Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

As we approach the twentieth anniversary of 9/11 – politicalbetting.com

12346

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,227

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    China has an average IQ (at least on the coast) 5 points higher than the white west. It has a 2500 year old tradition of global if complacent supremacy. It has been (in the past) incredibly inventive, albeit this ingenuity was stifled by its own lazy sense of hegemony. ‘Why bother?’ - was the thinking. ‘We are already the Middle Kingdom - Centre of the World’


    It will invent again

    Right now, FWIW, China has the world’s largest supercomputer and boasts the most advanced form of AI - beyond GPT-3
    China is also not hamstrung by woke causes unlike the west which increasingly obsessed about diversity over merit
    If I were you I'd run "let's be less woke and more like China" past a few focus groups before running with it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,447
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    There's hundreds of thousands, at least, of Chinese scientists, many of them trained at Western universities, so if they aren't competent innovators that must be because both 1. they are genetically incapable of it and 2. Western universities are glossing over the fact when giving them degrees. There's a tiny tinge of racism in both those claims. They have done some pretty cool shit like landing on the far side of the moon, and I was told by a bloke the other day who seemed to know what he was on about, that all the advances in rechargeable batteries are coming from China, which would sorta make sense as they are all made there.
    This racist Sinophobia reminds me of western attitudes to japanese soldiers in WW2. The westerners couldn’t quite dismiss the Japs as spear-chucking natives so they reverted to weirder stereotypes. ‘Oh they are all bow-legged, short-sighted and bespectacled, they can’t win’.

    Then Singapore fell

    China is hindered, I believe, by its stifling autocracy, and would have done better to stay more liberal. But this need not hinder their economy, compared to us, after all we are crippling our own ‘liberal’ education system with Woke-ism

    The Chinese have no such problems. They’ve already overtaken the US in sheer trading power, I’m not sure what stops them adding to that
    Racist Sinophobia? You're the one peddling the 'China made covid deliberately' conspiracy theory.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,317
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    Not a lawyer but I think @HYUFD just forgot about the customary court case that occurs between charging and the finding of guilt. At the moment she is innocent, the CPS just have reason to believe she should be charged and prosecuted.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,530
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    China has an average IQ (at least on the coast) 5 points higher than the white west. It has a 2500 year old tradition of global if complacent supremacy. It has been (in the past) incredibly inventive, albeit this ingenuity was stifled by its own lazy sense of hegemony. ‘Why bother?’ - was the thinking. ‘We are already the Middle Kingdom - Centre of the World’


    It will invent again

    Right now, FWIW, China has the world’s largest supercomputer and boasts the most advanced form of AI - beyond GPT-3
    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-iq-by-country

    Italy has the highest average IQ of any Western country, at 102. And it has also been a terrible economic laggard. Japan - like China - comes in at 105. And that's also been a pretty seriously poor performer.

    Indeed, it seems that with high IQ comes low birth rates.
    I can’t believe this is a surprise to you. High IQ well-educated women shun childbirth and parenting, they want careers and money. A universal if painful truth. As recognized by the Taliban
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    edited September 10
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    As you have already been told it is defined by the authorities as a collision not an accident, that does not automatically make it murder.

    The offence she was charged with of death by dangerous driving, also means she has been charged with criminal activity leading to a death too, the CPS decided it was not a completely innocent accident on the evidence, even if that does not mean it was murder either
  • HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    And that income should face every bit as much tax, national insurance etc as any other income.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Honestly, I think you're quite possibly the dimmest person I've come across. In previous posts you obsess about how difficult it is to buy houses but now you want to call renting something people want to do.

    Is there any depth you won't plumb to in order give Boris a handjob and ball licking?
    HBF
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,845

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    There's hundreds of thousands, at least, of Chinese scientists, many of them trained at Western universities, so if they aren't competent innovators that must be because both 1. they are genetically incapable of it and 2. Western universities are glossing over the fact when giving them degrees. There's a tiny tinge of racism in both those claims. They have done some pretty cool shit like landing on the far side of the moon, and I was told by a bloke the other day who seemed to know what he was on about, that all the advances in rechargeable batteries are coming from China, which would sorta make sense as they are all made there.
    As others have said, it's possible that the Chinese system doesn't engender innovation. Alternatively, maybe it's just the stage they're at in their indutrialisation.

    Who knows. We'll find out in time.
    One thing. And this isn't racist. The Chinese language. Every day, every year, in school, they are given 10 characters to learn. They are then tested the next day.
    There is only right or wrong. No almost.
    This continues at University. If you study history, obscure defunct characters for the names of ancient kings, for example.
    Moreover, there is only one correct order to write them in. That's how Chinese dictionaries work. Smallest total number of strokes first. Then the direction of first stroke. You can't improvise how you write them.
    Rote learning is thus inculcated from an early age. As is a "correct" and "wrong" way of doing things.
    This is heightened by recent promotion of Confucius* for political reasons. Order, discipline, duty, hierarchy. Do not be cleverer than your teacher. None of this encourages innovation or independent thought.

    * Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism have long co-existed in dynamic tension. Flowing in and out of favour and fashion in China. Daoism is second right now, being wholly Chinese. Buddhism out of favour. Too anarchic and subversive of authority. Suspiciously foreign. None of this is inevitable or permanent or innate.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,677
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    A road traffic accident can lead to criminal charges.

    That is very different to saying that someone deliberately intended to kill someone by running them over with a car.

    The former is what has happened in the Sacoolas case, albeit diplomatic immunity means she will never be brought to court.

    If @HYUFD is suggesting the latter he is talking out of his arse and potentially making a seriously defamatory comment about Sacoolas. He knows what he should do.
  • Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    China has an average IQ (at least on the coast) 5 points higher than the white west. It has a 2500 year old tradition of global if complacent supremacy. It has been (in the past) incredibly inventive, albeit this ingenuity was stifled by its own lazy sense of hegemony. ‘Why bother?’ - was the thinking. ‘We are already the Middle Kingdom - Centre of the World’


    It will invent again

    Right now, FWIW, China has the world’s largest supercomputer and boasts the most advanced form of AI - beyond GPT-3
    China is also not hamstrung by woke causes unlike the west which increasingly obsessed about diversity over merit
    If I were you I'd run "let's be less woke and more like China" past a few focus groups before running with it.
    What you said makes no sense. Being less woke doesn't mean being like china.....
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,447

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    China has an average IQ (at least on the coast) 5 points higher than the white west. It has a 2500 year old tradition of global if complacent supremacy. It has been (in the past) incredibly inventive, albeit this ingenuity was stifled by its own lazy sense of hegemony. ‘Why bother?’ - was the thinking. ‘We are already the Middle Kingdom - Centre of the World’


    It will invent again

    Right now, FWIW, China has the world’s largest supercomputer and boasts the most advanced form of AI - beyond GPT-3
    China is also not hamstrung by woke causes unlike the west which increasingly obsessed about diversity over merit
    If I were you I'd run "let's be less woke and more like China" past a few focus groups before running with it.
    What you said makes no sense. Being less woke doesn't mean being like china.....
    Being less woke certainly does mean being more like China.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    China has an average IQ (at least on the coast) 5 points higher than the white west. It has a 2500 year old tradition of global if complacent supremacy. It has been (in the past) incredibly inventive, albeit this ingenuity was stifled by its own lazy sense of hegemony. ‘Why bother?’ - was the thinking. ‘We are already the Middle Kingdom - Centre of the World’


    It will invent again

    Right now, FWIW, China has the world’s largest supercomputer and boasts the most advanced form of AI - beyond GPT-3
    China is also not hamstrung by woke causes unlike the west which increasingly obsessed about diversity over merit
    Damn! Those bloody wokists ruining everything again, eh?
    Sure but when you promote diversity over merit things start to gradually fall apart....I would say the quality of mps for example is much reduced since diversity became a thing
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    There's hundreds of thousands, at least, of Chinese scientists, many of them trained at Western universities, so if they aren't competent innovators that must be because both 1. they are genetically incapable of it and 2. Western universities are glossing over the fact when giving them degrees. There's a tiny tinge of racism in both those claims. They have done some pretty cool shit like landing on the far side of the moon, and I was told by a bloke the other day who seemed to know what he was on about, that all the advances in rechargeable batteries are coming from China, which would sorta make sense as they are all made there.
    This racist Sinophobia reminds me of western attitudes to japanese soldiers in WW2. The westerners couldn’t quite dismiss the Japs as spear-chucking natives so they reverted to weirder stereotypes. ‘Oh they are all bow-legged, short-sighted and bespectacled, they can’t win’.

    Then Singapore fell

    China is hindered, I believe, by its stifling autocracy, and would have done better to stay more liberal. But this need not hinder their economy, compared to us, after all we are crippling our own ‘liberal’ education system with Woke-ism

    The Chinese have no such problems. They’ve already overtaken the US in sheer trading power, I’m not sure what stops them adding to that
    Racist Sinophobia? You're the one peddling the 'China made covid deliberately' conspiracy theory.
    It isn't a conspiracy theory any more, it's pretty clear that that's what happened. And that the program was largely sponsored and driven by the USA, so not terribly racist either.

