Through their charitable status, private schools collectively reduce their tax bills by millions every year. And I want to consult on how we can amend Charity Commission guidance for independent new government-funded school in the state sector and take responsibility for running it and ensuring its success.
I accept that there are social mobility and snobbery issues in respect of private schools. But this tax benefit stuff really is nonsense.
It's debatable, but hardly nonsense. In any event, twisting the arm of the private sector to engage with the public sector is likely to be to the benefit of both.
Why should the fees I pay for my son out my taxed income be increased so that the school has additional resources to subsidise state schools that I am already paying for through my taxes even though I am choosing not to use them?
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You get private schools which aren't charities and are run as a business,send your kids to one of those.
Most private schools do not make taxable profits and invest any surpluses in additional facilities anyway. I can see some saying that this charitable status is not worth the candle if the price gets too high.
To be honest, I think your argument is a stronger defence for making school fees allowable as a pre-tax expense than for keeping charitable status.
I'd be all in favour of that, tbh.
Now you're talking. I pay £11K school fees for my son. At 40% that would give me tax relief of £4,400, still less than I save the State by paying for his education twice.
Probably not with the times though.
I save the State even more by not having any kids in the first place. Do I get £4,400 too?
Certainly not. Kids are a public good and you should be penalised for dereliction.
I am penalised - I'm not entitled to the tax breaks/ handouts that parents receive.
And I can't use my free childcare entitlement for daycare for my rabbit!
@TCPoliticalBetting I just don't think she's very good. Definitely echoes of Gordon Brown, but with less low cunning.
She is clearly more decisive than Brown. But maybe she shares with Brown his mistake in not planning all the major changes that she would do if she got the PM job. Maybe she was just unprepared for it thinking that Osborne was a shoe in? Since she ruled out a GE before 2020 she creates a situation where she has to take 90% of her MPs with her on each issue. Another example is nuclear energy - if she knew what she was going to do on day one then she should have set the delay into force rather than delaying it hours away from a ceremony.
May mentioned housing in passing too. I remain to be convinced on grammar schools, but if May can deliver bold progress on education, housing, and infrastructure, all under an inequality/meritocratic header, I'd be very happy.
But she needs to do Brexit too, so odds are she wont be able to find sufficient headspace.
The tax private schools save is less than the cost of educating the children that attend them in the public sector. So the State gains financially from the fact that people are willing to spend their taxed income in this way in the same way as the NHS gains from the fact that some choose to use private medicine rather than NHS resources.
I accept that there are social mobility and snobbery issues in respect of private schools. But this tax benefit stuff really is nonsense.
It's debatable, but hardly nonsense. In any event, twisting the arm of the private sector to engage with the public sector is likely to be to the benefit of both.
Why should the fees I pay for my son out my taxed income be increased so that the school has additional resources to subsidise state schools that I am already paying for through my taxes even though I am choosing not to use them?
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You get private schools which aren't charities and are run as a business,send your kids to one of those.
Most private schools do not make taxable profits and invest any surpluses in additional facilities anyway. I can see some saying that this charitable status is not worth the candle if the price gets too high.
To be honest, I think your argument is a stronger defence for making school fees allowable as a pre-tax expense than for keeping charitable status.
I'd be all in favour of that, tbh.
Now you're talking. I pay £11K school fees for my son. At 40% that would give me tax relief of £4,400, still less than I save the State by paying for his education twice.
Probably not with the times though.
The only way that works is if there's an upper limit on the relief, and it encourages an expansion in the private sector that allows the govt to reduce the education budget.
The same principle would work better in health, where a reversal of the tax treatment of employer-provided health insurance would allow huge growth in private medicine, relieving a lot of pressure from the NHS.
She's adoptiing the Ed Miliband policy on charitable status that everyone on here slagged off when Ed suggested it :-)
Theresa May is as wrong now as Ed Miliband was then.
Plebs in the boardroom, now this.
Can Theresa May eat a bacon sarnie without it turning into a PR disaster?
I think you're just sore Theresa May isn't the continuity Cameroon you, and many Cameroon MPs, thought she would be when they supported her.
I was backing Michael Gove until JohnO persuaded me otherwise.
I think in hindsight it was more relief that she wasn't Andrea Leadsom
I note you don't deny it.
It's difficult to know where you really stand. You said you'd be happy with either Amber Rudd or Andrea Leadsom during the Brexit debate in June.
I'm afraid I don't take your word for it anymore.
Sadly her actions don't match her rhetoric, and the less said about appointing the disgraced Liam Fox and the flouncer David Davis at the heart of Brexit alarms many leavers, not only remainers.
Who would you rather she appointed? And how would they have beeen better from either a competence or political pov?
Dominic Raab would have been a great appointment, ditto Michael Gove for starters.
Raab has been in Parliament for 6 years....Davis for nearly 30.......May was going up to Oxford when Raab was born.....what's this fascination with youth?
A fascination with judgement and competence. Something Davis has long proved he lacks.
Through their charitable status, private schools collectively reduce their tax bills by millions every year. And I want to consult on how we can amend Charity Commission guidance for independent new government-funded school in the state sector and take responsibility for running it and ensuring its success.
I accept that there are social mobility and snobbery issues in respect of private schools. But this tax benefit stuff really is nonsense.
It's debatable, but hardly nonsense. In any event, twisting the arm of the private sector to engage with the public sector is likely to be to the benefit of both.
Why should the fees I pay for my son out my taxed income be increased so that the school has additional resources to subsidise state schools that I am already paying for through my taxes even though I am choosing not to use them?
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You get private schools which aren't charities and are run as a business,send your kids to one of those.
Most private schools do not make taxable profits and invest any surpluses in additional facilities anyway. I can see some saying that this charitable status is not worth the candle if the price gets too high.
To be honest, I think your argument is a stronger defence for making school fees allowable as a pre-tax expense than for keeping charitable status.
I'd be all in favour of that, tbh.
Now you're talking. I pay £11K school fees for my son. At 40% that would give me tax relief of £4,400, still less than I save the State by paying for his education twice.
Probably not with the times though.
I save the State even more by not having any kids in the first place. Do I get £4,400 too?
Certainly not. Kids are a public good and you should be penalised for dereliction.
I am penalised - I'm not entitled to the tax breaks/ handouts that parents receive.
And I can't use my free childcare entitlement for daycare for my rabbit!
In the real world, she needs to learn to pick her battles better. Public schools have a lot of friends on the Conservative back benches and she doesn't have a big enough majority to play with.
Her situation is a big unique because she has no meaningful opposition from Labour, but instead is lumbered with this one big, central, impossible problem, which is Brexit. Her only hope is to distract people's attention from it while she goes about not solving it. It doesn't matter what battles she picks and whether she wins or loses them, as long as people are talking about them, not that.
Which we are, so she's winning.
Yep, agree. As I said yesterday this smacks of 'dead cat on the table' to me.
The dead-cat brainstorming whiteboard probably has "bring back hanging" as well. She should hold that one back in reserve for when things get really tricky.
She's adoptiing the Ed Miliband policy on charitable status that everyone on here slagged off when Ed suggested it :-)
Theresa May is as wrong now as Ed Miliband was then.
Plebs in the boardroom, now this.
Can Theresa May eat a bacon sarnie without it turning into a PR disaster?
I think you're just sore Theresa May isn't the continuity Cameroon you, and many Cameroon MPs, thought she would be when they supported her.
I was backing Michael Gove until JohnO persuaded me otherwise.
I think in hindsight it was more relief that she wasn't Andrea Leadsom
I note you don't deny it.
It's difficult to know where you really stand. You said you'd be happy with either Amber Rudd or Andrea Leadsom during the Brexit debate in June.
I'm afraid I don't take your word for it anymore.
Sadly her actions don't match her rhetoric, and the less said about appointing the disgraced Liam Fox and the flouncer David Davis at the heart of Brexit alarms many leavers, not only remainers.
Who would you rather she appointed? And how would they have beeen better from either a competence or political pov?
Dominic Raab would have been a great appointment, ditto Michael Gove for starters.
Raab has been in Parliament for 6 years....Davis for nearly 30.......May was going up to Oxford when Raab was born.....what's this fascination with youth?
A fascination with judgement and competence. Something Davis has long proved he lacks.
Through their charitable status, private schools collectively reduce their tax bills by millions every year. And I want to consult on how we can amend Charity Commission guidance for independent new government-funded school in the state sector and take responsibility for running it and ensuring its success.
I accept that there are social mobility and snobbery issues in respect of private schools. But this tax benefit stuff really is nonsense.
It's debatable, but hardly nonsense. In any event, twisting the arm of the private sector to engage with the public sector is likely to be to the benefit of both.
Why should the fees I pay for my son out my taxed income be increased so that the school has additional resources to subsidise state schools that I am already paying for through my taxes even though I am choosing not to use them?
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You get private schools which aren't charities and are run as a business,send your kids to one of those.
Most private schools do not make taxable profits and invest any surpluses in additional facilities anyway. I can see some saying that this charitable status is not worth the candle if the price gets too high.
To be honest, I think your argument is a stronger defence for making school fees allowable as a pre-tax expense than for keeping charitable status.
I'd be all in favour of that, tbh.
Now you're talking. I pay £11K school fees for my son. At 40% that would give me tax relief of £4,400, still less than I save the State by paying for his education twice.
