They don't like it when stories are broken by Sky. It is not the first time that they have ignored big stories for hours because of the Sky connection.
BJO - You can’t find this on Morning Star website - search function only includes this year and last. In Corbyn’s own words the wreath was for the Munich terrorists.
He was clearly just lying to impress his Lefty mates.....
Might we get better politicians were we to reward honourable behaviour?
It would be nice to think so, but we'll never know, will we? There's a reason all organisations ultimately end up putting their reputations before anything else, be they political, religious, charity or anything else; it usually works.
There was an American Israeli called Baruch Goldstein who entered a mosque in Hebron in 1994 and shot and killed 29 worshippers wounding 125. His graveside has become a grotesque pilgrimage site for right wing extremists. A plaque near the grave reads, "To the holy Baruch Goldstein, who gave his life for the Jewish people, the Torah, and the nation of Israel".
Which brings me to Jeremy Corbyn..... If he did in fact lay a wreath or attend any sort of ceremony for those who murdered the Israel athletes I would expect him to be viewed in the same light as any politician laying a wreath at Baruch Goldstein's grave. That is to say with total and utter disgust followed within minutes by their resignation.
3 big Unions have said he should accept the full definition of anti-Semitism
Which is now too late.
The story will not go away as a result of adopting the full set of examples. It has gone beyond that now.
Good cos we aren't accepting the examples which counts criticism of Israel.
It is not antisemitic to criticise Israels attacks on the unarmed Palestinian women and children .
No matter how many free holidays are at stake for LFI MPs
Of course it is not but will you utterly condemn the Palestinians who assassinated the Israelis at the Olympic games
Of course I would,
As would Jezza.
What is wrong with you.
Terrorism and killing of innocents is abhorent no matter who is the perp.
When has Corbyn condemned the Palestinians for the Olympic assassination
How do I know I am sure he has and would again if you asked him to.
When did TM condemn it?
If you think Corbyn is Pro Hijacking you are crackers
The Times of Israel says he condemns it This was in 2017 BTW
“Jeremy Corbyn condemns the Munich massacre and its perpetrators, and that what he was attending was not anything to do with perpetrator Atef Bseiso, but an event to commemorate the 1985 bombing of the PLO headquarters,” the board wrote in a statement Monday.
There was an American Israeli called Baruch Goldstein who entered a mosque in Hebron in 1994 and shot and killed 29 worshippers wounding 125. His graveside has become a grotesque pilgrimage site for right wing extremists. A plaque near the grave reads, "To the holy Baruch Goldstein, who gave his life for the Jewish people, the Torah, and the nation of Israel".
Which brings me to Jeremy Corbyn..... If he did in fact lay a wreath or attend any sort of ceremony for those who murdered the Israel athletes I would expect him to be viewed in the same light as any politician laying a wreath at Baruch Goldstein's grave. That is to say with total and utter disgust followed within minutes by their resignation.
Hello, Roger. Have any British MPs attended the grave of Goldstein?
(In an article in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on 4 September 2004, shortly after the Beslan massacre, Abdel Rahman al-Rashed wrote this: “It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorist, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslim…….It would be easy to cure ourselves if we realise the seriousness of our sickness. Self-cure starts with self-realisation and confession.
We should then run after our terrorist sons, in the full knowledge that they are the sour grapes of a deformed culture.” Substitute “Catholics” and “child abusers” and “abusive priests” for “Muslims”, “terrorists” and “terrorist sons” in the above passage and this could – and should be – addressed to the church)
I hope i am misintererpreting the above but you seem to be suggesting that most child abusers are Catholics, which would be of course utter nonsense.
How on earth decent Labour MPs, those that haven't already drifted off, can in all conscience remain in the party is a complete mystery.
Not that this story is anything new, of course. Anyone who's being paying attention for the last thirty years, or even the last four years, should know how vile Corbyn is.
That's one Conservative view. As a lefty I find Corbyn and Labour's antisemitic hangup pretty hideous. But Labour has been around for a while and many honourable members will stick it out. I don't think you should expect Hilary Benn, for example, not to endure. Personally, I am beginning to see the attraction of becoming a red liberal. Does anyone here think the LibDems are benefiting from all this?
Maybe it's just me, and this is why I am not the festival going type, but surely there are people who love the music but don't want to spend their time praising elderly socialist members of the elite and so are put off going to such things?
(In an article in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on 4 September 2004, shortly after the Beslan massacre, Abdel Rahman al-Rashed wrote this: “It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorist, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslim…….It would be easy to cure ourselves if we realise the seriousness of our sickness. Self-cure starts with self-realisation and confession.
