If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.
I have no problem with people being successful.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
So you think people who work for a charity should all be unpaid? Or is there an ‘acceptable’ level of pay? I presume you are happy for the companies who run track and trace for the U.K. government to pay their bosses millions but charities, however successful those charities may be, cannot? Really that just seems to me to be an absurd argument.
How many nurses and doctors could we pay for with the millions we are bunging to private sector bosses? So, to be honest it still feels like a very selective anti charity, anti Milliband view to me.
We shouldn't bung anything to private industry we should pay for goods or services rendered at market rates.
Absolutely charities should be operated for minimal salaries. If you want to be earning Megabucks then earn it in the market not via taxes meant for charity being spent not for services rendered but deliberately as spending for the sake of spending.
You forgot to tell us how many doctors and nurses could be paid through the millions paid to private sector managers engaged in contracts supplying service to the U.K. government or paid for by U.K. public bodies using tax payers funds? I am sure people will want to know.
It is interesting that you think market forces should be used to judge the price of service but it is inappropriate to use market forces to set salaries in the charity sector. The trustees of charities clearly think that it is worth their while to pay good wages to the best people to make sure their charities are successful. They presumably think that restricting the number of people who can work for them by not paying market force wages will result in their charities struggling to succeed. If you think those trustees are wrong there is nothing to stop you starting your own charity to show us all how it should be done.
Re. Maradona. I get throughly sick of people going on about that hand-ball. As Sir NP points out England were well-beaten in that game, and the fixation on that moment rather misses the point about the most-sublimely talented footballer of all time.
There should be more attention to what he achieved at Napoli, which was just incredible. Football is a team game, and no one individual has ever been able to transcend that, with the one exception of Diego Maradona, who with both Argentina and Napoli transformed mediocre sides into world-beaters.
What I remember most from that game is John Barnes coming on as sub, when he probably should have started and ripping the Argentinian right back to shreds, setting up Lineker twice, once to pull it back to 2-1, the second timw to miss a sitter to equalise.
How many do you think it will need before Betfair pay out on Vote Tally >75 million?
As soon as Trump concedes to that figure .... Oh dear ....
Perhaps they suspect Biden of going round illegally casting lots of votes for himself. Some people do that kind of thing, you know.
How shocking but I bow to your superior knowledge of voter fraud. In contrast I am a complete innocent and simply cannot comprehend the venality of such practices....
Pensioners enjoying the triple lock support a pay freeze.
Hypocrisy rules OK.
All ages and groups support the freeze
However if you follow my posts, and as a pensioner, I have consistently said the triple lock should go
I wasn't accusing you, G. Sorry if I gave that impression.
For what it is worth, in my bit of the private sector we had a pay freeze last year, a temporary pay cut lasting 6 months and it looks like another pay freeze to come. Except for those who were made redundant in the summer.
Brown was the third worst PM this country has ever had.
He used to be second, but then came Johnson.
Edit - I wonder if he might be tempted to stand for Holyrood? He is after all the last non-SNP leader to win an election in Scotland, and while he was a bit rubbish he’s no Salmond or Swinney.
Asking people to vote for you is for the little people, plus a decidedly risky business for SLabbers in Scotland. It's been touted previously, with zero sign of Brown being interested.
'Brown was the third worst PM this country has ever had.'
How far you going back, Doc? You got Lord North on your spreadsheet? Chamberlain? Asquith?
Btw, I was looking at some amusing lists of US Presidents recently, ranking them in order of merit. Naturally opinions vary but there was near universal agreement that the worst was James Buchanan.
His fans will no doubt be pleased to know that he will soon move up a notch.
Pensioners enjoying the triple lock support a pay freeze.
Hypocrisy rules OK.
All ages and groups support the freeze
However if you follow my posts, and as a pensioner, I have consistently said the triple lock should go
I wasn't accusing you, G. Sorry if I gave that impression.
For what it is worth, in my bit of the private sector we had a pay freeze last year, a temporary pay cut lasting 6 months and it looks like another pay freeze to come. Except for those who were made redundant in the summer.
There are hard times for so many in this crisis and we must all hope the vaccines put us all back to some kind of normality but it may take to summer 2021 at the earliest, sadly
Brown was the third worst PM this country has ever had.
He used to be second, but then came Johnson.
Edit - I wonder if he might be tempted to stand for Holyrood? He is after all the last non-SNP leader to win an election in Scotland, and while he was a bit rubbish he’s no Salmond or Swinney.
Asking people to vote for you is for the little people, plus a decidedly risky business for SLabbers in Scotland. It's been touted previously, with zero sign of Brown being interested.
True, but what would he have to lose? His reputation? He lost that over the election that never was. His career? Crashed straight into Cameron and Clegg. His retirement? He’s younger than Corbyn.
If he’s seriously concerned, he may change his mind. Bear in mind, the one constant of Brown’s career is egoism. He would love to be the man who saved the United Kingdom, even if he can’t quite be the man who saved the world.
'Brown was the third worst PM this country has ever had.'
How far you going back, Doc? You got Lord North on your spreadsheet? Chamberlain? Asquith?
Btw, I was looking at some amusing lists of US Presidents recently, ranking them in order of merit. Naturally opinions vary but there was near universal agreement that the worst was James Buchanan.
His fans will no doubt be pleased to know that he will soon move up a notch.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.
I have no problem with people being successful.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
So you think people who work for a charity should all be unpaid? Or is there an ‘acceptable’ level of pay? I presume you are happy for the companies who run track and trace for the U.K. government to pay their bosses millions but charities, however successful those charities may be, cannot? Really that just seems to me to be an absurd argument.
How many nurses and doctors could we pay for with the millions we are bunging to private sector bosses? So, to be honest it still feels like a very selective anti charity, anti Milliband view to me.
We shouldn't bung anything to private industry we should pay for goods or services rendered at market rates.
Absolutely charities should be operated for minimal salaries. If you want to be earning Megabucks then earn it in the market not via taxes meant for charity being spent not for services rendered but deliberately as spending for the sake of spending.