Probably not with the times though.
I save the State even more by not having any kids in the first place. Do I get £4,400 too?
Certainly not. Kids are a public good and you should be penalised for dereliction.
I am penalised - I'm not entitled to the tax breaks/ handouts that parents receive.
And I can't use my free childcare entitlement for daycare for my rabbit!
Through their charitable status, private schools collectively reduce their tax bills by millions every year. And I want to consult on how we can amend Charity Commission guidance for independent new government-funded school in the state sector and take responsibility for running it and ensuring its success.
I accept that there are social mobility and snobbery issues in respect of private schools. But this tax benefit stuff really is nonsense.
It's debatable, but hardly nonsense. In any event, twisting the arm of the private sector to engage with the public sector is likely to be to the benefit of both.
Why should the fees I pay for my son out my taxed income be increased so that the school has additional resources to subsidise state schools that I am already paying for through my taxes even though I am choosing not to use them?
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You get private schools which aren't charities and are run as a business,send your kids to one of those.
Most private schools do not make taxable profits and invest any surpluses in additional facilities anyway. I can see some saying that this charitable status is not worth the candle if the price gets too high.
To be honest, I think your argument is a stronger defence for making school fees allowable as a pre-tax expense than for keeping charitable status.
I'd be all in favour of that, tbh.
Now you're talking. I pay £11K school fees for my son. At 40% that would give me tax relief of £4,400, still less than I save the State by paying for his education twice.
Probably not with the times though.
I save the State even more by not having any kids in the first place. Do I get £4,400 too?
Certainly not. Kids are a public good and you should be penalised for dereliction.
I am penalised - I'm not entitled to the tax breaks/ handouts that parents receive.
And I can't use my free childcare entitlement for daycare for my rabbit!
Just take satisfaction that someone else's kid will wipe your bottom when you are old.
As another anecdote my wife (who's Bulgarian) is very keen on sending our own children to private school.
Why?
She's convinced that doing so ensures one speaks 'properly' and gives access to networks and contacts that later prove very useful to getting on in life, and that one is at a disadvantage if one does not have those. She feels her own experience in trying to get into law has just reinforced her views on this.
Of course, I have explained to her that it doesn't quite work like that but I can't deny there is an element of truth in what she says.
I think your wife is correct, up to a point. It depends which school you (she?) chooses for your children though. There are private schools and private schools. Before I finally retired I had some very wealthy clients and they sent their boys to Radley, Stowe, WInchester and Eton*; the girls all seemed to go to Beneden (even if their mothers went to Roedean or Cheltenham). Places like Hurstpierpoint College, despite providing a good education, were not even in consideration. Networks cost a lot of money.
*Those children who failed common entrance went to places like St. Edwards in Oxford.
Through their charitable status, private schools collectively reduce their tax bills by millions every year. And I want to consult on how we can amend Charity Commission guidance for independent new government-funded school in the state sector and take responsibility for running it and ensuring its success.
I accept that there are social mobility and snobbery issues in respect of private schools. But this tax benefit stuff really is nonsense.
It's debatable, but hardly nonsense. In any event, twisting the arm of the private sector to engage with the public sector is likely to be to the benefit of both.
Why should the fees I pay for my son out my taxed income be increased so that the school has additional resources to subsidise state schools that I am already paying for through my taxes even though I am choosing not to use them?
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You get private schools which aren't charities and are run as a business,send your kids to one of those.
Most private schools do not make taxable profits and invest any surpluses in additional facilities anyway. I can see some saying that this charitable status is not worth the candle if the price gets too high.
To be honest, I think your argument is a stronger defence for making school fees allowable as a pre-tax expense than for keeping charitable status.
I'd be all in favour of that, tbh.
Now you're talking. I pay £11K school fees for my son. At 40% that would give me tax relief of £4,400, still less than I save the State by paying for his education twice.
Probably not with the times though.
I save the State even more by not having any kids in the first place. Do I get £4,400 too?
Certainly not. Kids are a public good and you should be penalised for dereliction.
I am penalised - I'm not entitled to the tax breaks/ handouts that parents receive.
And I can't use my free childcare entitlement for daycare for my rabbit!
A decision like this is also a good demonstration as to how complicated it is going to be disentangling our law from EU law in so many areas.
Some of the most sternest legal letters Mike has ever received has been to do with PB being accused of violating copyright.
Well you can now refer them to this. It will make a change from the reply in Arkell-v-Pressdam.
I've not read the ruling, but does it apply to articles that are paywalled?
That's where some PBers were getting Mike into trouble.
It would mean that posting a link to a copy of the text of a Times article, from somewhere (Google, overseas blog?) would be illegal, if that other source didn't have permission from the Times to carry the content. The Times probably doesn't want to sue Google, but they could sue anyone pointing at Google's way around the paywall.
Through their charitable status, private schools collectively reduce their tax bills by millions every year. And I want to consult on how we can amend Charity Commission guidance for independent new government-funded school in the state sector and take responsibility for running it and ensuring its success.
I accept that there are social mobility and snobbery issues in respect of private schools. But this tax benefit stuff really is nonsense.
It's debatable, but hardly nonsense. In any event, twisting the arm of the private sector to engage with the public sector is likely to be to the benefit of both.
Why should the fees I pay for my son out my taxed income be increased so that the school has additional resources to subsidise state schools that I am already paying for through my taxes even though I am choosing not to use them?
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You get private schools which aren't charities and are run as a business,send your kids to one of those.
Most private schools do not make taxable profits and invest any surpluses in additional facilities anyway. I can see some saying that this charitable status is not worth the candle if the price gets too high.
To be honest, I think your argument is a stronger defence for making school fees allowable as a pre-tax expense than for keeping charitable status.
I'd be all in favour of that, tbh.
Now you're talking. I pay £11K school fees for my son. At 40% that would give me tax relief of £4,400, still less than I save the State by paying for his education twice.
Probably not with the times though.
I save the State even more by not having any kids in the first place. Do I get £4,400 too?
Certainly not. Kids are a public good and you should be penalised for dereliction.
I am penalised - I'm not entitled to the tax breaks/ handouts that parents receive.
And I can't use my free childcare entitlement for daycare for my rabbit!
Just take satisfaction that someone else's kid will wipe your bottom when you are old.
I'm not sure I want anyone wiping my bottom other than me.
She's adoptiing the Ed Miliband policy on charitable status that everyone on here slagged off when Ed suggested it :-)
Theresa May is as wrong now as Ed Miliband was then.
Plebs in the boardroom, now this.
Can Theresa May eat a bacon sarnie without it turning into a PR disaster?
I think you're just sore Theresa May isn't the continuity Cameroon you, and many Cameroon MPs, thought she would be when they supported her.
I was backing Michael Gove until JohnO persuaded me otherwise.
I think in hindsight it was more relief that she wasn't Andrea Leadsom
I note you don't deny it.
It's difficult to know where you really stand. You said you'd be happy with either Amber Rudd or Andrea Leadsom during the Brexit debate in June.
I'm afraid I don't take your word for it anymore.
Sadly her actions don't match her rhetoric, and the less said about appointing the disgraced Liam Fox and the flouncer David Davis at the heart of Brexit alarms many leavers, not only remainers.
Who would you rather she appointed? And how would they have beeen better from either a competence or political pov?
Dominic Raab would have been a great appointment, ditto Michael Gove for starters.
Raab has been in Parliament for 6 years....Davis for nearly 30.......May was going up to Oxford when Raab was born.....what's this fascination with youth?
A fascination with judgement and competence. Something Davis has long proved he lacks.
She's adoptiing the Ed Miliband policy on charitable status that everyone on here slagged off when Ed suggested it :-)
Theresa May is as wrong now as Ed Miliband was then.
Plebs in the boardroom, now this.
Can Theresa May eat a bacon sarnie without it turning into a PR disaster?
I think you're just sore Theresa May isn't the continuity Cameroon you, and many Cameroon MPs, thought she would be when they supported her.
I was backing Michael Gove until JohnO persuaded me otherwise.
I think in hindsight it was more relief that she wasn't Andrea Leadsom
I note you don't deny it.
It's difficult to know where you really stand. You said you'd be happy with either Amber Rudd or Andrea Leadsom during the Brexit debate in June.
I'm afraid I don't take your word for it anymore.
Sadly her actions don't match her rhetoric, and the less said about appointing the disgraced Liam Fox and the flouncer David Davis at the heart of Brexit alarms many leavers, not only remainers.
Who would you rather she appointed? And how would they have beeen better from either a competence or political pov?
Dominic Raab would have been a great appointment, ditto Michael Gove for starters.
Raab has been in Parliament for 6 years....Davis for nearly 30.......May was going up to Oxford when Raab was born.....what's this fascination with youth?
Every time I see Dominic Raab speak he speaks sense, he was on top of his brief at Justice.
JohnO also speaks very highly of him, and that's good enough in my book.
Davis is a tit of the highest order, can anyone explain what his flounce in 2008 achieved apart from costing the taxpayers money?
In the real world, she needs to learn to pick her battles better. Public schools have a lot of friends on the Conservative back benches and she doesn't have a big enough majority to play with.
