alive' after May 2015
A Kipper whinging and moaning like a whore?
I'm shocked.
You are the Fuzzy Wuzzies of the political world.
They don't like it up 'em.
Um, it was a joke! A bit of mild humour -jeez, lighten up!
There seems to be no reporting of exactly how the Scottish Income Tax is actually going to work in practice.
Per Newsnight: Approx 7% of Income Tax is raised in Scotland at the moment.
Scotland is approx 9% of UK population and gets approx 10% of public spending.
So at the moment Scotland effectively gets 10% of the Income Tax raised.
Under the new arrangements, Scotland sets its own Income Tax. If rates are unchanged it will only collect the amount equal to 7%.
So what about the other 3% (ie 30% of the money Scotland now gets)? Is Scotland giving this money up? Surely not? It will still get it via the Barnett formula.
Result: Nothing changes. Scotland still gets an amount equal to 10% of UK Income tax receipts.
It's like giving a child £10 pocket money. You then say "look after yourself - do a paper round." The child earns £7 delivering papers. You then still give the child £3 to top them up. So they still end up with a total of £10.
So Scotland isn't actually going to be raising all of its Income Tax at all.
I guess it's all far too complicated for the BBC or anyone to actually report it in a way anyone will understand. But it is a total farce. Either Scotland should collect its own tax or it shouldn't.
The real WTF come in for something like Air Passenger Transport Duty. Say Scotland zero rates it - by how much should Scotland's block grant be reduced? For this year it is easy to calcualte - it would be reduced by the amount of APTD that was raised but for following years there is no reasonable calculation. If Scotland doubles the number of air passengers does that mean it's budget would be slashed by twice as much?
Surely the point is that an entirely artificial arrangement is being created.
What Scotland actually gets (ie the final total it has to spend) is still going to be entirely subject to decisions taken at Westminster.
eg Whatever happens, down the road the Barnett formula could be changed which would change what Scotland gets.
In my view, the bottom line is that you either raise your own money or you don't. It seems clear that under these proposals Scotland is not raising its own money.
That would be Scotland standing on it's own two feet.
Which is called 'independence'.
Quite. Although I have been slightly encouraged in that while the SNP are of course not entirely content with what is suggested, there would be no possibility of that, I haven't seem absurd levels of outrage on either side breaking out just yet, just standard political hyperbolising of what is/is not on the table and how good/bad that is.
KentOnline @Kent_Online 2h2 hours ago #Ukip South Thanet member 'no longer on twitter' after mistaking cathedral for mosque: http://bit.ly/1rqz7X8
If all the thick Kippers obsessed with Islam/Muslims disappeared UKIP would be polling behind the loonies.
It's an easy mistake to make, TSE.
I've often trotted round for a quick confession only to find myself kneeling before a puzzled-looking Imam.
I'd like to see a poll asking people to identify what type of religious building Westminster cathedral is from just a picture. I know the building as I lived near there, but it does look more like a mosque than a cathedral.
I used to work opposite, Socco. It's one of London's hidden treasures.
Nevertheless I think anybody who mistakes it for a mosque needs a trip to Specsavers. The absence of a separate entrance for Ladies is a bit of a giveaway.
I'm not sure you can easily tell the entrance labels from the backshot of a news report. The reality is that, unlike most British cathedrals, it's built in the Byzantine style, and Islamic architecture followed the Byzantine style from the Dome of the Rock onwards.
OK, Socco, point taken.
I can in fact see the similarities. I still think the culprit deserves his or her place in the Twitter For Dummies class, next to Ms Thornbury.
For God's sake, it's got a huge picture of Jesus over the front door. If that's not a clue that it's not a mosque, I don't know what is.
I used to live next door to it too.
Jesus is mentioned in the Quran.
OT: where in Italy did your Italian parent come from?
Ok, so my current plan, though I need to read more, is to withdraw my e-books from sale ahead of that vile law's introduction [I don't fancy registering for VAT in Slovenia].
I do need to read up more and see how Cable reacts, but that's my plan.
So, as well as signing that petition, please do consider buying my books if you haven't yet.
If falling oil prices lead to deflation, is that a 'bad thing'?
