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.
We even executed 1 monarch because he got too powerful, they are there only by consent of Parliament and the voters who elect them.
Parliament could abolish the monarchy if it wanted as Parliament is sovereign as the Civil War and Glorious Revolution confirmed but it won't as most MPs are monarchists as are the public as a whole.
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.
We even executed 1 monarch because he got too powerful
Well it was a bit more complicated than that. For one thing, most of the parliamentary side (which was not even the whole of the parliament in the first place) was opposed to killing him or going republican even after the second phase of the English Civil War, so it was a minority who executed him.
People wondered why jezza went with tax dodging at PMQs this week...perhaps a little birdie from the BBC or the guardian gave him a bit of a heads up.
He did Francis , I think he mentioned how many private jets were registered in The Isle of man.
Because that’s where the banks who lease them out are based.
Does Corbyn expect that people buy a £10m jet with cash, and if so does he expect them to register it in the UK for the privilege of paying 20% VAT on 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.
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.
We can get rid of the monarchy at any time. No matter how strong the institution may seem, if they do something to swing public opinion decisively against them they are gone in an instant. So I'm not really feeling the outrage at being unable to shift them, since if they upset the public it will happen very quickly and very easily.
We can get rid of the monarchy at any time. No matter how strong the institution may seem, if they do something to swing public opinion decisively against them they are gone in an instant. So I'm not really feeling the outrage at being unable to shift them, since if they upset the public it will happen very quickly and very easily.
Would it be that simple?
I imagine the establishment would all rally around and support them and change the subject so that public attention would move on to something else.
The point is that people in positions of power / authority love the kudos of being given awards etc by the monarchy. So the monarchy is never subject to any proper scrutiny by any organised media etc.
Forget Brexit. Let's talk about tax dodgers. Let's send them to the Tower. Oh, wait a minute....
The find she was investing in was set up to avoid double taxation in the US.
Arguably avoiding US tax is a moral obligation for the Crown...
The guardian, self appointed moral arbiter on these matters, state there wasn’t tax dodging going on, their objection is the fact the fund invested in “predator” companies like bright house.
It’s a real shame to learn this about the Queen. My guess is that she did not know. She really doesn’t need the money and has a keen sense of duty.
It's important to realise that she* is not investing in a clever structure to minimise her tax.
She has made an investment in a fund that was thought to be a good investment. That fund was based offshore. She would have paid all tax due on income and gains from the fund - the only advantage would be that the fund wouldn't be taxed as well as the investors.
Forget Brexit. Let's talk about tax dodgers. Let's send them to the Tower. Oh, wait a minute....
The find she was investing in was set up to avoid double taxation in the US.
Arguably avoiding US tax is a moral obligation for the Crown...
The guardian, self appointed moral arbiter on these matters, state there wasn’t tax dodging going on, their objection is the fact the fund invested in “predator” companies like bright house.
Did the Scott Trust move to the Caymans because they like the year-round sun?
How do we get rid of The Queen or any other Monarch?
I want to take back control from our unelected rulers.
You know how - if a majority of MPs want to get rid of the queen or the monarchy entirely, they can vote for it. If the public votes for a party with that as their policy, they can do it. (heck, they don't even need to have been elected with that as policy to do it, although for something so big it would be a good idea)
That's not even trolling, as it isn't even a difficult question to answer.
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.
We can get rid of the monarchy at any time. No matter how strong the institution may seem, if they do something to swing public opinion decisively against them they are gone in an instant. So I'm not really feeling the outrage at being unable to shift them, since if they upset the public it will happen very quickly and very easily.
We're kind of running out of individuals/institutions to repect tho'.
Sir David Attenborough better not have feet of clay..
Forget Brexit. Let's talk about tax dodgers. Let's send them to the Tower. Oh, wait a minute....
The find she was investing in was set up to avoid double taxation in the US.
Arguably avoiding US tax is a moral obligation for the Crown...
The guardian, self appointed moral arbiter on these matters, state there wasn’t tax dodging going on, their objection is the fact the fund invested in “predator” companies like bright house.
Did the Scott Trust move to the Caymans because they like the year-round sun?
People wondered why jezza went with tax dodging at PMQs this week...perhaps a little birdie from the BBC or the guardian gave him a bit of a heads up.
He did Francis , I think he mentioned how many private jets were registered in The Isle of man.
Because that’s where the banks who lease them out are based.
Does Corbyn expect that people buy a £10m jet with cash, and if so does he expect them to register it in the UK for the privilege of paying 20% VAT on it?
No it’s not - no aviation lenders are based in the IoM. It’s because the IoM register encourages business jet registration by being lower cost and more efficient than other regsistries which are more focused on commercial aviation.
Forget Brexit. Let's talk about tax dodgers. Let's send them to the Tower. Oh, wait a minute....
The find she was investing in was set up to avoid double taxation in the US.
Arguably avoiding US tax is a moral obligation for the Crown...
The guardian, self appointed moral arbiter on these matters, state there wasn’t tax dodging going on, their objection is the fact the fund invested in “predator” companies like bright house.
In 2005, and their fund sold on Brighthouse's IPO...
Oh ffs, all the shit about the queen and brighthouse...
The Duchy said the BrightHouse holding now equates to £3,208
In total only hand £10 million in fund of the £500 million they have to invest. No wonder the duchy said they weren’t really aware of this, it’s a rounding error scale investment.
It’s a real shame to learn this about the Queen. My guess is that she did not know. She really doesn’t need the money and has a keen sense of duty.