Her situation is a big unique because she has no meaningful opposition from Labour, but instead is lumbered with this one big, central, impossible problem, which is Brexit. Her only hope is to distract people's attention from it while she goes about not solving it. It doesn't matter what battles she picks and whether she wins or loses them, as long as people are talking about them, not that.
Which we are, so she's winning.
Yep, agree. As I said yesterday this smacks of 'dead cat on the table' to me.
Couldn't disagree more vehemently. This was rumoured to be her big conf announcement - but it leaked. A dead-cat is an OTT deliberate gaffe to distract momentarily.
Yes, this sounded like 'Core-May' and not just a distraction.
I think May is very WYSIWYG - people overanalyse her moves as if she was Osborne - if she says something she means it - and while there are periods of radio silence while she makes up her mind, once its made up, good luck shifting her. Ask the US......
Labour & Lib Dem Lords on the side of Private Schools & Elite Universities and against C1/C2 voters.....
I did say earlier that we might see a trickle of new Tory peers coming - if every policy announcement is met with a wall of outrage from LD peers that trickle will quickly become a flood.
Interesting decision by the CJE which should be of comfort to PB. Having hyperlinks to copyright material which itself has been improperly published or published without authority is not a communication to the public unless it is done for profit:
A decision like this is also a good demonstration as to how complicated it is going to be disentangling our law from EU law in so many areas.
Surely it's the exact opposite, will be a nightmare for Mike and the mods of any website that makes money from advertising. It means that linking to an image or a site is illegal if that site doesn't own the copyright for what's on it. It could, in extremis, apply to a link to a Google page holding a copy of a Times article. This judgement really doesn't understand how the internet works.
The key is whether PB is a site "for profit" or an information society service. Given that there is no subscription and we get to post on here for free I had assumed it was not.
I think the article you link to overstates the earlier decision about whether having adverts is enough but I agree it is more complicated than I first thought.
Labour & Lib Dem Lords on the side of Private Schools & Elite Universities and against C1/C2 voters.....
I did say earlier that we might see a trickle of new Tory peers coming - if every policy announcement is met with a wall of outrage from LD peers that trickle will quickly become a flood.
The upper house needs scrapping, I'm really not sure about it being used to frustrate the will of the commons in this way.
Labour & Lib Dem Lords on the side of Private Schools & Elite Universities and against C1/C2 voters.....
I did say earlier that we might see a trickle of new Tory peers coming - if every policy announcement is met with a wall of outrage from LD peers that trickle will quickly become a flood.
Interesting decision by the CJE which should be of comfort to PB. Having hyperlinks to copyright material which itself has been improperly published or published without authority is not a communication to the public unless it is done for profit:
A decision like this is also a good demonstration as to how complicated it is going to be disentangling our law from EU law in so many areas.
Surely it's the exact opposite, will be a nightmare for Mike and the mods of any website that makes money from advertising. It means that linking to an image or a site is illegal if that site doesn't own the copyright for what's on it. It could, in extremis, apply to a link to a Google page holding a copy of a Times article. This judgement really doesn't understand how the internet works.
The key is whether PB is a site "for profit" or an information society service. Given that there is no subscription and we get to post on here for free I had assumed it was not.
I think the article you link to overstates the earlier decision about whether having adverts is enough but I agree it is more complicated than I first thought.
Mike would tell you PB is not run for profit.
The monthly costs for Vanilla are $600 dollars a month I think, and there's the server costs, which touch wood, means PB doesn't crash on busy days and nights
She's adoptiing the Ed Miliband policy on charitable status that everyone on here slagged off when Ed suggested it :-)
Theresa May is as wrong now as Ed Miliband was then.
Plebs in the boardroom, now this.
Can Theresa May eat a bacon sarnie without it turning into a PR disaster?
I think you're just sore Theresa May isn't the continuity Cameroon you, and many Cameroon MPs, thought she would be when they supported her.
I was backing Michael Gove until JohnO persuaded me otherwise.
I think in hindsight it was more relief that she wasn't Andrea Leadsom
I note you don't deny it.
It's difficult to know where you really stand. You said you'd be happy with either Amber Rudd or Andrea Leadsom during the Brexit debate in June.
I'm afraid I don't take your word for it anymore.
Sadly her actions don't match her rhetoric, and the less said about appointing the disgraced Liam Fox and the flouncer David Davis at the heart of Brexit alarms many leavers, not only remainers.
Who would you rather she appointed? And how would they have beeen better from either a competence or political pov?
Dominic Raab would have been a great appointment, ditto Michael Gove for starters.
Raab has been in Parliament for 6 years....Davis for nearly 30.......May was going up to Oxford when Raab was born.....what's this fascination with youth?
Every time I see Dominic Raab speak he speaks sense, he was on top of his brief at Justice.
JohnO also speaks very highly of him, and that's good enough in my book.
Davis is a tit of the highest order, can anyone explain what his flounce in 2008 achieved apart from costing the taxpayers money?
It confirmed his tithood for all to see with the result that Cameron felt no obligation to give him any position of responsibility for 6 years. Money well spent I would say.
She's adoptiing the Ed Miliband policy on charitable status that everyone on here slagged off when Ed suggested it :-)
Theresa May is as wrong now as Ed Miliband was then.
Plebs in the boardroom, now this.
Can Theresa May eat a bacon sarnie without it turning into a PR disaster?
I think you're just sore Theresa May isn't the continuity Cameroon you, and many Cameroon MPs, thought she would be when they supported her.
I was backing Michael Gove until JohnO persuaded me otherwise.
I think in hindsight it was more relief that she wasn't Andrea Leadsom
I note you don't deny it.
It's difficult to know where you really stand. You said you'd be happy with either Amber Rudd or Andrea Leadsom during the Brexit debate in June.
I'm afraid I don't take your word for it anymore.
Sadly her actions don't match her rhetoric, and the less said about appointing the disgraced Liam Fox and the flouncer David Davis at the heart of Brexit alarms many leavers, not only remainers.
Who would you rather she appointed? And how would they have beeen better from either a competence or political pov?
Dominic Raab would have been a great appointment, ditto Michael Gove for starters.
Raab has been in Parliament for 6 years....Davis for nearly 30.......May was going up to Oxford when Raab was born.....what's this fascination with youth?
Every time I see Dominic Raab speak he speaks sense, he was on top of his brief at Justice.
I'm sure Raab's day will come. But from 6 years in the HoC, and an Under Secretary position to Minister leading Brexit would have been a huge leap......
Through their charitable status, private schools collectively reduce their tax bills by millions every year. And I want to consult on how we can amend Charity Commission guidance for independent schools to enact a tougher test on the amount of public benefit required to maintain charitable status.
It’s important to state that this will be proportionate to the size and scale of the school in question. Not every school is an Eton or a Harrow. Many public schools are nowhere near that size.
But for those with the capacity and capability, we will ask them to go further and actually sponsor or set up a new government-funded school in the state sector and take responsibility for running it and ensuring its success.
I accept that there are social mobility and snobbery issues in respect of private schools. But this tax benefit stuff really is nonsense.
It's debatable, but hardly nonsense. In any event, twisting the arm of the private sector to engage with the public sector is likely to be to the benefit of both.
Why should the fees I pay for my son out my taxed income be increased so that the school has additional resources to subsidise state schools that I am already paying for through my taxes even though I am choosing not to use them?
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You get private schools which aren't charities and are run as a business,send your kids to one of those.
Most private schools do not make taxable profits and invest any surpluses in additional facilities anyway. I can see some saying that this charitable status is not worth the candle if the price gets too high.
To be honest, I think your argument is a stronger defence for making school fees allowable as a pre-tax expense than for keeping charitable status.
I'd be all in favour of that, tbh.
Now you're talking. I pay £11K school fees for my son. At 40% that would give me tax relief of £4,400, still less than I save the State by paying for his education twice.
Probably not with the times though.
Stick VAT on school fees.
On balance, happy to pay VAT on school fees if it's out of pre-tax income. Deal?
She's adoptiing the Ed Miliband policy on charitable status that everyone on here slagged off when Ed suggested it :-)
Theresa May is as wrong now as Ed Miliband was then.
Plebs in the boardroom, now this.
Can Theresa May eat a bacon sarnie without it turning into a PR disaster?
I think you're just sore Theresa May isn't the continuity Cameroon you, and many Cameroon MPs, thought she would be when they supported her.
I was backing Michael Gove until JohnO persuaded me otherwise.
I think in hindsight it was more relief that she wasn't Andrea Leadsom
I note you don't deny it.
It's difficult to know where you really stand. You said you'd be happy with either Amber Rudd or Andrea Leadsom during the Brexit debate in June.
I'm afraid I don't take your word for it anymore.
Sadly her actions don't match her rhetoric, and the less said about appointing the disgraced Liam Fox and the flouncer David Davis at the heart of Brexit alarms many leavers, not only remainers.
Who would you rather she appointed? And how would they have beeen better from either a competence or political pov?
Dominic Raab would have been a great appointment, ditto Michael Gove for starters.
Raab has been in Parliament for 6 years....Davis for nearly 30.......May was going up to Oxford when Raab was born.....what's this fascination with youth?
Every time I see Dominic Raab speak he speaks sense, he was on top of his brief at Justice.
I'm sure Raab's day will come. But from 6 years in the HoC, and an Under Secretary position to Minister leading Brexit would have been a huge leap......