I get that deflation in general - i.e. a fall in the nominal price of a large number of goods and services - is a bad thing for a whole variety of reasons. But if it's one specific commodity? Not sure...
The judge did not 'proclaim Andrew Mitchell a liar', nor did the BBC claim that he did.
True, and as difficult and abrasive a person that he apparently is, it is a great shame that most people probably will take away from all this that he is a liar, and therefore that the misconduct that went on to force his resignation was justified or no big deal. We know people will think that because even before this ruling plenty of people were of the view that because Mitchell was a arse any injury done to him was of no concern.
Ok, so my current plan, though I need to read more, is to withdraw my e-books from sale ahead of that vile law's introduction [I don't fancy registering for VAT in Slovenia]..
I think you can happily continue to sell them to customers in the UK and outside the EU.
Breaking PB News: Farage 'unlikely to be elected God this year' -UKIP in dismay Further Breaking PB News: Lib Dem triumph as pollsters predict 'Most to still be alive' after May 2015
While I am one who believes there is a tendency for Kippers to, shall we say, overreact to things - there is possibly more provocation to do so - that is solid gold right there. In any case, we all know UKIP would not be in dismay were Farage not elected God this year, because the divine elections take place every 3 years, holy trinity and all that.
As a kipper I can say with hand on heart that it is going better for us than I could have possibly dreamt
I don't doubt it - and in such circumstances, I can hardly blame some of your more excitable like minded fellows and fellowettes from getting a bit carried away. Who wouldn't?
The judge did not 'proclaim Andrew Mitchell a liar', nor did the BBC claim that he did.
True, and as difficult and abrasive a person that he apparently is, it is a great shame that most people probably will take away from all this that he is a liar, and therefore that the misconduct that went on to force his resignation was justified or no big deal. We know people will think that because even before this ruling plenty of people were of the view that because Mitchell was a arse any injury done to him was of no concern.
Especially people in Number 10 Downing Street, one imagines.
The judge did not 'proclaim Andrew Mitchell a liar', nor did the BBC claim that he did.
Why can't Kippers avoid unfounded accusations of lying? It's weird, some kind of bizarre psychological tick they have.
I find the whole thing ridiculous personally. I don't particularly care if he was rude to a policeman -it's not like I'm inviting him to family Christmas. I care that he was a profligate, rubbish International Development Secretary who seemed to spend most of his time giving our money away to unsavoury third world dictators. Portraying him either as a maligned saint or a bully lets him off the hook for being rubbish.
Ok, so my current plan, though I need to read more, is to withdraw my e-books from sale ahead of that vile law's introduction [I don't fancy registering for VAT in Slovenia]..
I think you can happily continue to sell them to customers in the UK and outside the EU.
Who is the seller here -- MD or will Amazon take care of the details?
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30227342
Cheap chickens at asda this weekend
Subtract how much money Scotland would have raised via income tax under the UK rates from using the Scottish rates. that is how much money extra/less Scotland will get from the block grant. So if Scotland doesn't vary Income tax rates it the block grant is unvaried.
The real WTF come in for something like Air Passenger Transport Duty. Say Scotland zero rates it - by how much should Scotland's block grant be reduced? For this year it is easy to calcualte - it would be reduced by the amount of APTD that was raised but for following years there is no reasonable calculation. If Scotland doubles the number of air passengers does that mean it's budget would be slashed by twice as much?
Why he brought the case, God knows, because until now all that anyone remembered was that he'd been a bit rude to the police but that the police had then behaved badly in how they had reacted. Whereas now all the police shenanigans will be forgotten.
Miliband chose to use this case in two PMQs, when the case was so evidently farcical and dodgy. He should have apologised. In fact, he still should.
I feel so sorry for Mitchell. The police should **** for this.
Data on average IQs doesn't show that more than 90% of UKIP supporters are "thick". Having an unfavourable view of Muslims doesn't mean you are obsessed with Muslims, and a lot less than 90% of UKIP supporters didn't have such a view. One poster on a political online forum also doesn't count as more than 90% of UKIP supporters.
An intelligent non-thick person should be able to grasp this.
