But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The other EU countries do not have the power to stop us leaving. And the fact that they are behaving like the Mafia ("No one resigns from the Organisation) makes our departure even more justified.
More to the point, the EU's own constitution says that a member state can leave by serving notice, in exactly the same way that one can terminate a contract by notice.
Next time you write a resignation letter, try telling them you want a deep and special partnership with them and their security will be at risk if they don't offer you a good deal as a contractor.
lol
so do you have to pay your employer an exit fee when you resign ?
Some professions such as law and accountancy do so for when the trainees/graduates quit shortly after qualifying.
Makes sense - they were received a net benefit from the company, whereas the UK has been paying in for years.
Does our net contribution exceed the tax revenue from EU regulated financial services in London?
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The other EU countries do not have the power to stop us leaving. And the fact that they are behaving like the Mafia ("No one resigns from the Organisation) makes our departure even more justified.
More to the point, the EU's own constitution says that a member state can leave by serving notice, in exactly the same way that one can terminate a contract by notice.
Next time you write a resignation letter, try telling them you want a deep and special partnership with them and their security will be at risk if they don't offer you a good deal as a contractor.
lol
so do you have to pay your employer an exit fee when you resign ?
Some professions such as law and accountancy do so for when the trainees/graduates quit shortly after qualifying.
But when a senior partner is slowly pushed out by the job becoming far removed from the one he signed up for, it's considered constructive dismissal, no?
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The other EU countries do not have the power to stop us leaving. And the fact that they are behaving like the Mafia ("No one resigns from the Organisation) makes our departure even more justified.
More to the point, the EU's own constitution says that a member state can leave by serving notice, in exactly the same way that one can terminate a contract by notice.
Next time you write a resignation letter, try telling them you want a deep and special partnership with them and their security will be at risk if they don't offer you a good deal as a contractor.
lol
so do you have to pay your employer an exit fee when you resign ?
Some professions such as law and accountancy do so for when the trainees/graduates quit shortly after qualifying.
reclaiming exam fees doesnt count
possibly prostitution where you have to buy your way out from your pimp, but it;s a respectable profession unlike law
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The other EU countries do not have the power to stop us leaving. And the fact that they are behaving like the Mafia ("No one resigns from the Organisation) makes our departure even more justified.
More to the point, the EU's own constitution says that a member state can leave by serving notice, in exactly the same way that one can terminate a contract by notice.
Next time you write a resignation letter, try telling them you want a deep and special partnership with them and their security will be at risk if they don't offer you a good deal as a contractor.
lol
so do you have to pay your employer an exit fee when you resign ?
Some professions such as law and accountancy do so for when the trainees/graduates quit shortly after qualifying.
But when a senior partner is slowly pushed out by the job becoming far removed from the one he signed up for, it's considered constructive dismissal, no?
They or their proxies kept on approving the changes.
I think his point is that the media focus is far more on the frustrations high-flying females have experienced in London far more than the more serious cases of rape that females from more deprived backgrounds have experienced in other areas of the country.
Just as a note, the ICIJ collective of journalists is about to do a another drop of leaked info about the wealthy/connected and their financial affairs, the so called Paradise Papers, in about 5 minutes time.
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
I did not state that "people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe", merely that "the UK is regarded as the sick man of Europe". That is is true both inside and outside the UK. For example, the reason why the UK isn't in the Euro is because it couldn't comply with the rules for joining, in particular the government deficit, following its ignominious exit from the ERM in 1992. Even Greece was able to comply for a while.
The "sick man of Europe" judgment back in the 70s was mainly the view of other people outside the UK. If we are regarded as the sick of man of Europe now, it must be (logically) mainly by people outside the UK -although of course the Remoaners who will do anything to talk down Britain will go along with that judgment.
Remoaners actually want us to be the sick man of Europe. They want us to fail. They rejoice in a falling Pound, they celebrate and grasp at every piece economic bad news (while ignoring the good|) that they can blame on Brexit. No one would be happier than the Remoaners if their predictions of economic catastrophe came true, in order to justify their view that we should return to the protection of the economic and political mafia that is the EU.
Even Marine Le Pen and the Chinese President have a more positive view of post Brexit UK than diehard Remainers do.
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The other EU countries do not have the power to stop us leaving. And the fact that they are behaving like the Mafia ("No one resigns from the Organisation) makes our departure even more justified.