    Is it in your view racist Allemanophobia to say that Germany was largely responsible for the existence of Auschwitz?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    And that income should face every bit as much tax, national insurance etc as any other income.
    Only the first £1,000 of rental income is tax free
  • Another big hit as conservatives lose 6 points

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1436439050337017860?s=19
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,104
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    As you have already been told it is defined by the authorities as a collision not an accident, that does not automatically make it murder.

    The offence she was charged with of death by dangerous driving, also means she has been charged with criminal activity leading to a death too, the CPS decided it was not a completely innocent accident on the evidence, even if that does not mean it was murder either
    As I have already been told? You are referring to an incorrect earlier post. Everything you read is not correct.

    Be it on your own head. Not going to try anymore. Just wasting my time. You are being an idiot by being so stubborn and exposing yourself so. You can still put your argument without putting yourself at risk.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,447
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    And that income should face every bit as much tax, national insurance etc as any other income.
    Only the first £1,000 of rental income is tax free
    'Only'? And how much NI is paid on theat rental income?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,916
    Charles said:

    Farooq said:

    Charles said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    People who are interested in cultures point to Al Andalus and note how much more civilised the Arabs were compared with the Europeans. Europe learnt everything from the Arabs: medicine, astronomy, navigation, philosophy, sofas, ice cream, romantic poetry, universities, castle design, irrigation...

    The Arabs learnt not one single thing from Europe. A couple of centuries later Europe was ascendant and the Arab lands a backwater from which they have never recovered.

    That's the analogy for China and the West.
    Didn’t the Arabs pinch most of their stuff from the Indus Valley civilisations?
    No
    “Arabic” numerals
    Astronomy
    Trigonometry
    Zero
    Lots in medicine and toxicology
    Rotation of the earth
    Cartography

    Bit more than just “no”
    Didn't the Romans and Greeks know about the rotation of the earth?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,868
    edited September 10
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Honestly, I think you're quite possibly the dimmest person I've come across. In previous posts you obsess about how difficult it is to buy houses but now you want to call renting something people want to do.

    Is there any depth you won't plumb to in order give Boris a handjob and ball licking?
    HYUFD is a literary character. He has no independent external principles, there is only the Party.

    "You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self- destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane."
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Nobody wants to pay rent, you sort of have to though, if you can't buy a house and you don't want to freeze to fucking death.
    Can I congratulate you on the uniform excellence of your posts to date? I do hope you are a genuine newcomer to the site, rather than another lapidary sex toy maker.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 537
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Nobody wants to pay rent, you sort of have to though, if you can't buy a house and you don't want to freeze to fucking death.
    There is a place for a rental market - people sometimes have good reasons to rent. My parents are renting at present - they've sold their house to downsize, and are currently having a new house built. Meanwhile they need somewhere to live for a year or so.

    The fundamental problem is that high house prices (which also means high rental prices) prevent people with average incomes from affording housing, not least because when renting, the rent swallows up so much income, its extremely difficult to save for a deposit.
    Couple that with super low interest rates, and for anyone with spare capital, becoming a landlord is a no-brainer.

    The root problem remains a lack of housing, however one cuts it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    edited September 10
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Honestly, I think you're quite possibly the dimmest person I've come across. In previous posts you obsess about how difficult it is to buy houses but now you want to call renting something people want to do.

    Is there any depth you won't plumb to in order give Boris a handjob and ball licking?
    It is difficult to buy houses in the South because there is too high immigration there and too few controls on foreign property investment in London. Yes there could be a few more new homes restricted to first time buyers there but that is not the fault of existing landlords.

    In the North and Midlands there very few problems with buying a property and in case you have not noticed there are landlords there too.

    But be as rude as you want rather than bother with argument
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,317

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    And that income should face every bit as much tax, national insurance etc as any other income.
    Only the first £1,000 of rental income is tax free
    'Only'? And how much NI is paid on theat rental income?
    NI is only charged on income from jobs, right?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,227

    Another big hit as conservatives lose 6 points

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1436439050337017860?s=19

    Mid May seems like a long time ago now. Peak vaccine fervour, when we were still leading all Europe in jabs in arms.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,916

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    China has an average IQ (at least on the coast) 5 points higher than the white west. It has a 2500 year old tradition of global if complacent supremacy. It has been (in the past) incredibly inventive, albeit this ingenuity was stifled by its own lazy sense of hegemony. ‘Why bother?’ - was the thinking. ‘We are already the Middle Kingdom - Centre of the World’


    It will invent again

    Right now, FWIW, China has the world’s largest supercomputer and boasts the most advanced form of AI - beyond GPT-3
    China is also not hamstrung by woke causes unlike the west which increasingly obsessed about diversity over merit
    Damn! Those bloody wokists ruining everything again, eh?
    Sure but when you promote diversity over merit things start to gradually fall apart....I would say the quality of mps for example is much reduced since diversity became a thing
    I don't think that's the only factor: I'm sure I (or most of the denizens of this board) could become MPs if they wanted to.

    But it combines being poorly paid relative to most professions, with antisocial hours, abuse on Twitter, and constant media invasion into your private life.

    I mean, why bother?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,547
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    You can still commit criminal offences accidentally you know…
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    A road traffic accident can lead to criminal charges.

    That is very different to saying that someone deliberately intended to kill someone by running them over with a car.

    The former is what has happened in the Sacoolas case, albeit diplomatic immunity means she will never be brought to court.

    If @HYUFD is suggesting the latter he is talking out of his arse and potentially making a seriously defamatory comment about Sacoolas. He knows what he should do.
    I have said she has been charged with death by dangerous driving ie a criminal offence by the CPS, which she has. I did not say she had been found guilty of that.

    Philip Thompson however said earlier Prince Andrew has been accused of rape when he has only faced civil action not criminal charges
  • rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    China has an average IQ (at least on the coast) 5 points higher than the white west. It has a 2500 year old tradition of global if complacent supremacy. It has been (in the past) incredibly inventive, albeit this ingenuity was stifled by its own lazy sense of hegemony. ‘Why bother?’ - was the thinking. ‘We are already the Middle Kingdom - Centre of the World’


    It will invent again

    Right now, FWIW, China has the world’s largest supercomputer and boasts the most advanced form of AI - beyond GPT-3
    China is also not hamstrung by woke causes unlike the west which increasingly obsessed about diversity over merit
    Damn! Those bloody wokists ruining everything again, eh?
    Sure but when you promote diversity over merit things start to gradually fall apart....I would say the quality of mps for example is much reduced since diversity became a thing
    I don't think that's the only factor: I'm sure I (or most of the denizens of this board) could become MPs if they wanted to.

    But it combines being poorly paid relative to most professions, with antisocial hours, abuse on Twitter, and constant media invasion into your private life.

    I mean, why bother?
    Oh I agree. The explosion of salaries in the city and law since the 1980s hasn't helped
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,186
    Foxy said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    People who are interested in cultures point to Al Andalus and note how much more civilised the Arabs were compared with the Europeans. Europe learnt everything from the Arabs: medicine, astronomy, navigation, philosophy, sofas, ice cream, romantic poetry, universities, castle design, irrigation...

    The Arabs learnt not one single thing from Europe. A couple of centuries later Europe was ascendant and the Arab lands a backwater from which they have never recovered.

    That's the analogy between China and the West.
    If you are suggesting that the West is Andulucia, and China Renaissance Europe, it does seem rather a stretch. China is very willing to learn from outsiders though.
    Did you mean to write steal? :wink:
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    And that income should face every bit as much tax, national insurance etc as any other income.
    Only the first £1,000 of rental income is tax free
    Which is a bonus £1000 in addition to those who are working's tax free allowance.

    After that it faces all forms of Income Tax including both elements of National Insurance does it? 🤔
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,447

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    China has an average IQ (at least on the coast) 5 points higher than the white west. It has a 2500 year old tradition of global if complacent supremacy. It has been (in the past) incredibly inventive, albeit this ingenuity was stifled by its own lazy sense of hegemony. ‘Why bother?’ - was the thinking. ‘We are already the Middle Kingdom - Centre of the World’


    It will invent again

    Right now, FWIW, China has the world’s largest supercomputer and boasts the most advanced form of AI - beyond GPT-3
    China is also not hamstrung by woke causes unlike the west which increasingly obsessed about diversity over merit
    Damn! Those bloody wokists ruining everything again, eh?
    Sure but when you promote diversity over merit things start to gradually fall apart....I would say the quality of mps for example is much reduced since diversity became a thing
    Interesting. What sort of attributes should your standard model MP possess?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,147
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Honestly, I think you're quite possibly the dimmest person I've come across. In previous posts you obsess about how difficult it is to buy houses but now you want to call renting something people want to do.

    Is there any depth you won't plumb to in order give Boris a handjob and ball licking?
    It is difficult to buy houses in the South because there is too high immigration and too few controls on foreign property investment on property investment in London. Yes there could be a few more new homes restricted to first time buyers but that is not the fault of existing arguments.

    In the North and Midlands there very few problems with buying a property and in case you have not noticed there are landlords there too.