Dave went from becoming an MP to Tory leader in a little over four years. He did alright.
Interesting decision by the CJE which should be of comfort to PB. Having hyperlinks to copyright material which itself has been improperly published or published without authority is not a communication to the public unless it is done for profit:
A decision like this is also a good demonstration as to how complicated it is going to be disentangling our law from EU law in so many areas.
Surely it's the exact opposite, will be a nightmare for Mike and the mods of any website that makes money from advertising. It means that linking to an image or a site is illegal if that site doesn't own the copyright for what's on it. It could, in extremis, apply to a link to a Google page holding a copy of a Times article. This judgement really doesn't understand how the internet works.
The key is whether PB is a site "for profit" or an information society service. Given that there is no subscription and we get to post on here for free I had assumed it was not.
I think the article you link to overstates the earlier decision about whether having adverts is enough but I agree it is more complicated than I first thought.
Mike would tell you PB is not run for profit.
The monthly costs for Vanilla are $600 dollars a month I think, and there's the server costs, which touch wood, means PB doesn't crash on busy days and nights
Through their charitable status, private schools collectively reduce their tax bills by millions every year. And I want to consult on how we can amend Charity Commission guidance for independent schools to enact a tougher test on the amount of public benefit required to maintain charitable status.
It’s important to state that this will be proportionate to the size and scale of the school in question. Not every school is an Eton or a Harrow. Many public schools are nowhere near that size.
But for those with the capacity and capability, we will ask them to go further and actually sponsor or set up a new government-funded school in the state sector and take responsibility for running it and ensuring its success.
I accept that there are social mobility and snobbery issues in respect of private schools. But this tax benefit stuff really is nonsense.
It's debatable, but hardly nonsense. In any event, twisting the arm of the private sector to engage with the public sector is likely to be to the benefit of both.
Why should the fees I pay for my son out my taxed income be increased so that the school has additional resources to subsidise state schools that I am already paying for through my taxes even though I am choosing not to use them?
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You get private schools which aren't charities and are run as a business,send your kids to one of those.
Most private schools do not make taxable profits and invest any surpluses in additional facilities anyway. I can see some saying that this charitable status is not worth the candle if the price gets too high.
To be honest, I think your argument is a stronger defence for making school fees allowable as a pre-tax expense than for keeping charitable status.
I'd be all in favour of that, tbh.
Now you're talking. I pay £11K school fees for my son. At 40% that would give me tax relief of £4,400, still less than I save the State by paying for his education twice.
Probably not with the times though.
Stick VAT on school fees.
On balance, happy to pay VAT on school fees if it's out of pre-tax income. Deal?
Through their charitable status, private schools collectively reduce their tax bills by millions every year. And I want to consult on how we can amend Charity Commission guidance for independent schools to enact a tougher test on the amount of public benefit required to maintain charitable status.
It’s important to state that this will be proportionate to the size and scale of the school in question. Not every school is an Eton or a Harrow. Many public schools are nowhere near that size.
But for those with the capacity and capability, we will ask them to go further and actually sponsor or set up a new government-funded school in the state sector and take responsibility for running it and ensuring its success.
I accept that there are social mobility and snobbery issues in respect of private schools. But this tax benefit stuff really is nonsense.
It's debatable, but hardly nonsense. In any event, twisting the arm of the private sector to engage with the public sector is likely to be to the benefit of both.
Why should the fees I pay for my son out my taxed income be increased so that the school has additional resources to subsidise state schools that I am already paying for through my taxes even though I am choosing not to use them?
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You get private schools which aren't charities and are run as a business,send your kids to one of those.
Most private schools do not make taxable profits and invest any surpluses in additional facilities anyway. I can see some saying that this charitable status is not worth the candle if the price gets too high.
To be honest, I think your argument is a stronger defence for making school fees allowable as a pre-tax expense than for keeping charitable status.
I'd be all in favour of that, tbh.
Now you're talking. I pay £11K school fees for my son. At 40% that would give me tax relief of £4,400, still less than I save the State by paying for his education twice.
Probably not with the times though.
Stick VAT on school fees.
On balance, happy to pay VAT on school fees if it's out of pre-tax income. Deal?
Interesting decision by the CJE which should be of comfort to PB. Having hyperlinks to copyright material which itself has been improperly published or published without authority is not a communication to the public unless it is done for profit:
A decision like this is also a good demonstration as to how complicated it is going to be disentangling our law from EU law in so many areas.
Surely it's the exact opposite, will be a nightmare for Mike and the mods of any website that makes money from advertising. It means that linking to an image or a site is illegal if that site doesn't own the copyright for what's on it. It could, in extremis, apply to a link to a Google page holding a copy of a Times article. This judgement really doesn't understand how the internet works.
The key is whether PB is a site "for profit" or an information society service. Given that there is no subscription and we get to post on here for free I had assumed it was not.
I think the article you link to overstates the earlier decision about whether having adverts is enough but I agree it is more complicated than I first thought.
Mike would tell you PB is not run for profit.
The monthly costs for Vanilla are $600 dollars a month I think, and there's the server costs, which touch wood, means PB doesn't crash on busy days and nights
That was my understanding based on the occasional requests for donations to help but the definitions are more complicated than you would think necessary.
The tax private schools save is less than the cost of educating the children that attend them in the public sector. So the State gains financially from the fact that people are willing to spend their taxed income in this way in the same way as the NHS gains from the fact that some choose to use private medicine rather than NHS resources.
I accept that there are social mobility and snobbery issues in respect of private schools. But this tax benefit stuff really is nonsense.
It's debatable, but hardly nonsense. In any event, twisting the arm of the private sector to engage with the public sector is likely to be to the benefit of both.
Why should the fees I pay for my son out my taxed income be increased so that the school has additional resources to subsidise state schools that I am already paying for through my taxes even though I am choosing not to use them?
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You get private schools which aren't charities and are run as a business,send your kids to one of those.
Most private schools do not make taxable profits and invest any surpluses in additional facilities anyway. I can see some saying that this charitable status is not worth the candle if the price gets too high.
To be honest, I think your argument is a stronger defence for making school fees allowable as a pre-tax expense than for keeping charitable status.
I'd be all in favour of that, tbh.
Now you're talking. I pay £11K school fees for my son. At 40% that would give me tax relief of £4,400, still less than I save the State by paying for his education twice.
Probably not with the times though.
The only way that works is if there's an upper limit on the relief, and it encourages an expansion in the private sector that allows the govt to reduce the education budget.
The same principle would work better in health, where a reversal of the tax treatment of employer-provided health insurance would allow huge growth in private medicine, relieving a lot of pressure from the NHS.
Definitely agree with the second part of this (but, jeez, what is it with people and capping reliefs? How does that motivate more spending?) - it would also de facto allow healthcare premiums to rise to permit less dysfunctional coverage behaviours by insurance providers.
She's adoptiing the Ed Miliband policy on charitable status that everyone on here slagged off when Ed suggested it :-)
Theresa May is as wrong now as Ed Miliband was then.
Plebs in the boardroom, now this.
Can Theresa May eat a bacon sarnie without it turning into a PR disaster?
I think you're just sore Theresa May isn't the continuity Cameroon you, and many Cameroon MPs, thought she would be when they supported her.
I was backing Michael Gove until JohnO persuaded me otherwise.
I think in hindsight it was more relief that she wasn't Andrea Leadsom
I note you don't deny it.
It's difficult to know where you really stand. You said you'd be happy with either Amber Rudd or Andrea Leadsom during the Brexit debate in June.
I'm afraid I don't take your word for it anymore.
Sadly her actions don't match her rhetoric, and the less said about appointing the disgraced Liam Fox and the flouncer David Davis at the heart of Brexit alarms many leavers, not only remainers.
Who would you rather she appointed? And how would they have beeen better from either a competence or political pov?
Dominic Raab would have been a great appointment, ditto Michael Gove for starters.
Raab has been in Parliament for 6 years....Davis for nearly 30.......May was going up to Oxford when Raab was born.....what's this fascination with youth?
Every time I see Dominic Raab speak he speaks sense, he was on top of his brief at Justice.
I'm sure Raab's day will come. But from 6 years in the HoC, and an Under Secretary position to Minister leading Brexit would have been a huge leap......
Dave went from becoming an MP to Tory leader in a little over four years. He did alright.
Do you think he'll be happy with his political epitaph?
I'm sure May will give Raab a job in the first reshuffle, Gove, maybe not.....
Through their charitable status, private schools collectively reduce their tax bills by millions every year. And I want to consult on how we can amend Charity Commission guidance for independent new government-funded school in the state sector and take responsibility for running it and ensuring its success.
I accept that there are social mobility and snobbery issues in respect of private schools. But this tax benefit stuff really is nonsense.
It's debatable, but hardly nonsense. In any event, twisting the arm of the private sector to engage with the public sector is likely to be to the benefit of both.
Why should the fees I pay for my son out my taxed income be increased so that the school has additional resources to subsidise state schools that I am already paying for through my taxes even though I am choosing not to use them?
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You get private schools which aren't charities and are run as a business,send your kids to one of those.
Most private schools do not make taxable profits and invest any surpluses in additional facilities anyway. I can see some saying that this charitable status is not worth the candle if the price gets too high.
To be honest, I think your argument is a stronger defence for making school fees allowable as a pre-tax expense than for keeping charitable status.