More to the point, the EU's own constitution says that a member state can leave by serving notice, in exactly the same way that one can terminate a contract by notice.
Next time you write a resignation letter, try telling them you want a deep and special partnership with them and their security will be at risk if they don't offer you a good deal as a contractor.
lol
so do you have to pay your employer an exit fee when you resign ?
Some professions such as law and accountancy do so for when the trainees/graduates quit shortly after qualifying.
reclaiming exam fees doesnt count
possibly prostitution where you have to buy your way out from your pimp, but it;s a respectable profession unlike law
It's the training costs too.
"Someone once said that the legal profession is the second-oldest profession. Having worked in it for nearly 20 years, I'm beginning to think it bears resemblance to the first."
Just as a note, the ICIJ collective of journalists is about to do a another drop of leaked info about the wealthy/connected and their financial affairs, the so called Paradise Papers, in about 5 minutes time.
According to reports in the media yesterday it could be squeaky bum time for Lord Ashcroft. As I don't want to get sued, here is the link.
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The other EU countries do not have the power to stop us leaving. And the fact that they are behaving like the Mafia ("No one resigns from the Organisation) makes our departure even more justified.
More to the point, the EU's own constitution says that a member state can leave by serving notice, in exactly the same way that one can terminate a contract by notice.
Next time you write a resignation letter, try telling them you want a deep and special partnership with them and their security will be at risk if they don't offer you a good deal as a contractor.
lol
so do you have to pay your employer an exit fee when you resign ?
Some professions such as law and accountancy do so for when the trainees/graduates quit shortly after qualifying.
reclaiming exam fees doesnt count
possibly prostitution where you have to buy your way out from your pimp, but it;s a respectable profession unlike law
It's the training costs too.
"Someone once said that the legal profession is the second-oldest profession. Having worked in it for nearly 20 years, I'm beginning to think it bears resemblance to the first."
ROFL
training costs ?
how does paying a trainee £ 10 an hour while charging him out at £100 an hour cause a loss ?
What happened to that reported advice from the Brexit Department that said we didn't owe a penny?
That would be slightly higher than I'd expect.
I expect us to be paying c.£40bn (£18bn for the EU budget obligations to 2020, and a further £10bn per year during each year of the transition period).
I still suspect the headline figure will end up being beneath <£50bn for political reasons.
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The other EU countries do not have the power to stop us leaving. And the fact that they are behaving like the Mafia ("No one resigns from the Organisation) makes our departure even more justified.
More to the point, the EU's own constitution says that a member state can leave by serving notice, in exactly the same way that one can terminate a contract by notice.
Next time you write a resignation letter, try telling them you want a deep and special partnership with them and their security will be at risk if they don't offer you a good deal as a contractor.
lol
so do you have to pay your employer an exit fee when you resign ?
Some professions such as law and accountancy do so for when the trainees/graduates quit shortly after qualifying.
But when a senior partner is slowly pushed out by the job becoming far removed from the one he signed up for, it's considered constructive dismissal, no?
They or their proxies kept on approving the changes.
I believe the last time we were offered a say in the matter was 1975. We were promised something on Lisbon by the Last Lot, but they reneged on their promises. The first time we had any kind of meaningful say, we said no.
One wonders what it is about the EU that scares them so much they refuse wherever and whenever possible to seek democratic consent for their project.
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The other EU countries do not have the power to stop us leaving. And the fact that they are behaving like the Mafia ("No one resigns from the Organisation) makes our departure even more justified.
More to the point, the EU's own constitution says that a member state can leave by serving notice, in exactly the same way that one can terminate a contract by notice.
Next time you write a resignation letter, try telling them you want a deep and special partnership with them and their security will be at risk if they don't offer you a good deal as a contractor.
lol
so do you have to pay your employer an exit fee when you resign ?
I've just bought someone out of a contract where they had to repay the last 5 years of bonuses to their employer...
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The other EU countries do not have the power to stop us leaving. And the fact that they are behaving like the Mafia ("No one resigns from the Organisation) makes our departure even more justified.
More to the point, the EU's own constitution says that a member state can leave by serving notice, in exactly the same way that one can terminate a contract by notice.
Next time you write a resignation letter, try telling them you want a deep and special partnership with them and their security will be at risk if they don't offer you a good deal as a contractor.