    But be as rude as you want rather than bother with argument
    You're a moron. Private landlords own 4.5m properties between them, that figure is up from 1m properties 20 years ago. I'll be glad when the Tories are out of power. Your party is tanking and all you can do is defend old rich people while the Tories become the party of high taxation that hates working people.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,845
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    China has an average IQ (at least on the coast) 5 points higher than the white west. It has a 2500 year old tradition of global if complacent supremacy. It has been (in the past) incredibly inventive, albeit this ingenuity was stifled by its own lazy sense of hegemony. ‘Why bother?’ - was the thinking. ‘We are already the Middle Kingdom - Centre of the World’


    It will invent again

    Right now, FWIW, China has the world’s largest supercomputer and boasts the most advanced form of AI - beyond GPT-3
    China is also not hamstrung by woke causes unlike the west which increasingly obsessed about diversity over merit
    Damn! Those bloody wokists ruining everything again, eh?
    Sure but when you promote diversity over merit things start to gradually fall apart....I would say the quality of mps for example is much reduced since diversity became a thing
    I don't think that's the only factor: I'm sure I (or most of the denizens of this board) could become MPs if they wanted to.

    But it combines being poorly paid relative to most professions, with antisocial hours, abuse on Twitter, and constant media invasion into your private life.

    I mean, why bother?
    Not to mention voting for crap you don’t believe in.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,104
    edited September 10
    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    A road traffic accident can lead to criminal charges.

    That is very different to saying that someone deliberately intended to kill someone by running them over with a car.

    The former is what has happened in the Sacoolas case, albeit diplomatic immunity means she will never be brought to court.

    If @HYUFD is suggesting the latter he is talking out of his arse and potentially making a seriously defamatory comment about Sacoolas. He knows what he should do.
    Can you tell him then please. As a layman he is taking no notice of me. He has specifically said it wasn't an accident. It is simply that, that I warned him of. I'm no expert but that sounds like a dodgy thing to say.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    As you have already been told it is defined by the authorities as a collision not an accident, that does not automatically make it murder.

    The offence she was charged with of death by dangerous driving, also means she has been charged with criminal activity leading to a death too, the CPS decided it was not a completely innocent accident on the evidence, even if that does not mean it was murder either
    As I have already been told? You are referring to an incorrect earlier post. Everything you read is not correct.

    Be it on your own head. Not going to try anymore. Just wasting my time. You are being an idiot by being so stubborn and exposing yourself so. You can still put your argument without putting yourself at risk.
    90% of your posts on here are patronising drivel about me and to be quite frank I am getting increasingly fed up with it
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,147
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    China has an average IQ (at least on the coast) 5 points higher than the white west. It has a 2500 year old tradition of global if complacent supremacy. It has been (in the past) incredibly inventive, albeit this ingenuity was stifled by its own lazy sense of hegemony. ‘Why bother?’ - was the thinking. ‘We are already the Middle Kingdom - Centre of the World’


    It will invent again

    Right now, FWIW, China has the world’s largest supercomputer and boasts the most advanced form of AI - beyond GPT-3
    China is also not hamstrung by woke causes unlike the west which increasingly obsessed about diversity over merit
    Damn! Those bloody wokists ruining everything again, eh?
    Sure but when you promote diversity over merit things start to gradually fall apart....I would say the quality of mps for example is much reduced since diversity became a thing
    I don't think that's the only factor: I'm sure I (or most of the denizens of this board) could become MPs if they wanted to.

    But it combines being poorly paid relative to most professions, with antisocial hours, abuse on Twitter, and constant media invasion into your private life.

    I mean, why bother?
    Being an MP is the worst. You end up like HYFUD, constantly defending stupid policies because it's the only way to climb that greasy pole.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,426
    SKS has a policy and a good one at that

    "the money could have been raised by taxing the incomes of landlords, and those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks shares".
  • HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Honestly, I think you're quite possibly the dimmest person I've come across. In previous posts you obsess about how difficult it is to buy houses but now you want to call renting something people want to do.

    Is there any depth you won't plumb to in order give Boris a handjob and ball licking?
    It is difficult to buy houses in the South because there is too high immigration there and too few controls on foreign property investment in London. Yes there could be a few more new homes restricted to first time buyers there but that is not the fault of existing landlords.

    In the North and Midlands there very few problems with buying a property and in case you have not noticed there are landlords there too.

    But be as rude as you want rather than bother with argument
    Really...an average semi in a mediocre area in the north will go for 200000 pounds. Assume an average salary of 25 grand. Just about affordable for a couple completely out of reach of a single man My parents could afford that average semi on one average income
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,677
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    As you have already been told it is defined by the authorities as a collision not an accident, that does not automatically make it murder.

    The offence she was charged with of death by dangerous driving, also means she has been charged with criminal activity leading to a death too, the CPS decided it was not a completely innocent accident on the evidence, even if that does not mean it was murder either
    As I have already been told? You are referring to an incorrect earlier post. Everything you read is not correct.

    Be it on your own head. Not going to try anymore. Just wasting my time. You are being an idiot by being so stubborn and exposing yourself so. You can still put your argument without putting yourself at risk.
    Trying to teach @HYUFD about the law is about as unrewarding and pointless as you teaching him maths.

    I'm off to do some reading.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,447
    edited September 10
    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    And that income should face every bit as much tax, national insurance etc as any other income.
    Only the first £1,000 of rental income is tax free
    'Only'? And how much NI is paid on theat rental income?
    NI is only charged on income from jobs, right?
    Yes. It's an income tax but not on all income. Hence I, retired on a pension, pay a lot less into the public coffers than someone slogging their guts out week in week out for the same gross income.

    Similarly a landlord with rental income pays a lot less tax than the worker.
  • Another big hit as conservatives lose 6 points

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1436439050337017860?s=19

    Two caveats though;

    The changes are since mid May, so it's reflecting the gentle drift that's been happening since the peak of the Hartlepool bounce.

    The polling was done in the first half of this week; whilst the facts of the government's social care plan were emerging, I'm not sure that it's implications had.
  • SKS has a policy and a good one at that

    "the money could have been raised by taxing the incomes of landlords, and those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks shares".

    Expect Rishi may steal that in the Autumn statement

    The missing point in this controversy is not just the unfairness but it is the billions short of what is needed
  • Yes things are not as crazy in the north but high house prices are still a problem there
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Honestly, I think you're quite possibly the dimmest person I've come across. In previous posts you obsess about how difficult it is to buy houses but now you want to call renting something people want to do.

    Is there any depth you won't plumb to in order give Boris a handjob and ball licking?
    It is difficult to buy houses in the South because there is too high immigration and too few controls on foreign property investment on property investment in London. Yes there could be a few more new homes restricted to first time buyers but that is not the fault of existing arguments.

    In the North and Midlands there very few problems with buying a property and in case you have not noticed there are landlords there too.

    But be as rude as you want rather than bother with argument
    You're a moron. Private landlords own 4.5m properties between them, that figure is up from 1m properties 20 years ago. I'll be glad when the Tories are out of power. Your party is tanking and all you can do is defend old rich people while the Tories become the party of high taxation that hates working people.
    'You're a moron.'

    And the abuse continues. The main reason the Tories have lost votes with Yougov is the triple lock freeze as most of the votes lost were with over 65s. Not with high earners like you resentful at having to pay 1.25% extra in NI for the NHS and social care.

    To be quite frank I am extremely glad you are no longer a party supporter, good riddance!
  • stodge said:

    stodge said:


    In terms of 1914, it's one thing to build a world with no great wars (though plenty of little ones) in the 20th Century but that bumps up against the argument war had become inevitable in 1914 because too many important players saw it as a possible solution to seemingly intractable problems or unstoppable trends.

    The immediate cause of the First World War was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. A subsequent causal factor was that Franz Ferdinand, having been assassinated, was dead. Because as heir to the throne, he would likely have been the statesman restraining the Austro-Hungarian empire from attacking Serbia.
    Yes, indeed but an argument is if it had not been his assassination, it would have been something else sooner or later. Another Balkan crisis or Morocco or something else which would have allowed those wanting or needing war to have their opportunity.

    Let's not forget there was widespread popular support FOR war - incredible as it may seem. Indeed, I'd go further and say August 1914 was an example of some mass psychosis. War, patriotism and glory were seen as the way forward - any voices urging caution were simply ignored.

    I'm not sure the part about popular support is true but even if it is true, it is probably not relevant outside of Britain which was the most democratic state, even if women could not vote. Basically it is complicated but I thought I'd throw in that paradox about the Archduke.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737
    Floater said:

    Foxy said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    People who are interested in cultures point to Al Andalus and note how much more civilised the Arabs were compared with the Europeans. Europe learnt everything from the Arabs: medicine, astronomy, navigation, philosophy, sofas, ice cream, romantic poetry, universities, castle design, irrigation...

    The Arabs learnt not one single thing from Europe. A couple of centuries later Europe was ascendant and the Arab lands a backwater from which they have never recovered.

    That's the analogy between China and the West.
    If you are suggesting that the West is Andulucia, and China Renaissance Europe, it does seem rather a stretch. China is very willing to learn from outsiders though.
    Did you mean to write steal? :wink:
    I always parse that emoji as "I am a twat." I take it to mean in this case that the slope eyed yellow man can only copy, not innovate?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,317

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    And that income should face every bit as much tax, national insurance etc as any other income.
    Only the first £1,000 of rental income is tax free
    'Only'? And how much NI is paid on theat rental income?
    NI is only charged on income from jobs, right?
    Yes. It's an income tax but not on all income. Hence I, retired on a pension, pay a lot less into the public coffers than someone slogging their guts out week in week out for the same gross income.

