You can tell that the judge enjoyed writing that one.
Aye, a substantially easier judgement to write up than the judge who has to wrestle with the rather more serious 'David Irving v Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt'
Undoubtedly it does make Brexit easier. I simply think it is a great idea and I will take advantage of it, should it come to pass. Still think that it is unlikely to, however.
I hope so too. I'll definitely sign up if it happens. Apart from anything else, accidentally getting it out during meetings with European clients will be a way of showing that I'm not one of those Brexit types.
Ha! A huge advantage in business that I hadn't yet considered.
F1: Red Bull running limited by checks on the turbo.
For those wondering, losing part or all of ERS (recycling kinetic and, I think, heat energy to power a turbo) has a catastrophic impact on power. We're talking seconds a lap. If it went halfway through a race, you wouldn't finish in the points unless there were only nine other cars circulating.
Mr. Topping, jein. Leave winning would mean immigration being cut, but that might not necessarily be the main motivation for voting that way (it might be seen as a price worth paying).
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.
Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
Small brains or not, Remainers understand perfectly well that most Leavers hold deeply contradictory and self-defeating aspirations.
That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.
Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
Richard don't sully yourself with his lack of logic. He voted Leave and now whines that he wants to keep free movement.
You may have wanted to keep free movement but were perfectly well aware that a Leave vote meant it would likely disappear and compared with freedom from our EU overlords, was a price worth paying.
The differences between the two approaches are clear.
That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.
Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?
You guess correctly.
£155 was ridiculously cheap. Other fees have had to be raised several times, I assume this has been done in one hit.
A perfectly sensible comment. You purposefully confuse migration with sensible border controls in a way that would make a BNP supporter smile.
Large scale migration does not preclude good border controls. Poor or non existent border controls such as exists in much of the EU does aid both terrorism and criminal activity.
A perfectly sensible comment. You confuse purposefully migration with sensible border controls in a way that would make a BNP supporter smile.
Large scale migration does not preclude good border controls. Poor or non existent border controls such as exists in much of the EU does aid both terrorism and criminal activity.
You mean we need border controls between Beeston and London?
That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.
Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?
What about when the widow dies and the estate goes to the kids.
That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.
Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?
You guess correctly.
£155 was ridiculously cheap. Other fees have had to be raised several times, I assume this has been done in one hit.
£155 was more or less self-financing. These new charges are intended to raise serious money. They'll raise the equivalent of about two thirds of the legal aid budget.
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
Small brains or not, Remainers understand perfectly well that most Leavers hold deeply contradictory and self-defeating aspirations.
This is not limited to Leavers. Think of all those Remainers who thought that the UK could reform the EU from within when all the evidence showed that the EU's idea of "reform" and the UK's idea of "reform" were miles apart.
There are delusions aplenty on both sides of this debate, one of the most pernicious ones on the Remainers' side being the idea that their thinking on the topic is a model of clarity and logic and consistency with the evidence.
A perfectly sensible comment. You purposefully confuse migration with sensible border controls in a way that would make a BNP supporter smile.
Large scale migration does not preclude good border controls. Poor or non existent border controls such as exists in much of the EU does aid both terrorism and criminal activity.
Your use of the border control argument to further the Eurosceptic cause is more disingenuous than most. Before the referendum you argued for some time that it was a fundamental principle of the EU that anyone with the right to be in one part of the EU had the right to be in any other part of the EU, which more than anything showed that you pay only cursory attention to reality.
That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.
Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?
You guess correctly.
£155 was ridiculously cheap. Other fees have had to be raised several times, I assume this has been done in one hit.
It has been changed from reflecting the costs involved to just being another tax.
That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.
Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?
To all intents and purposes, yes. It's basically a form of cross-subsidy for the expensive bits of the courts and tribunals service (ie crime and family).
That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.
Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?
What about when the widow dies and the estate goes to the kids.
Is the whole estate charged again ?