I have resigned from previous employers where it's clear that, since we'll both remain in the same industry and may work together again, cordial relations make sense for both parties.
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The other EU countries do not have the power to stop us leaving. And the fact that they are behaving like the Mafia ("No one resigns from the Organisation) makes our departure even more justified.
More to the point, the EU's own constitution says that a member state can leave by serving notice, in exactly the same way that one can terminate a contract by notice.
Next time you write a resignation letter, try telling them you want a deep and special partnership with them and their security will be at risk if they don't offer you a good deal as a contractor.
lol
so do you have to pay your employer an exit fee when you resign ?
I've just bought someone out of a contract where they had to repay the last 5 years of bonuses to their employer...
It's not dissimilar to how news articles on the gender gap in pay tend to focus on highly paid female stars at the BBC, and differences in FTSE boardrooms.
Julia Hartley-Brewer's knee got more coverage than the Newcastle rape gang. ttps://twitter.com/CDP1882/status/895295580934742017
I read it as saying that Julia H-B and her knee seemed to get equal or more coverage than Bex Bailey and a rape allegation.
Obviously, both got considerably more coverage than another bunch of poor white kids in what we euphemistically call “care” being routinely abused by members of certain “communities”.
Julia Hartley-Brewer's knee got more coverage than the Newcastle rape gang. ttps://twitter.com/CDP1882/status/895295580934742017
I read it as saying that Julia H-B and he knee seemed to get equal or more coverage than Bex Bailey and a rape allegation.
Obviously, both got considerably more coverage than another bunch of poor white kids in what we euphemistically call “care” being routinely abused by members of certain “communities”.
Well today the focus is all on somebody denying having legal porn on a pc in their office, not the alleged attack in a taxi, hand up skirt incident etc.
It reminds me again of expenses. Duck houses and claiming for porn got far more coverage than fake offices, paying your mate the landlord cash in hand with no contract, subletting a flat from a friend who happened to get grant money from your department etc etc etc
Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund as part of an offshore portfolio that has never before been disclosed, according to documents revealed in an investigation into offshore tax havens.
Files from a substantial leak show for the first time how the Queen, through the Duchy of Lancaster, has held and still holds investments via funds that have put money into an array of businesses, including the off-licence chain Threshers, and the retailer BrightHouse, which has been criticised for exploiting thousands of poor families and vulnerable people.
Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund as part of an offshore portfolio that has never before been disclosed, according to documents revealed in an investigation into offshore tax havens.
Files from a substantial leak show for the first time how the Queen, through the Duchy of Lancaster, has held and still holds investments via funds that have put money into an array of businesses, including the off-licence chain Threshers, and the retailer BrightHouse, which has been criticised for exploiting thousands of poor families and vulnerable people.
Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund as part of an offshore portfolio that has never before been disclosed, according to documents revealed in an investigation into offshore tax havens.
Files from a substantial leak show for the first time how the Queen, through the Duchy of Lancaster, has held and still holds investments via funds that have put money into an array of businesses, including the off-licence chain Threshers, and the retailer BrightHouse, which has been criticised for exploiting thousands of poor families and vulnerable people.
It's not dissimilar to how news articles on the gender gap in pay tend to focus on highly paid female stars at the BBC, and differences in FTSE boardrooms.
That was a fantastic and twisted piece of spin from the BBC, to manage to divert so quickly away from the long list of £250k+ salaries going to mediocre on-screen ‘talent’.
It's not dissimilar to how news articles on the gender gap in pay tend to focus on highly paid female stars at the BBC, and differences in FTSE boardrooms.
That's because one garners page impressions (and therefore revenues) for media outlets, and the other doesn't.
People want to read about celebrities behaving badly. They don't want to read about rape in Rotherham.
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Julia Hartley-Brewer's knee got more coverage than the Newcastle rape gang. ttps://twitter.com/CDP1882/status/895295580934742017
I read it as saying that Julia H-B and he knee seemed to get equal or more coverage than Bex Bailey and a rape allegation.
Obviously, both got considerably more coverage than another bunch of poor white kids in what we euphemistically call “care” being routinely abused by members of certain “communities”.
Well today the focus is all on somebody denying having legal porn on a pc in their office, not the alleged attack in a taxi, hand up skirt incident etc.