We should then run after our terrorist sons, in the full knowledge that they are the sour grapes of a deformed culture.” Substitute “Catholics” and “child abusers” and “abusive priests” for “Muslims”, “terrorists” and “terrorist sons” in the above passage and this could – and should be – addressed to the church)
I hope i am misintererpreting the above but you seem to be suggesting that most child abusers are Catholics, which would be of course utter nonsense.
It would indeed. I was trying to make the point that what he wrote there about his religion, could, subject to that caveat, equally apply to my church. But I didn’t want to make it longer than it already was.
How on earth decent Labour MPs, those that haven't already drifted off, can in all conscience remain in the party is a complete mystery.
Not that this story is anything new, of course. Anyone who's being paying attention for the last thirty years, or even the last four years, should know how vile Corbyn is.
That's one Conservative view. As a lefty I find Corbyn and Labour's antisemitic hangup pretty hideous. But Labour has been around for a while and many honourable members will stick it out. I don't think you should expect Hilary Benn, for example, not to endure. Personally, I am beginning to see the attraction of becoming a red liberal. Does anyone here think the LibDems are benefiting from all this?
What evidence is there that they are? With the Tories and Labour as they are it certainly seems, and has for a long time, that the LibDems SHOULD be benefiting from all this, but I don't see much of it.
I do see why even most who dislike Corbyn would stick within Labour, except any of those who believe him to be personally a racist and anti-semitic - that's not many, but it is some, and it seems orders of magnitude worse and harder to justify through loyalty.
It's also the consequence of handing one or two generations extraordinary capital gains from their primary residence.
Is it? Despite popular belief, returns on property haven't been particularly exceptional compared with other investments, notably shares (depending obviously on exactly which time period you look at):
When you factor in the liquidity risk, and sheer hassle, of directly-owned property, it hasn't been a very compelling investment over the last three decades.
Lawson too is to blame (think it was him in the 80's?) as well, for capping what you could put into schemes as a company (so they didn't "avoid" corporation tax one assumes?).
Lawson is - or was - a curious mix of the prescient and the appalling.
His shadowing of the Deutschemark was a disastrous strategy that sent UK inflation and interest rates into double digits. If he'd chosen to look principally at inflation, it's highly likely that the UK would never have joined the ERM, and that might make the whole history of the last 30 years different.
It's also the consequence of handing one or two generations extraordinary capital gains from their primary residence.
Is it? Despite popular belief, returns on property haven't been particularly exceptional compared with other investments, notably shares (depending obviously on exactly which time period you look at):
When you factor in the liquidity risk, and sheer hassle, of directly-owned property, it hasn't been a very compelling investment over the last three decades.
It's been the only asset class where the average person could use leverage and has been made a one-way bet by government policy, so the comparison with other investments isn't particularly relevant.
It's also the consequence of handing one or two generations extraordinary capital gains from their primary residence.
Is it? Despite popular belief, returns on property haven't been particularly exceptional compared with other investments, notably shares (depending obviously on exactly which time period you look at):
When you factor in the liquidity risk, and sheer hassle, of directly-owned property, it hasn't been a very compelling investment over the last three decades.
It's been the only asset class where the average person could use leverage and has been made a one-way bet by government policy, so the comparison with other investments isn't particularly relevant.
That's been true in the past but may not be in the future. Certainly owner occupying your own residence vs renting off of someone else is an almost sure-fire thing... but owning a second property to let out vs other forms of investment may not be going forward.
Edit: Thinking about it, it might not be in London right now given the extraordinarily low implied rental yields there. Still owning has benefits beyond the immediately financial..
It’s been there (as a video story) for 19 minutes now, but it’s not broken into the top 10 most read stories. I’ve noticed that with a lot of these Corbyn stories when they feature on the BBC.
It's been the only asset class where the average person could use leverage and has been made a one-way bet by government policy, so the comparison with other investments isn't particularly relevant.
Leverage is a two-edged sword, as property owners found to their cost in the 1990s, and again in some areas from 2007. You didn't want to be a property owner in Northern Ireland, for example, from 2008 to 2013 - prices halved.
So not a one-way bet, and indeed you could argue that government policy has greatly boosted other investments, not least because a savvy investor has been able to shelter many hundreds of thousands in tax-free wrappers over the period we are talking about.
Brown's insane tax on dividends in pensions 21 years old and counting. Idiotic decision, and no sign of the present lot thinking about doing anything about it.