You forgot to tell us how many doctors and nurses could be paid through the millions paid to private sector managers engaged in contracts supplying service to the U.K. government or paid for by U.K. public bodies using tax payers funds? I am sure people will want to know.
It is interesting that you think market forces should be used to judge the price of service but it is inappropriate to use market forces to set salaries in the charity sector. The trustees of charities clearly think that it is worth their while to pay good wages to the best people to make sure their charities are successful. They presumably think that restricting the number of people who can work for them by not paying market force wages will result in their charities struggling to succeed. If you think those trustees are wrong there is nothing to stop you starting your own charity to show us all how it should be done.
I have no problems with market forces setting salaries in the charity sector. If the charity raises it's money from the market.
If the money is coming from taxpayers that is not market forces involved. Taxes are not the market.
Yes I'm sure Trustees do thing bunging millions to politicians and former politicians is a good use of money, when politicians then bung millions of taxes back to the charities that is a sound "return on investment". Also known as corruption.
Let's cut off the taxes going to the charity and see how long they keep finding politicians to be good value for money.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.
I have no problem with people being successful.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
So you think people who work for a charity should all be unpaid?
Many, many people who work for a charity are unpaid, actually. The charity shops all across our streets are mainly staffed by volunteers. Why should so many be unpaid, and one person be paid 400k?
Miliband's ludicrous salary is just part of the corruption of our political classes (whether right or left).
Arguably, it is worse than the chumocracy, because it brings the notion of charity into disrepute.
The manager of a local charity shop was reprimanded, last year.
Her offence - She had a target percentage of unpaid hours, which she missed. So she was unable to send paid staff home because their hours would get done for free.
Anyone else find the idea that actually *paying* minimum wage is an excessive act by a manager a little bit....
'Brown was the third worst PM this country has ever had.'
How far you going back, Doc? You got Lord North on your spreadsheet? Chamberlain? Asquith?
Btw, I was looking at some amusing lists of US Presidents recently, ranking them in order of merit. Naturally opinions vary but there was near universal agreement that the worst was James Buchanan.
His fans will no doubt be pleased to know that he will soon move up a notch.
'Brown was the third worst PM this country has ever had.'
How far you going back, Doc? You got Lord North on your spreadsheet? Chamberlain? Asquith?
Btw, I was looking at some amusing lists of US Presidents recently, ranking them in order of merit. Naturally opinions vary but there was near universal agreement that the worst was James Buchanan.
His fans will no doubt be pleased to know that he will soon move up a notch.
Been some rubbish since then, so your assessment of Brown seems a touch on the harsh side.
Of the PMs since I was born (1948) I'd rate him above Eden (Suez) and Churchill (drink), and maybe just below Home (brief and out of touch). Don't forget that Brown was outstanding during the Banking Crisis. Pretty poor apart from that though, I'll grant you.
'Brown was the third worst PM this country has ever had.'
How far you going back, Doc? You got Lord North on your spreadsheet? Chamberlain? Asquith?
Btw, I was looking at some amusing lists of US Presidents recently, ranking them in order of merit. Naturally opinions vary but there was near universal agreement that the worst was James Buchanan.
His fans will no doubt be pleased to know that he will soon move up a notch.
Brown was the third worst PM this country has ever had.
He used to be second, but then came Johnson.
Edit - I wonder if he might be tempted to stand for Holyrood? He is after all the last non-SNP leader to win an election in Scotland, and while he was a bit rubbish he’s no Salmond or Swinney.
Asking people to vote for you is for the little people, plus a decidedly risky business for SLabbers in Scotland. It's been touted previously, with zero sign of Brown being interested.
Mr Brown's return would be like finding an Iguanodon in the Miocene beds of the American mid-West. Utter anachronism.
'Brown was the third worst PM this country has ever had.'
How far you going back, Doc? You got Lord North on your spreadsheet? Chamberlain? Asquith?
Btw, I was looking at some amusing lists of US Presidents recently, ranking them in order of merit. Naturally opinions vary but there was near universal agreement that the worst was James Buchanan.
His fans will no doubt be pleased to know that he will soon move up a notch.
That's a debateable point.
Buchanan wasn't competent enough to stop a civil war.
Trump wasn't competent enough to start a civil war.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.
I have no problem with people being successful.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
So you think people who work for a charity should all be unpaid? Or is there an ‘acceptable’ level of pay? I presume you are happy for the companies who run track and trace for the U.K. government to pay their bosses millions but charities, however successful those charities may be, cannot? Really that just seems to me to be an absurd argument.
How many nurses and doctors could we pay for with the millions we are bunging to private sector bosses? So, to be honest it still feels like a very selective anti charity, anti Milliband view to me.
We shouldn't bung anything to private industry we should pay for goods or services rendered at market rates.
Absolutely charities should be operated for minimal salaries. If you want to be earning Megabucks then earn it in the market not via taxes meant for charity being spent not for services rendered but deliberately as spending for the sake of spending.
You forgot to tell us how many doctors and nurses could be paid through the millions paid to private sector managers engaged in contracts supplying service to the U.K. government or paid for by U.K. public bodies using tax payers funds? I am sure people will want to know.
It is interesting that you think market forces should be used to judge the price of service but it is inappropriate to use market forces to set salaries in the charity sector. The trustees of charities clearly think that it is worth their while to pay good wages to the best people to make sure their charities are successful. They presumably think that restricting the number of people who can work for them by not paying market force wages will result in their charities struggling to succeed. If you think those trustees are wrong there is nothing to stop you starting your own charity to show us all how it should be done.
I have no problems with market forces setting salaries in the charity sector. If the charity raises it's money from the market.
If the money is coming from taxpayers that is not market forces involved. Taxes are not the market.
Yes I'm sure Trustees do thing bunging millions to politicians and former politicians is a good use of money, when politicians then bung millions of taxes back to the charities that is a sound "return on investment". Also known as corruption.