It reminds me again of expenses. Duck houses and claiming for porn got far more coverage than fake offices, paying your mate the landlord cash in hand with no contract, subletting a flat from a friend who happened to get grant money from your department etc etc etc
Indeed so. As plenty of us have been saying in here all week, there’s a wide variety of offences being mentioned and the media is losing focus on the serious to concentrate on the trivial.
I’m feeling very sorry for Bex Bailey, whose brave coming forward to tell her story should have led the news for a week. I hope she has good support around her.
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Considering the poor have now been largely taken out of income tax hardly and the Queen's private estate essentially pays for itself.
With Prince William sounding and acting more like his father, this has been a great weekend for the Republic movement.
Never mind Lib Dems I think you might be better off in republican Corbyn's Labour Party! Prince William is of course more popular than any of the 3 main party leaders and on a good day even his father is too.
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Considering the poor have now been largely taken out of income tax hardly and the Queen's private estate essentially pays for itself.
The Queen didn't take the poor out of income tax, it was George Osborne CH.
Remoaners actually want us to be the sick man of Europe. They want us to fail. They rejoice in a falling Pound, they celebrate and grasp at every piece economic bad news (while ignoring the good|) that they can blame on Brexit. No one would be happier than the Remoaners if their predictions of economic catastrophe came true, in order to justify their view that we should return to the protection of the economic and political mafia that is the EU.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The one thing that the 52% and the 48% do have in common is that we all (aside from a few extremists on either side) want the UK to succeed. The difference is in how we define success, I guess. I voted very enthusiastically to Remain and see the very act of leaving the EU as one of "failure" - but to see the UK fail would not advantage myself, my family or any of my friends in any way. If I were to celebrate all of the bad news since Brexit then I'd be in a permanent partying mode... I assure you that sorrow and worry are closer to how I feel about it all than celebration is. However, I accept the referendum result even if I can't come to terms with it.
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Considering the poor have now been largely taken out of income tax hardly and the Queen's private estate essentially pays for itself.
The poor have suffered benefit cuts.
Betty the country's biggest benefits scrounger has had massive increases and invested in overseas havens.
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Considering the poor have now been largely taken out of income tax hardly and the Queen's private estate essentially pays for itself.
The Queen didn't take the poor out of income tax, it was George Osborne CH.
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Considering the poor have now been largely taken out of income tax hardly and the Queen's private estate essentially pays for itself.
The Queen didn't take the poor out of income tax, it was George Osborne CH.
A monarchist acting as Chancellor of Her Majesty's Government.
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Considering the poor have now been largely taken out of income tax hardly and the Queen's private estate essentially pays for itself.
The poor have suffered benefit cuts.
Betty the country's biggest benefits scrounger has had massive increases and invested in overseas havens.
Thank God I am a Republican
She is not a 'benefits scrounger' she has her own private assets and any income received from taxpayers goes largely to cover her state estates and state functions which the taxpayer would have to pay to any President in a republican system anyway.
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Considering the poor have now been largely taken out of income tax hardly and the Queen's private estate essentially pays for itself.
The poor have suffered benefit cuts.
Betty the country's biggest benefits scrounger has had massive increases and invested in overseas havens.
Thank God I am a Republican
She is not a 'benefits scrounger' she has her own private assets and any income received from taxpayers goes largely to cover her state estates and state functions which the taxpayer would have to pay to any President in a republican system anyway.
How do we sack her like we could do a tax avoiding President ?
It's not dissimilar to how news articles on the gender gap in pay tend to focus on highly paid female stars at the BBC, and differences in FTSE boardrooms.
That's because one garners page impressions (and therefore revenues) for media outlets, and the other doesn't.
People want to read about celebrities behaving badly. They don't want to read about rape in Rotherham.
Also true, but that conveniently reinforces the self-interests of (what most would consider to be) the elite.
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Considering the poor have now been largely taken out of income tax hardly and the Queen's private estate essentially pays for itself.
The poor have suffered benefit cuts.
Betty the country's biggest benefits scrounger has had massive increases and invested in overseas havens.
Thank God I am a Republican
She is not a 'benefits scrounger' she has her own private assets and any income received from taxpayers goes largely to cover her state estates and state functions which the taxpayer would have to pay to any President in a republican system anyway.
Why is a tax-exempt entity shielding money in dodgy places ?
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Considering the poor have now been largely taken out of income tax hardly and the Queen's private estate essentially pays for itself.