Lawson too is to blame (think it was him in the 80's?) as well, for capping what you could put into schemes as a company (so they didn't "avoid" corporation tax one assumes?).
Politician's looking at the tax take next week both, instead of how we were going to pay for ourselves in our old age.
It's also an integral part of the wider housing problem. With so many homes which would otherwise have gone to younger people held by older people as secondary capital assets how are we going to break this logjam and aid the supply side of the housing conundrum?
Raise interest rates as fast as you dare and then a bit more. Then pension assets will pay out more (ie lowering the capital cost of a pension for any given annual payout) and it costs more to service a BTL loan making holding housing less attractive.
If the UK government looked to raise interest rates, there would be a number of consequences:
1. Pensions own bonds, which are usually fixed interest. So, raising interest rates would not increase their yields meaningfully. 2. Sterling would rise, which would make British exports less competitive. 3. Saving would become more attractive relative to spending, which would help solve the UK's over-consumption problem. However, it would also probably cause an absolute decline in consumer spending. 4. Getting a mortgage would become harder.
Raising interest rates would, almost certainly, help correct the UK's imbalances, and be good in the medium to long term. But it would be a painful process. Are we up for that?
It's been the only asset class where the average person could use leverage and has been made a one-way bet by government policy, so the comparison with other investments isn't particularly relevant.
Leverage is a two-edged sword, as property owners found to their cost in the 1990s, and again in some areas from 2007. You didn't want to be a property owner in Northern Ireland, for example, from 2008 to 2013 - prices halved.
So not a one-way bet, and indeed you could argue that government policy has greatly boosted other investments, not least because a savvy investor has been able to shelter many hundreds of thousands in tax-free wrappers over the period we are talking about.
That may be true, but the reason people like Fergus and Judith Wilson didn't go bankrupt is fundamentally because of government intervention that propped up their business model.
Brown's insane tax on dividends in pensions 21 years old and counting. Idiotic decision, and no sign of the present lot thinking about doing anything about it.
Lawson too is to blame (think it was him in the 80's?) as well, for capping what you could put into schemes as a company (so they didn't "avoid" corporation tax one assumes?).
Politician's looking at the tax take next week both, instead of how we were going to pay for ourselves in our old age.
It's also an integral part of the wider housing problem. With so many homes which would otherwise have gone to younger people held by older people as secondary capital assets how are we going to break this logjam and aid the supply side of the housing conundrum?
Raise interest rates as fast as you dare and then a bit more. Then pension assets will pay out more (ie lowering the capital cost of a pension for any given annual payout) and it costs more to service a BTL loan making holding housing less attractive.
If the UK government looked to raise interest rates, there would be a number of consequences:
1. Pensions own bonds, which are usually fixed interest. So, raising interest rates would not increase their yields meaningfully. 2. Sterling would rise, which would make British exports less competitive. 3. Saving would become more attractive relative to spending, which would help solve the UK's over-consumption problem. However, it would also probably cause an absolute decline in consumer spending. 4. Getting a mortgage would become harder.
Raising interest rates would, almost certainly, help correct the UK's imbalances, and be good in the medium to long term. But it would be a painful process. Are we up for that?
Given over half the world's population are Catholic or Muslim those bodies are big enough to survive past scandals, though Pope Francis is trying to move the Catholic Church in a different direction.
The Labour Party and the BBC and the NHS also are big enough and with strong enough brands to learn from their past scandals and move on
Kay Burley on Sky reading the Israeli PM tweet on Sky
Jon Craig of Sky saying this has become a full blown International incident with the PM of Israel condemning Corbyn
He’ll wear that like a badge of honour.
Lucinda Berger furious with Corbyn
I'm sure he can live with that, shrug noncommittally as if to say 'I don't know why people are mad at me and what can I do about it?' and so on it shall go until the end of time.
BBC reporting Corbyn open to adopting the full IHRA definition including all examples.
Forced into it by being found out
As was predicted some time ago - he climbs down despite his much vaunted/criticised stubborness, and even though not much has really changed, that will be enough to get most critics to say 'Ok, time to back down and give him some more time' and those who don't stop look like they are only concerned with attacking him.
Someone's going to end up with egg on their face post Swedish election...
The Swedish Democrats are not going to take power, it will be a Swedish Democrat led or Moderate led coalition that does that, the question is whether they can beat one or both of the main established parties the Moderates and the Swedish Democrats
It's also the consequence of handing one or two generations extraordinary capital gains from their primary residence.