I'd be all in favour of that, tbh.
Now you're talking. I pay £11K school fees for my son. At 40% that would give me tax relief of £4,400, still less than I save the State by paying for his education twice.
Probably not with the times though.
I save the State even more by not having any kids in the first place. Do I get £4,400 too?
Certainly not. Kids are a public good and you should be penalised for dereliction.
I am penalised - I'm not entitled to the tax breaks/ handouts that parents receive.
And I can't use my free childcare entitlement for daycare for my rabbit!
Replace rabbit with Dog and I know people who are paying dog walkers nearly as much as it costs for a 3 year old to be in nursery all week...
Interesting decision by the CJE which should be of comfort to PB. Having hyperlinks to copyright material which itself has been improperly published or published without authority is not a communication to the public unless it is done for profit:
A decision like this is also a good demonstration as to how complicated it is going to be disentangling our law from EU law in so many areas.
Surely it's the exact opposite, will be a nightmare for Mike and the mods of any website that makes money from advertising. It means that linking to an image or a site is illegal if that site doesn't own the copyright for what's on it. It could, in extremis, apply to a link to a Google page holding a copy of a Times article. This judgement really doesn't understand how the internet works.
The key is whether PB is a site "for profit" or an intermediary service provider. Given that there is no subscription and we get to post on here for free I had assumed it was not.
I think the article you link to overstates the earlier decision about whether having adverts is enough but I agree it is more complicated than I first thought.
The particular case in question was quite clear, it was a website linking to a bunch of Playboy images uploaded to a third party file sharing site (it is suggested that this was done by the defendants, but the ruling is that they didn't have to prove this). The defendants basically created their own adult website from the content of a load of others. Previous decisions say that a website that generates income is for profit, whether that income is from advertising or from paid subscriptions.
The problem is the legal precident this sets, for what is a normal activity for everyone who uses the Internet. Say I posted a link to @AndyJS's brilliant Brexit spreadsheet that we all used to make money on the referendum night. He could theoretically sue PB for my posting the link, as I don't own the copyright to the file and didn't have permission to post it - even though it's freely available on the internet!!
Previously, copying and pasting an article would be the wrong side of the line, but this judgement makes posting just a *hyperlink* to the content illegal.
Interesting decision by the CJE which should be of comfort to PB. Having hyperlinks to copyright material which itself has been improperly published or published without authority is not a communication to the public unless it is done for profit:
A decision like this is also a good demonstration as to how complicated it is going to be disentangling our law from EU law in so many areas.
Surely it's the exact opposite, will be a nightmare for Mike and the mods of any website that makes money from advertising. It means that linking to an image or a site is illegal if that site doesn't own the copyright for what's on it. It could, in extremis, apply to a link to a Google page holding a copy of a Times article. This judgement really doesn't understand how the internet works.
The key is whether PB is a site "for profit" or an information society service. Given that there is no subscription and we get to post on here for free I had assumed it was not.
I think the article you link to overstates the earlier decision about whether having adverts is enough but I agree it is more complicated than I first thought.
Mike would tell you PB is not run for profit.
The monthly costs for Vanilla are $600 dollars a month I think, and there's the server costs, which touch wood, means PB doesn't crash on busy days and nights
I don't know so much about how this is done in the UK, but if Mike has set PB up as a legal entity, then this issue could be pretty clearly settled. In the US, the legal process used to establish the entity will tell you if it is for profit or not, and if not, what type of 'not-for-profit'.
In the US, costs for setting up a not-for-profit are fairly modest. Given that there are so many lawyers on this site, and if Mike has not yet set PB up as a legal entity, perhaps one of the lawyers could volunteer their time and get it done. It would add a little bit of admin work on an annual basis and a bit more running costs but, given this ruling, it would also give PB and its moderators security in this particular issue.
As another anecdote my wife (who's Bulgarian) is very keen on sending our own children to private school.
Why?
She's convinced that doing so ensures one speaks 'properly' and gives access to networks and contacts that later prove very useful to getting on in life, and that one is at a disadvantage if one does not have those. She feels her own experience in trying to get into law has just reinforced her views on this.
Of course, I have explained to her that it doesn't quite work like that but I can't deny there is an element of truth in what she says.
I think your wife is correct, up to a point. It depends which school you (she?) chooses for your children though. There are private schools and private schools. Before I finally retired I had some very wealthy clients and they sent their boys to Radley, Stowe, WInchester and Eton*; the girls all seemed to go to Beneden (even if their mothers went to Roedean or Cheltenham). Places like Hurstpierpoint College, despite providing a good education, were not even in consideration. Networks cost a lot of money.
*Those children who failed common entrance went to places like St. Edwards in Oxford.
She is talking about places like Eton.
Well, Mr. Royale, assuming the children are bright enough to get in then she is almost certainly correct. The fees out of taxed income are going to be eye-watering, especially for multiple children in education at the same time. I am sure you know this but do check the bursary schemes for bright children that all public schools, even Eton, run.
If your children are bright enough or if you are sufficiently well placed and you do not get them into the best education and network systems around then I would regard that as an act of child neglect if not downright cruelty.
I'm a little surprised to see the Conservatives agreeing to the foundation of 100% Muslim-only madrasahs as state schools. No doubt this will play well with the tabloids.
Yeah, I am worried about the bit on faith schools.
Trouble is that Christian based faith schools are popular, and one can't discriminate.
Why not?
There have been well documented problems with such schools and I can see no good reason why we should permit them just because other faith schools (which have not had such problems) are permitted.
Discrimination for relevant reasons is not only not wrong but desirable, indeed essential.
Permitting schools to exist which teach a curriculum/way of life which is incompatible with life in Britain/hostile to our values or which lead to the sort of segregation which makes integration difficult or impossible is wrong. And it is no answer to say that other faith schools are permitted.
Ignoring matters which are relevant is stupidity of the highest order at a time when we have well documented problems in this country (as well as elsewhere in Europe) of integration of Muslims into our societies and the violence (both to some of the children subject to such education and to others in the wider society) this can lead to.
It might fall foul of the Equality Act and Religious Hatred Act.
Of course, you might agree with me that those should be heavily modified or repealed, but at the moment the Government has little choice to pick and choose.
I agree on the former.
Schools that teach values which are contrary to British values, as some Muslim schools have, should not be given permission to exist. Schools which have Muslim children in them (maybe even a majority) but which follow the national curriculum and teach children to be British and don't seek to undermine British values and requirements (though I still have an issue on the integration front) are broadly fine. Muslim schools which do not do the above are not.
I don't think that establishing the basic principles by which all schools should operate, whether secular, Catholic or Muslim, breaches either of the two Acts you mention. I rather think the reason is that people are more terrified of being accused of "discrimination" and / or cowardly about admitting that it is not at all obvious that Islam - and particularly some of the more fundamental, extreme versions of Islam around at present - is easily compatible with Western values. So rather than think through the implications they try and pretend there is no problem and chant "no discrimination" as if this was the answer to anything at all.
Interesting decision by the CJE which should be of comfort to PB. Having hyperlinks to copyright material which itself has been improperly published or published without authority is not a communication to the public unless it is done for profit:
A decision like this is also a good demonstration as to how complicated it is going to be disentangling our law from EU law in so many areas.
Surely it's the exact opposite, will be a nightmare for Mike and the mods of any website that makes money from advertising. It means that linking to an image or a site is illegal if that site doesn't own the copyright for what's on it. It could, in extremis, apply to a link to a Google page holding a copy of a Times article. This judgement really doesn't understand how the internet works.
The key is whether PB is a site "for profit" or an information society service. Given that there is no subscription and we get to post on here for free I had assumed it was not.
I think the article you link to overstates the earlier decision about whether having adverts is enough but I agree it is more complicated than I first thought.
Mike would tell you PB is not run for profit.
The monthly costs for Vanilla are $600 dollars a month I think, and there's the server costs, which touch wood, means PB doesn't crash on busy days and nights
Make sure you disable adblock for the site
Will do, didn't realise that was a good thing to do.
What a ridiculous judgment. If only there were some way of permanently exempting UK companies and individuals from the effect of the brain farts of the ECJ.
She's adoptiing the Ed Miliband policy on charitable status that everyone on here slagged off when Ed suggested it :-)
Theresa May is as wrong now as Ed Miliband was then.
Plebs in the boardroom, now this.
Can Theresa May eat a bacon sarnie without it turning into a PR disaster?
I think you're just sore Theresa May isn't the continuity Cameroon you, and many Cameroon MPs, thought she would be when they supported her.
I was backing Michael Gove until JohnO persuaded me otherwise.
I think in hindsight it was more relief that she wasn't Andrea Leadsom
I note you don't deny it.
It's difficult to know where you really stand. You said you'd be happy with either Amber Rudd or Andrea Leadsom during the Brexit debate in June.
I'm afraid I don't take your word for it anymore.
In July, Andrea Leadsom's failure to deny she'd appoint Nigel Farage to her government sent off warning bells for me that was egregiously unfit to be Tory leader, let alone Prime Minister.
I was quite impressed by Theresa May's Downing Street speech, which sounded like a continuation of Cameron's one nation approach.
Sadly her actions don't match her rhetoric, and the less said about appointing the disgraced Liam Fox and the flouncer David Davis at the heart of Brexit alarms many leavers, not only remainers.