It's important to realise that she* is not investing in a clever structure to minimise her tax.
She has made an investment in a fund that was thought to be a good investment. That fund was based offshore. She would have paid all tax due on income and gains from the fund - the only advantage would be that the fund wouldn't be taxed as well as the investors.
* her advisors, obviously
I thought the Duchy of Lancaster is tax exempt anyway. So the placing of money offshore was to hide the investments.
When you say it was her advisers who was investing, does that apply to all citizens who have tax advisers and should, therefore, be free from any legal problems arising.
People wondered why jezza went with tax dodging at PMQs this week...perhaps a little birdie from the BBC or the guardian gave him a bit of a heads up.
He did Francis , I think he mentioned how many private jets were registered in The Isle of man.
That’s not “tax dodging” though unless one has a very simplistic view of how relevant tax works. Aircraft registration does not of itself go to tax. Look to ownership and operation.
It’s a real shame to learn this about the Queen. My guess is that she did not know. She really doesn’t need the money and has a keen sense of duty.
It's important to realise that she* is not investing in a clever structure to minimise her tax.
She has made an investment in a fund that was thought to be a good investment. That fund was based offshore. She would have paid all tax due on income and gains from the fund - the only advantage would be that the fund wouldn't be taxed as well as the investors.
* her advisors, obviously
I thought the Duchy of Lancaster is tax exempt anyway. So the placing of money offshore was to hide the investments.
When you say it was her advisers who was investing, does that apply to all citizens who have tax advisers and should, therefore, be free from any legal problems arising.
Not legally subject to tax, but I thought it was paid anyway.
OT. Every time people see an American audience whooping at a Trump rally where he makes a speech sounding like a demented child their respect for the entire nation is diminished. Isn't it extraordinary that a nation of 250,000,000 people should be judged on the character and personality of one person. Imagine if Johnson was our PM
We can get rid of the monarchy at any time. No matter how strong the institution may seem, if they do something to swing public opinion decisively against them they are gone in an instant. So I'm not really feeling the outrage at being unable to shift them, since if they upset the public it will happen very quickly and very easily.
Would it be that simple?
I imagine the establishment would all rally around and support them and change the subject so that public attention would move on to something else.
It would depend on the scandal, and of course the establishment, whatever that means, would rally around, but why is that even a problem? If the public turns against the institution, the establishment cannot resist that for long - a party would soon be elected with it as policy. If the public decided to move on, that's the public choice to be moved on.
As for simple, when a move comes it will probably be a country heavily divided on the subject so probably not, but the point is that if a party is elected who wants to do it, the process is simple.
People talking or acting like there's no way of doing it are really talking about there being no political will to do it and that being the problem, since it is very clear given our parliament exercises all authority that they have the power to do it. So any talk of 'how do we do this?' is very simply answered. One election win, and they can do it. If they want to avoid a longer term problem, probably best to have a referendum, or try to push for more than a slight majority support. But that people at present don't want to do it is not even close to not being able to do it if we want.
Forget Brexit. Let's talk about tax dodgers. Let's send them to the Tower. Oh, wait a minute....
The find she was investing in was set up to avoid double taxation in the US.
Arguably avoiding US tax is a moral obligation for the Crown...
The guardian, self appointed moral arbiter on these matters, state there wasn’t tax dodging going on, their objection is the fact the fund invested in “predator” companies like bright house.
Did the Scott Trust move to the Caymans because they like the year-round sun?
Obviously...why else would they?
Is Scott Trust based in the Caymans?
I thought the whole "Guardian tax dodging" meme arise from the fact that when Apax bought 51% of Autotrader they did it through a Caymans vehicle. The Guardian reinvested in it, and therefore benefited from Apax's structure (again just making sure the capital gains were passed through to them on a gross basis).
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.
We can get rid of the monarchy at any time. No matter how strong the institution may seem, if they do something to swing public opinion decisively against them they are gone in an instant. So I'm not really feeling the outrage at being unable to shift them, since if they upset the public it will happen very quickly and very easily.
We're kind of running out of individuals/institutions to repect tho'.
Sir David Attenborough better not have feet of clay..
If a scandal erupts around him I may cry. I know he doesn't like the term, but he's one of our last national treasures.
It’s a real shame to learn this about the Queen. My guess is that she did not know. She really doesn’t need the money and has a keen sense of duty.
It's important to realise that she* is not investing in a clever structure to minimise her tax.
She has made an investment in a fund that was thought to be a good investment. That fund was based offshore. She would have paid all tax due on income and gains from the fund - the only advantage would be that the fund wouldn't be taxed as well as the investors.
* her advisors, obviously
I thought the Duchy of Lancaster is tax exempt anyway. So the placing of money offshore was to hide the investments.
When you say it was her advisers who was investing, does that apply to all citizens who have tax advisers and should, therefore, be free from any legal problems arising.
No - virtually all* private equity firms are structured with an offshore fund structure advised by a U.K. based advisory firm. If the Duchy wanted exposure to private equity as an asset class - which they should - then they would have had no choice but to buy interests in these funds.
It isn't to avoid scrutiny or dodge taxes by the investors. It's to avoid the funds being taxed before they distribute to the investors (who then pay their own taxes)
How do we get rid of The Queen or any other Monarch?
I want to take back control from our unelected rulers.
What if we voted leave because we wanted HM to take back control?
I'd point out we'd wait 41 years for a second referendum.