The poor have suffered benefit cuts.
Betty the country's biggest benefits scrounger has had massive increases and invested in overseas havens.
Thank God I am a Republican
She is not a 'benefits scrounger' she has her own private assets and any income received from taxpayers goes largely to cover her state estates and state functions which the taxpayer would have to pay to any President in a republican system anyway.
How do we sack her like we could do a tax avoiding President ?
She does not illegally 'avoid tax', offshore trusts are legal and it is her estate financial advisers who take the decisions not her.
She does not need to be 'sacked' precisely because in her over 50 years on the throne she has never taken a political decision on anything over than signing what her ministers tell her to, that would not be the case with a President, especially an elected one.
That is why she has always been and still is more popular than all the PMs who have served under her (with the possible exception of Blair in August 1997).
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Considering the poor have now been largely taken out of income tax hardly and the Queen's private estate essentially pays for itself.
The poor have suffered benefit cuts.
Betty the country's biggest benefits scrounger has had massive increases and invested in overseas havens.
Thank God I am a Republican
She is not a 'benefits scrounger' she has her own private assets and any income received from taxpayers goes largely to cover her state estates and state functions which the taxpayer would have to pay to any President in a republican system anyway.
Why is a tax-exempt entity shielding money in dodgy places ?
"Evidence from the 2010 election in the United Kingdom backs this theory up.
Almost a dead cert for Prime Minister, David Cameron managed to avoid winning a parliamentary majority by tackling left at the end of his campaign, focusing on “green” issues, and trying to win over left-leaning Guardian readers instead of focusing on the conservative base.
As a thank you, conservative voters stayed home, or voted for a different party such as the UK Independence Party, a trend which continued all the way through to 2015.
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Considering the poor have now been largely taken out of income tax hardly and the Queen's private estate essentially pays for itself.
The poor have suffered benefit cuts.
Betty the country's biggest benefits scrounger has had massive increases and invested in overseas havens.
Thank God I am a Republican
She is not a 'benefits scrounger' she has her own private assets and any income received from taxpayers goes largely to cover her state estates and state functions which the taxpayer would have to pay to any President in a republican system anyway.
Why is a tax-exempt entity shielding money in dodgy places ?
You will have to ask the estate's financial advisers but as the papers reveal it is par for the course for those protecting large numbers of assets, whether they be in a liberal administration like Trudeau's Cabinet and advisers or a conservative one like Trump and his Cabinet.
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Considering the poor have now been largely taken out of income tax hardly and the Queen's private estate essentially pays for itself.
The poor have suffered benefit cuts.
Betty the country's biggest benefits scrounger has had massive increases and invested in overseas havens.
Thank God I am a Republican
She is not a 'benefits scrounger' she has her own private assets and any income received from taxpayers goes largely to cover her state estates and state functions which the taxpayer would have to pay to any President in a republican system anyway.
How do we sack her like we could do a tax avoiding President ?
She does not illegally 'avoid tax', offshore trusts are legal and it is her estate financial advisers who take the decisions not her.
She does not need to be 'sacked' precisely because in her over 50 years on the throne she has never taken a political decision on anything over than signing what her ministers tell her to, that would not be the case with a President, especially an elected one.
That is why she has always been and still is more popular than all the PMs who have served under her (with the possible exception of Blair in August 1997).
You should replace Nicholas Witchell as the No.1 Royal arse-licker.
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Considering the poor have now been largely taken out of income tax hardly and the Queen's private estate essentially pays for itself.
The poor have suffered benefit cuts.
Betty the country's biggest benefits scrounger has had massive increases and invested in overseas havens.
Thank God I am a Republican
She is not a 'benefits scrounger' she has her own private assets and any income received from taxpayers goes largely to cover her state estates and state functions which the taxpayer would have to pay to any President in a republican system anyway.
Why is a tax-exempt entity shielding money in dodgy places ?
You will have to ask the estate's financial advisers but as the papers reveal it is par for the course for those protecting large numbers of assets, whether they be in a liberal administration like Trudeau's Cabinet and advisers or a conservative one like Trump and his Cabinet.
Trudeau does not live on our taxes. Our scroungers do and then hides the money. Can we use the excuse that honestly I did not know guv, it was my advisers.
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Considering the poor have now been largely taken out of income tax hardly and the Queen's private estate essentially pays for itself.