    Similarly a landlord with rental income pays a lot less tax than the worker.
    Not if it's their main source of income, then they pay NI.

    Isn't that a feature and not a bug of retirement? You aren't earning as much, and you aren't supposed to be slogging your guts out week in and week out.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,447
    edited September 10

    SKS has a policy and a good one at that

    "the money could have been raised by taxing the incomes of landlords, and those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks shares".

    Expect Rishi may steal that in the Autumn statement

    The missing point in this controversy is not just the unfairness but it is the billions short of what is needed
    Wealth tax Big_G.

    1% per annum of individual wealth above £1m would net £170bn per annum.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,916
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    China has an average IQ (at least on the coast) 5 points higher than the white west. It has a 2500 year old tradition of global if complacent supremacy. It has been (in the past) incredibly inventive, albeit this ingenuity was stifled by its own lazy sense of hegemony. ‘Why bother?’ - was the thinking. ‘We are already the Middle Kingdom - Centre of the World’


    It will invent again

    Right now, FWIW, China has the world’s largest supercomputer and boasts the most advanced form of AI - beyond GPT-3
    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-iq-by-country

    Italy has the highest average IQ of any Western country, at 102. And it has also been a terrible economic laggard. Japan - like China - comes in at 105. And that's also been a pretty seriously poor performer.

    Indeed, it seems that with high IQ comes low birth rates.
    I can’t believe this is a surprise to you. High IQ well-educated women shun childbirth and parenting, they want careers and money. A universal if painful truth. As recognized by the Taliban
    Well yes, but it also rather suggests that countries' time at the top is going to be rather limited by demographics.

    In Asia, look at Taiwan, Japan, and even now South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong. Look too at Italy in Europe. Basically if your birth rate collapses, you set yourself up for a very nasty period when you have far more oldies demanding pensions and healthcare, than you have workers.

    If you look across China it has a TFR of about 1.4-1.5, but that splits between the poorly educated rural areas with birthrates above 2, and urban areas (where the smart people live) with much lower number, dipping as low as 0.7 in Shanghai.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737
    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    A road traffic accident can lead to criminal charges.

    That is very different to saying that someone deliberately intended to kill someone by running them over with a car.

    The former is what has happened in the Sacoolas case, albeit diplomatic immunity means she will never be brought to court.

    If @HYUFD is suggesting the latter he is talking out of his arse and potentially making a seriously defamatory comment about Sacoolas. He knows what he should do.
    I have said she has been charged with death by dangerous driving ie a criminal offence by the CPS, which she has. I did not say she had been found guilty of that.

    Philip Thompson however said earlier Prince Andrew has been accused of rape when he has only faced civil action not criminal charges
    What? If I sue you for rape, how am I not accusing you of rape?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,317

    SKS has a policy and a good one at that

    "the money could have been raised by taxing the incomes of landlords, and those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks shares".

    Expect Rishi may steal that in the Autumn statement

    The missing point in this controversy is not just the unfairness but it is the billions short of what is needed
    Wealth tax Big_G.

    1% per annum of individual wealth above £1m would net £170bn per annum.
    Hm, I think that's the third different value for the predicted take of that tax I've seen in as many days!
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,622

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    China has an average IQ (at least on the coast) 5 points higher than the white west. It has a 2500 year old tradition of global if complacent supremacy. It has been (in the past) incredibly inventive, albeit this ingenuity was stifled by its own lazy sense of hegemony. ‘Why bother?’ - was the thinking. ‘We are already the Middle Kingdom - Centre of the World’


    It will invent again

    Right now, FWIW, China has the world’s largest supercomputer and boasts the most advanced form of AI - beyond GPT-3
    China is also not hamstrung by woke causes unlike the west which increasingly obsessed about diversity over merit
    Damn! Those bloody wokists ruining everything again, eh?
    Sure but when you promote diversity over merit things start to gradually fall apart....I would say the quality of mps for example is much reduced since diversity became a thing
    Quite right. We need to go back to those halcyon days when virtually all MPs were white men of a certain age.

    Are you for real?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,227
    theProle said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Nobody wants to pay rent, you sort of have to though, if you can't buy a house and you don't want to freeze to fucking death.
    There is a place for a rental market - people sometimes have good reasons to rent. My parents are renting at present - they've sold their house to downsize, and are currently having a new house built. Meanwhile they need somewhere to live for a year or so.

    The fundamental problem is that high house prices (which also means high rental prices) prevent people with average incomes from affording housing, not least because when renting, the rent swallows up so much income, its extremely difficult to save for a deposit.
    Couple that with super low interest rates, and for anyone with spare capital, becoming a landlord is a no-brainer.

    The root problem remains a lack of housing, however one cuts it.
    Agreed, there are several situations where renting makes more sense than buying. Highly mobile medium-term workers like post-doc researchers are not in a position to buy without considerable risk of having to resell a few years later.
    It's just that the market in rents is not a free one. It is distorted wildly by things mentioned already this evening: land banking, wealth inequality, planning law, and so on. The market is geared heavily towards suppliers because they are also the people helping prevent their customers from exploring alternatives (other than freezing to fucking death).

    The people helping to price out potential buyers are the same ones profiting from the lack of options for those who must rent.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,622

    SKS has a policy and a good one at that

    "the money could have been raised by taxing the incomes of landlords, and those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks shares".

    Bloody hell - is that you praising SKS? Knock me down with a feather!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    As you have already been told it is defined by the authorities as a collision not an accident, that does not automatically make it murder.

    The offence she was charged with of death by dangerous driving, also means she has been charged with criminal activity leading to a death too, the CPS decided it was not a completely innocent accident on the evidence, even if that does not mean it was murder either
    As I have already been told? You are referring to an incorrect earlier post. Everything you read is not correct.

    Be it on your own head. Not going to try anymore. Just wasting my time. You are being an idiot by being so stubborn and exposing yourself so. You can still put your argument without putting yourself at risk.
    Trying to teach @HYUFD about the law is about as unrewarding and pointless as you teaching him maths.

    I'm off to do some reading.
    I also have legal qualifications and there was nothing remotely libellous about saying she has been charged with a criminal offence of death by dangerous driving, she is charged with causing a criminal collision leading to a death.

    The evidence of the CPS therefore is that it was not an innocent accident but her dangerous driving which caused the death
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,147
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Honestly, I think you're quite possibly the dimmest person I've come across. In previous posts you obsess about how difficult it is to buy houses but now you want to call renting something people want to do.

    Is there any depth you won't plumb to in order give Boris a handjob and ball licking?
    It is difficult to buy houses in the South because there is too high immigration and too few controls on foreign property investment on property investment in London. Yes there could be a few more new homes restricted to first time buyers but that is not the fault of existing arguments.

    In the North and Midlands there very few problems with buying a property and in case you have not noticed there are landlords there too.

    But be as rude as you want rather than bother with argument
    You're a moron. Private landlords own 4.5m properties between them, that figure is up from 1m properties 20 years ago. I'll be glad when the Tories are out of power. Your party is tanking and all you can do is defend old rich people while the Tories become the party of high taxation that hates working people.
    'You're a moron.'

    And the abuse continues. The main reason the Tories have lost votes with Yougov is the triple lock freeze as most of the votes lost were with over 65s. Not with high earners like you resentful at having to pay 1.25% extra in NI for the NHS and social care.

    To be quite frank I am extremely glad you are no longer a party supporter, good riddance!
    You really are a piece of work. The Tory party is doomed if all it has left is people like you. That light in the distance is an oncoming train of working people realising that the Tories are going to tax them into poverty so that rich old people can pass their assets to rich middle aged people. 2024 is going to be a disaster for the Tories, even with someone as insipid and useless as Starmer in charge of Labour.
  • As people get less money in their pockets there is only 1 direction for Tory support. The covid crisis didnt hurt them much as financially many people did rather well out of it
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737

    SKS has a policy and a good one at that

    "the money could have been raised by taxing the incomes of landlords, and those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks shares".

    Expect Rishi may steal that in the Autumn statement

    The missing point in this controversy is not just the unfairness but it is the billions short of what is needed
    Wealth tax Big_G.

    1% per annum of individual wealth above £1m would net £170bn per annum.

    Naah, laffer curve innit?

    Seriously, I'd spend myself/ give stuff to my sons down to £999,999 within a couple of years.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,317
    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    As you have already been told it is defined by the authorities as a collision not an accident, that does not automatically make it murder.

    The offence she was charged with of death by dangerous driving, also means she has been charged with criminal activity leading to a death too, the CPS decided it was not a completely innocent accident on the evidence, even if that does not mean it was murder either
    As I have already been told? You are referring to an incorrect earlier post. Everything you read is not correct.

    Be it on your own head. Not going to try anymore. Just wasting my time. You are being an idiot by being so stubborn and exposing yourself so. You can still put your argument without putting yourself at risk.
    Trying to teach @HYUFD about the law is about as unrewarding and pointless as you teaching him maths.

    I'm off to do some reading.
    I also have legal qualifications and there was nothing remotely libellous about saying she has been charged with a criminal offence of death by dangerous driving, she is charged with causing a criminal collision leading to a death.