If you oppose Jean-Claude Juncker having control in the UK without a mandate, then you must surely oppose Her Majesty having control as well?
It's about who we choose to allow to reign, or rule. We very narrowly said we didn't want the EU to do either. We have had republican movements and republican MPs for a long time trying to convince us we don't want HM to either, even symbolically. They will continue to try to convince us and one day might succeed. No one who wants a republic is prevented from arguing for it, or even serving in our parliament, they just cross their fingers or modulate the oath. So what's the problem? Has any party advocated moving to a republican system? If not, that was their choice. Has the public voted into power any party which has advocated moving to a republican system? If not, then the mandate has been provided for HM.
Also a poor choice of words. Republicans have many sound reasons to object to a monarchical system, but what that system does not give anymore in this country is 'control' to the Queen.
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.
We even executed 1 monarch because he got too powerful
Well it was a bit more complicated than that. For one thing, most of the parliamentary side (which was not even the whole of the parliament in the first place) was opposed to killing him or going republican even after the second phase of the English Civil War, so it was a minority who executed him.
The Commons created a court to try him and he was found guilty and executed
Allegation against Pincher is that he exposed himself to a young aide.
Not really a 'grey area' in terms of appropriate workplace conduct, is it? Just don't show people your genitals at work.
Hard to do accidentally as well, or for there to be an alternate explanation as to why someone thought that was what happened (eg, someone accused of rubbing their genitals against someone during a hug can argue, perhaps truthfully perhaps not, that there was no intent, but absent a wardrobe malfunction exposure is always a deliberate act)
People wondered why jezza went with tax dodging at PMQs this week...perhaps a little birdie from the BBC or the guardian gave him a bit of a heads up.
He did Francis , I think he mentioned how many private jets were registered in The Isle of man.
Because that’s where the banks who lease them out are based.
Does Corbyn expect that people buy a £10m jet with cash, and if so does he expect them to register it in the UK for the privilege of paying 20% VAT on it?
No it’s not - no aviation lenders are based in the IoM. It’s because the IoM register encourages business jet registration by being lower cost and more efficient than other regsistries which are more focused on commercial aviation.
Your tax analysis is wholly incorrect.
Okay, I’ll take your word for that, can you expand a little?
People wondered why jezza went with tax dodging at PMQs this week...perhaps a little birdie from the BBC or the guardian gave him a bit of a heads up.
He did Francis , I think he mentioned how many private jets were registered in The Isle of man.
Because that’s where the banks who lease them out are based.
Does Corbyn expect that people buy a £10m jet with cash, and if so does he expect them to register it in the UK for the privilege of paying 20% VAT on it?
Yes I bloody well hope so .I have to pay VAT on my small extension to my house.
Allegation against Pincher is that he exposed himself to a young aide.
Not really a 'grey area' in terms of appropriate workplace conduct, is it? Just don't show people your genitals at work.
Now we’re getting somewhere with these allegations. If that story’s true he should probably be a guest in Her Majesty’s big house. Closest possibility to a by-election that’s come up so far.
The Commons created a court to try him and he was found guilty and executed
Nope
1) Not all the Commons fought on the parliamentary side, nor all Lords for the King (though most of each did fall that way)
2) The part of the Commons that was on the parliamentary side was then purged in what amounts to a military coup to reduce its number in order to set up the court to try the King
I'm not questioning the rightness of the decision or not - it was a long time ago and given the nature of the time obviously my sympathies are more for the parliamentarians - but it is fundamentally not the case that 'the Commons' created the court to try Charles. Have you never wondered why it was called the 'Rump Parliament'? Because most of it was excluded.
A rump of the Commons set up the court, which given my whole point was not over exagerrating the popularity of the side that did it, is a crucial point.
It is a fairly important thing when looking at the civil war to understand that it did not start with the aim of killing the king for exceeding his power. Even Cromwell was not originally a republican. People have a tendency to overplay how firmly many of those who opposed the king were to him, making it seem more revolutionary from the beginning that it was.
Isn’t one of the arguments for gun ownership that you’re able to stop stuff like this? Looking weaker and weaker by the day
There was a mall shooting not long ago where people did indeed pull guns. Took the police about 5 hours to get the situation under control, as they couldn't work out who the active shooter was.
People wondered why jezza went with tax dodging at PMQs this week...perhaps a little birdie from the BBC or the guardian gave him a bit of a heads up.
He did Francis , I think he mentioned how many private jets were registered in The Isle of man.
Because that’s where the banks who lease them out are based.
Does Corbyn expect that people buy a £10m jet with cash, and if so does he expect them to register it in the UK for the privilege of paying 20% VAT on it?
Yes I bloody well hope so .I have to pay VAT on my small extension to my house.
Yes, but we're talking about big important people here - you can hardly expect them to have to pay that same taxes as mere mortals like us, can you?
The Commons created a court to try him and he was found guilty and executed
Nope
1) Not all the Commons fought on the parliamentary side, nor all Lords for the King (though most of each did fall that way)
2) The part of the Commons that was on the parliamentary side was then purged in what amounts to a military coup to reduce its number in order to set up the court to try the King
I'm not questioning the rightness of the decision or not - it was a long time ago and given the nature of the time obviously my sympathies are more for the parliamentarians - but it is fundamentally not the case that 'the Commons' created the court to try Charles. Have you never wondered why it was called the 'Rump Parliament'? Because most of it was excluded.