Is it? Despite popular belief, returns on property haven't been particularly exceptional compared with other investments, notably shares (depending obviously on exactly which time period you look at):
When you factor in the liquidity risk, and sheer hassle, of directly-owned property, it hasn't been a very compelling investment over the last three decades.
Ummmm. Let me know what your returns would have been on shares if you'd been allowed to leverage up nine times and collect the dividends tax free. Because that is UK property
Kay Burley on Sky reading the Israeli PM tweet on Sky
Jon Craig of Sky saying this has become a full blown International incident with the PM of Israel condemning Corbyn
He’ll wear that like a badge of honour.
Lucinda Berger furious with Corbyn
I'm sure he can live with that, shrug noncommittally as if to say 'I don't know why people are mad at me and what can I do about it?' and so on it shall go until the end of time.
I'm not sure he can really. He can't afford a split in the parliamentary party. And as casus belli for leaving political parties go, the Jew-die garland would be a particularly good one.
The mention of George Bell is misleading and anomalous. The Church of England, presumably intending to appear tough and rigorous, was only too keen to presume George Bell’s guilt on ancient, uncorroborated evidence the independent Carlile report has since found to be weak and wholly inadequate, and to have been considered by a tribunal that was slipshod and unfair. The Bishop’s anti-establishment defenders had to fight against the Church establishment to achieve this. Perhaps you have the wrong Bishop.
Kay Burley on Sky reading the Israeli PM tweet on Sky
Jon Craig of Sky saying this has become a full blown International incident with the PM of Israel condemning Corbyn
He’ll wear that like a badge of honour.
Lucinda Berger furious with Corbyn
I'm sure he can live with that, shrug noncommittally as if to say 'I don't know why people are mad at me and what can I do about it?' and so on it shall go until the end of time.
I'm not sure he can really. He can't afford a split in the parliamentary party. And as casus belli for leaving political parties go, the Jew-die garland would be a particularly good one.
What I meant was he can live with her being furious with him. So long as that doesn't manifest as an actual split, he'll be fine.
The mention of George Bell is misleading and anomalous. The Church of England, presumably intending to appear tough and rigorous, was only too keen to presume George Bell’s guilt on ancient, uncorroborated evidence the independent Carlile report has since found to be weak and wholly inadequate, and to have been considered by a tribunal that was slipshod and unfair. The Bishop’s anti-establishment defenders had to fight against the Church establishment to achieve this. Perhaps you have the wrong Bishop.
Given over half the world's population are Catholic or Muslim those bodies are big enough to survive past scandals, though Pope Francis is trying to move the Catholic Church in a different direction.
The Labour Party and the BBC and the NHS also are big enough and with strong enough brands to learn from their past scandals and move on
Survival is not enough. One of my Irish cousins, a priest, now living in America says that the Irish Catholic church is utterly discredited. You may think that a good thing. It will survive I expect. But it means that it in the interim it is less able to do the good it can do.
The NHS has not learnt as much as it might from past scandals about how to develop an effective whistleblowing culture.
We should surely want something more than just mere survival.
It’s a fragile moment for the Conservative Party. It may find a way to redefine conservatism for a changing electorate. Or it could experience a major and perhaps irrevocable split. Either outcome appears equally plausible...
Who here favours which (if any) of these outcomes ?
Brown's insane tax on dividends in pensions 21 years old and counting. Idiotic decision, and no sign of the present lot thinking about doing anything about it.
Lawson too is to blame (think it was him in the 80's?) as well, for capping what you could put into schemes as a company (so they didn't "avoid" corporation tax one assumes?).
Politician's looking at the tax take next week both, instead of how we were going to pay for ourselves in our old age.
It's also an integral part of the wider housing problem. With so many homes which would otherwise have gone to younger people held by older people as secondary capital assets how are we going to break this logjam and aid the supply side of the housing conundrum?
Raise interest rates as fast as you dare and then a bit more. Then pension assets will pay out more (ie lowering the capital cost of a pension for any given annual payout) and it costs more to service a BTL loan making holding housing less attractive.
If the UK government looked to raise interest rates, there would be a number of consequences:
1. Pensions own bonds, which are usually fixed interest. So, raising interest rates would not increase their yields meaningfully. 2. Sterling would rise, which would make British exports less competitive. 3. Saving would become more attractive relative to spending, which would help solve the UK's over-consumption problem. However, it would also probably cause an absolute decline in consumer spending. 4. Getting a mortgage would become harder.
