politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now betting opens on whether the self employed NI increase wil

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/monroe-v-hopkins-2017-ewhc-433-qb-20170310.pdf

Full judgement is a complete hoot.

You can tell that the judge enjoyed writing that one.

Beverley_C said:

PlatoSaid said:

Make of this what you will

Voice of Europe
Dusseldorf axe attacker: “Fatmir H,” Muslim from Kosovo — cops rule out “Islamic fundamentalist motive” https://t.co/fB2nD4QN4M https://t.co/jPUUPCTys4

Maybe the guy was simply barking mad.

isam said:

As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.

Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.

Wow

They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging

Same old!

A pitiful level of debate.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Recidivist, the rumour was that the EU would want EU law to apply to those British citizens who decide to pay to opt into EU citizenship.

I cannot see that being acceptable.

Pulpstar said:

Found it - here is the real budget story !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4299384/Death-tax-stealth-rake-1-5billion.html

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Recidivist, the rumour was that the EU would want EU law to apply to those British citizens who decide to pay to opt into EU citizenship.

I cannot see that being acceptable.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Recidivist, the rumour was that the EU would want EU law to apply to those British citizens who decide to pay to opt into EU citizenship.

I cannot see that being acceptable.

Nah. They would have no way to enforce it anymore than we can enforce British law outside our jurisdiction..

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.

Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.

Wow

They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging

Same old!

A pitiful level of debate.

I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.

Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.

Tissue_Price said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Jack Monroe costs estimated at £150,000

Hopkins settlement £24,000. Ordered to pay £107,000 towards Mx Monroe's legal costs.

So that is Hopkins £131,000 out of pocket and Monroe £19,000 out of pocket by my calculations.

Looks like the lawyers are the winners from this case.

Hoorah!

Not least as ex-pb'er @Morus was acting for Jack...

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.

Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.

Wow

They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging

Same old!

A pitiful level of debate.

I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.

Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.

Bojabob said:

For reference, the £200,000 Tim "Pub Landlord" Martin gave to the Vote Leave campaign helped fund advertising such as this:

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/assets-d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/voteleave/pages/513/attachments/original/1455059757/briefing-security-borders.png

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Found it - here is the real budget story !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4299384/Death-tax-stealth-rake-1-5billion.html

That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.

Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.

Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.

Wow

They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging

Same old!

A pitiful level of debate.

I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.

Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.

Small brains or not, Remainers understand perfectly well that most Leavers hold deeply contradictory and self-defeating aspirations.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Found it - here is the real budget story !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4299384/Death-tax-stealth-rake-1-5billion.html

That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.

Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?

You guess correctly.

£155 was ridiculously cheap. Other fees have had to be raised several times, I assume this has been done in one hit.

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Found it - here is the real budget story !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4299384/Death-tax-stealth-rake-1-5billion.html

That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.

Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?

What about when the widow dies and the estate goes to the kids.

Is the whole estate charged again ?

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Found it - here is the real budget story !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4299384/Death-tax-stealth-rake-1-5billion.html

That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.

Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?

What about when the widow dies and the estate goes to the kids.

Is the whole estate charged again ?

MarkHopkins said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Found it - here is the real budget story !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4299384/Death-tax-stealth-rake-1-5billion.html

That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.

Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?

What about when the widow dies and the estate goes to the kids.

Is the whole estate charged again ?

You have to pay for probate for each will, so presumably yes.

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.

Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.

Wow

They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging

Same old!

A pitiful level of debate.

I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.

Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.

Small brains or not, Remainers understand perfectly well that most Leavers hold deeply contradictory and self-defeating aspirations.

Sean_F said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Found it - here is the real budget story !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4299384/Death-tax-stealth-rake-1-5billion.html

That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.

Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?

You guess correctly.

£155 was ridiculously cheap. Other fees have had to be raised several times, I assume this has been done in one hit.

£155 was more or less self-financing. These new charges are intended to raise serious money. They'll raise the equivalent of about two thirds of the legal aid budget.

MarkHopkins said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Found it - here is the real budget story !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4299384/Death-tax-stealth-rake-1-5billion.html

That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.

Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?

You guess correctly.

£155 was ridiculously cheap. Other fees have had to be raised several times, I assume this has been done in one hit.

It has been changed from reflecting the costs involved to just being another tax.

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.

Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.

Wow

They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging

Same old!

A pitiful level of debate.

I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.

Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.

Richard don't sully yourself with his lack of logic. He voted Leave and now whines that he wants to keep free movement.

You may have wanted to keep free movement but were perfectly well aware that a Leave vote meant it would likely disappear and compared with freedom from our EU overlords, was a price worth paying.

The differences between the two approaches are clear.