Let's cut off the taxes going to the charity and see how long they keep finding politicians to be good value for money.
You keep forgetting to tell us how many doctors and nurses we could pay from the money going to private sector managers involved in supplying services to the public sector and paid for by taxes.
As for the rest I get it. You would rather use tax payers money to pay the private sector to provide services than ask the charity sector to do it, even if the charity sector is more cost effective.
It is a view I have seen before. The desire to bung millions to the private sector seems to be very popular with the government as well.
Re. Maradona. I get throughly sick of people going on about that hand-ball. As Sir NP points out England were well-beaten in that game, and the fixation on that moment rather misses the point about the most-sublimely talented footballer of all time.
There should be more attention to what he achieved at Napoli, which was just incredible. Football is a team game, and no one individual has ever been able to transcend that, with the one exception of Diego Maradona, who with both Argentina and Napoli transformed mediocre sides into world-beaters.
What I remember most from that game is John Barnes coming on as sub, when he probably should have started and ripping the Argentinian right back to shreds, setting up Lineker twice, once to pull it back to 2-1, the second timw to miss a sitter to equalise.
IIRC, could be wrong
That's exactly how I remember it - Barnes down the left wing to the corner time after time with lovely crosses into the box.
'Brown was the third worst PM this country has ever had.'
How far you going back, Doc? You got Lord North on your spreadsheet? Chamberlain? Asquith?
Btw, I was looking at some amusing lists of US Presidents recently, ranking them in order of merit. Naturally opinions vary but there was near universal agreement that the worst was James Buchanan.
His fans will no doubt be pleased to know that he will soon move up a notch.
I have no problems with market forces setting salaries in the charity sector. If the charity raises it's money from the market.
If the money is coming from taxpayers that is not market forces involved. Taxes are not the market.
Yes I'm sure Trustees do thing bunging millions to politicians and former politicians is a good use of money, when politicians then bung millions of taxes back to the charities that is a sound "return on investment". Also known as corruption.
Let's cut off the taxes going to the charity and see how long they keep finding politicians to be good value for money.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. All the trustees who I've met are paid £0, except for the odd train fare to attend a meeting. I've never heard of a charity giving money to a serving politician. Most charities receive nothing whatever from taxpayers, unless you're referrring to the tax deduction on privayr gifts (Gift Aid).
There are examples of charities who successfully bid to deliver a service in their area of expertise, but it's a small minority. Most have no connection with the Government, either giving or receiving. Why bash a whole sector because you don't like some examples?
Re. Maradona. I get throughly sick of people going on about that hand-ball. As Sir NP points out England were well-beaten in that game, and the fixation on that moment rather misses the point about the most-sublimely talented footballer of all time.
There should be more attention to what he achieved at Napoli, which was just incredible. Football is a team game, and no one individual has ever been able to transcend that, with the one exception of Diego Maradona, who with both Argentina and Napoli transformed mediocre sides into world-beaters.
What I remember most from that game is John Barnes coming on as sub, when he probably should have started and ripping the Argentinian right back to shreds, setting up Lineker twice, once to pull it back to 2-1, the second timw to miss a sitter to equalise.
IIRC, could be wrong
No, you’re absolutely right. It was only in the last 10 mins that England had a go. They scored with what was pretty much their first shot of the game. In terms of the game as a whole, it would have been a travesty had they equalised.
As I said far too much said about that one game, while so much of what he achieved at Napoli is pretty much ignored (except in Naples, of course).
Mr Gibb acknowledged it was a "challenging time" but said the latest data showed 0.2% of pupils were off school isolating.
The actual figure is 17% which rises to 23% in secondary schools.
That’s amazing. That is a lie at which Goebbels would have blenched.
Either that, or he’s under the influence of illegal drugs.
Whichever way, he should be instantly sacked.
It takes innumeracy to a whole new level, it really does.
No, this is not innumeracy. This is blatant dishonesty. It is a Trumpian attempt to ignore the fact their whole schools policy has been a complete failure and to stubbornly cling to an impossible outcome.
This man is a disgrace to the country, the House of Commons and even what is left of the Tories. He is utter scum.
Gibb has been a survivor under, and apologist for several Tory education ministers, hasn’t he ? But this is really another level.
Re. Maradona. I get throughly sick of people going on about that hand-ball. As Sir NP points out England were well-beaten in that game, and the fixation on that moment rather misses the point about the most-sublimely talented footballer of all time.
There should be more attention to what he achieved at Napoli, which was just incredible. Football is a team game, and no one individual has ever been able to transcend that, with the one exception of Diego Maradona, who with both Argentina and Napoli transformed mediocre sides into world-beaters.
What I remember most from that game is John Barnes coming on as sub, when he probably should have started and ripping the Argentinian right back to shreds, setting up Lineker twice, once to pull it back to 2-1, the second timw to miss a sitter to equalise.
IIRC, could be wrong
That's exactly how I remember it - Barnes down the left wing to the corner time after time with lovely crosses into the box.
In fairness to Robson, it was one of the few occasions Barnes showed his true ability in an England shirt.
Robson got a pretty decent tune out of a fairly moderate bunch of England players. The mistake that led to the HOG goal was by Hodge. Who he, you rightly ask. And the man Maradona left for dead when scoring the goal of the century was none other than Peter Reid, a decent journeyman but no match for Diego.
It is interesting that you think market forces should be used to judge the price of service but it is inappropriate to use market forces to set salaries in the charity sector. The trustees of charities clearly think that it is worth their while to pay good wages to the best people to make sure their charities are successful. They presumably think that restricting the number of people who can work for them by not paying market force wages will result in their charities struggling to succeed. If you think those trustees are wrong there is nothing to stop you starting your own charity to show us all how it should be done.
How awkward it is that charities suffer reputational damage when the top people pay themselves what "they're worth", the "good wages" needed to ensure the charity is "successful".
It is so annoying, just becomes some malcontents like Philip Thompson and YBarddCwsc find it difficult to take seriously a charity fighting global poverty whose chief executive is on half a million a year.