Even non EU immigration is on the rise
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04t0ndr/daily-politics-27112014
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/expat-money/11027075/Expats-face-400-million-tax-raid.html
I'll give up mentioning Kippers being obsessed with Muslims and you stop talking about Muslims.
Agreed?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/26/police-sacked-plebgate-andrew-mitchell
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/11254829/New-EU-VAT-rules-threaten-to-kill-UK-micro-firms.html
Apparently this means every independent author in the world will have to register for VAT. It's ****ing insane.
Still, if I had low pressure I'm sure this news has helped raise it to a healthy level.
For ****'s sake....
http://hsfnotes.com/litigation/2014/11/11/mitchell-decision-considers-courts-approach-to-admitting-evidence-of-similar-facts/
Ultimately, insulting someone or being a generally unpleasant person is not of great concern. That multiple police officers lied and committed gross misconduct, which had to be forced out at the cost of millions and many many months of time, and other officers not even involved in the incident seized upon it for political purposes and also lied to achieve political goals, is much more of a concern than Mitchell being unpleasant, even now it is ruled he probably did say Pleb or words so close to the effect it makes no difference.
"He said he would never call a policeman a pleb “let alone a fucking pleb” - although he agreed he muttered audibly under his breath ‘I thought you lot were supposed to fucking help us’ - but not at the officer." "
And those that they can't - they're trying to change the rules so they can.
Admitting to powerlessness may be the best answer.
Otherwise it has to be a variant on "oops"
5RB Barristers @5RB
Follow
Mitting J: I don't entirely agree. Mitchell disappointed, deserves time to consider. 14 days & hearing if necessary in new year #plebgate
Mitting J: Mitchell to have 14 days to formulate undertaking to Rowland & court; 14 days too to agree next steps if not resolved #plebgate
Mitting J: Claimants in each action to come back to the court if not agreed. Browne QC: Costs - costs follow the event #plebgate
5:55 PM - 27 Nov 2014
When you join UKIP, I can only assume they surgically remove your sense of humour, and replace it with an outrage node.
What Scotland actually gets (ie the final total it has to spend) is still going to be entirely subject to decisions taken at Westminster.
eg Whatever happens, down the road the Barnett formula could be changed which would change what Scotland gets.
In my view, the bottom line is that you either raise your own money or you don't. It seems clear that under these proposals Scotland is not raising its own money.
Weighing up the competing claims, the judge said PC Rowland was "not the sort of man who would have had the wit, imagination or inclination to invent on the spur of the moment an account of what a senior politician had said to him in temper
He may well be right about that, I take his word about PC Rowland, although apparently other officers involved in this whole affair did have the inclination to invent things about the whole affair, so apparently not all his fellows are of the same level of probity.
PC Rowland was also surely aware of misconduct of fellow officers given he was at the heart of the affair, and yet I guess it was not his responsibility to do anything about it.
Danny Shaw ✔ @DannyShawBBC
Follow
Gavin Millar for the Sun (News Group) also wants £200k as interim payment. I reckon total costs likely to be £2m - £3m. #plebgate
Btw, I must say what a pleasure it was to meet you at DD the other night. I would have liked to chat more to you but had to be away early. (Matron doesn't like me to be out much after 8.30pm.) Next time, maybe?
https://www.change.org/p/vince-cable-mp-uphold-the-vat-exemption-threshold-for-businesses-supplying-digital-products
Edited extra bit: Mr. Indigo, Damien Walter, a Guardian chap [hardly an EU-hating stereotype] tweeted this:
"Long story short, #vatmess will make selling ebooks and other digital goods IMPOSSIBLE. It's in contest for the shittiest law ever written."
"Wallis, 53, was sentenced to 12 months in prison on 6 February having pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office following his arrest under Operation Alice. He had sent an email to his MP, conservative deputy chief whip John Randall, claiming to have witnessed Mitchell shouting obscenities at the police officers in Downing Street. Though a serving officer with the Diplomatic Protection Group (DPG), a police investigation found he was not present ....
Or, as Pritchard says, back away from his pledge to reduce immigration.
@Isam - Nige had it spot on; Pritchard was on a hopeless brief.
October: Beckenbauer expresses 'surprise' that Qatar won
November: FIFA opens investigation into Beckenbauer
I can only assume he didn't get the memo...