The poor have suffered benefit cuts.
Betty the country's biggest benefits scrounger has had massive increases and invested in overseas havens.
Thank God I am a Republican
She is not a 'benefits scrounger' she has her own private assets and any income received from taxpayers goes largely to cover her state estates and state functions which the taxpayer would have to pay to any President in a republican system anyway.
Why is a tax-exempt entity shielding money in dodgy places ?
You will have to ask the estate's financial advisers but as the papers reveal it is par for the course for those protecting large numbers of assets, whether they be in a liberal administration like Trudeau's Cabinet and advisers or a conservative one like Trump and his Cabinet.
Trudeau does not live on our taxes. Our scroungers do and then hides the money. Can we use the excuse that honestly I did not know guv, it was my advisers.
It is her private estate, nothing to do with money from taxpayers and any financial adviser worth his salt would aim to be as tax efficient as possible. If you oppose loopholes then close them, legal ones are there to be used.
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Considering the poor have now been largely taken out of income tax hardly and the Queen's private estate essentially pays for itself.
The poor have suffered benefit cuts.
Betty the country's biggest benefits scrounger has had massive increases and invested in overseas havens.
Thank God I am a Republican
She is not a 'benefits scrounger' she has her own private assets and any income received from taxpayers goes largely to cover her state estates and state functions which the taxpayer would have to pay to any President in a republican system anyway.
How do we sack her like we could do a tax avoiding President ?
She does not illegally 'avoid tax', offshore trusts are legal and it is her estate financial advisers who take the decisions not her.
She does not need to be 'sacked' precisely because in her over 50 years on the throne she has never taken a political decision on anything over than signing what her ministers tell her to, that would not be the case with a President, especially an elected one.
That is why she has always been and still is more popular than all the PMs who have served under her (with the possible exception of Blair in August 1997).
You should replace Nicholas Witchell as the No.1 Royal arse-licker.
I am a constitutional monarchist but sometimes I can see the temptations of having an elected President just to get a President Thatcher or President Boris to piss off the likes of you!
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Considering the poor have now been largely taken out of income tax hardly and the Queen's private estate essentially pays for itself.
The poor have suffered benefit cuts.
Betty the country's biggest benefits scrounger has had massive increases and invested in overseas havens.
Thank God I am a Republican
She is not a 'benefits scrounger' she has her own private assets and any income received from taxpayers goes largely to cover her state estates and state functions which the taxpayer would have to pay to any President in a republican system anyway.
Why is a tax-exempt entity shielding money in dodgy places ?
You will have to ask the estate's financial advisers but as the papers reveal it is par for the course for those protecting large numbers of assets, whether they be in a liberal administration like Trudeau's Cabinet and advisers or a conservative one like Trump and his Cabinet.
Trudeau does not live on our taxes. Our scroungers do and then hides the money. Can we use the excuse that honestly I did not know guv, it was my advisers.
The firm have been leeching us for hundreds of years. What's new ? They are like religious leaders. The poor hangs on every word, the establishment simply finds them useful.
First they leach from the poor then they rob the poor.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
Considering the poor have now been largely taken out of income tax hardly and the Queen's private estate essentially pays for itself.
The poor have suffered benefit cuts.
Betty the country's biggest benefits scrounger has had massive increases and invested in overseas havens.
Thank God I am a Republican
She is not a 'benefits scrounger' she has her own private assets and any income received from taxpayers goes largely to cover her state estates and state functions which the taxpayer would have to pay to any President in a republican system anyway.
How do we sack her like we could do a tax avoiding President ?
She does not illegally 'avoid tax', offshore trusts are legal and it is her estate financial advisers who take the decisions not her.
She does not need to be 'sacked' precisely because in her over 50 years on the throne she has never taken a political decision on anything over than signing what her ministers tell her to, that would not be the case with a President, especially an elected one.
That is why she has always been and still is more popular than all the PMs who have served under her (with the possible exception of Blair in August 1997).
You should replace Nicholas Witchell as the No.1 Royal arse-licker.
I am a constitutional monarchist but sometimes I can see the temptations of having an elected President just to get a President Thatcher or President Boris to piss off the likes of you!
At least, they can be impeached. This lot are scroungers by appointment.