Raising interest rates would, almost certainly, help correct the UK's imbalances, and be good in the medium to long term. But it would be a painful process. Are we up for that?
The mention of George Bell is misleading and anomalous. The Church of England, presumably intending to appear tough and rigorous, was only too keen to presume George Bell’s guilt on ancient, uncorroborated evidence the independent Carlile report has since found to be weak and wholly inadequate, and to have been considered by a tribunal that was slipshod and unfair. The Bishop’s anti-establishment defenders had to fight against the Church establishment to achieve this. Perhaps you have the wrong Bishop.
The real Peter Hitchens? Welcome to PB, regardless.
It's also the consequence of handing one or two generations extraordinary capital gains from their primary residence.
Is it? Despite popular belief, returns on property haven't been particularly exceptional compared with other investments, notably shares (depending obviously on exactly which time period you look at):
When you factor in the liquidity risk, and sheer hassle, of directly-owned property, it hasn't been a very compelling investment over the last three decades.
Ummmm. Let me know what your returns would have been on shares if you'd been allowed to leverage up nine times and collect the dividends tax free. Because that is UK property
You couldn't collect rent tax-free (and now you can't even get tax relief on the mortgage).
And yes, of course, if you borrow to buy an asset which subsequently rises in price, you do really well. But you are taking on massive extra risk. It's not free money, it's high-risk return - the opposite, in fact, of what people think they are getting when they invest in 'safe as houses' property with a big mortgage.
To be clear, I'm referring to property as an investment, not your main home, or a second home for your own use.
Anyway off topic a question for the PB brains trust: my current iPad Air is now 5 years old and has a crack on its screen, barely visible and it all works fine.
Cost of repair is ca. £99. Worth doing? Or should I buy a replacement and if so which iPad / tablet should I go for? I have a Mac I like. But use my iPad a lot.
Look on the bright side, at least you're not Arsenal.
I wouldn't say I'm embarrassed TBF...... if we get to the end of the transfer window without losing anyone then 'net', I think that's not been too bad at all...
The mention of George Bell is misleading and anomalous. The Church of England, presumably intending to appear tough and rigorous, was only too keen to presume George Bell’s guilt on ancient, uncorroborated evidence the independent Carlile report has since found to be weak and wholly inadequate, and to have been considered by a tribunal that was slipshod and unfair. The Bishop’s anti-establishment defenders had to fight against the Church establishment to achieve this. Perhaps you have the wrong Bishop.
The real Peter Hitchens? Welcome to PB, regardless.
It's also the consequence of handing one or two generations extraordinary capital gains from their primary residence.
Is it? Despite popular belief, returns on property haven't been particularly exceptional compared with other investments, notably shares (depending obviously on exactly which time period you look at):
When you factor in the liquidity risk, and sheer hassle, of directly-owned property, it hasn't been a very compelling investment over the last three decades.
Ummmm. Let me know what your returns would have been on shares if you'd been allowed to leverage up nine times and collect the dividends tax free. Because that is UK property
You couldn't collect rent tax-free (and now you can't even get tax relief on the mortgage).
And yes, of course, if you borrow to buy an asset which subsequently rises in price, you do really well. But you are taking on massive extra risk. It's not free money, it's high-risk return - the opposite, in fact, of what people think they are getting when they invest in 'safe as houses' property with a big mortgage.
To be clear, I'm referring to property as an investment, not your main home, or a second home for your own use.
If you are a 62% marginal tax-payer investing in to a pension soon to draw on it... now that's an attractive return for your investment and without taking any investment risk....
Anyway off topic a question for the PB brains trust: my current iPad Air is now 5 years old and has a crack on its screen, barely visible and it all works fine.
Cost of repair is ca. £99. Worth doing? Or should I buy a replacement and if so which iPad / tablet should I go for? I have a Mac I like. But use my iPad a lot.
Thanks in advance.
If it is urgent, I'd go for the iPad Pro 10.5.
If it isn't urgent, there's some new iPads set to be released next month, might be worth waiting until then.
It's also the consequence of handing one or two generations extraordinary capital gains from their primary residence.
Is it? Despite popular belief, returns on property haven't been particularly exceptional compared with other investments, notably shares (depending obviously on exactly which time period you look at):
When you factor in the liquidity risk, and sheer hassle, of directly-owned property, it hasn't been a very compelling investment over the last three decades.
Ummmm. Let me know what your returns would have been on shares if you'd been allowed to leverage up nine times and collect the dividends tax free. Because that is UK property
You couldn't collect rent tax-free (and now you can't even get tax relief on the mortgage).