You have to pay for probate for each will, so presumably yes.
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
Richard don't sully yourself with his lack of logic. He voted Leave and now whines that he wants to keep free movement.
You may have wanted to keep free movement but were perfectly well aware that a Leave vote meant it would likely disappear and compared with freedom from our EU overlords, was a price worth paying.
The differences between the two approaches are clear.
Not at all. I and many others campaigned for EEA membership. Like the more sensible Remain supporters, accepting it is now very unlikely we will get our way does not mean we should not continue to believe that it is the best solution. All it means is that beyond stating our views we will not do anything that would risk undermining the apparent will of the people. Tim Martin saying that migration is good for the country is reasonable. The PM signing up for continued freedom of movement against the wishes of the majority - even if I were personally in favour of it - would not be acceptable.
That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.
Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?
What about when the widow dies and the estate goes to the kids.
Is the whole estate charged again ?
Gifts between spouses are IHT exempt (although the survivor will pay this sliding scale fee). The IHT charge kicks in when the surviving spouse dies (if the estate exceeds £650,000).
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
Small brains or not, Remainers understand perfectly well that most Leavers hold deeply contradictory and self-defeating aspirations.
This is not limited to Leavers. Think of all those Remainers who thought that the UK could reform the EU from within when all the evidence showed that the EU's idea of "reform" and the UK's idea of "reform" were miles apart.
There are delusions aplenty on both sides of this debate, one of the most pernicious ones on the Remainers' side being the idea that their thinking on the topic is a model of clarity and logic and consistency with the evidence.
Nope. Most remainers understood that the EU was largely unreformable but were happy that Dave's deal achieved the right level of opt-out from the grand project.
That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.
Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?
What about when the widow dies and the estate goes to the kids.
Is the whole estate charged again ?
You have to pay for probate for each will, so presumably yes.
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
Small brains or not, Remainers understand perfectly well that most Leavers hold deeply contradictory and self-defeating aspirations.
Not at all. They are just individuals with differing views. There is nothing at all contradictory about wanting to leave the EU but supporting continued freedom of movement. Indeed it is exactly what the EU wants us to do. Neither they nor I will get our way but that doesn't make us wrong. It just puts us on the wrong side of current public opinion.
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
Richard don't sully yourself with his lack of logic. He voted Leave and now whines that he wants to keep free movement.
You may have wanted to keep free movement but were perfectly well aware that a Leave vote meant it would likely disappear and compared with freedom from our EU overlords, was a price worth paying.
The differences between the two approaches are clear.
Not at all. I and many others campaigned for EEA membership.
Campaigned in the literal sense? Were you knocking on the doors of Sleaford spreading the gospel about the Norway option and reassuring people that free movement would still continue after Brexit?
That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.
Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?
You guess correctly.
£155 was ridiculously cheap. Other fees have had to be raised several times, I assume this has been done in one hit.
£155 was more or less self-financing. These new charges are intended to raise serious money. They'll raise the equivalent of about two thirds of the legal aid budget.
That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.
Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?
You guess correctly.
£155 was ridiculously cheap. Other fees have had to be raised several times, I assume this has been done in one hit.
It has been changed from reflecting the costs involved to just being another tax.
Were their costs really that low? Seems unlikely to me
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
Richard don't sully yourself with his lack of logic. He voted Leave and now whines that he wants to keep free movement.
You may have wanted to keep free movement but were perfectly well aware that a Leave vote meant it would likely disappear and compared with freedom from our EU overlords, was a price worth paying.
The differences between the two approaches are clear.
Not at all. I and many others campaigned for EEA membership.
Campaigned in the literal sense? Were you knocking on the doors of Sleaford spreading the gospel about the Norway option and reassuring people that free movement would still continue after Brexit?
I wad certainly pushing the Norway option yes. Funnily enough space was the former MP I was campaigning with. Not Sleaford though. My area is a bit more rural than that.