Is there no solution for the modern charity boss who needs the ample money for the motivatation ?
Of course. Of course.
Of course, charities just need to pay their executives in a way which conceals the true nature of their renumeration. They can pay them through offshore companies, reduce their tax burden through tax avoidance schemes, convert salaries into expenses, or just plain lie. The usual bag of tricks.
Now, what kind of person might have those qualities?
Of course, of course. A former politician.
Employing former politicians guarantees that the charity boss will already have all the skills needed, and also the lack of shame and conscience required to operate in a modern business environment.
Miliband is a perfect emblem for a modern charity.
'Brown was the third worst PM this country has ever had.'
How far you going back, Doc? You got Lord North on your spreadsheet? Chamberlain? Asquith?
Btw, I was looking at some amusing lists of US Presidents recently, ranking them in order of merit. Naturally opinions vary but there was near universal agreement that the worst was James Buchanan.
His fans will no doubt be pleased to know that he will soon move up a notch.
That's a debateable point.
Buchanan wasn't competent enough to stop a civil war.
Trump wasn't competent enough to start a civil war.
So Farage thinks that the person who he told his supporters to vote for in December 2019 is not very good. It seems to me that our problems stem less from a crisis of leadership and more from a crisis of politicians with good judgement. A crisis Mr Farage illustrates perfectly every time he opens his mouth.
Re. Maradona. I get throughly sick of people going on about that hand-ball. As Sir NP points out England were well-beaten in that game, and the fixation on that moment rather misses the point about the most-sublimely talented footballer of all time.
There should be more attention to what he achieved at Napoli, which was just incredible. Football is a team game, and no one individual has ever been able to transcend that, with the one exception of Diego Maradona, who with both Argentina and Napoli transformed mediocre sides into world-beaters.
What I remember most from that game is John Barnes coming on as sub, when he probably should have started and ripping the Argentinian right back to shreds, setting up Lineker twice, once to pull it back to 2-1, the second timw to miss a sitter to equalise.
IIRC, could be wrong
That's exactly how I remember it - Barnes down the left wing to the corner time after time with lovely crosses into the box.
In fairness to Robson, it was one of the few occasions Barnes showed his true ability in an England shirt.
Robson got a pretty decent tune out of a fairly moderate bunch of England players. The mistake that led to the HOG goal was by Hodge. Who he, you rightly ask. And the man Maradona left for dead when scoring the goal of the century was none other than Peter Reid, a decent journeyman but no match for Diego.
To be fair to Reid, he has admitted as much tonight in his BBC interview on the subject.
'Brown was the third worst PM this country has ever had.'
How far you going back, Doc? You got Lord North on your spreadsheet? Chamberlain? Asquith?
Btw, I was looking at some amusing lists of US Presidents recently, ranking them in order of merit. Naturally opinions vary but there was near universal agreement that the worst was James Buchanan.
His fans will no doubt be pleased to know that he will soon move up a notch.
The nicest human being ever to be US President was surely Jimmy Carter.
But he was a bloody awful president.
Edit - occurs to me that Herbert Hoover was also a thoroughly decent and compassionate human being, far more so than Franklin Roosevelt.
Woodrow Wilson seemed a decent sort.
Jimmy Carter was President while I was in America as a teenager.
He was an idealist, and always had a "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" quality to him. America was in a bad place after Watergate and Vietnam. Carter was necessary to drain that swamp and restore a bit of pride and integrity to American politics. By and large he did.
'Brown was the third worst PM this country has ever had.'
How far you going back, Doc? You got Lord North on your spreadsheet? Chamberlain? Asquith?
Btw, I was looking at some amusing lists of US Presidents recently, ranking them in order of merit. Naturally opinions vary but there was near universal agreement that the worst was James Buchanan.
His fans will no doubt be pleased to know that he will soon move up a notch.
The nicest human being ever to be US President was surely Jimmy Carter.
But he was a bloody awful president.
Edit - occurs to me that Herbert Hoover was also a thoroughly decent and compassionate human being, far more so than Franklin Roosevelt.
Woodrow Wilson seemed a decent sort.
Jimmy Carter was President while I was in America as a teenager.
He was an idealist, and always had a "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" quality to him. America was in a bad place after Watergate and Vietnam. Carter was necessary to drain that swamp and restore a bit of pride and integrity to American politics. By and large he did.
Re. Maradona. I get throughly sick of people going on about that hand-ball. As Sir NP points out England were well-beaten in that game, and the fixation on that moment rather misses the point about the most-sublimely talented footballer of all time.
There should be more attention to what he achieved at Napoli, which was just incredible. Football is a team game, and no one individual has ever been able to transcend that, with the one exception of Diego Maradona, who with both Argentina and Napoli transformed mediocre sides into world-beaters.
What I remember most from that game is John Barnes coming on as sub, when he probably should have started and ripping the Argentinian right back to shreds, setting up Lineker twice, once to pull it back to 2-1, the second timw to miss a sitter to equalise.
IIRC, could be wrong
That's exactly how I remember it - Barnes down the left wing to the corner time after time with lovely crosses into the box.
In fairness to Robson, it was one of the few occasions Barnes showed his true ability in an England shirt.
Robson got a pretty decent tune out of a fairly moderate bunch of England players. The mistake that led to the HOG goal was by Hodge. Who he, you rightly ask. And the man Maradona left for dead when scoring the goal of the century was none other than Peter Reid, a decent journeyman but no match for Diego.
A couple of years after his famous goal in the Maracana. Something about Latin America that agreed with the young John Barnes?
Mr Gibb acknowledged it was a "challenging time" but said the latest data showed 0.2% of pupils were off school isolating.
The actual figure is 17% which rises to 23% in secondary schools.
That’s amazing. That is a lie at which Goebbels would have blenched.
Either that, or he’s under the influence of illegal drugs.
Whichever way, he should be instantly sacked.