And yes, of course, if you borrow to buy an asset which subsequently rises in price, you do really well. But you are taking on massive extra risk. It's not free money, it's high-risk return - the opposite, in fact, of what people think they are getting when they invest in 'safe as houses' property with a big mortgage.
To be clear, I'm referring to property as an investment, not your main home, or a second home for your own use.
Aren't you getting tax free imputed rent from the house you live in?
It's also the consequence of handing one or two generations extraordinary capital gains from their primary residence.
Is it? Despite popular belief, returns on property haven't been particularly exceptional compared with other investments, notably shares (depending obviously on exactly which time period you look at):
When you factor in the liquidity risk, and sheer hassle, of directly-owned property, it hasn't been a very compelling investment over the last three decades.
Ummmm. Let me know what your returns would have been on shares if you'd been allowed to leverage up nine times and collect the dividends tax free. Because that is UK property
You couldn't collect rent tax-free (and now you can't even get tax relief on the mortgage).
And yes, of course, if you borrow to buy an asset which subsequently rises in price, you do really well. But you are taking on massive extra risk. It's not free money, it's high-risk return - the opposite, in fact, of what people think they are getting when they invest in 'safe as houses' property with a big mortgage.
To be clear, I'm referring to property as an investment, not your main home, or a second home for your own use.
If you are a 62% marginal tax-payer investing in to a pension soon to draw on it... now that's an attractive return for your investment and without taking any investment risk....
If only it wasn't for the pesky lifetime allowance...
Look on the bright side, at least you're not Arsenal.
I wouldn't say I'm embarrassed TBF...... if we get to the end of the transfer window without losing anyone then 'net', I think that's not been too bad at all...
Quite enjoyed your result vs the spanners too..
Yeah, spending £100 million and still looking like muppets was amusing.
Though Jack Wilshere taking one in the nuts cheered me up no end yesterday.
Given over half the world's population are Catholic or Muslim those bodies are big enough to survive past scandals, though Pope Francis is trying to move the Catholic Church in a different direction.
The Labour Party and the BBC and the NHS also are big enough and with strong enough brands to learn from their past scandals and move on
Survival is not enough. One of my Irish cousins, a priest, now living in America says that the Irish Catholic church is utterly discredited. You may think that a good thing. It will survive I expect. But it means that it in the interim it is less able to do the good it can do.
The NHS has not learnt as much as it might from past scandals about how to develop an effective whistleblowing culture.
We should surely want something more than just mere survival.
There are 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide, that would make it the third biggest country after China and India. Irish Catholics are just a tiny fraction of that and Pope Francis is gradually moving things on.
In terms of the NHS it is fine having whistleblowers but they need to be confirmed to be true
It's also the consequence of handing one or two generations extraordinary capital gains from their primary residence.
Is it? Despite popular belief, returns on property haven't been particularly exceptional compared with other investments, notably shares (depending obviously on exactly which time period you look at):
When you factor in the liquidity risk, and sheer hassle, of directly-owned property, it hasn't been a very compelling investment over the last three decades.
Ummmm. Let me know what your returns would have been on shares if you'd been allowed to leverage up nine times and collect the dividends tax free. Because that is UK property
You couldn't collect rent tax-free (and now you can't even get tax relief on the mortgage).
And yes, of course, if you borrow to buy an asset which subsequently rises in price, you do really well. But you are taking on massive extra risk. It's not free money, it's high-risk return - the opposite, in fact, of what people think they are getting when they invest in 'safe as houses' property with a big mortgage.
To be clear, I'm referring to property as an investment, not your main home, or a second home for your own use.
If you are a 62% marginal tax-payer investing in to a pension soon to draw on it... now that's an attractive return for your investment and without taking any investment risk....
If only it wasn't for the pesky lifetime allowance...
indeed...but being so IHT planning efficient (no gifting needed)
Anyway off topic a question for the PB brains trust: my current iPad Air is now 5 years old and has a crack on its screen, barely visible and it all works fine.
Cost of repair is ca. £99. Worth doing? Or should I buy a replacement and if so which iPad / tablet should I go for? I have a Mac I like. But use my iPad a lot.
Thanks in advance.
Not worth it, your device is in extreme old age and the battery or processor will collapse about 48 hours after you get the new screen. Go for another ipad, as its what you know and decent android pads are thin on the ground.
Aren't you getting tax free imputed rent from the house you live in?