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
Small brains or not, Remainers understand perfectly well that most Leavers hold deeply contradictory and self-defeating aspirations.
Not at all. They are just individuals with differing views. There is nothing at all contradictory about wanting to leave the EU but supporting continued freedom of movement. Indeed it is exactly what the EU wants us to do. Neither they nor I will get our way but that doesn't make us wrong. It just puts us on the wrong side of current public opinion.
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
Richard don't sully yourself with his lack of logic. He voted Leave and now whines that he wants to keep free movement.
You may have wanted to keep free movement but were perfectly well aware that a Leave vote meant it would likely disappear and compared with freedom from our EU overlords, was a price worth paying.
The differences between the two approaches are clear.
Not at all. I and many others campaigned for EEA membership. Like the more sensible Remain supporters, accepting it is now very unlikely we will get our way does not mean we should not continue to believe that it is the best solution. All it means is that beyond stating our views we will not do anything that would risk undermining the apparent will of the people. Tim Martin saying that migration is good for the country is reasonable. The PM signing up for continued freedom of movement against the wishes of the majority - even if I were personally in favour of it - would not be acceptable.
Well, according to Sam it would be fine if a democratically-elected government decided to keep free movement so forgive me if I fail to get a clear picture of what Leave is supposed to look like.
The difference is that although you are happy with and accept the invevitablity of FoM becoming a casualty of our decision to Leave, Tim seems to think that we should maintain it, not realising that our vote to Leave was a vote to end free movement.
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
Small brains or not, Remainers understand perfectly well that most Leavers hold deeply contradictory and self-defeating aspirations.
This is not limited to Leavers. Think of all those Remainers who thought that the UK could reform the EU from within when all the evidence showed that the EU's idea of "reform" and the UK's idea of "reform" were miles apart.
There are delusions aplenty on both sides of this debate, one of the most pernicious ones on the Remainers' side being the idea that their thinking on the topic is a model of clarity and logic and consistency with the evidence.
Nope. Most remainers understood that the EU was largely unreformable but were happy that Dave's deal achieved the right level of opt-out from the grand project.
In my view it achieved the square root of sod all but since we have debated this to death in the past and the question is now moot, no point rehashing all this.
I'm afraid that the history of Britain's relationship with and in the EU is littered with delusions on all sides, one reason why we're in the situation we're in now.
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
Small brains or not, Remainers understand perfectly well that most Leavers hold deeply contradictory and self-defeating aspirations.
This is not limited to Leavers. Think of all those Remainers who thought that the UK could reform the EU from within when all the evidence showed that the EU's idea of "reform" and the UK's idea of "reform" were miles apart.
There are delusions aplenty on both sides of this debate, one of the most pernicious ones on the Remainers' side being the idea that their thinking on the topic is a model of clarity and logic and consistency with the evidence.
Nope. Most remainers understood that the EU was largely unreformable but were happy that Dave's deal achieved the right level of opt-out from the grand project.
That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.
Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?
To all intents and purposes, yes. It's basically a form of cross-subsidy for the expensive bits of the courts and tribunals service (ie crime and family).
I'm a little surprised 58% of all estates are below £50k.
I'm not sure what I expected that figure to be, but 58% seems pretty high.
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
Small brains or not, Remainers understand perfectly well that most Leavers hold deeply contradictory and self-defeating aspirations.
This is not limited to Leavers. Think of all those Remainers who thought that the UK could reform the EU from within when all the evidence showed that the EU's idea of "reform" and the UK's idea of "reform" were miles apart.
There are delusions aplenty on both sides of this debate, one of the most pernicious ones on the Remainers' side being the idea that their thinking on the topic is a model of clarity and logic and consistency with the evidence.
Nope. Most remainers understood that the EU was largely unreformable but were happy that Dave's deal achieved the right level of opt-out from the grand project.
In my view it achieved the square root of sod all but since we have debated this to death in the past and the question is now moot, no point rehashing all this.