Comments
possibly prostitution where you have to buy your way out from your pimp, but it;s a respectable profession unlike law
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36653381
https://johnib.wordpress.com/2017/07/08/chinas-president-xi-jinping-tells-theresa-may-brexit-could-be-positive-for-the-world/
"Someone once said that the legal profession is the second-oldest profession. Having worked in it for nearly 20 years, I'm beginning to think it bears resemblance to the first."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/04/bermuda-hack-tory-donor-billionaire-leave-campaigner-braced/
Julia Hartley-Brewer's knee got more coverage than the Newcastle rape gang.
https://twitter.com/CDP1882/status/895295580934742017
training costs ?
how does paying a trainee £ 10 an hour while charging him out at £100 an hour cause a loss ?
I expect us to be paying c.£40bn (£18bn for the EU budget obligations to 2020, and a further £10bn per year during each year of the transition period).
I still suspect the headline figure will end up being beneath <£50bn for political reasons.
One wonders what it is about the EU that scares them so much they refuse wherever and whenever possible to seek democratic consent for their project.
This, alone, is what makes me want to run a mile.
criminality has high fixed costs
my son did one year work experience with one of the big 4 accountancy firms
they charged him out at £90 an hour from the first week
Obviously, both got considerably more coverage than another bunch of poor white kids in what we euphemistically call “care” being routinely abused by members of certain “communities”.
They don't better humanity the way the legal profession does.
It reminds me again of expenses. Duck houses and claiming for porn got far more coverage than fake offices, paying your mate the landlord cash in hand with no contract, subletting a flat from a friend who happened to get grant money from your department etc etc etc
The Queen's a tax dodger.
Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund as part of an offshore portfolio that has never before been disclosed, according to documents revealed in an investigation into offshore tax havens.
Files from a substantial leak show for the first time how the Queen, through the Duchy of Lancaster, has held and still holds investments via funds that have put money into an array of businesses, including the off-licence chain Threshers, and the retailer BrightHouse, which has been criticised for exploiting thousands of poor families and vulnerable people.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/05/revealed-queen-private-estate-invested-offshore-paradise-papers?CMP=share_btn_tw
People want to read about celebrities behaving badly. They don't want to read about rape in Rotherham.
The media don't just exist to tell Conservative blokes that Muslims are rubbish.
“Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/05/trump-commerce-secretary-wilbur-ross-business-links-putin-family-paradise-papers
I’m feeling very sorry for Bex Bailey, whose brave coming forward to tell her story should have led the news for a week. I hope she has good support around her.
Panorama pulling his pants down.
If true the man should be in jail
Russia funded Facebook and Twitter investments through Kushner associate.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/05/russia-funded-facebook-twitter-investments-kushner-associate
Betty the country's biggest benefits scrounger has had massive increases and invested in overseas havens.
Thank God I am a Republican
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/05/bono-malta-firm-buy-lithuania-shopping-centre-u2-paradise-papers
Justin Trudeau's close adviser helped move huge sums offshore
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/05/justin-trudeau-adviser-stephen-bronfman-offshore-paradise-papers
Capitalism is rotten
How is Venezula going?
Do they have more people using food banks than us?
Does nobody have a moral compass
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/05/wealthy-men-donald-trump-inner-circle-links-tax-havens
A masterclass on how now to blow a 2 nil half time lead over the spanners.
She does not need to be 'sacked' precisely because in her over 50 years on the throne she has never taken a political decision on anything over than signing what her ministers tell her to, that would not be the case with a President, especially an elected one.
That is why she has always been and still is more popular than all the PMs who have served under her (with the possible exception of Blair in August 1997).
A more innocent time.
"Evidence from the 2010 election in the United Kingdom backs this theory up.
Almost a dead cert for Prime Minister, David Cameron managed to avoid winning a parliamentary majority by tackling left at the end of his campaign, focusing on “green” issues, and trying to win over left-leaning Guardian readers instead of focusing on the conservative base.
As a thank you, conservative voters stayed home, or voted for a different party such as the UK Independence Party, a trend which continued all the way through to 2015.
Mr. Cameron didn’t get a majority, and was forced to govern in coalition with Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats"
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/04/kassam-mcconnells-daca-amnesty-plan-will-hand-house-representatives-democrats-ripe-impeachment-attempts/
The global poor and the global super rich have done great. It's the poor in the western world who have had their incomes stagnate in recent decades.
Global capitalism no longer works for them.