A rump of the Commons set up the court, which given my whole point was not over exagerrating the popularity of the side that did it, is a crucial point.
It is a fairly important thing when looking at the civil war to understand that it did not start with the aim of killing the king for exceeding his power. Even Cromwell was not originally a republican. People have a tendency to overplay how firmly many of those who opposed the king were to him, making it seem more revolutionary from the beginning that it was.
So what, the Commons voted to set up a court to try the King which is exactly what happened.
The aims of the Civil War may well have been to establish the supremacy of Parliament over the Divine Right of Kings but it was still the Commons which ultimately voted to try him.
Perhaps now is the time to invoke a rule that anyone who is currently (or has been previously) a member of the House of Commons should not be a candidate at the next General Election. In other words, chuck them all out and start again.
People wondered why jezza went with tax dodging at PMQs this week...perhaps a little birdie from the BBC or the guardian gave him a bit of a heads up.
He did Francis , I think he mentioned how many private jets were registered in The Isle of man.
Because that’s where the banks who lease them out are based.
Does Corbyn expect that people buy a £10m jet with cash, and if so does he expect them to register it in the UK for the privilege of paying 20% VAT on it?
Yes I bloody well hope so .I have to pay VAT on my small extension to my house.
But if you could register your house in the Isle of Man, would you?
People wondered why jezza went with tax dodging at PMQs this week...perhaps a little birdie from the BBC or the guardian gave him a bit of a heads up.
He did Francis , I think he mentioned how many private jets were registered in The Isle of man.
Because that’s where the banks who lease them out are based.
Does Corbyn expect that people buy a £10m jet with cash, and if so does he expect them to register it in the UK for the privilege of paying 20% VAT on it?
Yes I bloody well hope so .I have to pay VAT on my small extension to my house.
Yes, but we're talking about big important people here - you can hardly expect them to have to pay that same taxes as mere mortals like us, can you?
Anyone can use tax exemptions if they get accountants to find them.
Of course the lowest earners now pay virtually no tax at all.
So what, the Commons voted to set up a court to try the King which is exactly what happened.
The aims of the Civil War may well have been to establish the supremacy of Parliament over the Divine Right of Kings but it was still the Commons which ultimately voted to try him.
You do realise it would be like the US military excluding a few members of Congress to impact on Trump's impeachment/trial?
The Commons created a court to try him and he was found guilty and executed
Nope
1) Not all the Commons fought on the parliamentary side, nor all Lords for the King (though most of each did fall that way)
2) The part of the Commons that was on the parliamentary side was then purged in what amounts to a military coup to reduce its number in order to set up the court to try the King
I'm not questioning the rightness of the decision or not - it was a long time ago and given the nature of the time obviously my sympathies are more for the parliamentarians - but it is fundamentally not the case that 'the Commons' created the court to try Charles. Have you never wondered why it was called the 'Rump Parliament'? Because most of it was excluded.
A rump of the Commons set up the court, which given my whole point was not over exagerrating the popularity of the side that did it, is a crucial point.
It is a fairly important thing when looking at the civil war to understand that it did not start with the aim of killing the king for exceeding his power. Even Cromwell was not originally a republican. People have a tendency to overplay how firmly many of those who opposed the king were to him, making it seem more revolutionary from the beginning that it was.
So what, the Commons voted to set up a court to try the King which is exactly what happened.
The aims of the Civil War may well have been to establish the supremacy of Parliament over the Divine Right of Kings but it was still the Commons which ultimately voted to try him.
So what?! It wasn't 'the Commons', it was a denuded rump of the Commons. Do you truly not see the difference between implying the entire legislative chamber instigated the action and the truth, that a fraction of that body did so?
It fundamentally alters the perception of events to suggest the former. If the Tories purged the Commons tomorrow and then passed a act declaring Labour party membership illegal, would you say 'the Commons' had done that, or would it be more correct to say 'a Commons purged of any who would oppose those in power' had done it?
There is a reason we make a distinction between the Long Parliament and Rump Parliament after all, because the purge meant they were fundamentally different entities, and it would be historically confusing to merely refer to them both as the Commons.
The Commons was then purged into the Commons, and then overthrown and new Commons were called, then the Commons (but not the Commons) was recalled, and then later the other Commons was recalled, before yet another Commons was called which restored the crown.
People wondered why jezza went with tax dodging at PMQs this week...perhaps a little birdie from the BBC or the guardian gave him a bit of a heads up.
He did Francis , I think he mentioned how many private jets were registered in The Isle of man.
Because that’s where the banks who lease them out are based.
Does Corbyn expect that people buy a £10m jet with cash, and if so does he expect them to register it in the UK for the privilege of paying 20% VAT on it?
Yes I bloody well hope so .I have to pay VAT on my small extension to my house.
Yes, but we're talking about big important people here - you can hardly expect them to have to pay that same taxes as mere mortals like us, can you?
Fing stinks whatever our defender of the faith Sandpit says on here.
Perhaps now is the time to invoke a rule that anyone who is currently (or has been previously) a member of the House of Commons should not be a candidate at the next General Election. In other words, chuck them all out and start again.
Nice idea, except there seems to be a collective memory that tries to dissuade new entrants in remaking the same cock ups as previously. Remove the memory, relive the errors.
I am shocked, shocked to discover that rich people minimise their tax burdens.
When is someone going to take on Amazon, Starbucks, Apple et al? They're the real reason people are losing faith in capitalism.