Just on the chocolate price hike, as a comment on the BBC article said, the raw ingredients don't come from euroland. I think there was a BBC spot on the news a few months ago (I forget the precise country, somewhere near Ivory Coast, I think) which indicated the vast majority of chocolate's raw ingredient(s) came from one African country.
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
Small brains or not, Remainers understand perfectly well that most Leavers hold deeply contradictory and self-defeating aspirations.
Not at all. They are just individuals with differing views. There is nothing at all contradictory about wanting to leave the EU but supporting continued freedom of movement. Indeed it is exactly what the EU wants us to do. Neither they nor I will get our way but that doesn't make us wrong. It just puts us on the wrong side of current public opinion.
I'm not sure about that (haven't seen a poll).
Surely Remain + EEA Leave = majority?
I thought that too and certainly the polls around the time of the referendum seemed to show that. But all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration.
That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.
Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?
To all intents and purposes, yes. It's basically a form of cross-subsidy for the expensive bits of the courts and tribunals service (ie crime and family).
I'm a little surprised 58% of all estates are below £50k.
I'm not sure what I expected that figure to be, but 58% seems pretty high.
Probate isn't needed in many cases. Jointly-owned properties and bank accounts, property that's held on trust, payments that are made out to nominated beneficiaries can all be made without a grant, so quite often, the full value of an estate isn't reflected in the value for probate purposes.
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Just on the chocolate price hike, as a comment on the BBC article said, the raw ingredients don't come from euroland. I think there was a BBC spot on the news a few months ago (I forget the precise country, somewhere near Ivory Coast, I think) which indicated the vast majority of chocolate's raw ingredient(s) came from one African country.
The Ivory Coast leads the world in production and export of the cocoa beans used in the manufacture of chocolate, supplying 33% of cocoa produced in the world. West Africa collectively supplies two thirds of the world's cocoa crop.
[update] Most of the chocolate produced is eaten in a small detached house in Wiltshire.
The trial took 21 months, unless the legal profession has taken an unprecedented pay cut then costs are going to be substantially more than £24,000. Will Hopkins be liable for those ?
Katie looks about 65 in that image.
I wonder if she will be punished in costs by decline Jack's (very public) offer to settle for £5,000, i.e. less that the £24,000.
This case has been about the particular tweets complained of by this claimant against this defendant. It may have little wider significance. But I cannot leave it without making two observations. The first is that the case could easily have been resolved at an early stage. There was an open offer to settle for £5,000. It was a reasonable offer. There could have been an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996. Such an offer attracts a substantial discount: up to half if the offer is prompt and unqualified. Such an offer would have meant the compensation would have been modest. The costs would have been a fraction of those which I am sure these parties have incurred in the event. Those costs have largely been incurred in contesting the issue of whether a statement which on its face had a defamatory tendency had actually caused serious harm.
The clear lesson from this case is that whether you're a right wing loudmouth or a left wing loudmouth, differences are best settled between yourselves without extensive use of m'learned friends. Both women in this case end up with a bill they'll probably struggle to pay.
Just on the chocolate price hike, as a comment on the BBC article said, the raw ingredients don't come from euroland. I think there was a BBC spot on the news a few months ago (I forget the precise country, somewhere near Ivory Coast, I think) which indicated the vast majority of chocolate's raw ingredient(s) came from one African country.
Commodity prices are mostly in US dollars. The pound fell against the dollar after the referendum vote.
I thought that too and certainly the polls around the time of the referendum seemed to show that. But all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration.
But we won't be able to pick and chose the precise structure of the deal to suit the electoral requirements of the government.
If the choice is between:
- Controlled immigration but burdensome trade and a hard border in Ireland. - Free trade and free movement with the ECJ. In the customs union and an open border with Ireland. No independent trade deals, no MEPs no Commissioner, no participation in the Council. - Full membership
And all the time the clock is ticking, the pressure to break up the UK will increase.