There is a hilarious / terrifying counterfactual to be written of Leadsom winning the party vote and becoming PM.
I think she would have lasted just a few months before political chaos and a backbench rebellion forced her resignation.
There was a Sunday Times article warning of defections, already enough letters to trigger a vote of no confidence in Leadsom from day 1 of her becoming PM.
The weekend of that 'mother superior' interview, I had planned to write a thread on why Andrea Leadsom might the country's shortest serving PM since Bonar Law
The other counterfactual is had the vote been 52-48 the other way, how many letters no-confidencing David Cameron would have been in Graham Brady's safe by Monday morning?
Instead of enjoying their triumph, the hard Tory Leavers would have been condemning the unfair vote, the Government and establishment stacked against them, and they'd have thought they would have had little to lose. I'm sure Cameron would have won a vote - but at a cost of authority even in victory.
She's adoptiing the Ed Miliband policy on charitable status that everyone on here slagged off when Ed suggested it :-)
Theresa May is as wrong now as Ed Miliband was then.
Plebs in the boardroom, now this.
Can Theresa May eat a bacon sarnie without it turning into a PR disaster?
I think you're just sore Theresa May isn't the continuity Cameroon you, and many Cameroon MPs, thought she would be when they supported her.
I was backing Michael Gove until JohnO persuaded me otherwise.
I think in hindsight it was more relief that she wasn't Andrea Leadsom
I note you don't deny it.
It's difficult to know where you really stand. You said you'd be happy with either Amber Rudd or Andrea Leadsom during the Brexit debate in June.
I'm afraid I don't take your word for it anymore.
Sadly her actions don't match her rhetoric, and the less said about appointing the disgraced Liam Fox and the flouncer David Davis at the heart of Brexit alarms many leavers, not only remainers.
Who would you rather she appointed? And how would they have beeen better from either a competence or political pov?
Dominic Raab would have been a great appointment, ditto Michael Gove for starters.
Raab has been in Parliament for 6 years....Davis for nearly 30.......May was going up to Oxford when Raab was born.....what's this fascination with youth?
Every time I see Dominic Raab speak he speaks sense, he was on top of his brief at Justice.
JohnO also speaks very highly of him, and that's good enough in my book.
Davis is a tit of the highest order, can anyone explain what his flounce in 2008 achieved apart from costing the taxpayers money?
It confirmed his tithood for all to see with the result that Cameron felt no obligation to give him any position of responsibility for 6 years. Money well spent I would say.
Newsnight reported at the time that Cameron did want to include Davis in his Cabinet, (to keep the right on-side) but Davis declined.....
She's adoptiing the Ed Miliband policy on charitable status that everyone on here slagged off when Ed suggested it :-)
?
I think you're just sore Theresa May isn't the continuity Cameroon you, and many Cameroon MPs, thought she would be when they supported her.
m
I note you don't deny it.
It's difficult to know where you really stand. You said you'd be happy with either Amber Rudd or Andrea Leadsom during the Brexit debate in June.
I'm afraid I don't take your word for it anymore.
There is a hilarious / terrifying counterfactual to be written of Leadsom winning the party vote and becoming PM.
I think she would have lasted just a few months before political chaos and a backbench rebellion forced her resignation.
There was a Sunday Times article warning of defections, already enough letters to trigger a vote of no confidence in Leadsom from day 1 of her becoming PM.
The weekend of that 'mother superior' interview, I had planned to write a thread on why Andrea Leadsom might the country's shortest serving PM since Bonar Law
The other counterfactual is had the vote been 52-48 the other way, how many letters no-confidencing David Cameron would have been in Graham Brady's safe by Monday morning?
Instead of enjoying their triumph, the hard Tory Leavers would have been condemning the unfair vote, the Government and establishment stacked against them, and they'd have thought they would have had little to lose. I'm sure Cameron would have won a vote - but at a cost of authority even in victory.
Dave would have won the no confidence vote, even if he had chosen to stay on after Leave won.
I think he'd had specified his leave date, say 2018 as part of the deal to heal the party.
The particular case in question was quite clear, it was a website linking to a bunch of Playboy images uploaded to a third party file sharing site (it is suggested that this was done by the defendants, but the ruling is that they didn't have to prove this). The defendants basically created their own adult website from the content of a load of others. Previous decisions say that a website that generates income is for profit, whether that income is from advertising or from paid subscriptions.
The problem is the legal precident this sets, for what is a normal activity for everyone who uses the Internet. Say I posted a link to @AndyJS's brilliant Brexit spreadsheet that we all used to make money on the referendum night. He could theoretically sue PB for my posting the link, as I don't own the copyright to the file and didn't have permission to post it - even though it's freely available on the internet!!
Previously, copying and pasting an article would be the wrong side of the line, but this judgement makes posting just a *hyperlink* to the content illegal.
IANAL, but I am an IT guy.
Only if it is done for profit, as was clearly the case with the Playboy case. There are exceptions for alternative organisations. For example Article 12 of Directive 2000/31, entitled ‘Mere conduit’, provides:
‘(1) Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information transmitted, on condition that the provider:
(a) does not initiate the transmission;
(b) does not select the receiver of the transmission;
and
(c) does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.
This may or may not apply depending on how PB is defined.
... In the real world, she needs to learn to pick her battles better. Public schools have a lot of friends on the Conservative back benches and she doesn't have a big enough majority to play with.
This is I think the most significant point, in political terms, about today's announcements. I am somewhat baffled by her tactics here. On the grammar school issue, irrespective of the merits or demerits of the proposals, they will I believe require parliamentary approval. Getting them through the Commons might be possible, with DUP support, but that's by no means certain. Labour and the LibDems will be 100% against, the SNP will as usual just do whatever is most awkward (and I'm not sure that EVEL is igorous enough to prevent the SNP being their usual cynical selves on this). Plus there will probably be some Tory rebels.
Even if the measure gets through the Commons, there's surely not a snowflake's chance in hell of getting it through the Lords. The Salisbury Convention won't apply, so that means invoking the Parliament Act. That's messy, slow, and very uncertain (I doubt if EVEL will help here). So it looks like a battle which at best will be a long, hard slog of a victory, and at worst an embarrassing defeat.
I was backing Michael Gove until JohnO persuaded me otherwise.
I think in hindsight it was more relief that she wasn't Andrea Leadsom
I note you don't deny it.
It's difficult to know where you really stand. You said you'd be happy with either Amber Rudd or Andrea Leadsom during the Brexit debate in June.
I'm afraid I don't take your word for it anymore.
In July, Andrea Leadsom's failure to deny she'd appoint Nigel Farage to her government sent off warning bells for me that was egregiously unfit to be Tory leader, let alone Prime Minister.
I was quite impressed by Theresa May's Downing Street speech, which sounded like a continuation of Cameron's one nation approach.
Sadly her actions don't match her rhetoric, and the less said about appointing the disgraced Liam Fox and the flouncer David Davis at the heart of Brexit alarms many leavers, not only remainers.
There is a hilarious / terrifying counterfactual to be written of Leadsom winning the party vote and becoming PM.
I think she would have lasted just a few months before political chaos and a backbench rebellion forced her resignation.
There was a Sunday Times article warning of defections, already enough letters to trigger a vote of no confidence in Leadsom from day 1 of her becoming PM.
The weekend of that 'mother superior' interview, I had planned to write a thread on why Andrea Leadsom might the country's shortest serving PM since Bonar Law
The other counterfactual is had the vote been 52-48 the other way, how many letters no-confidencing David Cameron would have been in Graham Brady's safe by Monday morning?
Instead of enjoying their triumph, the hard Tory Leavers would have been condemning the unfair vote, the Government and establishment stacked against them, and they'd have thought they would have had little to lose. I'm sure Cameron would have won a vote - but at a cost of authority even in victory.
A good point. I think towards the end of the campaign Cameron realised that it was probably game up either way, as the language used got ever more extreme. His last minute plea outside No.10 made it clear he was fighting for his job. A sad end to a great career, I wonder if he wishes he could turn the clock back to February and the renegotiation summit?
As another anecdote my wife (who's Bulgarian) is very keen on sending our own children to private school.
Why?
She's convinced that doing so ensures one speaks 'properly' and gives access to networks and contacts that later prove very useful to getting on in life, and that one is at a disadvantage if one does not have those. She feels her own experience in trying to get into law has just reinforced her views on this.
Of course, I have explained to her that it doesn't quite work like that but I can't deny there is an element of truth in what she says.
I think your wife is correct, up to a point. It depends which school you (she?) chooses for your children though. There are private schools and private schools. Before I finally retired I had some very wealthy clients and they sent their boys to Radley, Stowe, WInchester and Eton*; the girls all seemed to go to Beneden (even if their mothers went to Roedean or Cheltenham). Places like Hurstpierpoint College, despite providing a good education, were not even in consideration. Networks cost a lot of money.
*Those children who failed common entrance went to places like St. Edwards in Oxford.
She is talking about places like Eton.
Well, Mr. Royale, assuming the children are bright enough to get in then she is almost certainly correct. The fees out of taxed income are going to be eye-watering, especially for multiple children in education at the same time. I am sure you know this but do check the bursary schemes for bright children that all public schools, even Eton, run.