Yes, effectively. That's one reason why I made the distinction between your own home and buy-to-let. For your main home, buy the best you can afford and don't worry about paying a bit over the odds if you find somewhere you really like (but don't over-borrow, and don't forget that refurbishment and maintenance always cost much more than you expect).
The mention of George Bell is misleading and anomalous. The Church of England, presumably intending to appear tough and rigorous, was only too keen to presume George Bell’s guilt on ancient, uncorroborated evidence the independent Carlile report has since found to be weak and wholly inadequate, and to have been considered by a tribunal that was slipshod and unfair. The Bishop’s anti-establishment defenders had to fight against the Church establishment to achieve this. Perhaps you have the wrong Bishop.
The real Peter Hitchens? Welcome to PB, regardless.
I dealt with this upthread.
This is what I put.
That is a fair point. He was never charged or tried. My point was that there have been allegations of cover ups by senior Anglican churchmen of allegations of abuse against other senior clergymen. Perhaps a better example might have been the Bishop of Gloucester who did accept a caution and about whom the Inquiry into Historic Child Abuse recently commented.
Given over half the world's population are Catholic or Muslim those bodies are big enough to survive past scandals, though Pope Francis is trying to move the Catholic Church in a different direction.
The Labour Party and the BBC and the NHS also are big enough and with strong enough brands to learn from their past scandals and move on
Survival is not enough. One of my Irish cousins, a priest, now living in America says that the Irish Catholic church is utterly discredited. You may think that a good thing. It will survive I expect. But it means that it in the interim it is less able to do the good it can do.
The NHS has not learnt as much as it might from past scandals about how to develop an effective whistleblowing culture.
We should surely want something more than just mere survival.
There are 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide, that would make it the third biggest country after China and India. Irish Catholics are just a tiny fraction of that and Pope Francis is gradually moving things on.
In terms of the NHS it is fine having whistleblowers but they need to be confirmed to be true
A touch complacent I feel. There have been problems in the Catholic church all round the world and, as an ostensibly moral organisation, it should be aiming as high as possible.
PBers frothing at the mouth about "BBC bias" will be delighted to hear that "Corbynites" have apparently infested ITV too -- 15 minutes into their evening news and no mention of it yet. Though two negative stories for the government so far ("fury at the hike in rail fares" and "admission that there's no new money for their 'rough sleeping' strategy").
PBers frothing at the mouth about "BBC bias" will be delighted to hear that "Corbynites" have apparently infested ITV too -- 15 minutes into their evening news and no mention of it yet. Though two negative stories for the government so far ("fury at the hike in rail fares" and "admission that there's no new money for their 'rough sleeping' strategy").
Comments
https://twitter.com/njstone9/status/1029017018232594432
Not so many days ago the BBC had a segment bleating about fake news. I wonder if that includes omitting stories.
You don't know this wreath, goes to a different school, she lives round my Nan's...
When did TM condemn it?
If you think Corbyn is Pro Hijacking you are crackers
https://twitter.com/GrandPrixDiary/status/1029037098060398593
(They weren't hijackers, BTW. Rather nastier even than that.)
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/28/554147818/california-moves-up-2020-primary-elections-to-march?t=1534177197386
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkfipsSXcAArfFC.jpg
It would be nice to think so, but we'll never know, will we? There's a reason all organisations ultimately end up putting their reputations before anything else, be they political, religious, charity or anything else; it usually works.
Which brings me to Jeremy Corbyn..... If he did in fact lay a wreath or attend any sort of ceremony for those who murdered the Israel athletes I would expect him to be viewed in the same light as any politician laying a wreath at Baruch Goldstein's grave. That is to say with total and utter disgust followed within minutes by their resignation.
“Jeremy Corbyn condemns the Munich massacre and its perpetrators, and that what he was attending was not anything to do with perpetrator Atef Bseiso, but an event to commemorate the 1985 bombing of the PLO headquarters,” the board wrote in a statement Monday.
a) The Sun
b) Skwawkbox
We should then run after our terrorist sons, in the full knowledge that they are the sour grapes of a deformed culture.” Substitute “Catholics” and “child abusers” and “abusive priests” for “Muslims”, “terrorists” and “terrorist sons” in the above passage and this could – and should be – addressed to the church)
I hope i am misintererpreting the above but you seem to be suggesting that most child abusers are Catholics, which would be of course utter nonsense.
This looks like a good weekend out for you Rob
https://twitter.com/DjDanPropaganda/status/1027853210067890176
As a lefty I find Corbyn and Labour's antisemitic hangup pretty hideous.