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
Small brains or not, Remainers understand perfectly well that most Leavers hold deeply contradictory and self-defeating aspirations.
Not at all. They are just individuals with differing views. There is nothing at all contradictory about wanting to leave the EU but supporting continued freedom of movement. Indeed it is exactly what the EU wants us to do. Neither they nor I will get our way but that doesn't make us wrong. It just puts us on the wrong side of current public opinion.
I'm not sure about that (haven't seen a poll).
Surely Remain + EEA Leave = majority?
I thought that too and certainly the polls around the time of the referendum seemed to show that. But all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration.
Some Leavers believe that a democratically-elected government could keep free movement.
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.
F1: just under an hour left of testing. My second test post is essentially done, but there won't be spread betting suggestions as the market remains dormant.
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
Small brains or not, Remainers understand perfectly well that most Leavers hold deeply contradictory and self-defeating aspirations.
Not at all. They are just individuals with differing views. There is nothing at all contradictory about wanting to leave the EU but supporting continued freedom of movement. Indeed it is exactly what the EU wants us to do. Neither they nor I will get our way but that doesn't make us wrong. It just puts us on the wrong side of current public opinion.
I'm not sure about that (haven't seen a poll).
Surely Remain + EEA Leave = majority?
I thought that too and certainly the polls around the time of the referendum seemed to show that. But all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration.
Some Leavers believe that a democratically-elected government could keep free movement.
I know..crazy, right?
So if labour or the lib Dems won the next GE, or formed a coalition together, and both of their manifestos pledged free movement between the uk and the EU, you think it couldn't happen?
As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.
Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.
Wow
They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging
Same old!
A pitiful level of debate.
I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.
Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.
Small brains or not, Remainers understand perfectly well that most Leavers hold deeply contradictory and self-defeating aspirations.
Not at all. They are just individuals with differing views. There is nothing at all contradictory about wanting to leave the EU but supporting continued freedom of movement. Indeed it is exactly what the EU wants us to do. Neither they nor I will get our way but that doesn't make us wrong. It just puts us on the wrong side of current public opinion.
I'm not sure about that (haven't seen a poll).
Surely Remain + EEA Leave = majority?
I thought that too and certainly the polls around the time of the referendum seemed to show that. But all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration.
Some Leavers believe that a democratically-elected government could keep free movement.
I know..crazy, right?
So if labour or the lib Dems won the next GE, or formed a coalition together, and both of their manifestos pledged free movement between the uk and the EU, you think it couldn't happen?
Well Richard for one would be out on the streets. Plus a few others, I dare say.
But do I think it could happen? Yes I do. As you say if it was in a manifesto and was voted in by the public then it is the very definition of democracy. I think it would cause a shitstorm, however, and don't think it likely, but yes it could happen.
If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.
If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.
What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.
Such a poor level of debate
All it does is show how mixed up people were when they voted for Brexit. Immigration was the main issue cited for voting Leave. Not for him; he didn't like the sovereignty. Fair enough. But he should have realised that Brexit is not pick and mix. He obviously disliked the sovereignty aspect enough such that it overrode the immigration issue.
So he should not now complain that the immigration issue is also being addressed.
Either that or he is a fucking idiot.
A load of crap. This was a binary choice and you will have people with very different opinions on both sides of the binary choice.
Looks like the initial £250k was a gross underestimate. Assuming Katie's lawyers are about the same rate are we now up to about £624k (300 + 300 + 24) ?
If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.
If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.
So what will the final score likely be?
I'd be amused if it was a double bankruptcy.
Katie should see if she can wangle a bailout from the Donald.
What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.
Such a poor level of debate
All it does is show how mixed up people were when they voted for Brexit. Immigration was the main issue cited for voting Leave. Not for him; he didn't like the sovereignty. Fair enough. But he should have realised that Brexit is not pick and mix. He obviously disliked the sovereignty aspect enough such that it overrode the immigration issue.