I suppose it's too easy, too convenient. We like our cheap tat delivered cheaply. Amazon are happy to provide this, unlike Lord Ashcroft. So we give them a free pass.
Perhaps now is the time to invoke a rule that anyone who is currently (or has been previously) a member of the House of Commons should not be a candidate at the next General Election. In other words, chuck them all out and start again.
'Better the devil you know' is not a rule to live by, of course, but why would that lead to an improvement - who is to say the candidates or pool of candidates from previous elections would not result in similar people?
So what, the Commons voted to set up a court to try the King which is exactly what happened.
The aims of the Civil War may well have been to establish the supremacy of Parliament over the Divine Right of Kings but it was still the Commons which ultimately voted to try him.
You do realise it would be like the US military excluding a few members of Congress to impact on Trump's impeachment/trial?
So what, the Commons as then constituted still voted to try him. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty was confirmed.
So what, the Commons voted to set up a court to try the King which is exactly what happened.
The aims of the Civil War may well have been to establish the supremacy of Parliament over the Divine Right of Kings but it was still the Commons which ultimately voted to try him.
You do realise it would be like the US military excluding a few members of Congress to impact on Trump's impeachment/trial?
So what, the Commons as then constituted still voted to try him. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty was confirmed.
It wasn't constituted. Knobbling the representatives doesn't count, it's the equivalent of comparing a high court trial to a drumhead trial.
Listen to Kle4, he's PB's resident expert on The Civil War.
The Commons created a court to try him and he was found guilty and executed
Nope
1) Not all the Commons fought on the parliamentary si? Because most of it was excluded.
A rump of the Commons set up the court, which given my whole point was not over exagerrating the popularity of the side that did it, is a crucial point.
It is a fairly important thing when looking at the civil war to understand that it did not start with the aim of killing the king for exceeding his power. Even Cromwell was not originally a republican. People have a tendency to overplay how firmly many of those who opposed the king were to him, making it seem more revolutionary from the beginning that it was.
So what, the Commons voted to set up a court to try the King which is exactly what happened.
The aims of the Civil War may well have been to establish the supremacy of Parliament over the Divine Right of Kings but it was still the Commons which ultimately voted to try him.
So what?! It wasn't 'the Commons', it was a denuded rump of the Commons. Do you truly not see the difference between implying the entire legislative chamber instigated the action and the truth, that a fraction of that body did so?
It fundamentally alters the perception of events to suggest the former. If the Tories purged the Commons tomorrow and then passed a act declaring Labour party membership illegal, would you say 'the Commons' had done that, or would it be more correct to say 'a Commons purged of any who would oppose those in power' had done it?
There is a reason we make a distinction between the Long Parliament and Rump Parliament after all, because the purge meant they were fundamentally different entities, and it would be historically confusing to merely refer to them both as the Commons.
The Commons was then purged into the Commons, and then overthrown and new Commons were called, then the Commons (but not the Commons) was recalled, and then later the other Commons was recalled, before yet another Commons was called which restored the crown.
So what? The Commons as constituted at the time voted to try him and given barely more than 10% could vote at the time the idea the previous Commons was vastly more representative than the Rump Parliament is threadbare indeed.
The key point is that the Commons established itself over the Crown as the key lawmaking body in the country.
Perhaps now is the time to invoke a rule that anyone who is currently (or has been previously) a member of the House of Commons should not be a candidate at the next General Election. In other words, chuck them all out and start again.
Isn't collective punishment illegal under the Geneva Convention?
So what, the Commons voted to set up a court to try the King which is exactly what happened.
The aims of the Civil War may well have been to establish the supremacy of Parliament over the Divine Right of Kings but it was still the Commons which ultimately voted to try him.
You do realise it would be like the US military excluding a few members of Congress to impact on Trump's impeachment/trial?
So what, the Commons as then constituted still voted to try him. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty was confirmed.
It wasn't constituted. Knobbling the representatives doesn't count, it's the equivalent of comparing a high court trial to a drumhead trial.
Listen to Kle4, he's PB's resident expert on The Civil War.
It does count in the sense that it was a pivotal act in finalising Parliamentary Sovereignty.
People wondered why jezza went with tax dodging at PMQs this week...perhaps a little birdie from the BBC or the guardian gave him a bit of a heads up.
He did Francis , I think he mentioned how many private jets were registered in The Isle of man.
Because that’s where the banks who lease them out are based.
Does Corbyn expect that people buy a £10m jet with cash, and if so does he expect them to register it in the UK for the privilege of paying 20% VAT on it?
Yes I bloody well hope so .I have to pay VAT on my small extension to my house.
If the small businesses and people have to pay taxes, then they have the expectation that in a level playing field, all pay as required. Leona Helmsfeld went to prison, maybe a few of the CEO's of our major financial institutions should expect similar treatment....
Perhaps now is the time to invoke a rule that anyone who is currently (or has been previously) a member of the House of Commons should not be a candidate at the next General Election. In other words, chuck them all out and start again.
'Better the devil you know' is not a rule to live by, of course, but why would that lead to an improvement - who is to say the candidates or pool of candidates from previous elections would not result in similar people?
Replace the Lords with a chamber with no law making powers, but absolute veto over the commons, elected annually by lottery - a sort of extended jury service. Appoint an 'advocate' for the government and one for the opposition and have them argue their case to the assembled house.
So what, the Commons voted to set up a court to try the King which is exactly what happened.
The aims of the Civil War may well have been to establish the supremacy of Parliament over the Divine Right of Kings but it was still the Commons which ultimately voted to try him.