If your children are bright enough or if you are sufficiently well placed and you do not get them into the best education and network systems around then I would regard that as an act of child neglect if not downright cruelty.
Most of the bursary schemes are means tested, though. Fine if you're genuinely on a low income, but for most professionals that won't help so much. The additional £50k+ of pre-tax income per child you need to find is increasingly making these schools the preserves of the mega-rich; is that so healthy?
... In the real world, she needs to learn to pick her battles better. Public schools have a lot of friends on the Conservative back benches and she doesn't have a big enough majority to play with.
This is I think the most significant point, in political terms, about today's announcements. I am somewhat baffled by her tactics here. On the grammar school issue, irrespective of the merits or demerits of the proposals, they will I believe require parliamentary approval. Getting them through the Commons might be possible, with DUP support, but that's by no means certain. Labour and the LibDems will be 100% against, the SNP will as usual just do whatever is most awkward (and I'm not sure that EVEL is igorous enough to prevent the SNP being their usual cynical selves on this). Plus there will probably be some Tory rebels.
Even if the measure gets through the Commons, there's surely not a snowflake's chance in hell of getting it through the Lords. The Salisbury Convention won't apply, so that means invoking the Parliament Act. That's messy, slow, and very uncertain (I doubt if EVEL will help here). So it looks like a battle which at best will be a long, hard slog of a victory, and at worst an embarrassing defeat.
She must know this, so what is she up to?
Looking for an excuse to call an early election? Obviously the little matter of leaving the EU complicates matters, but she must be very tempted to get a big win at the ballot box.
As a grammar school girl, May is able to deliver this message far more convincingly than the expensively educated Cameron or George Osborne ever could. Nor did her proposals appear motivated by a desire to capture “the centre ground”. For May what is right matters more than what is popular.
With a majority of just 12, and the epic task of delivering Brexit, the Prime Minister may yet find that she has overreached. But May has shown that she is not content merely to hold power - but to use it.
Previous decisions say that a website that generates income is for profit, whether that income is from advertising or from paid subscriptions.
This simply cannot be correct or complete. What you are saying is that if Oxfam, or any charity, has a website that solicits donations and these solicitations are in any tiny way successful, a revenue is generated, therefore Oxfam is for profit.
Or an NGO which covers its overhead through membership fees which has a web site soliciting memberships which succeeds in signing up just one member is now deemed for profit.
Even if the measure gets through the Commons, there's surely not a snowflake's chance in hell of getting it through the Lords.
So she says to the base, horrid Lords wouldn't let you have your red meat, dangles it from a stick the other side of 2020 and attaches it to their noses.
... In the real world, she needs to learn to pick her battles better. Public schools have a lot of friends on the Conservative back benches and she doesn't have a big enough majority to play with.
This is I think the most significant point, in political terms, about today's announcements. I am somewhat baffled by her tactics here. On the grammar school issue, irrespective of the merits or demerits of the proposals, they will I believe require parliamentary approval. Getting them through the Commons might be possible, with DUP support, but that's by no means certain. Labour and the LibDems will be 100% against, the SNP will as usual just do whatever is most awkward (and I'm not sure that EVEL is igorous enough to prevent the SNP being their usual cynical selves on this). Plus there will probably be some Tory rebels.
Even if the measure gets through the Commons, there's surely not a snowflake's chance in hell of getting it through the Lords. The Salisbury Convention won't apply, so that means invoking the Parliament Act. That's messy, slow, and very uncertain (I doubt if EVEL will help here). So it looks like a battle which at best will be a long, hard slog of a victory, and at worst an embarrassing defeat.
She must know this, so what is she up to?
That is pretty much the way I saw it Richard. Southam's explanation of red meat for the right wing doesn't really hold water. I think she believes in it. A dangerous trait in a leader.
... In the real world, she needs to learn to pick her battles better. Public schools have a lot of friends on the Conservative back benches and she doesn't have a big enough majority to play with.
This is I think the most significant point, in political terms, about today's announcements. I am somewhat baffled by her tactics here. On the grammar school issue, irrespective of the merits or demerits of the proposals, they will I believe require parliamentary approval. Getting them through the Commons might be possible, with DUP support, but that's by no means certain. Labour and the LibDems will be 100% against, the SNP will as usual just do whatever is most awkward (and I'm not sure that EVEL is igorous enough to prevent the SNP being their usual cynical selves on this). Plus there will probably be some Tory rebels.
Even if the measure gets through the Commons, there's surely not a snowflake's chance in hell of getting it through the Lords. The Salisbury Convention won't apply, so that means invoking the Parliament Act. That's messy, slow, and very uncertain (I doubt if EVEL will help here). So it looks like a battle which at best will be a long, hard slog of a victory, and at worst an embarrassing defeat.
She must know this, so what is she up to?
The union set of bonkers eurosceptics and grammar school fans on the Cons backbenches is likely quite large.
And she is going to need their help in the Brexit fight ahead.
The particular case in question was quite clear, it was a website linking to a bunch of Playboy images uploaded to a third party file sharing site (it is suggested that this was done by the defendants, but the ruling is that they didn't have to prove this). The defendants basically created their own adult website from the content of a load of others. Previous decisions say that a website that generates income is for profit, whether that income is from advertising or from paid subscriptions.
The problem is the legal precident this sets, for what is a normal activity for everyone who uses the Internet. Say I posted a link to @AndyJS's brilliant Brexit spreadsheet that we all used to make money on the referendum night. He could theoretically sue PB for my posting the link, as I don't own the copyright to the file and didn't have permission to post it - even though it's freely available on the internet!!
Previously, copying and pasting an article would be the wrong side of the line, but this judgement makes posting just a *hyperlink* to the content illegal.
IANAL, but I am an IT guy.
Only if it is done for profit, as was clearly the case with the Playboy case. There are exceptions for alternative organisations. For example Article 12 of Directive 2000/31, entitled ‘Mere conduit’, provides:
‘(1) Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information transmitted, on condition that the provider:
(a) does not initiate the transmission;
(b) does not select the receiver of the transmission;
and
(c) does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.
This may or may not apply depending on how PB is defined.
That's the rule on moderation basically, that if you choose not to moderate you're in the clear for anything dodgy posted by a commenter, but if you do choose to actively moderate you need to make sure nothing illegal is posted. So Mike might be responsible for something dodgy, although Vanilla wouldn't be - hence comments from Mike and the mods to avoid certain subjects from time to time.
There's certainly going to be a lot of discussion as to how this ruling applies in practice, it might be that providers such as Vanilla create an option not to allow links in posts, in order to protect their customers, it may also be that EU-based web publishing businesses relocate outside the EU, as I believe Guido does already.
Court News The stockbroker rapist was working in the City despite having convictions for drugs and dishonesty.
If the convictions were spent then the employer may not have known about them. In any case, drugs and dishonesty are hardly unknown in the City...
I'm (not) surprised to have ever heard of anyone being fired at a firm for making extraordinary profits yet...
Yet in the abstract if a control has failed in the way it has with traders making losses beyond their remits then one would have thought a trader must at some point have made a profit beyond his or her remit too...
On the wider question of Theresa May's political positioning, it's essentially the same as that of Cameron and Osborne, which is pretty much what one would expect. This is one-nation, pragmatic Conservatism with a strong grab of the centre ground, mixed with some healthy but not extreme social conservatism. I'm amused to see her channelling her inner Ed Miliband, though - the 'squeezed middle' reincarnated as 'those who are just getting by'.
Once the Cameron retirement Peers have all taken their seats the House of Lords State of the Parties will be:
Con 257, Lab 209, LD 105, Crossbench 179
When they make a real effort Con has out turnouted Lab by a few percentage points - eg Con 80%, Lab 72% was typical of some votes in the last year which Con regarded as important and of course Con won the two key votes on electoral registration and EU referendum votes at 16 - which were before the latest influx of Peers which give Con a net gain of 12 (Con 13, Lab 1).
Conclusion: Whilst Lab + LD may well be able to block grammar schools it's by no means a certainty - if Con push very hard and can get more Crossbench with them than against then it could well get very close.
And that's before May might appoint a few more Con Peers.
Previous decisions say that a website that generates income is for profit, whether that income is from advertising or from paid subscriptions.
This simply cannot be correct or complete. What you are saying is that if Oxfam, or any charity, has a website that solicits donations and these solicitations are in any tiny way successful, a revenue is generated, therefore Oxfam is for profit.
Or an NGO which covers its overhead through membership fees which has a web site soliciting memberships which succeeds in signing up just one member is now deemed for profit.
That is errant nonsense.
That's different, as we are talking about a registered charity fundraising activity, using the website as one of a number of fundraising activities.
Here we are talking about the website itself being the business, and that website takes subscriptions, donations or advertising. That is commercial activity - unless it's by a registered charity, and as much as we love PB I'm not sure it qualifies as a charitable activity.
I was backing Michael Gove until JohnO persuaded me otherwise.
I think in hindsight it was more relief that she wasn't Andrea Leadsom
I note you don't deny it.
It's difficult to know where you really stand. You said you'd be happy with either Amber Rudd or Andrea Leadsom during the Brexit debate in June.
I'm afraid I don't take your word for it anymore.
In July, Andrea Leadsom's failure to deny she'd appoint Nigel Farage to her government sent off warning bells for me that was egregiously unfit to be Tory leader, let alone Prime Minister.