Not at all. I and many others campaigned for EEA membership.

Campaigned in the literal sense? Were you knocking on the doors of Sleaford spreading the gospel about the Norway option and reassuring people that free movement would still continue after Brexit?

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.

Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.

Wow

They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging

Same old!

A pitiful level of debate.

I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.

Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.

Richard don't sully yourself with his lack of logic. He voted Leave and now whines that he wants to keep free movement.

You may have wanted to keep free movement but were perfectly well aware that a Leave vote meant it would likely disappear and compared with freedom from our EU overlords, was a price worth paying.

The differences between the two approaches are clear.

Not at all. I and many others campaigned for EEA membership. Like the more sensible Remain supporters, accepting it is now very unlikely we will get our way does not mean we should not continue to believe that it is the best solution. All it means is that beyond stating our views we will not do anything that would risk undermining the apparent will of the people. Tim Martin saying that migration is good for the country is reasonable. The PM signing up for continued freedom of movement against the wishes of the majority - even if I were personally in favour of it - would not be acceptable.

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.

Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.

Wow

They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging

Same old!

A pitiful level of debate.

I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.

Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.

Small brains or not, Remainers understand perfectly well that most Leavers hold deeply contradictory and self-defeating aspirations.

This is not limited to Leavers. Think of all those Remainers who thought that the UK could reform the EU from within when all the evidence showed that the EU's idea of "reform" and the UK's idea of "reform" were miles apart.

There are delusions aplenty on both sides of this debate, one of the most pernicious ones on the Remainers' side being the idea that their thinking on the topic is a model of clarity and logic and consistency with the evidence.

Nope. Most remainers understood that the EU was largely unreformable but were happy that Dave's deal achieved the right level of opt-out from the grand project.

Carolus_Rex said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Found it - here is the real budget story !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4299384/Death-tax-stealth-rake-1-5billion.html

That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.

Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?

To all intents and purposes, yes. It's basically a form of cross-subsidy for the expensive bits of the courts and tribunals service (ie crime and family).

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.

Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.

Wow

They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging

Same old!

A pitiful level of debate.

I haven't commented before on Tim Martin. As for his sudden realisation that hard Brexit might be awkward for 'Spoons: oh dear, how sad, what a pity.

Except of course it is not a sudden realisation and like many of us he has been aware of the benefits of immigration for a long time and was happy to say as much during the campaign. I don't expect the idiotic Remainers to understand this as it is clearly too large a concept for their limited brainpower.

Small brains or not, Remainers understand perfectly well that most Leavers hold deeply contradictory and self-defeating aspirations.

This is not limited to Leavers. Think of all those Remainers who thought that the UK could reform the EU from within when all the evidence showed that the EU's idea of "reform" and the UK's idea of "reform" were miles apart.

There are delusions aplenty on both sides of this debate, one of the most pernicious ones on the Remainers' side being the idea that their thinking on the topic is a model of clarity and logic and consistency with the evidence.

Nope. Most remainers understood that the EU was largely unreformable but were happy that Dave's deal achieved the right level of opt-out from the grand project.

In my view it achieved the square root of sod all but since we have debated this to death in the past and the question is now moot, no point rehashing all this.

TOPPING said:

isam said:

As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category, so they can invent strawmen to knock down.

Someone who wanted to Leave but didn't want immigration cut, still doesn't want immigration cut.

Wow

They got excited because they hadn't done their research, now they are digging

Same old!

A pitiful level of debate.

There is certainly something pitiful about it.

Wanting to Leave meant wanting immigration cut. As I said, only a fucking idiot would be unable to grasp that simple point.

Freggles said:

isam said:

As I say, Remoaners just want to bung every Leaver in the same category

Aaaand I'm going to have to stop you there, on the grounds of irony

Pong said:

Carolus_Rex said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Found it - here is the real budget story !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4299384/Death-tax-stealth-rake-1-5billion.html

That was known before the budget, but you are right that it's a bit odd that it hasn't got more publicity.

Am I right in thinking that this is a sneaky way of charging a bit of IHT on widows inheriting the estate of their husbands, which is supposed to be a tax-free transfer?

To all intents and purposes, yes. It's basically a form of cross-subsidy for the expensive bits of the courts and tribunals service (ie crime and family).

I'm a little surprised 58% of all estates are below £50k.

I'm not sure what I expected that figure to be, but 58% seems pretty high.

Morris_Dancer said:

Just on the chocolate price hike, as a comment on the BBC article said, the raw ingredients don't come from euroland. I think there was a BBC spot on the news a few months ago (I forget the precise country, somewhere near Ivory Coast, I think) which indicated the vast majority of chocolate's raw ingredient(s) came from one African country.