    The evidence of the CPS therefore is that it was not an innocent accident but her dangerous driving which caused the death
    I think you are missing a step. While the CPS think it wasn't an accident, it requires a court case to prove it wasn't.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    edited September 10
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Honestly, I think you're quite possibly the dimmest person I've come across. In previous posts you obsess about how difficult it is to buy houses but now you want to call renting something people want to do.

    Is there any depth you won't plumb to in order give Boris a handjob and ball licking?
    It is difficult to buy houses in the South because there is too high immigration and too few controls on foreign property investment on property investment in London. Yes there could be a few more new homes restricted to first time buyers but that is not the fault of existing arguments.

    In the North and Midlands there very few problems with buying a property and in case you have not noticed there are landlords there too.

    But be as rude as you want rather than bother with argument
    You're a moron. Private landlords own 4.5m properties between them, that figure is up from 1m properties 20 years ago. I'll be glad when the Tories are out of power. Your party is tanking and all you can do is defend old rich people while the Tories become the party of high taxation that hates working people.
    'You're a moron.'

    And the abuse continues. The main reason the Tories have lost votes with Yougov is the triple lock freeze as most of the votes lost were with over 65s. Not with high earners like you resentful at having to pay 1.25% extra in NI for the NHS and social care.

    To be quite frank I am extremely glad you are no longer a party supporter, good riddance!
    You really are a piece of work. The Tory party is doomed if all it has left is people like you. That light in the distance is an oncoming train of working people realising that the Tories are going to tax them into poverty so that rich old people can pass their assets to rich middle aged people. 2024 is going to be a disaster for the Tories, even with someone as insipid and useless as Starmer in charge of Labour.
    Except it isn't. The strongest Tory voter retention with Yougov was with 25-49 year olds, the biggest loss in voteshare was with pensioners.

    Comres of course today had the Tories ahead. However regardless I would rather be in opposition now with proper Tories, than having to be in government due to votes from the likes of you
  • HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Honestly, I think you're quite possibly the dimmest person I've come across. In previous posts you obsess about how difficult it is to buy houses but now you want to call renting something people want to do.

    Is there any depth you won't plumb to in order give Boris a handjob and ball licking?
    It is difficult to buy houses in the South because there is too high immigration and too few controls on foreign property investment on property investment in London. Yes there could be a few more new homes restricted to first time buyers but that is not the fault of existing arguments.

    In the North and Midlands there very few problems with buying a property and in case you have not noticed there are landlords there too.

    But be as rude as you want rather than bother with argument
    You're a moron. Private landlords own 4.5m properties between them, that figure is up from 1m properties 20 years ago. I'll be glad when the Tories are out of power. Your party is tanking and all you can do is defend old rich people while the Tories become the party of high taxation that hates working people.
    'You're a moron.'

    And the abuse continues. The main reason the Tories have lost votes with Yougov is the triple lock freeze as most of the votes lost were with over 65s. Not with high earners like you resentful at having to pay 1.25% extra in NI for the NHS and social care.

    To be quite frank I am extremely glad you are no longer a party supporter, good riddance!
    You do realise that your attitude is likely to see both yourself and the conservatives out of office

    You are quite the worst representative of the conservative party I have encountered in all the years I have actively campaigned and supported them

    But then my lapsing of my party membership will no doubt receive another good riddance comment

    One day you will wake up and find you are talking to yourself as everyone has fled
  • Pensioners the furloughed and wfh brigade all did ok financially during covid. The economic pain was felt by a small number often small businesspeople. At the end of the day its money that drives votes
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Honestly, I think you're quite possibly the dimmest person I've come across. In previous posts you obsess about how difficult it is to buy houses but now you want to call renting something people want to do.

    Is there any depth you won't plumb to in order give Boris a handjob and ball licking?
    It is difficult to buy houses in the South because there is too high immigration and too few controls on foreign property investment on property investment in London. Yes there could be a few more new homes restricted to first time buyers but that is not the fault of existing arguments.

    In the North and Midlands there very few problems with buying a property and in case you have not noticed there are landlords there too.

    But be as rude as you want rather than bother with argument
    You're a moron. Private landlords own 4.5m properties between them, that figure is up from 1m properties 20 years ago. I'll be glad when the Tories are out of power. Your party is tanking and all you can do is defend old rich people while the Tories become the party of high taxation that hates working people.
    'You're a moron.'

    And the abuse continues. The main reason the Tories have lost votes with Yougov is the triple lock freeze as most of the votes lost were with over 65s. Not with high earners like you resentful at having to pay 1.25% extra in NI for the NHS and social care.

    To be quite frank I am extremely glad you are no longer a party supporter, good riddance!
    You do realise that your attitude is likely to see both yourself and the conservatives out of office

    You are quite the worst representative of the conservative party I have encountered in all the years I have actively campaigned and supported them

    But then my lapsing of my party membership will no doubt receive another good riddance comment

    One day you will wake up and find you are talking to yourself as everyone has fled
    Omitting to mention of course the years you were voting for Blair and New Labour when the party was at its lowest ebb and actually really needed you!
  • SKS has a policy and a good one at that

    "the money could have been raised by taxing the incomes of landlords, and those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks shares".

    Expect Rishi may steal that in the Autumn statement

    The missing point in this controversy is not just the unfairness but it is the billions short of what is needed
    Rishi needs to be careful.

    It's not that long ago that the deferred pain introduced in the March budget (Corporation Tax, Income Tax thresholds being frozen, some pretty punishing limits on public sector spending and pay) was going to be enough to balance the books.

    The Covid outlook is far better than we had a right to expect, so the economy ought to be doing fine.

    So did Rishi botch the numbers in Spring, or is he a sadomonetrist?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,147
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    And that income should face every bit as much tax, national insurance etc as any other income.
    Only the first £1,000 of rental income is tax free
    'Only'? And how much NI is paid on theat rental income?
    NI is only charged on income from jobs, right?
    Yes. It's an income tax but not on all income. Hence I, retired on a pension, pay a lot less into the public coffers than someone slogging their guts out week in week out for the same gross income.

    Similarly a landlord with rental income pays a lot less tax than the worker.
    Not if it's their main source of income, then they pay NI.

    Isn't that a feature and not a bug of retirement? You aren't earning as much, and you aren't supposed to be slogging your guts out week in and week out.
    But that is a sentiment based on life in the 70s and 80s when private pensions were two parts of fuck all. Today there are 2m pensioners who have income that puts them in the higher rate tax bracket. In what world does it make sense that they are paying a lower net rate of tax than a a worker earning £30k?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    As you have already been told it is defined by the authorities as a collision not an accident, that does not automatically make it murder.

    The offence she was charged with of death by dangerous driving, also means she has been charged with criminal activity leading to a death too, the CPS decided it was not a completely innocent accident on the evidence, even if that does not mean it was murder either
    As I have already been told? You are referring to an incorrect earlier post. Everything you read is not correct.

    Be it on your own head. Not going to try anymore. Just wasting my time. You are being an idiot by being so stubborn and exposing yourself so. You can still put your argument without putting yourself at risk.
    Trying to teach @HYUFD about the law is about as unrewarding and pointless as you teaching him maths.

    I'm off to do some reading.
    I also have legal qualifications and there was nothing remotely libellous about saying she has been charged with a criminal offence of death by dangerous driving, she is charged with causing a criminal collision leading to a death.

    The evidence of the CPS therefore is that it was not an innocent accident but her dangerous driving which caused the death
    I think you are missing a step. While the CPS think it wasn't an accident, it requires a court case to prove it wasn't.
    Yes and I have not said she has been found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving have I.

    Yet while Philip T and others were happily accusing me of libel he was saying Prince Andrew has been accused of rape, ie facing criminal charges when he is only facing a civil action
  • SKS has a policy and a good one at that

    "the money could have been raised by taxing the incomes of landlords, and those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks shares".

    Expect Rishi may steal that in the Autumn statement

    The missing point in this controversy is not just the unfairness but it is the billions short of what is needed
    Wealth tax Big_G.

    1% per annum of individual wealth above £1m would net £170bn per annum.
    And see entrepreneurs and investors find more friendly tax jurisdictions

    There is a case for taxing the wealthy but £1m is too low, not that I would qualify
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,447
    RobD said:

    SKS has a policy and a good one at that

    "the money could have been raised by taxing the incomes of landlords, and those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks shares".

    Expect Rishi may steal that in the Autumn statement

    The missing point in this controversy is not just the unfairness but it is the billions short of what is needed
    Wealth tax Big_G.

    1% per annum of individual wealth above £1m would net £170bn per annum.
    Hm, I think that's the third different value for the predicted take of that tax I've seen in as many days!
    Yeah, I made that up quickly by taking 1% of the estimated £17tn of individual wealth. It'd be less than that since only the 40% of wealth owned by the top 5% would be targeted. But it would still be a very high contributor to public funds. And very easily affordable by those of us who would have to pay it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737
    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    As you have already been told it is defined by the authorities as a collision not an accident, that does not automatically make it murder.

    The offence she was charged with of death by dangerous driving, also means she has been charged with criminal activity leading to a death too, the CPS decided it was not a completely innocent accident on the evidence, even if that does not mean it was murder either
    As I have already been told? You are referring to an incorrect earlier post. Everything you read is not correct.