You do realise it would be like the US military excluding a few members of Congress to impact on Trump's impeachment/trial?
So what, the Commons as then constituted still voted to try him. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty was confirmed.
But it wasn't the Commons as then constituted! It didn't have the royalist members in it, and then even more were forcibly barred from entering. A body with most of its members not permitted to take part is hardly the same body.
I can see that TMay is missing a trick - just have soldiers at the entrance to the Commons prevent the entrance of opponents and rebels; so long as you technically have MPs in there, even if just the ones you allow, it is still totally the same thing as having that body decide things.
You have now literally confirmed that if the US military were to purge Congress of supporters of Trump, it would be totally fine to suggest Congress as a whole had done it.
Wow.
I can see you are committed to the point, so I won't belabor my own any further, but I am truly stunned that you don't see the flaws in this one.
So what, the Commons voted to set up a court to try the King which is exactly what happened.
The aims of the Civil War may well have been to establish the supremacy of Parliament over the Divine Right of Kings but it was still the Commons which ultimately voted to try him.
You do realise it would be like the US military excluding a few members of Congress to impact on Trump's impeachment/trial?
So what, the Commons as then constituted still voted to try him. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty was confirmed.
It wasn't constituted. Knobbling the representatives doesn't count, it's the equivalent of comparing a high court trial to a drumhead trial.
Listen to Kle4, he's PB's resident expert on The Civil War.
It does count in the sense that it was a pivotal act in finalising Parliamentary Sovereignty.
No it doesn't.
A bit like saying if Leaver backing MPs were forcibly excluded from The Commons and the rest voted to keep us in the EU that was a pivotal act in finalising Parliamentary Sovereignty.
So what, the Commons voted to set up a court to try the King which is exactly what happened.
The aims of the Civil War may well have been to establish the supremacy of Parliament over the Divine Right of Kings but it was still the Commons which ultimately voted to try him.
You do realise it would be like the US military excluding a few members of Congress to impact on Trump's impeachment/trial?
So what, the Commons as then constituted still voted to try him. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty was confirmed.
It wasn't constituted. Knobbling the representatives doesn't count, it's the equivalent of comparing a high court trial to a drumhead trial.
Listen to Kle4, he's PB's resident expert on The Civil War.
It does count in the sense that it was a pivotal act in finalising Parliamentary Sovereignty.
No it doesn't.
A bit like saying if Leaver backing MPs were forcibly excluded from The Commons and the rest voted to keep us in the EU that was a pivotal act in finalising Parliamentary Sovereignty.
It really isn't.
Indeed.
The fact of the trial and execution of Charles happening were definitely crucial to the path of confirming parliamentary sovereignty in the end - once you kill a king you cannot go back to the same way again, even after you have chosen to restore the monarchy - but the act of the purge itself was clearly about enforcing control over parliament by another force, not parliament enforcing its own will and sovereignty.
If the Commons, let alone the whole parliament, had been exercising their sovereignty they would not have ordered the trial at all, that was the whole reason they were purged; the commons exercising sovereignty was preventing the army and its supporters from taking the action they felt they needed.
So what, the Commons voted to set up a court to try the King which is exactly what happened.
The aims of the Civil War may well have been to establish the supremacy of Parliament over the Divine Right of Kings but it was still the Commons which ultimately voted to try him.
You do realise it would be like the US military excluding a few members of Congress to impact on Trump's impeachment/trial?
So what, the Commons as then constituted still voted to try him. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty was confirmed.
But it wasn't the Commons as then constituted! It didn't have the royalist members in it, and then even more were forcibly barred from entering. A body with most of its members not permitted to take part is hardly the same body.
I can see that TMay is missing a trick - just have soldiers at the entrance to the Commons prevent the entrance of opponents and rebels; so long as you technically have MPs in there, even if just the ones you allow, it is still totally the same thing as having that body decide things.
You have now literally confirmed that if the US military were to purge Congress of supporters of Trump, it would be totally fine to suggest Congress as a whole had done it.
Wow.
I can see you are committed to the point, so I won't belabor my own any further, but I am truly stunned that you don't see the flaws in this one.
This is a body where well over 90% of the population did not have any vote in electing it, trying to argue that it was some representative body of the country as a whole is absurd, so the Congress comparison does not wash.
The Commons did not become a fully representative body of the people until 1918 and the introduction of universal suffrage.
The whole point of the civil war and the King's subsequent trial was that it established the principle of the supremacy of the Commons over the Crown. The fact that it was the Rump Parliament rather than the full Long Parliament that did so is completely irrelevant to that point.
So what, the Commons voted to set up a court to try the King which is exactly what happened.
The aims of the Civil War may well have been to establish the supremacy of Parliament over the Divine Right of Kings but it was still the Commons which ultimately voted to try him.
You do realise it would be like the US military excluding a few members of Congress to impact on Trump's impeachment/trial?
So what, the Commons as then constituted still voted to try him. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty was confirmed.
It wasn't constituted. Knobbling the representatives doesn't count, it's the equivalent of comparing a high court trial to a drumhead trial.
Listen to Kle4, he's PB's resident expert on The Civil War.
It does count in the sense that it was a pivotal act in finalising Parliamentary Sovereignty.
No it doesn't.
A bit like saying if Leaver backing MPs were forcibly excluded from The Commons and the rest voted to keep us in the EU that was a pivotal act in finalising Parliamentary Sovereignty.