He's doing what he's told. The Pox is tearing through our schools. But he can't admit that because it would imperil the Tories plan to have you kill your Granny at Christmas. So instead he makes up a number that nobody who has school-age children will believe.
Re. Maradona. I get throughly sick of people going on about that hand-ball. As Sir NP points out England were well-beaten in that game, and the fixation on that moment rather misses the point about the most-sublimely talented footballer of all time.
There should be more attention to what he achieved at Napoli, which was just incredible. Football is a team game, and no one individual has ever been able to transcend that, with the one exception of Diego Maradona, who with both Argentina and Napoli transformed mediocre sides into world-beaters.
What I remember most from that game is John Barnes coming on as sub, when he probably should have started and ripping the Argentinian right back to shreds, setting up Lineker twice, once to pull it back to 2-1, the second timw to miss a sitter to equalise.
IIRC, could be wrong
That's exactly how I remember it - Barnes down the left wing to the corner time after time with lovely crosses into the box.
In fairness to Robson, it was one of the few occasions Barnes showed his true ability in an England shirt.
Robson got a pretty decent tune out of a fairly moderate bunch of England players. The mistake that led to the HOG goal was by Hodge. Who he, you rightly ask. And the man Maradona left for dead when scoring the goal of the century was none other than Peter Reid, a decent journeyman but no match for Diego.
To be fair to Reid, he has admitted as much tonight in his BBC interview on the subject.
Honest footballer, honest bloke - so no surprise there.
To be honest I'd struggle to think of an English player who could have kept Diego in his prime quiet. Stiles would have kicked lumps out of him. Hunter would have had a decent go but wasn't really top class.
Claudio Gentile famously kept him quiet in the 1982 World Cup, but his methods were anything but genteel.
Mr Gibb acknowledged it was a "challenging time" but said the latest data showed 0.2% of pupils were off school isolating.
The actual figure is 17% which rises to 23% in secondary schools.
That’s amazing. That is a lie at which Goebbels would have blenched.
Either that, or he’s under the influence of illegal drugs.
Whichever way, he should be instantly sacked.
He's doing what he's told. The Pox is tearing through our schools. But he can't admit that because it would imperil the Tories plan to have you kill your Granny at Christmas. So instead he makes up a number that nobody who has school-age children will believe.
0.2% self-isolating. 22.8% of secondary schoolkids off school playing hookey. Says the latest data.....
Mr Gibb acknowledged it was a "challenging time" but said the latest data showed 0.2% of pupils were off school isolating.
The actual figure is 17% which rises to 23% in secondary schools.
That’s amazing. That is a lie at which Goebbels would have blenched.
Either that, or he’s under the influence of illegal drugs.
Whichever way, he should be instantly sacked.
He's doing what he's told. The Pox is tearing through our schools. But he can't admit that because it would imperil the Tories plan to have you kill your Granny at Christmas. So instead he makes up a number that nobody who has school-age children will believe.
So much for the reset once all those terrible Vote Leave people left... (Was that really only a fortnight ago?)
The earliest US president I remember is George W Bush.
JFK is my earliest - probably why I still think of him as pretty recent.
I saw Nixon in 1969. I was walking through Union Square, San Francisco when suddenly the sky was thick with helicopters - security for the President. Then I saw Nixon appear on a balcony giving his famous V salute to the crowd before quickly disappearing.
Like most students at the time, I disliked him without really knowing why and have since regarded him as about the worst US President of my lifetime. He certainly set a low standard, although nowhere near as low as the present incumbent.
If Jeremy Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn. And Laura Alvarez is Jeremy Corbyn. I assume there is a third part to His divine countenance (The Father, The Wife and the X?)
Is Laura Pillock Jeremy? How about Bastani? Milne?
I have no problems with market forces setting salaries in the charity sector. If the charity raises it's money from the market.
If the money is coming from taxpayers that is not market forces involved. Taxes are not the market.
Yes I'm sure Trustees do thing bunging millions to politicians and former politicians is a good use of money, when politicians then bung millions of taxes back to the charities that is a sound "return on investment". Also known as corruption.
Let's cut off the taxes going to the charity and see how long they keep finding politicians to be good value for money.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. All the trustees who I've met are paid £0, except for the odd train fare to attend a meeting. I've never heard of a charity giving money to a serving politician. Most charities receive nothing whatever from taxpayers, unless you're referrring to the tax deduction on privayr gifts (Gift Aid).
There are examples of charities who successfully bid to deliver a service in their area of expertise, but it's a small minority. Most have no connection with the Government, either giving or receiving. Why bash a whole sector because you don't like some examples?
If you don't understand it's because you've misunderstood the conversation.
Absolutely many (especially smaller) charities are genuinely charitable. The people in the charity are there to help others not themselves. But that isn't what we are talking about.
We are talking about "charities" that entail taking millions from taxpayers and purely coincidentally giving millions to former politicians who lobby to ensure the taxes keep flowing.
I have nothing against charities that aim to help those they support and raise money privately. I do have an issue for "charities" that get their revenue from taxpayers and pay themselves millions.
NBC has clip from a "hearing" that the Trump Campaign ran in Pennsylvania. Trump himself called in and one of his lawyers is holding her phone up to her microphone so that the rest can hear him: not the most professional look I've ever seen, but at least it's not in front of a Landscape Gardening company.
I have no problems with market forces setting salaries in the charity sector. If the charity raises it's money from the market.
If the money is coming from taxpayers that is not market forces involved. Taxes are not the market.
Yes I'm sure Trustees do thing bunging millions to politicians and former politicians is a good use of money, when politicians then bung millions of taxes back to the charities that is a sound "return on investment". Also known as corruption.
Let's cut off the taxes going to the charity and see how long they keep finding politicians to be good value for money.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. All the trustees who I've met are paid £0, except for the odd train fare to attend a meeting. I've never heard of a charity giving money to a serving politician. Most charities receive nothing whatever from taxpayers, unless you're referrring to the tax deduction on privayr gifts (Gift Aid).