CarlottaVance said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Be careful what you post on tw@tter...

Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over a tweet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079

Seems a bit low for a libel settlement.

The trial took 21 months, unless the legal profession has taken an unprecedented pay cut then costs are going to be substantially more than £24,000. Will Hopkins be liable for those ?

Katie looks about 65 in that image.

I wonder if she will be punished in costs by decline Jack's (very public) offer to settle for £5,000, i.e. less that the £24,000.

This case has been about the particular tweets complained of by this claimant against this defendant. It may have little wider significance. But I cannot leave it without making two observations. The first is that the case could easily have been resolved at an early stage. There was an open offer to settle for £5,000. It was a reasonable offer. There could have been an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996. Such an offer attracts a substantial discount: up to half if the offer is prompt and unqualified. Such an offer would have meant the compensation would have been modest. The costs would have been a fraction of those which I am sure these parties have incurred in the event. Those costs have largely been incurred in contesting the issue of whether a statement which on its face had a defamatory tendency had actually caused serious harm.

Richard_Tyndall said:

I thought that too and certainly the polls around the time of the referendum seemed to show that. But all the polling I have seen since seems to indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of limiting immigration. If that is the wish of the majority then it would be wrong to ignore it and go for a deal that did not control migration.

isam said:

Does anyone know how to find out how many downloads a song has had, and how many records/CDs an album has sold

Released this year

SouthamObserver said:

Double ouch.
https://twitter.com/law_and_policy/status/840228064973996032

TOPPING said:

isam said:

What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

Such a poor level of debate

All it does is show how mixed up people were when they voted for Brexit. Immigration was the main issue cited for voting Leave. Not for him; he didn't like the sovereignty. Fair enough. But he should have realised that Brexit is not pick and mix. He obviously disliked the sovereignty aspect enough such that it overrode the immigration issue.

So he should not now complain that the immigration issue is also being addressed.

Either that or he is a fucking idiot.

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

Double ouch.
https://twitter.com/law_and_policy/status/840228064973996032

If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.

So what will the final score likely be?

Pulpstar said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

Double ouch.
https://twitter.com/law_and_policy/status/840228064973996032

If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.

So what will the final score likely be?

I'd be amused if it was a double bankruptcy.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

What seems clear is that those who wished we had voted to stay in the EU want to categorise everyone who wants to leave as a mad anti immigration nutter, and pounce on any pro immigration talk from a leaver as betrayal, even if it is entirely consistent with their previous comments.

Such a poor level of debate

All it does is show how mixed up people were when they voted for Brexit. Immigration was the main issue cited for voting Leave. Not for him; he didn't like the sovereignty. Fair enough. But he should have realised that Brexit is not pick and mix. He obviously disliked the sovereignty aspect enough such that it overrode the immigration issue.

So he should not now complain that the immigration issue is also being addressed.

Either that or he is a fucking idiot.

A load of crap. This was a binary choice and you will have people with very different opinions on both sides of the binary choice.

Politics continues either way.

Pulpstar said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

Double ouch.
https://twitter.com/law_and_policy/status/840228064973996032

If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.

So what will the final score likely be?

I'd be amused if it was a double bankruptcy.

How well does twitter pay these days ?

TOPPING said:

Pulpstar said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

Double ouch.
https://twitter.com/law_and_policy/status/840228064973996032

If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.

So what will the final score likely be?

I'd be amused if it was a double bankruptcy.

How well does twitter pay these days ?

Presumably it will be a rounding error for the Mail and they will make every penny back in increased sales/views. Or will try to.

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

Double ouch.
https://twitter.com/law_and_policy/status/840228064973996032

If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

Double ouch.
https://twitter.com/law_and_policy/status/840228064973996032

If the Judge has only ordered a payment on account of £107,000, out of £300,000, then presumably costs were only awarded on the Standard Basis. The Claimant will be left having to pay at least £100,000 herself.

So what will the final score likely be?

On checking, I see that the costs were awarded on the standard, not the indemnity, basis. Monroe must therefore prove (a) that the costs were reasonably incurred, and (b) that the sums claimed are reasonable. Typically, you recover 60-70% on the standard basis.

So, if Monroe's costs are £300,000, she'll probably get back c.£180-200,000 from Hopkins, in addition to £24,000 damages.

TOPPING said:

isam said:

What's wrong with being a country that is flexible regarding its immigration levels dependent on the will of the people at GEs? We could be any kind of country, instead of limited to one model

Because the country, by a majority of 17.3m (including Tim) to whatever it was, has just voted for lower immigration. It would be undemocratic for a government to go against their wishes. Traitorous, perhaps.