So he should not now complain that the immigration issue is also being addressed.
Either that or he is a fucking idiot.
A load of crap. This was a binary choice and you will have people with very different opinions on both sides of the binary choice.
Politics continues either way.
So he voted Leave in the firm belief that freedom of movement would continue when virtually the entire campaign (much of which he funded) was predicated on controlling immigration.
If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.
So what will the final score likely be?
I'd be amused if it was a double bankruptcy.
How well does twitter pay these days ?
Presumably it will be a rounding error for the Mail and they will make every penny back in increased sales/views. Or will try to.
If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.
So what will the final score likely be?
I'd be amused if it was a double bankruptcy.
How well does twitter pay these days ?
Double bankruptcies aren't unknown in libel cases. Lord Aldington v Nikolai Tolstoy comes to mind.
I thought that too and certainly the polls around the time of the referendum seemed to show that. But all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration.
But we won't be able to pick and chose the precise structure of the deal to suit the electoral requirements of the government.
If the choice is between:
- Controlled immigration but burdensome trade and a hard border in Ireland. - Free trade and free movement with the ECJ. In the customs union and an open border with Ireland. No independent trade deals, no MEPs no Commissioner, no participation in the Council. - Full membership
And all the time the clock is ticking, the pressure to break up the UK will increase.
What do you chose?
Easy. I choose the first. The second is not the equivalent of EEA membership and is far more burdensome.
If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.
So what will the final score likely be?
I'd be amused if it was a double bankruptcy.
How well does twitter pay these days ?
Presumably it will be a rounding error for the Mail and they will make every penny back in increased sales/views. Or will try to.
These particular comments weren't made in her capacity as a mail columnist so I doubt they'll be rushing to pay her fees though.
If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.
So what will the final score likely be?
On checking, I see that the costs were awarded on the standard, not the indemnity, basis. Monroe must therefore prove (a) that the costs were reasonably incurred, and (b) that the sums claimed are reasonable. Typically, you recover 60-70% on the standard basis.
So, if Monroe's costs are £300,000, she'll probably get back c.£180-200,000 from Hopkins, in addition to £24,000 damages.
If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.
It's more likely that Monroe has some kind of no win, no fee deal with her lawyers. I'd be very surprised if she ended up out of pocket having made the offer she did. The only way for Hopkins to recoup her losses is to hope that some newspaper will pay her even more to be even more obnoxious. But the libel insurance premium will be huge.
If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.
So what will the final score likely be?
I'd be amused if it was a double bankruptcy.
How well does twitter pay these days ?
Presumably it will be a rounding error for the Mail and they will make every penny back in increased sales/views. Or will try to.
These particular comments weren't made in her capacity as a mail columnist so I doubt they'll be rushing to pay her fees though.
yebbut, surely any publicity is good publicity for them and their columnists. Isn't the spat the the very essence of what the Mail is all about, albeit they didn't publish anything themselves?
If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.
So what will the final score likely be?
On checking, I see that the costs were awarded on the standard, not the indemnity, basis. Monroe must therefore prove (a) that the costs were reasonably incurred, and (b) that the sums claimed are reasonable. Typically, you recover 60-70% on the standard basis.
So, if Monroe's costs are £300,000, she'll probably get back c.£180-200,000 from Hopkins, in addition to £24,000 damages.
From what you have seen/read - is £300,000 reasonable? To me, an average punter, it seems astronomical.
I thought that too and certainly the polls around the time of the referendum seemed to show that. But all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration.
But we won't be able to pick and chose the precise structure of the deal to suit the electoral requirements of the government.
If the choice is between:
- Controlled immigration but burdensome trade and a hard border in Ireland. - Free trade and free movement with the ECJ. In the customs union and an open border with Ireland. No independent trade deals, no MEPs no Commissioner, no participation in the Council. - Full membership
And all the time the clock is ticking, the pressure to break up the UK will increase.