There are examples of charities who successfully bid to deliver a service in their area of expertise, but it's a small minority. Most have no connection with the Government, either giving or receiving. Why bash a whole sector because you don't like some examples?
If you don't understand it's because you've misunderstood the conversation.
Absolutely many (especially smaller) charities are genuinely charitable. That isn't what we are talking about.
We are talking about "charities" that entail taking millions from taxpayers and purely coincidentally giving millions to former politicians who lobby to ensure the taxes keep flowing.
Do you have evidence of that for any UK charity? If so then you should notify the Charity Commission.
Some difficult questions for UK regulator and the government.
Under normal circumstances, I am sure they would go back and run another trial, with the half / full dosage regime, before any thoughts of getting it through.
I think Clinton's problem was that he pardoned so many people on his last day rather than doing a Reagan and pardoning evenly throughout his Presidency.
NBC has clip from a "hearing" that the Trump Campaign ran in Pennsylvania. Trump himself called in and one of his lawyers is holding her phone up to her microphone so that the rest can hear him: not the most professional look I've ever seen, but at least it's not in front of a Landscape Gardening company.
I have no problems with market forces setting salaries in the charity sector. If the charity raises it's money from the market.
If the money is coming from taxpayers that is not market forces involved. Taxes are not the market.
Yes I'm sure Trustees do thing bunging millions to politicians and former politicians is a good use of money, when politicians then bung millions of taxes back to the charities that is a sound "return on investment". Also known as corruption.
Let's cut off the taxes going to the charity and see how long they keep finding politicians to be good value for money.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. All the trustees who I've met are paid £0, except for the odd train fare to attend a meeting. I've never heard of a charity giving money to a serving politician. Most charities receive nothing whatever from taxpayers, unless you're referrring to the tax deduction on privayr gifts (Gift Aid).
There are examples of charities who successfully bid to deliver a service in their area of expertise, but it's a small minority. Most have no connection with the Government, either giving or receiving. Why bash a whole sector because you don't like some examples?
If you don't understand it's because you've misunderstood the conversation.
Absolutely many (especially smaller) charities are genuinely charitable. That isn't what we are talking about.
We are talking about "charities" that entail taking millions from taxpayers and purely coincidentally giving millions to former politicians who lobby to ensure the taxes keep flowing.
Do you have evidence of that for any UK charity? If so then you should notify the Charity Commission.
NBC has clip from a "hearing" that the Trump Campaign ran in Pennsylvania. Trump himself called in and one of his lawyers is holding her phone up to her microphone so that the rest can hear him: not the most professional look I've ever seen, but at least it's not in front of a Landscape Gardening company.
Will you still think that pardoning Marc Rich and "Pinky" Green will remain at all controversial by the time Trump has (hopefully) left office on January 20th?
Marc Rich wasn't the only member of his family to have a criminal record. Former wife Denise wrote the Sister Sledge hit, Frankie!
Getting ready for a job on Trump's better than Fox/Onanist network?
Edit - That's a fantastic typo that I won't charge.
I just had a look on the youtube, he is getting a fair old number of views on his videos. Regularly 250k per vid. Newsnight would love to do those numbers on theirs.
I have no problems with market forces setting salaries in the charity sector. If the charity raises it's money from the market.
If the money is coming from taxpayers that is not market forces involved. Taxes are not the market.
Yes I'm sure Trustees do thing bunging millions to politicians and former politicians is a good use of money, when politicians then bung millions of taxes back to the charities that is a sound "return on investment". Also known as corruption.
Let's cut off the taxes going to the charity and see how long they keep finding politicians to be good value for money.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. All the trustees who I've met are paid £0, except for the odd train fare to attend a meeting. I've never heard of a charity giving money to a serving politician. Most charities receive nothing whatever from taxpayers, unless you're referrring to the tax deduction on privayr gifts (Gift Aid).
There are examples of charities who successfully bid to deliver a service in their area of expertise, but it's a small minority. Most have no connection with the Government, either giving or receiving. Why bash a whole sector because you don't like some examples?
If you don't understand it's because you've misunderstood the conversation.
Absolutely many (especially smaller) charities are genuinely charitable. That isn't what we are talking about.
We are talking about "charities" that entail taking millions from taxpayers and purely coincidentally giving millions to former politicians who lobby to ensure the taxes keep flowing.
Do you have evidence of that for any UK charity? If so then you should notify the Charity Commission.
Reporting any wrongdoing would be a good plan. Unfortunately what tends to happen is that the right make up stories to try and discredit the charity sector so they can promote the interests of private firms. It is an ideological issue, some on the right cannot abide the concept of charity sector. The whole concept of not for profit is alien to them.
I have no problems with market forces setting salaries in the charity sector. If the charity raises it's money from the market.
If the money is coming from taxpayers that is not market forces involved. Taxes are not the market.
Yes I'm sure Trustees do thing bunging millions to politicians and former politicians is a good use of money, when politicians then bung millions of taxes back to the charities that is a sound "return on investment". Also known as corruption.
Let's cut off the taxes going to the charity and see how long they keep finding politicians to be good value for money.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. All the trustees who I've met are paid £0, except for the odd train fare to attend a meeting. I've never heard of a charity giving money to a serving politician. Most charities receive nothing whatever from taxpayers, unless you're referrring to the tax deduction on privayr gifts (Gift Aid).
There are examples of charities who successfully bid to deliver a service in their area of expertise, but it's a small minority. Most have no connection with the Government, either giving or receiving. Why bash a whole sector because you don't like some examples?
If you don't understand it's because you've misunderstood the conversation.
Absolutely many (especially smaller) charities are genuinely charitable. That isn't what we are talking about.
We are talking about "charities" that entail taking millions from taxpayers and purely coincidentally giving millions to former politicians who lobby to ensure the taxes keep flowing.
Do you have evidence of that for any UK charity? If so then you should notify the Charity Commission.
I don't think the Charity Commission covers Milliband in New York getting paid millions while taking in taxpayer taxes.