I was quite impressed by Theresa May's Downing Street speech, which sounded like a continuation of Cameron's one nation approach.
Sadly her actions don't match her rhetoric, and the less said about appointing the disgraced Liam Fox and the flouncer David Davis at the heart of Brexit alarms many leavers, not only remainers.
There is a hilarious / terrifying counterfactual to be written of Leadsom winning the party vote and becoming PM.
I think she would have lasted just a few months before political chaos and a backbench rebellion forced her resignation.
There was a Sunday Times article warning of defections, already enough letters to trigger a vote of no confidence in Leadsom from day 1 of her becoming PM.
The weekend of that 'mother superior' interview, I had planned to write a thread on why Andrea Leadsom might the country's shortest serving PM since Bonar Law
The other counterfactual is had the vote been 52-48 the other way, how many letters no-confidencing David Cameron would have been in Graham Brady's safe by Monday morning?
Instead of enjoying their triumph, the hard Tory Leavers would have been condemning the unfair vote, the Government and establishment stacked against them, and they'd have thought they would have had little to lose. I'm sure Cameron would have won a vote - but at a cost of authority even in victory.
A good point. I think towards the end of the campaign Cameron realised that it was probably game up either way, as the language used got ever more extreme. His last minute plea outside No.10 made it clear he was fighting for his job. A sad end to a great career, I wonder if he wishes he could turn the clock back to February and the renegotiation summit?
On the wider question of Theresa May's political positioning, it's essentially the same as that of Cameron and Osborne, which is pretty much what one would expect. This is one-nation, pragmatic Conservatism with a strong grab of the centre ground, mixed with some healthy but not extreme social conservatism. I'm amused to see her channelling her inner Ed Miliband, though - the 'squeezed middle' reincarnated as 'those who are just getting by'.
Indeed – The squeezed middle, or C1s and C2s are probably the social group most ignored by successive governments up till now it would appear, - apart from as cash cows of course.
Comments
Such wonderful irony.
Theresa May’s Grammar Revolution WILL Be Blocked By Labour And Lib Dems In House Of Lords
Radical plans will be ‘dead on arrival’
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-grammar-schools-plan-house-of-lords-block_uk_57d29a9fe4b0ced6a09913ec?g73i94ea024piizfr
Labour & Lib Dem Lords on the side of Private Schools & Elite Universities and against C1/C2 voters.....
And I can't use my free childcare entitlement for daycare for my rabbit!
I remain to be convinced on grammar schools, but if May can deliver bold progress on education, housing, and infrastructure, all under an inequality/meritocratic header, I'd be very happy.
But she needs to do Brexit too, so odds are she wont be able to find sufficient headspace.
The same principle would work better in health, where a reversal of the tax treatment of employer-provided health insurance would allow huge growth in private medicine, relieving a lot of pressure from the NHS.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3781493/Three-former-Tesco-executives-charged-fraud-263million-black-hole-supermarket-s-2014-accounts.html
A lot depends on what you mean by skilled working class, but C2 would be closest fit, DE unskilled working class. C1 would be Lower Middle class.
Personally I prefer the USA division of white collar vs blue collar, as despite being SE class A I am certainly a worker - though not today ;-)
Theresa can then use the "crisis" to call a general election and win a 100 seat landslide.
JohnO also speaks very highly of him, and that's good enough in my book.
Davis is a tit of the highest order, can anyone explain what his flounce in 2008 achieved apart from costing the taxpayers money?
Yes, this sounded like 'Core-May' and not just a distraction.
I think May is very WYSIWYG - people overanalyse her moves as if she was Osborne - if she says something she means it - and while there are periods of radio silence while she makes up her mind, once its made up, good luck shifting her. Ask the US......
I think the article you link to overstates the earlier decision about whether having adverts is enough but I agree it is more complicated than I first thought.
The monthly costs for Vanilla are $600 dollars a month I think, and there's the server costs, which touch wood, means PB doesn't crash on busy days and nights
I'm sure May will give Raab a job in the first reshuffle, Gove, maybe not.....
The problem is the legal precident this sets, for what is a normal activity for everyone who uses the Internet. Say I posted a link to @AndyJS's brilliant Brexit spreadsheet that we all used to make money on the referendum night. He could theoretically sue PB for my posting the link, as I don't own the copyright to the file and didn't have permission to post it - even though it's freely available on the internet!!
Previously, copying and pasting an article would be the wrong side of the line, but this judgement makes posting just a *hyperlink* to the content illegal.
IANAL, but I am an IT guy.
In the US, costs for setting up a not-for-profit are fairly modest. Given that there are so many lawyers on this site, and if Mike has not yet set PB up as a legal entity, perhaps one of the lawyers could volunteer their time and get it done. It would add a little bit of admin work on an annual basis and a bit more running costs but, given this ruling, it would also give PB and its moderators security in this particular issue.
If your children are bright enough or if you are sufficiently well placed and you do not get them into the best education and network systems around then I would regard that as an act of child neglect if not downright cruelty.
Court News
The stockbroker rapist was working in the City despite having convictions for drugs and dishonesty.
Schools that teach values which are contrary to British values, as some Muslim schools have, should not be given permission to exist. Schools which have Muslim children in them (maybe even a majority) but which follow the national curriculum and teach children to be British and don't seek to undermine British values and requirements (though I still have an issue on the integration front) are broadly fine. Muslim schools which do not do the above are not.
I don't think that establishing the basic principles by which all schools should operate, whether secular, Catholic or Muslim, breaches either of the two Acts you mention. I rather think the reason is that people are more terrified of being accused of "discrimination" and / or cowardly about admitting that it is not at all obvious that Islam - and particularly some of the more fundamental, extreme versions of Islam around at present - is easily compatible with Western values. So rather than think through the implications they try and pretend there is no problem and chant "no discrimination" as if this was the answer to anything at all.
What a ridiculous judgment. If only there were some way of permanently exempting UK companies and individuals from the effect of the brain farts of the ECJ.
Instead of enjoying their triumph, the hard Tory Leavers would have been condemning the unfair vote, the Government and establishment stacked against them, and they'd have thought they would have had little to lose. I'm sure Cameron would have won a vote - but at a cost of authority even in victory.
Newsnight reported at the time that Cameron did want to include Davis in his Cabinet, (to keep the right on-side) but Davis declined.....
I think he'd had specified his leave date, say 2018 as part of the deal to heal the party.
http://heatst.com/world/jeremy-corbyn-has-received-200k-since-july-owen-smith-just-83k/?mod=sm_tw_post
"I look forward to waking up to my aches and pains. It beats the alternative."
Alas, the alternative eventually won.
‘(1) Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information transmitted, on condition that the provider:
(a) does not initiate the transmission;
(b) does not select the receiver of the transmission;
and
(c) does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.
This may or may not apply depending on how PB is defined.
Even if the measure gets through the Commons, there's surely not a snowflake's chance in hell of getting it through the Lords. The Salisbury Convention won't apply, so that means invoking the Parliament Act. That's messy, slow, and very uncertain (I doubt if EVEL will help here). So it looks like a battle which at best will be a long, hard slog of a victory, and at worst an embarrassing defeat.
She must know this, so what is she up to?
Police searching Muslim terror gang's car found meat cleaver with 'kaffir' carved on the handle https://t.co/Ubz02sqRaJ
As a grammar school girl, May is able to deliver this message far more convincingly than the expensively educated Cameron or George Osborne ever could. Nor did her proposals appear motivated by a desire to capture “the centre ground”. For May what is right matters more than what is popular.
With a majority of just 12, and the epic task of delivering Brexit, the Prime Minister may yet find that she has overreached. But May has shown that she is not content merely to hold power - but to use it.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/theresa-mays-education-revolution-means-more-just-new-grammar-schools
Or an NGO which covers its overhead through membership fees which has a web site soliciting memberships which succeeds in signing up just one member is now deemed for profit.
That is errant nonsense.
And she is going to need their help in the Brexit fight ahead.
There's certainly going to be a lot of discussion as to how this ruling applies in practice, it might be that providers such as Vanilla create an option not to allow links in posts, in order to protect their customers, it may also be that EU-based web publishing businesses relocate outside the EU, as I believe Guido does already.
NEW THREAD
Yet in the abstract if a control has failed in the way it has with traders making losses beyond their remits then one would have thought a trader must at some point have made a profit beyond his or her remit too...
Con 257, Lab 209, LD 105, Crossbench 179
When they make a real effort Con has out turnouted Lab by a few percentage points - eg Con 80%, Lab 72% was typical of some votes in the last year which Con regarded as important and of course Con won the two key votes on electoral registration and EU referendum votes at 16 - which were before the latest influx of Peers which give Con a net gain of 12 (Con 13, Lab 1).
Conclusion: Whilst Lab + LD may well be able to block grammar schools it's by no means a certainty - if Con push very hard and can get more Crossbench with them than against then it could well get very close.
And that's before May might appoint a few more Con Peers.
https://www.propublica.org/article/monitoring-the-vote-with-electionland?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1473425832
Here we are talking about the website itself being the business, and that website takes subscriptions, donations or advertising. That is commercial activity - unless it's by a registered charity, and as much as we love PB I'm not sure it qualifies as a charitable activity.