But then I slowly realised it was the shittest law ever written. Genuinely mind mindbogglingly awful.
For a while I worked for a firm which came under the control of the Department which Mitchell headed. The widely held view of him was that he was exceptionally able but very abrasive. Many of his former underlings will no doubt be pleased at the trial outcome.
Personally I think nobody emerges from it with credit.
Real power and responsibility would be Scotland raising and keeping all it's own revenue and cutting a cheque to the Treasury for shared UK services.
That would be Scotland standing on it's own two feet.
http://order-order.com/2014/11/27/searing-ukip-attack-ad-hits-tories-hard-on-immigration/
However, as a reality check, it's worth pointing out that leaving the EU would make absolutely no difference at all on this particular piece of insanity.
The Lib Dems are very active in the seat, even the notorious Oakeshott poll had Clegg highly rated as their local MP.
Plus Labour have never won this seat in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire.
I know this sounds odd but because of the demographic of the seats Clegg's actions on Uni fees endeared him to the many Uni staff that live in the seat.
.......
Mr. Indigo posted the UKIP link as a joke, but if it's as bad as many are saying then I might ****ing well join the purples. It's hard enough trying to make a success of being a writer without having this kind of bullshit.
I hope you, and others, do sign that petition.
The advantage of 'the Union' is a pooling of resources and a sharing of risks - so things like pensions stay within the Union - as do oil revenues. Devolving either would lead to growing problems for Scotland (unless it had its own currency) - political and currency unions without fiscal transfers don't tend to have an easy time of it.....
Further Breaking PB News: Lib Dem triumph as pollsters predict 'Most to still be alive' after May 2015
Apparently Mitchell was on a 'no win no fee' agreement.
I'm shocked.
You are the Fuzzy Wuzzies of the political world.
They don't like it up 'em.
Although Mitchell lawyers are on Conditional Fee Arrangement, understood he will pay any damages awarded to PC Rowland out of own pocket.
Crude Oil (Brent) USD/bbl. 73.82 -3.93 -5.05%
This bit stuck out:
"After January 2015 if Tom sells an ebook to a customer in Germany with no VAT number he has to charge VAT at the German rate. This is because the “place of supply” for a digitally delivered service is changing to be the customer’s country NOT the supplier’s.
He also has to pay the VAT due to the German authorities, meaning he needs to register for VAT in Germany. In the UK however, as a VAT registered business, he will be able to register for the “Mini One Stop Shop” (MOSS), submit a return and pay the VAT due to them, and then MOSS will distribute it to each country."
1. A bit of politeness - to staff and from staff to those they are serving - does no-one any harm at all and makes pretty much everything easier.
2. Wheeling your bike a few yards more is hardly a big ask; nor is opening a gate.
3. Never get involved in litigation unless you absolutely have to. (I am a litigator, btw, so I know what I'm talking about. I'm not worried about not being busy, either.)
Mr Justice Mitting said he was satisfied that the MP did say the word "pleb".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30235009
Former government chief whip Andrew Mitchell has lost his High Court libel action over the "plebgate" incident.
Betting tip, never bet with Fluffy Thoughts.
Something minor can turn into a bloody expensive mess.
Why can't Kippers avoid unfounded accusations of lying? It's weird, some kind of bizarre psychological tick they have.
OT: where in Italy did your Italian parent come from?
I do need to read up more and see how Cable reacts, but that's my plan.
So, as well as signing that petition, please do consider buying my books if you haven't yet.
As things stand, they may not be on sale much longer:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/
There's also a physical copy of Sir Edric's Temple available at Lulu [cheaper than Amazon]. Not sure whether this will or will not remain on sale:
http://www.lulu.com/gb/en/shop/thaddeus-white/sir-edrics-temple/paperback/product-21306938.html
This is mind-bendingly un****ingbelievable.
I get that deflation in general - i.e. a fall in the nominal price of a large number of goods and services - is a bad thing for a whole variety of reasons. But if it's one specific commodity? Not sure...
Really low IQs. See my link below.
Well one can read the judge's comments.
Doesn't inspire much confidence in the police I have to say
We have Con on 32.5% and Lab on 32.3%.