I have no problems with market forces setting salaries in the charity sector. If the charity raises it's money from the market.
If the money is coming from taxpayers that is not market forces involved. Taxes are not the market.
Yes I'm sure Trustees do thing bunging millions to politicians and former politicians is a good use of money, when politicians then bung millions of taxes back to the charities that is a sound "return on investment". Also known as corruption.
Let's cut off the taxes going to the charity and see how long they keep finding politicians to be good value for money.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. All the trustees who I've met are paid £0, except for the odd train fare to attend a meeting. I've never heard of a charity giving money to a serving politician. Most charities receive nothing whatever from taxpayers, unless you're referrring to the tax deduction on privayr gifts (Gift Aid).
There are examples of charities who successfully bid to deliver a service in their area of expertise, but it's a small minority. Most have no connection with the Government, either giving or receiving. Why bash a whole sector because you don't like some examples?
If you don't understand it's because you've misunderstood the conversation.
Absolutely many (especially smaller) charities are genuinely charitable. That isn't what we are talking about.
We are talking about "charities" that entail taking millions from taxpayers and purely coincidentally giving millions to former politicians who lobby to ensure the taxes keep flowing.
Do you have evidence of that for any UK charity? If so then you should notify the Charity Commission.
I don't think the Charity Commission covers Milliband in New York getting paid millions while taking in taxpayer taxes.
Actually it does, but you keep on posting your rubbish.
Any charity in the world that has fund raising operations in the UK comes under the remit of the Charity Commission.
He come across as the hard working, penny counting Asian businessman.
And his critics come across as posh boys who want to rob the poor to give to foreigners.
These is no sense in which you're seeing what you want to see. No sir, none at all.
Look at the people criticizing - Cameron, Hunt, Mitchell - posh boys one and all.
And Rishi ? He's the clever Indian chappie who helped with the furloughs and the cheap meals.
Imagery matters and that will be the imagery which is widely believed.
If the reality is different well that's a problem you'll have to deal with.
Oh richard, I much prefer it when you write your three line posts, can you go back to doing that? It makes them look a little like haikus. It's the only thing that really makes me think you've made an effort. Four lines just isn't you.
Three lines or four ?
Introduction, discussion, conclusion.
Is that better ?
Great start. Tomorrow we'll work on 2 lines per post, Friday one, and by Saturday your posts will be better than ever.
I have no problems with market forces setting salaries in the charity sector. If the charity raises it's money from the market.
If the money is coming from taxpayers that is not market forces involved. Taxes are not the market.
Yes I'm sure Trustees do thing bunging millions to politicians and former politicians is a good use of money, when politicians then bung millions of taxes back to the charities that is a sound "return on investment". Also known as corruption.
Let's cut off the taxes going to the charity and see how long they keep finding politicians to be good value for money.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. All the trustees who I've met are paid £0, except for the odd train fare to attend a meeting. I've never heard of a charity giving money to a serving politician. Most charities receive nothing whatever from taxpayers, unless you're referrring to the tax deduction on privayr gifts (Gift Aid).
There are examples of charities who successfully bid to deliver a service in their area of expertise, but it's a small minority. Most have no connection with the Government, either giving or receiving. Why bash a whole sector because you don't like some examples?
If you don't understand it's because you've misunderstood the conversation.
Absolutely many (especially smaller) charities are genuinely charitable. That isn't what we are talking about.
We are talking about "charities" that entail taking millions from taxpayers and purely coincidentally giving millions to former politicians who lobby to ensure the taxes keep flowing.
Do you have evidence of that for any UK charity? If so then you should notify the Charity Commission.
I don't think the Charity Commission covers Milliband in New York getting paid millions while taking in taxpayer taxes.
Actually it does, but you keep on posting your rubbish.
Any charity in the world that has fund raising operations in the UK comes under the remit of the Charity Commission.
I mean IRC even has a UK charity number.
So go ahead and make your complaint/allegations.
No thanks, I'd rather see the taxpayer tap turned off and see how long politicians keep getting hired for millions after that happens.
I have no problems with market forces setting salaries in the charity sector. If the charity raises it's money from the market.
If the money is coming from taxpayers that is not market forces involved. Taxes are not the market.
Yes I'm sure Trustees do thing bunging millions to politicians and former politicians is a good use of money, when politicians then bung millions of taxes back to the charities that is a sound "return on investment". Also known as corruption.
Let's cut off the taxes going to the charity and see how long they keep finding politicians to be good value for money.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. All the trustees who I've met are paid £0, except for the odd train fare to attend a meeting. I've never heard of a charity giving money to a serving politician. Most charities receive nothing whatever from taxpayers, unless you're referrring to the tax deduction on privayr gifts (Gift Aid).
There are examples of charities who successfully bid to deliver a service in their area of expertise, but it's a small minority. Most have no connection with the Government, either giving or receiving. Why bash a whole sector because you don't like some examples?
If you don't understand it's because you've misunderstood the conversation.
Absolutely many (especially smaller) charities are genuinely charitable. That isn't what we are talking about.
We are talking about "charities" that entail taking millions from taxpayers and purely coincidentally giving millions to former politicians who lobby to ensure the taxes keep flowing.
Do you have evidence of that for any UK charity? If so then you should notify the Charity Commission.
Reporting any wrongdoing would be a good plan. Unfortunately what tends to happen is that the right make up stories to try and discredit the charity sector so they can promote the interests of private firms. It is an ideological issue, some on the right cannot abide the concept of charity sector. The whole concept of not for profit is alien to them.
Not when charitable status can be manipulated into a handsome tax dodge.
Comments
It is interesting that you think market forces should be used to judge the price of service but it is inappropriate to use market forces to set salaries in the charity sector. The trustees of charities clearly think that it is worth their while to pay good wages to the best people to make sure their charities are successful. They presumably think that restricting the number of people who can work for them by not paying market force wages will result in their charities struggling to succeed. If you think those trustees are wrong there is nothing to stop you starting your own charity to show us all how it should be done.