What do you chose?
Easy. I choose the first. The second is not the equivalent of EEA membership and is far more burdensome.
Ok, so you chose the first. You get parliament against you, a deep recession, Scotland departing and Ireland reunifying. Still think you'll get 52% to support it?
What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model
Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.
No they did not. They voted to leave the EU. That was it. Now I think it is reasonable based on polling to say that there may be a majority for controlling immigration buy to claim that any individual including either me or Tim Martin voted for that is utterly bollocks.
Comments
How Democrats learned to stop worrying and love the CIA (meanwhile, Republican support has declined 56 points). https://t.co/y3rR3XZFc8
Ian Miles Cheong
Never leave your window open during a snowstorm. https://t.co/E9KtJ1xBce
For those wondering, losing part or all of ERS (recycling kinetic and, I think, heat energy to power a turbo) has a catastrophic impact on power. We're talking seconds a lap. If it went halfway through a race, you wouldn't finish in the points unless there were only nine other cars circulating.
I cannot see that being acceptable.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4299384/Death-tax-stealth-rake-1-5billion.html
Wanting to Leave meant wanting immigration cut. As I said, only a fucking idiot would be unable to grasp that simple point.
Mr. Glenn, I'd want to see the whole deal.
Mr. Price, congrats to Morus
Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?
Mercedes still top dog on the reliability front. A few more gremlins have crept into the Prancing Horse's garage this test.
I ran into him in Lincoln's Inn a couple of years ago.
You may have wanted to keep free movement but were perfectly well aware that a Leave vote meant it would likely disappear and compared with freedom from our EU overlords, was a price worth paying.
The differences between the two approaches are clear.
Large scale migration does not preclude good border controls. Poor or non existent border controls such as exists in much of the EU does aid both terrorism and criminal activity.
Is the whole estate charged again ?
There are delusions aplenty on both sides of this debate, one of the most pernicious ones on the Remainers' side being the idea that their thinking on the topic is a model of clarity and logic and consistency with the evidence.
It has been changed from reflecting the costs involved to just being another tax.
You have to pay for probate for each will, so presumably yes.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-re-enter-eu-boat-post-brexit-uk-european-commission-jean-claude-juncker-a7622726.html
Surely Remain + EEA Leave = majority?
The difference is that although you are happy with and accept the invevitablity of FoM becoming a casualty of our decision to Leave, Tim seems to think that we should maintain it, not realising that our vote to Leave was a vote to end free movement.
I'm afraid that the history of Britain's relationship with and in the EU is littered with delusions on all sides, one reason why we're in the situation we're in now.
I'm not sure what I expected that figure to be, but 58% seems pretty high.
[update] Most of the chocolate produced is eaten in a small detached house in Wiltshire.
Released this year
F1: John Surtees, 1964 world champion, has died.
If the choice is between:
- Controlled immigration but burdensome trade and a hard border in Ireland.
- Free trade and free movement with the ECJ. In the customs union and an open border with Ireland. No independent trade deals, no MEPs no Commissioner, no participation in the Council.
- Full membership
And all the time the clock is ticking, the pressure to break up the UK will increase.
What do you chose?
I know..crazy, right?
https://twitter.com/law_and_policy/status/840227323907567616
https://twitter.com/law_and_policy/status/840228064973996032
But do I think it could happen? Yes I do. As you say if it was in a manifesto and was voted in by the public then it is the very definition of democracy. I think it would cause a shitstorm, however, and don't think it likely, but yes it could happen.
Politics continues either way.
What about the costs of the actual court ?
How well does twitter pay these days ?
For physical media I have no idea.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/674936832010887168
K. Quelle dick.
So, if Monroe's costs are £300,000, she'll probably get back c.£180-200,000 from Hopkins, in addition to £24,000 damages.