    Be it on your own head. Not going to try anymore. Just wasting my time. You are being an idiot by being so stubborn and exposing yourself so. You can still put your argument without putting yourself at risk.
    Trying to teach @HYUFD about the law is about as unrewarding and pointless as you teaching him maths.

    I'm off to do some reading.
    I also have legal qualifications and there was nothing remotely libellous about saying she has been charged with a criminal offence of death by dangerous driving, she is charged with causing a criminal collision leading to a death.

    The evidence of the CPS therefore is that it was not an innocent accident but her dangerous driving which caused the death
    I think you are missing a step. While the CPS think it wasn't an accident, it requires a court case to prove it wasn't.
    Depends what you mean by "prove". Why should we be bound by the narrow legal definition? Do you think it is unproven that the Apollo program put a man on the moon?
  • Tennis on telly. Ministers are said to have asked Amazon to make the US Open final with SPotY favourite Emma Raducanu free-to-air. Meanwhile, the BBC has been given highlights rights.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/16102391/amazon-prime-free-emma-raducanu-us-open-final/
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/emma-raducanu-amazon-urged-to-show-us-open-final-free-of-charge-xdn0gv5ht (£££)
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,227
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Honestly, I think you're quite possibly the dimmest person I've come across. In previous posts you obsess about how difficult it is to buy houses but now you want to call renting something people want to do.

    Is there any depth you won't plumb to in order give Boris a handjob and ball licking?
    It is difficult to buy houses in the South because there is too high immigration and too few controls on foreign property investment on property investment in London. Yes there could be a few more new homes restricted to first time buyers but that is not the fault of existing arguments.

    In the North and Midlands there very few problems with buying a property and in case you have not noticed there are landlords there too.

    But be as rude as you want rather than bother with argument
    You're a moron. Private landlords own 4.5m properties between them, that figure is up from 1m properties 20 years ago. I'll be glad when the Tories are out of power. Your party is tanking and all you can do is defend old rich people while the Tories become the party of high taxation that hates working people.
    'You're a moron.'

    And the abuse continues. The main reason the Tories have lost votes with Yougov is the triple lock freeze as most of the votes lost were with over 65s. Not with high earners like you resentful at having to pay 1.25% extra in NI for the NHS and social care.

    To be quite frank I am extremely glad you are no longer a party supporter, good riddance!
    You do realise that your attitude is likely to see both yourself and the conservatives out of office

    You are quite the worst representative of the conservative party I have encountered in all the years I have actively campaigned and supported them

    But then my lapsing of my party membership will no doubt receive another good riddance comment

    One day you will wake up and find you are talking to yourself as everyone has fled
    Omitting to mention of course the years you were voting for Blair and New Labour when the party was at its lowest ebb and actually really needed you!
    Instead of flying your purity with pride, you might find a richer seam in asking why people then switched away from the Conservatives, and what could be done to prevent it happening again.
    Sticking to one party doesn't make you better than other people, I'm baffled as to why you think it does.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,622
    edited September 10
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    And that income should face every bit as much tax, national insurance etc as any other income.
    Only the first £1,000 of rental income is tax free
    'Only'? And how much NI is paid on theat rental income?
    NI is only charged on income from jobs, right?
    Yes. It's an income tax but not on all income. Hence I, retired on a pension, pay a lot less into the public coffers than someone slogging their guts out week in week out for the same gross income.

    Similarly a landlord with rental income pays a lot less tax than the worker.
    Not if it's their main source of income, then they pay NI.

    Isn't that a feature and not a bug of retirement? You aren't earning as much, and you aren't supposed to be slogging your guts out week in and week out.
    Yes. Retirement = less energy, so less work, so less (but hopefully enough) money.
    It's great - I recommend it.

    Which reminds me, it's past my bedtime.
  • SKS has a policy and a good one at that

    "the money could have been raised by taxing the incomes of landlords, and those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks shares".

    Expect Rishi may steal that in the Autumn statement

    The missing point in this controversy is not just the unfairness but it is the billions short of what is needed
    Rishi needs to be careful.

    It's not that long ago that the deferred pain introduced in the March budget (Corporation Tax, Income Tax thresholds being frozen, some pretty punishing limits on public sector spending and pay) was going to be enough to balance the books.

    The Covid outlook is far better than we had a right to expect, so the economy ought to be doing fine.

    So did Rishi botch the numbers in Spring, or is he a sadomonetrist?
    The economy is slowing both here and in the US. All the money printing has also caused inflation and a huge asset bubble. Remember a lot of the early strength was people spending their covid savings
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737
    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    As you have already been told it is defined by the authorities as a collision not an accident, that does not automatically make it murder.

    The offence she was charged with of death by dangerous driving, also means she has been charged with criminal activity leading to a death too, the CPS decided it was not a completely innocent accident on the evidence, even if that does not mean it was murder either
    As I have already been told? You are referring to an incorrect earlier post. Everything you read is not correct.

    Be it on your own head. Not going to try anymore. Just wasting my time. You are being an idiot by being so stubborn and exposing yourself so. You can still put your argument without putting yourself at risk.
    Trying to teach @HYUFD about the law is about as unrewarding and pointless as you teaching him maths.

    I'm off to do some reading.
    I also have legal qualifications and there was nothing remotely libellous about saying she has been charged with a criminal offence of death by dangerous driving, she is charged with causing a criminal collision leading to a death.

    The evidence of the CPS therefore is that it was not an innocent accident but her dangerous driving which caused the death
    I think you are missing a step. While the CPS think it wasn't an accident, it requires a court case to prove it wasn't.
    Yes and I have not said she has been found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving have I.

    Yet while Philip T and others were happily accusing me of libel he was saying Prince Andrew has been accused of rape, ie facing criminal charges when he is only facing a civil action
    To repeat myself, If I sue you for rape, how am I not accusing you of rape?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,447

    SKS has a policy and a good one at that

    "the money could have been raised by taxing the incomes of landlords, and those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks shares".

    Expect Rishi may steal that in the Autumn statement

    The missing point in this controversy is not just the unfairness but it is the billions short of what is needed
    Wealth tax Big_G.

    1% per annum of individual wealth above £1m would net £170bn per annum.
    And see entrepreneurs and investors find more friendly tax jurisdictions

    There is a case for taxing the wealthy but £1m is too low, not that I would qualify
    If the wealthy elite want to leave the country rather than pay their taxes, I say let them go. But if they want to remain British citizens and/or they want to keep their flat in London or house in the Cotswolds, thay can pay their 1% on them.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Honestly, I think you're quite possibly the dimmest person I've come across. In previous posts you obsess about how difficult it is to buy houses but now you want to call renting something people want to do.

    Is there any depth you won't plumb to in order give Boris a handjob and ball licking?
    It is difficult to buy houses in the South because there is too high immigration and too few controls on foreign property investment on property investment in London. Yes there could be a few more new homes restricted to first time buyers but that is not the fault of existing arguments.

    In the North and Midlands there very few problems with buying a property and in case you have not noticed there are landlords there too.

    But be as rude as you want rather than bother with argument
    You're a moron. Private landlords own 4.5m properties between them, that figure is up from 1m properties 20 years ago. I'll be glad when the Tories are out of power. Your party is tanking and all you can do is defend old rich people while the Tories become the party of high taxation that hates working people.
    'You're a moron.'

    And the abuse continues. The main reason the Tories have lost votes with Yougov is the triple lock freeze as most of the votes lost were with over 65s. Not with high earners like you resentful at having to pay 1.25% extra in NI for the NHS and social care.

    To be quite frank I am extremely glad you are no longer a party supporter, good riddance!
    You do realise that your attitude is likely to see both yourself and the conservatives out of office

    You are quite the worst representative of the conservative party I have encountered in all the years I have actively campaigned and supported them

    But then my lapsing of my party membership will no doubt receive another good riddance comment

    One day you will wake up and find you are talking to yourself as everyone has fled
    Omitting to mention of course the years you were voting for Blair and New Labour when the party was at its lowest ebb and actually really needed you!
    It was stale and the country needed Blair
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,104
    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    As you have already been told it is defined by the authorities as a collision not an accident, that does not automatically make it murder.

    The offence she was charged with of death by dangerous driving, also means she has been charged with criminal activity leading to a death too, the CPS decided it was not a completely innocent accident on the evidence, even if that does not mean it was murder either
    As I have already been told? You are referring to an incorrect earlier post. Everything you read is not correct.

    Be it on your own head. Not going to try anymore. Just wasting my time. You are being an idiot by being so stubborn and exposing yourself so. You can still put your argument without putting yourself at risk.
    Trying to teach @HYUFD about the law is about as unrewarding and pointless as you teaching him maths.

    I'm off to do some reading.
    I also have legal qualifications and there was nothing remotely libellous about saying she has been charged with a criminal offence of death by dangerous driving, she is charged with causing a criminal collision leading to a death.

    The evidence of the CPS therefore is that it was not an innocent accident but her dangerous driving which caused the death
    All of the above is correct, but that is not what you said that was libelous. What you said that was libellous was that it was NOT AN ACCIDENT and that is libelous (in my humble opinion).
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,447
    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS has a policy and a good one at that

    "the money could have been raised by taxing the incomes of landlords, and those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks shares".