It really isn't.
It does in the sense that 100% of adult Britons who were not in jail or insane could vote in both the EU referendum and the 2017 general election and around 70% did so, so excluding MPs with a mandate that large is rather different from excluding some who had barely any mandate at all.
So what, the Commons voted to set up a court to try the King which is exactly what happened.
The aims of the Civil War may well have been to establish the supremacy of Parliament over the Divine Right of Kings but it was still the Commons which ultimately voted to try him.
You do realise it would be like the US military excluding a few members of Congress to impact on Trump's impeachment/trial?
So what, the Commons as then constituted still voted to try him. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty was confirmed.
It wasn't constituted. Knobbling the representatives doesn't count, it's the equivalent of comparing a high court trial to a drumhead trial.
Listen to Kle4, he's PB's resident expert on The Civil War.
It does count in the sense that it was a pivotal act in finalising Parliamentary Sovereignty.
No it doesn't.
A bit like saying if Leaver backing MPs were forcibly excluded from The Commons and the rest voted to keep us in the EU that was a pivotal act in finalising Parliamentary Sovereignty.
It really isn't.
It does in the sense that 100% of adult Britons who were not in jail or insane could vote in both the EU referendum and the 2017 general election and around 70% did so, so excluding MPs with a mandate that large is rather different from excluding some who had barely any mandate at all.
Apparently the insane did vote in the EU referendum.
Whether it was 48% or 52% depends on your point of view.
There are some heavy goings on in Saudi Arabia over the 24 hours, large number of arrests and detentions on basis of 'corruption' amongst Royal family types and now it appears a plane carrying one of the princes plus officials has crashed.
Maybe pure coincidence but maybe not.
One expert reckons the country is at its most volatile now as at any other time over the last 40 to 50 years.
Just one little sub text in the Paradise Papers. Wilbur Ross, long suspected of having somewhat too close ties to some Russian concerns may have been exposed. He is the current US Commerce Secretary.
There are some heavy goings on in Saudi Arabia over the 24 hours, large number of arrests and detentions on basis of 'corruption' amongst Royal family types and now it appears a plane carrying one of the princes plus officials has crashed.
Maybe pure coincidence but maybe not.
One expert reckons the country is at its most volatile now as at any other time over the last 40 to 50 years.
Just one little sub text in the Paradise Papers. Wilbur Ross, long suspected of having somewhat too close ties to some Russian concerns may have been exposed. He is the current US Commerce Secretary.
Plane and a helicopter carrying 'officials' and Princes down in the last hour. Serious stuff.
There are some heavy goings on in Saudi Arabia over the 24 hours, large number of arrests and detentions on basis of 'corruption' amongst Royal family types and now it appears a plane carrying one of the princes plus officials has crashed.
Maybe pure coincidence but maybe not.
One expert reckons the country is at its most volatile now as at any other time over the last 40 to 50 years.
Just one little sub text in the Paradise Papers. Wilbur Ross, long suspected of having somewhat too close ties to some Russian concerns may have been exposed. He is the current US Commerce Secretary.
Plane and a helicopter carrying 'officials' and Princes down in the last hour. Serious stuff.
Hard to know if both crash incidents are in fact the same, though different people named as victims
Comments
Should add in Texas that doesn’t mean a majority black church.
Parliament could abolish the monarchy if it wanted as Parliament is sovereign as the Civil War and Glorious Revolution confirmed but it won't as most MPs are monarchists as are the public as a whole.
68% of voters back a constitutional monarchy and that even includes 57% of Labour voters and 61% of 18 to 24s as well as 88% of Tories and 79% of over 60s.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/
there'd be nothing to stock them with
Does Corbyn expect that people buy a £10m jet with cash, and if so does he expect them to register it in the UK for the privilege of paying 20% VAT on it?
Arguably avoiding US tax is a moral obligation for the Crown...
I imagine the establishment would all rally around and support them and change the subject so that public attention would move on to something else.
The point is that people in positions of power / authority love the kudos of being given awards etc by the monarchy. So the monarchy is never subject to any proper scrutiny by any organised media etc.
How do we get rid of The Queen or any other Monarch?
I want to take back control from our unelected rulers.
She has made an investment in a fund that was thought to be a good investment. That fund was based offshore. She would have paid all tax due on income and gains from the fund - the only advantage would be that the fund wouldn't be taxed as well as the investors.
* her advisors, obviously
If you oppose Jean-Claude Juncker having control in the UK without a mandate, then you must surely oppose Her Majesty having control as well?
That's not even trolling, as it isn't even a difficult question to answer.
Sir David Attenborough better not have feet of clay..
Your tax analysis is wholly incorrect.
The Duchy said the BrightHouse holding now equates to £3,208
In total only hand £10 million in fund of the £500 million they have to invest. No wonder the duchy said they weren’t really aware of this, it’s a rounding error scale investment.
Last time I checked, Juncker wasn’t anointed by God
When you say it was her advisers who was investing, does that apply to all citizens who have tax advisers and should, therefore, be free from any legal problems arising.
And surely HM the Q's advisors are obliged to get the best rate of return - to minimise the amount that we plebs have to put into the Civil List?
The journey from One Nation Conservatism to Maoism is clearly a short one...
As for simple, when a move comes it will probably be a country heavily divided on the subject so probably not, but the point is that if a party is elected who wants to do it, the process is simple.