But Labour has been around for a while and many honourable members will stick it out.
I don't think you should expect Hilary Benn, for example, not to endure.
Personally, I am beginning to see the attraction of becoming a red liberal. Does anyone here think the LibDems are benefiting from all this?
After bleating about the rise of fake news a week or two ago.
Anyway, I must be off to perambulate with the hound.
I do see why even most who dislike Corbyn would stick within Labour, except any of those who believe him to be personally a racist and anti-semitic - that's not many, but it is some, and it seems orders of magnitude worse and harder to justify through loyalty.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/7006016/tottenham-secret-payment-fa-wembley-new-stadium-not-ready/
https://www.woodruff-fp.co.uk/property-vs-investment-portfolios/
When you factor in the liquidity risk, and sheer hassle, of directly-owned property, it hasn't been a very compelling investment over the last three decades.
But not on 6 o clock news
His shadowing of the Deutschemark was a disastrous strategy that sent UK inflation and interest rates into double digits. If he'd chosen to look principally at inflation, it's highly likely that the UK would never have joined the ERM, and that might make the whole history of the last 30 years different.
Liverpool's refurb of Anfield opened on time.
Look on the bright side, at least you're not Arsenal.
Edit: Thinking about it, it might not be in London right now given the extraordinarily low implied rental yields there. Still owning has benefits beyond the immediately financial..
Jon Craig of Sky saying this has become a full blown International incident with the PM of Israel condemning Corbyn
So not a one-way bet, and indeed you could argue that government policy has greatly boosted other investments, not least because a savvy investor has been able to shelter many hundreds of thousands in tax-free wrappers over the period we are talking about.
1. Pensions own bonds, which are usually fixed interest. So, raising interest rates would not increase their yields meaningfully.
2. Sterling would rise, which would make British exports less competitive.
3. Saving would become more attractive relative to spending, which would help solve the UK's over-consumption problem. However, it would also probably cause an absolute decline in consumer spending.
4. Getting a mortgage would become harder.
Raising interest rates would, almost certainly, help correct the UK's imbalances, and be good in the medium to long term. But it would be a painful process. Are we up for that?
Though your point remains valid.
The Labour Party and the BBC and the NHS also are big enough and with strong enough brands to learn from their past scandals and move on
Forced into it by being found out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ju1w-iDR0o
https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1028970557667196928?s=21
The Church of England, presumably intending to appear tough and rigorous,
was only too keen to presume George Bell’s guilt on ancient, uncorroborated evidence the
independent Carlile report has since found to be weak and wholly inadequate, and to have been considered by a tribunal that was slipshod and unfair. The Bishop’s
anti-establishment defenders had to fight against the Church
establishment to achieve this. Perhaps you have the wrong Bishop.
The NHS has not learnt as much as it might from past scandals about how to develop an effective whistleblowing culture.
We should surely want something more than just mere survival.
Who here favours which (if any) of these outcomes ?
And yes, of course, if you borrow to buy an asset which subsequently rises in price, you do really well. But you are taking on massive extra risk. It's not free money, it's high-risk return - the opposite, in fact, of what people think they are getting when they invest in 'safe as houses' property with a big mortgage.
To be clear, I'm referring to property as an investment, not your main home, or a second home for your own use.
Cost of repair is ca. £99. Worth doing? Or should I buy a replacement and if so which iPad / tablet should I go for? I have a Mac I like. But use my iPad a lot.
Thanks in advance.
Quite enjoyed your result vs the spanners too..
If it isn't urgent, there's some new iPads set to be released next month, might be worth waiting until then.
Though Jack Wilshere taking one in the nuts cheered me up no end yesterday.
In terms of the NHS it is fine having whistleblowers but they need to be confirmed to be true
for now...
https://twitter.com/NickyAllt/status/1028962911161647104
Is the incident when Mark Noble and Jack Wilshire both took a blow to their knackers.
That is a fair point. He was never charged or tried. My point was that there have been allegations of cover ups by senior Anglican churchmen of allegations of abuse against other senior clergymen. Perhaps a better example might have been the Bishop of Gloucester who did accept a caution and about whom the Inquiry into Historic Child Abuse recently commented. A touch complacent I feel. There have been problems in the Catholic church all round the world and, as an ostensibly moral organisation, it should be aiming as high as possible.
I remember a Nigerian heritage friend talking about his Uncle Festus and me hearing 'Uncle Fester'