    Expect Rishi may steal that in the Autumn statement

    The missing point in this controversy is not just the unfairness but it is the billions short of what is needed
    Wealth tax Big_G.

    1% per annum of individual wealth above £1m would net £170bn per annum.

    Naah, laffer curve innit?

    Seriously, I'd spend myself/ give stuff to my sons down to £999,999 within a couple of years.
    If you can do that without pushing your sons over the limit then fine - you're not really in the core target for this tax anyway.
  • SKS has a policy and a good one at that

    "the money could have been raised by taxing the incomes of landlords, and those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks shares".

    Expect Rishi may steal that in the Autumn statement

    The missing point in this controversy is not just the unfairness but it is the billions short of what is needed
    Rishi needs to be careful.

    It's not that long ago that the deferred pain introduced in the March budget (Corporation Tax, Income Tax thresholds being frozen, some pretty punishing limits on public sector spending and pay) was going to be enough to balance the books.

    The Covid outlook is far better than we had a right to expect, so the economy ought to be doing fine.

    So did Rishi botch the numbers in Spring, or is he a sadomonetrist?
    To me it is fairness but it needs to be balanced and the calls on the NHS and social care are massive and growing
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,916

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    China has an average IQ (at least on the coast) 5 points higher than the white west. It has a 2500 year old tradition of global if complacent supremacy. It has been (in the past) incredibly inventive, albeit this ingenuity was stifled by its own lazy sense of hegemony. ‘Why bother?’ - was the thinking. ‘We are already the Middle Kingdom - Centre of the World’


    It will invent again

    Right now, FWIW, China has the world’s largest supercomputer and boasts the most advanced form of AI - beyond GPT-3
    China is also not hamstrung by woke causes unlike the west which increasingly obsessed about diversity over merit
    Damn! Those bloody wokists ruining everything again, eh?
    Sure but when you promote diversity over merit things start to gradually fall apart....I would say the quality of mps for example is much reduced since diversity became a thing
    I don't think that's the only factor: I'm sure I (or most of the denizens of this board) could become MPs if they wanted to.

    But it combines being poorly paid relative to most professions, with antisocial hours, abuse on Twitter, and constant media invasion into your private life.

    I mean, why bother?
    Oh I agree. The explosion of salaries in the city and law since the 1980s hasn't helped
    Being an MP pays £81,000/year.

    While that compares very poorly to the City or law, it doesn't look that great relative to being a software developer with a decade's experience, or a GP, or even a chartered accountant.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,317
    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    And that income should face every bit as much tax, national insurance etc as any other income.
    Only the first £1,000 of rental income is tax free
    'Only'? And how much NI is paid on theat rental income?
    NI is only charged on income from jobs, right?
    Yes. It's an income tax but not on all income. Hence I, retired on a pension, pay a lot less into the public coffers than someone slogging their guts out week in week out for the same gross income.

    Similarly a landlord with rental income pays a lot less tax than the worker.
    Not if it's their main source of income, then they pay NI.

    Isn't that a feature and not a bug of retirement? You aren't earning as much, and you aren't supposed to be slogging your guts out week in and week out.
    But that is a sentiment based on life in the 70s and 80s when private pensions were two parts of fuck all. Today there are 2m pensioners who have income that puts them in the higher rate tax bracket. In what world does it make sense that they are paying a lower net rate of tax than a a worker earning £30k?
    I agree with the sentiment. I think the state pension should be clawed back for the richest pensioners. They don't need it.
  • SKS has a policy and a good one at that

    "the money could have been raised by taxing the incomes of landlords, and those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks shares".

    Expect Rishi may steal that in the Autumn statement

    The missing point in this controversy is not just the unfairness but it is the billions short of what is needed
    Wealth tax Big_G.

    1% per annum of individual wealth above £1m would net £170bn per annum.
    And see entrepreneurs and investors find more friendly tax jurisdictions

    There is a case for taxing the wealthy but £1m is too low, not that I would qualify
    If the wealthy elite want to leave the country rather than pay their taxes, I say let them go. But if they want to remain British citizens and/or they want to keep their flat in London or house in the Cotswolds, thay can pay their 1% on them.
    Your definition of wealth is too low and would see many pensioners having to sell the family homes

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,481
    edited September 10

    Tennis on telly. Ministers are said to have asked Amazon to make the US Open final with SPotY favourite Emma Raducanu free-to-air. Meanwhile, the BBC has been given highlights rights.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/16102391/amazon-prime-free-emma-raducanu-us-open-final/
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/emma-raducanu-amazon-urged-to-show-us-open-final-free-of-charge-xdn0gv5ht (£££)

    I was hoping they'd allow it to be on free-to-air TV. It'll get millions of viewers if they do.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,845
    edited September 10
    If anyone can tear themselves away. Found this article on the Canadian PPC surge. They are very much the anti masks, vax, vaxports, pro-assault weapons Party that O'Toole has been desperately trying not to be. Essentially, the extreme end of US Republicans.
    Is their surge real?

    https://westernstandardonline.com/2021/09/ppc-surges-in-poll-threatening-ndp-for-third-place/

    Website is Republic of Western Canada loon fringe. But the article is pretty fair. Even if it ignores only one firm giving such high scores.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    As you have already been told it is defined by the authorities as a collision not an accident, that does not automatically make it murder.

    The offence she was charged with of death by dangerous driving, also means she has been charged with criminal activity leading to a death too, the CPS decided it was not a completely innocent accident on the evidence, even if that does not mean it was murder either
    As I have already been told? You are referring to an incorrect earlier post. Everything you read is not correct.

    Be it on your own head. Not going to try anymore. Just wasting my time. You are being an idiot by being so stubborn and exposing yourself so. You can still put your argument without putting yourself at risk.
    Trying to teach @HYUFD about the law is about as unrewarding and pointless as you teaching him maths.

    I'm off to do some reading.
    I also have legal qualifications and there was nothing remotely libellous about saying she has been charged with a criminal offence of death by dangerous driving, she is charged with causing a criminal collision leading to a death.

    The evidence of the CPS therefore is that it was not an innocent accident but her dangerous driving which caused the death
    I think you are missing a step. While the CPS think it wasn't an accident, it requires a court case to prove it wasn't.
    Yes and I have not said she has been found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving have I.

    Yet while Philip T and others were happily accusing me of libel he was saying Prince Andrew has been accused of rape, ie facing criminal charges when he is only facing a civil action
    No, but you said it wasn't an accident, which is what everyone is worked up about. Saying it is not an accident implies she did it deliberately. The CPS having charged her does not make her guilty of that.
    She has been charged with dangerous driving which means it was not an accident on the charges by the CPS as it would have been the dangerous driving which led to the death.

    If she is found guilty of what she is charged with had she been driving in a manner that was not dangerous then it would have been an accident.

  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Honestly, I think you're quite possibly the dimmest person I've come across. In previous posts you obsess about how difficult it is to buy houses but now you want to call renting something people want to do.

    Is there any depth you won't plumb to in order give Boris a handjob and ball licking?
    It is difficult to buy houses in the South because there is too high immigration and too few controls on foreign property investment on property investment in London. Yes there could be a few more new homes restricted to first time buyers but that is not the fault of existing arguments.

    In the North and Midlands there very few problems with buying a property and in case you have not noticed there are landlords there too.

    But be as rude as you want rather than bother with argument
    You're a moron. Private landlords own 4.5m properties between them, that figure is up from 1m properties 20 years ago. I'll be glad when the Tories are out of power. Your party is tanking and all you can do is defend old rich people while the Tories become the party of high taxation that hates working people.
    'You're a moron.'

    And the abuse continues. The main reason the Tories have lost votes with Yougov is the triple lock freeze as most of the votes lost were with over 65s. Not with high earners like you resentful at having to pay 1.25% extra in NI for the NHS and social care.

    To be quite frank I am extremely glad you are no longer a party supporter, good riddance!
    You do realise that your attitude is likely to see both yourself and the conservatives out of office

    You are quite the worst representative of the conservative party I have encountered in all the years I have actively campaigned and supported them

    But then my lapsing of my party membership will no doubt receive another good riddance comment

    One day you will wake up and find you are talking to yourself as everyone has fled
    Omitting to mention of course the years you were voting for Blair and New Labour when the party was at its lowest ebb and actually really needed you!
    It was stale and the country needed Blair
    Its just a shame that Blair came with Brown.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    As you have already been told it is defined by the authorities as a collision not an accident, that does not automatically make it murder.

    The offence she was charged with of death by dangerous driving, also means she has been charged with criminal activity leading to a death too, the CPS decided it was not a completely innocent accident on the evidence, even if that does not mean it was murder either
    As I have already been told? You are referring to an incorrect earlier post. Everything you read is not correct.

    Be it on your own head. Not going to try anymore. Just wasting my time. You are being an idiot by being so stubborn and exposing yourself so. You can still put your argument without putting yourself at risk.
    Trying to teach @HYUFD about the law is about as unrewarding and pointless as you teaching him maths.

    I'm off to do some reading.
    I also have legal qualifications and there was nothing remotely libellous about saying she has been charged with a criminal offence of death by dangerous driving, she is charged with causing a criminal collision leading to a death.