People talking or acting like there's no way of doing it are really talking about there being no political will to do it and that being the problem, since it is very clear given our parliament exercises all authority that they have the power to do it. So any talk of 'how do we do this?' is very simply answered. One election win, and they can do it. If they want to avoid a longer term problem, probably best to have a referendum, or try to push for more than a slight majority support. But that people at present don't want to do it is not even close to not being able to do it if we want.
*policy = Arming to the teeth countries antithetical to our values and culture, because they are rich.
I thought the whole "Guardian tax dodging" meme arise from the fact that when Apax bought 51% of Autotrader they did it through a Caymans vehicle. The Guardian reinvested in it, and therefore benefited from Apax's structure (again just making sure the capital gains were passed through to them on a gross basis).
Not really a 'grey area' in terms of appropriate workplace conduct, is it? Just don't show people your genitals at work.
Has he offered to be the Guy?
It isn't to avoid scrutiny or dodge taxes by the investors. It's to avoid the funds being taxed before they distribute to the investors (who then pay their own taxes)
* all the funds that I am aware of anyway
Also a poor choice of words. Republicans have many sound reasons to object to a monarchical system, but what that system does not give anymore in this country is 'control' to the Queen.
Bring back Len Goodman.
This was what I found with a quick search:
https://corporatejetinvestor.com/articles/register-aircraft-isle-man/
1) Not all the Commons fought on the parliamentary side, nor all Lords for the King (though most of each did fall that way)
2) The part of the Commons that was on the parliamentary side was then purged in what amounts to a military coup to reduce its number in order to set up the court to try the King
I'm not questioning the rightness of the decision or not - it was a long time ago and given the nature of the time obviously my sympathies are more for the parliamentarians - but it is fundamentally not the case that 'the Commons' created the court to try Charles. Have you never wondered why it was called the 'Rump Parliament'? Because most of it was excluded.
A rump of the Commons set up the court, which given my whole point was not over exagerrating the popularity of the side that did it, is a crucial point.
It is a fairly important thing when looking at the civil war to understand that it did not start with the aim of killing the king for exceeding his power. Even Cromwell was not originally a republican. People have a tendency to overplay how firmly many of those who opposed the king were to him, making it seem more revolutionary from the beginning that it was.
The aims of the Civil War may well have been to establish the supremacy of Parliament over the Divine Right of Kings but it was still the Commons which ultimately voted to try him.
Of course the lowest earners now pay virtually no tax at all.
I bet you also like pineapple on your pizzas too.
It fundamentally alters the perception of events to suggest the former. If the Tories purged the Commons tomorrow and then passed a act declaring Labour party membership illegal, would you say 'the Commons' had done that, or would it be more correct to say 'a Commons purged of any who would oppose those in power' had done it?
There is a reason we make a distinction between the Long Parliament and Rump Parliament after all, because the purge meant they were fundamentally different entities, and it would be historically confusing to merely refer to them both as the Commons.
The Commons was then purged into the Commons, and then overthrown and new Commons were called, then the Commons (but not the Commons) was recalled, and then later the other Commons was recalled, before yet another Commons was called which restored the crown.
When is someone going to take on Amazon, Starbucks, Apple et al? They're the real reason people are losing faith in capitalism.
I suppose it's too easy, too convenient. We like our cheap tat delivered cheaply. Amazon are happy to provide this, unlike Lord Ashcroft. So we give them a free pass.
Listen to Kle4, he's PB's resident expert on The Civil War.
The key point is that the Commons established itself over the Crown as the key lawmaking body in the country.
I can see that TMay is missing a trick - just have soldiers at the entrance to the Commons prevent the entrance of opponents and rebels; so long as you technically have MPs in there, even if just the ones you allow, it is still totally the same thing as having that body decide things.
You have now literally confirmed that if the US military were to purge Congress of supporters of Trump, it would be totally fine to suggest Congress as a whole had done it.
Wow.
I can see you are committed to the point, so I won't belabor my own any further, but I am truly stunned that you don't see the flaws in this one.
A bit like saying if Leaver backing MPs were forcibly excluded from The Commons and the rest voted to keep us in the EU that was a pivotal act in finalising Parliamentary Sovereignty.
It really isn't.
The fact of the trial and execution of Charles happening were definitely crucial to the path of confirming parliamentary sovereignty in the end - once you kill a king you cannot go back to the same way again, even after you have chosen to restore the monarchy - but the act of the purge itself was clearly about enforcing control over parliament by another force, not parliament enforcing its own will and sovereignty.
If the Commons, let alone the whole parliament, had been exercising their sovereignty they would not have ordered the trial at all, that was the whole reason they were purged; the commons exercising sovereignty was preventing the army and its supporters from taking the action they felt they needed.
Ugh, good night all.
The Commons did not become a fully representative body of the people until 1918 and the introduction of universal suffrage.
The whole point of the civil war and the King's subsequent trial was that it established the principle of the supremacy of the Commons over the Crown. The fact that it was the Rump Parliament rather than the full Long Parliament that did so is completely irrelevant to that point.
Or rather the change has happened - and they have accepted mass shootings as the price.
Try 1928.
Apparently the insane did vote in the EU referendum.
Whether it was 48% or 52% depends on your point of view.
Maybe pure coincidence but maybe not.
One expert reckons the country is at its most volatile now as at any other time over the last 40 to 50 years.
Just one little sub text in the Paradise Papers. Wilbur Ross, long suspected of having somewhat too close ties to some Russian concerns may have been exposed. He is the current US Commerce Secretary.