IIRC, could be wrong
https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1331647812317175811
For what it is worth, in my bit of the private sector we had a pay freeze last year, a temporary pay cut lasting 6 months and it looks like another pay freeze to come. Except for those who were made redundant in the summer.
'Brown was the third worst PM this country has ever had.'
How far you going back, Doc? You got Lord North on your spreadsheet? Chamberlain? Asquith?
Btw, I was looking at some amusing lists of US Presidents recently, ranking them in order of merit. Naturally opinions vary but there was near universal agreement that the worst was James Buchanan.
His fans will no doubt be pleased to know that he will soon move up a notch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGYYs-ZE5Wg
If he’s seriously concerned, he may change his mind. Bear in mind, the one constant of Brown’s career is egoism. He would love to be the man who saved the United Kingdom, even if he can’t quite be the man who saved the world.
But I agree, it seems unlikely at the moment.
All time loser is this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._J._Robinson,_1st_Viscount_Goderich
If the money is coming from taxpayers that is not market forces involved. Taxes are not the market.
Yes I'm sure Trustees do thing bunging millions to politicians and former politicians is a good use of money, when politicians then bung millions of taxes back to the charities that is a sound "return on investment". Also known as corruption.
Let's cut off the taxes going to the charity and see how long they keep finding politicians to be good value for money.
Her offence - She had a target percentage of unpaid hours, which she missed. So she was unable to send paid staff home because their hours would get done for free.
Anyone else find the idea that actually *paying* minimum wage is an excessive act by a manager a little bit....
Uncharitable?
Odd.
Been some rubbish since then, so your assessment of Brown seems a touch on the harsh side.
Of the PMs since I was born (1948) I'd rate him above Eden (Suez) and Churchill (drink), and maybe just below Home (brief and out of touch). Don't forget that Brown was outstanding during the Banking Crisis. Pretty poor apart from that though, I'll grant you.
But he was a bloody awful president.
Edit - occurs to me that Herbert Hoover was also a thoroughly decent and compassionate human being, far more so than Franklin Roosevelt.
Buchanan wasn't competent enough to stop a civil war.
Trump wasn't competent enough to start a civil war.
As for the rest I get it. You would rather use tax payers money to pay the private sector to provide services than ask the charity sector to do it, even if the charity sector is more cost effective.
It is a view I have seen before. The desire to bung millions to the private sector seems to be very popular with the government as well.
There are examples of charities who successfully bid to deliver a service in their area of expertise, but it's a small minority. Most have no connection with the Government, either giving or receiving. Why bash a whole sector because you don't like some examples?
As I said far too much said about that one game, while so much of what he achieved at Napoli is pretty much ignored (except in Naples, of course).
But this is really another level.
https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/1331197371284414465?s=21
Robson got a pretty decent tune out of a fairly moderate bunch of England players. The mistake that led to the HOG goal was by Hodge. Who he, you rightly ask. And the man Maradona left for dead when scoring the goal of the century was none other than Peter Reid, a decent journeyman but no match for Diego.
It is so annoying, just becomes some malcontents like Philip Thompson and YBarddCwsc find it difficult to take seriously a charity fighting global poverty whose chief executive is on half a million a year.
Is there no solution for the modern charity boss who needs the ample money for the motivatation ?
Of course. Of course.
Of course, charities just need to pay their executives in a way which conceals the true nature of their renumeration. They can pay them through offshore companies, reduce their tax burden through tax avoidance schemes, convert salaries into expenses, or just plain lie. The usual bag of tricks.
Now, what kind of person might have those qualities?
Of course, of course. A former politician.
Employing former politicians guarantees that the charity boss will already have all the skills needed, and also the lack of shame and conscience required to operate in a modern business environment.
Miliband is a perfect emblem for a modern charity.
Edit - That's a fantastic typo that I won't charge.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331706255212228608
https://twitter.com/StephenCVGraham/status/1331681089300164609
Jimmy Carter was President while I was in America as a teenager.
He was an idealist, and always had a "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" quality to him. America was in a bad place after Watergate and Vietnam. Carter was necessary to drain that swamp and restore a bit of pride and integrity to American politics. By and large he did.
And I remember his successor, the President After Bush.
Here we go.
I mean what planet are we on now?
To be honest I'd struggle to think of an English player who could have kept Diego in his prime quiet. Stiles would have kicked lumps out of him. Hunter would have had a decent go but wasn't really top class.
Claudio Gentile famously kept him quiet in the 1982 World Cup, but his methods were anything but genteel.
(Was that really only a fortnight ago?)
Like most students at the time, I disliked him without really knowing why and have since regarded him as about the worst US President of my lifetime. He certainly set a low standard, although nowhere near as low as the present incumbent.
Is Laura Pillock Jeremy? How about Bastani? Milne?
Absolutely many (especially smaller) charities are genuinely charitable. The people in the charity are there to help others not themselves. But that isn't what we are talking about.
We are talking about "charities" that entail taking millions from taxpayers and purely coincidentally giving millions to former politicians who lobby to ensure the taxes keep flowing.
I have nothing against charities that aim to help those they support and raise money privately. I do have an issue for "charities" that get their revenue from taxpayers and pay themselves millions.
Do you understand the difference?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy
I'm not expecting Hillary to make much of a fuss.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1331710645671243778
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1331711168784850944
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1331712193218416648
Under normal circumstances, I am sure they would go back and run another trial, with the half / full dosage regime, before any thoughts of getting it through.
I think Clinton's problem was that he pardoned so many people on his last day rather than doing a Reagan and pardoning evenly throughout his Presidency.
Fantastic, and scary article.
#DontTrustOxford
Marc Rich wasn't the only member of his family to have a criminal record. Former wife Denise wrote the Sister Sledge hit, Frankie!
London Tier 1? 👍
Any charity in the world that has fund raising operations in the UK comes under the remit of the Charity Commission.
I mean IRC even has a UK charity number.
So go ahead and make your complaint/allegations.
https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1331586088532631560