    The evidence of the CPS therefore is that it was not an innocent accident but her dangerous driving which caused the death
    All of the above is correct, but that is not what you said that was libelous. What you said that was libellous was that it was NOT AN ACCIDENT and that is libelous (in my humble opinion).
    Consistency in spelling would give your humble opinion greater weight. And what a lot of nonsense anyway, in my humble but at least I'm a fucking solicitor opinion.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,916
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Honestly, I think you're quite possibly the dimmest person I've come across. In previous posts you obsess about how difficult it is to buy houses but now you want to call renting something people want to do.

    Is there any depth you won't plumb to in order give Boris a handjob and ball licking?
    It is difficult to buy houses in the South because there is too high immigration and too few controls on foreign property investment on property investment in London. Yes there could be a few more new homes restricted to first time buyers but that is not the fault of existing arguments.

    In the North and Midlands there very few problems with buying a property and in case you have not noticed there are landlords there too.

    But be as rude as you want rather than bother with argument
    You're a moron. Private landlords own 4.5m properties between them, that figure is up from 1m properties 20 years ago. I'll be glad when the Tories are out of power. Your party is tanking and all you can do is defend old rich people while the Tories become the party of high taxation that hates working people.
    If you buy a house as an individual, you cannot offset the mortgage interest payments against income.

    If you are a landlord (and especially if you put ownership of the property in a limited company), you can. (Albeit the system is slightly less generous than it was.)

    Even so, the effect is to mean that a landlord can pay more for a property than a private owner. That drives up prices and moves the residential stock increasingly into the hands of landlords.
  • HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    As you have already been told it is defined by the authorities as a collision not an accident, that does not automatically make it murder.

    The offence she was charged with of death by dangerous driving, also means she has been charged with criminal activity leading to a death too, the CPS decided it was not a completely innocent accident on the evidence, even if that does not mean it was murder either
    As I have already been told? You are referring to an incorrect earlier post. Everything you read is not correct.

    Be it on your own head. Not going to try anymore. Just wasting my time. You are being an idiot by being so stubborn and exposing yourself so. You can still put your argument without putting yourself at risk.
    Trying to teach @HYUFD about the law is about as unrewarding and pointless as you teaching him maths.

    I'm off to do some reading.
    I also have legal qualifications and there was nothing remotely libellous about saying she has been charged with a criminal offence of death by dangerous driving, she is charged with causing a criminal collision leading to a death.

    The evidence of the CPS therefore is that it was not an innocent accident but her dangerous driving which caused the death
    I think you are missing a step. While the CPS think it wasn't an accident, it requires a court case to prove it wasn't.
    Yes and I have not said she has been found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving have I.

    Yet while Philip T and others were happily accusing me of libel he was saying Prince Andrew has been accused of rape, ie facing criminal charges when he is only facing a civil action
    No, but you said it wasn't an accident, which is what everyone is worked up about. Saying it is not an accident implies she did it deliberately. The CPS having charged her does not make her guilty of that.
    She has been charged with dangerous driving which means it was not an accident on the charges by the CPS as it would have been the dangerous driving which led to the death.

    If she is found guilty of what she is charged with had she been driving in a manner that was not dangerous then it would have been an accident.

    I am going to bed now and I think you would be best served by doing the same

    Good night
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,104
    edited September 10

    SKS has a policy and a good one at that

    "the money could have been raised by taxing the incomes of landlords, and those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks shares".

    Expect Rishi may steal that in the Autumn statement

    The missing point in this controversy is not just the unfairness but it is the billions short of what is needed
    Wealth tax Big_G.

    1% per annum of individual wealth above £1m would net £170bn per annum.
    And see entrepreneurs and investors find more friendly tax jurisdictions

    There is a case for taxing the wealthy but £1m is too low, not that I would qualify
    If the wealthy elite want to leave the country rather than pay their taxes, I say let them go. But if they want to remain British citizens and/or they want to keep their flat in London or house in the Cotswolds, thay can pay their 1% on them.
    Your definition of wealth is too low and would see many pensioners having to sell the family homes

    I have to agree. What do you do about DB pensions which can have a value of £1m and if you exclude them what about people who don't have such a pension and have invested for their old age elsewhere (not that I am thinking of anyone in particular). That potentially has to last them 40+ years (plus the value of the house they live in)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,481
    edited September 10
    "How the war on terror changed America
    The US has spent the 20 years since 9/11 surveilling, policing and terrorising people within its own borders
    Emily Tamkin"

    https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2021/09/how-war-terror-changed-america
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,227
    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Nobody wants to pay rent, you sort of have to though, if you can't buy a house and you don't want to freeze to fucking death.
    Can I congratulate you on the uniform excellence of your posts to date? I do hope you are a genuine newcomer to the site, rather than another lapidary sex toy maker.
    Thanks, but I don't think I get the lapidary reference, so perhaps I'm being teased in some sly way?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 45,268
    edited September 10
    kjh said:

    SKS has a policy and a good one at that

    "the money could have been raised by taxing the incomes of landlords, and those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks shares".

    Expect Rishi may steal that in the Autumn statement

    The missing point in this controversy is not just the unfairness but it is the billions short of what is needed
    Wealth tax Big_G.

    1% per annum of individual wealth above £1m would net £170bn per annum.
    And see entrepreneurs and investors find more friendly tax jurisdictions

    There is a case for taxing the wealthy but £1m is too low, not that I would qualify
    If the wealthy elite want to leave the country rather than pay their taxes, I say let them go. But if they want to remain British citizens and/or they want to keep their flat in London or house in the Cotswolds, thay can pay their 1% on them.
    Your definition of wealth is too low and would see many pensioners having to sell the family homes

    I have to agree. What do you do about DB pensions which can have a value of £1m and if you exclude them what about people who don't have such a pension and have invested for their old age elsewhere (not that I am thinking of anyone in particular). That potentially has to last them 40+ years (plus the value of the house they live in)
    And of course the proposition to apply NI to pensioners income does not take into account that every financial advisor for years gone by has assessed investments and advice with the fact NI does not apply when you retire

    Furthermore NI relates to state pensions not to the NHS and every pensioner pays it until they retire

    Applying it now to pensioners would see them have an immediate 12% loss of their income without warning and time to accommodate such a charge
  • rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Honestly, I think you're quite possibly the dimmest person I've come across. In previous posts you obsess about how difficult it is to buy houses but now you want to call renting something people want to do.

    Is there any depth you won't plumb to in order give Boris a handjob and ball licking?
    It is difficult to buy houses in the South because there is too high immigration and too few controls on foreign property investment on property investment in London. Yes there could be a few more new homes restricted to first time buyers but that is not the fault of existing arguments.

    In the North and Midlands there very few problems with buying a property and in case you have not noticed there are landlords there too.

    But be as rude as you want rather than bother with argument
    You're a moron. Private landlords own 4.5m properties between them, that figure is up from 1m properties 20 years ago. I'll be glad when the Tories are out of power. Your party is tanking and all you can do is defend old rich people while the Tories become the party of high taxation that hates working people.
    If you buy a house as an individual, you cannot offset the mortgage interest payments against income.

    If you are a landlord (and especially if you put ownership of the property in a limited company), you can. (Albeit the system is slightly less generous than it was.)

    Even so, the effect is to mean that a landlord can pay more for a property than a private owner. That drives up prices and moves the residential stock increasingly into the hands of landlords.
    Absolutely!

    Landlords (including limited companies) should not have any advantages that private residents don't.

    Plus all limited companies should face the same taxes as other landlords.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,845
    I take it Andrew is still not on normal Court events schedule?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,104
    edited September 10
    IshmaelZ said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    As you have already been told it is defined by the authorities as a collision not an accident, that does not automatically make it murder.

    The offence she was charged with of death by dangerous driving, also means she has been charged with criminal activity leading to a death too, the CPS decided it was not a completely innocent accident on the evidence, even if that does not mean it was murder either
    As I have already been told? You are referring to an incorrect earlier post. Everything you read is not correct.

    Be it on your own head. Not going to try anymore. Just wasting my time. You are being an idiot by being so stubborn and exposing yourself so. You can still put your argument without putting yourself at risk.
    Trying to teach @HYUFD about the law is about as unrewarding and pointless as you teaching him maths.

    I'm off to do some reading.
    I also have legal qualifications and there was nothing remotely libellous about saying she has been charged with a criminal offence of death by dangerous driving, she is charged with causing a criminal collision leading to a death.

    The evidence of the CPS therefore is that it was not an innocent accident but her dangerous driving which caused the death
    All of the above is correct, but that is not what you said that was libelous. What you said that was libellous was that it was NOT AN ACCIDENT and that is libelous (in my humble opinion).
    Consistency in spelling would give your humble opinion greater weight. And what a lot of nonsense anyway, in my humble but at least I'm a fucking solicitor opinion.
    I noticed I had used both spelling, but actually I couldn't be arsed to change it. Did it change any of the meaning for you?

    I am not a solicitor. Other than some minor qualifications in common law and company law I have no legal qualifications whatsoever so I don't know where you got that idea from and hence my humble opinion as that is exactly what it is and why I sought support from one of the many legal lot on here.

    Think you are mistaking me for someone else, and being grumpy about it at that.
This discussion has been closed.