Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
The latest fiscal numbers are a bit better than expected thanks to slightly higher tax receipts, even while this year to date has been worse than forecast.
But we’ve already run out of money. The outgoing government tried to bribe the voters with two very expensive NI cuts which have used up the entire fiscal headroom. The new government refusing to reverse these leaves us in a pretty poor position. Not a precarious one - our government bond yields aren’t doing anything worrying and our deficit position is better than several peers, so much so that the pound has been rising.
But there’s not going to be money for a spending bonanza anytime soon. It’s another decade of austerity ahead. Chronic austerity.
Problem is there are whole parts of the day to day running of the country where things have been cut to the bone already.
Court sitting days have reduced again while court cases are now being scheduled well into 2026...
There is a simple solution staring us all in the face: tax the £20tn of wealth in the country.
Unfortunately, no one seems clever enough to do it.
Haven't we covered this multiple times before - we always end up with a tax on property prices because it's the only thing that can't be quickly moved abroad.
Although that does remind me why I preferred the easier solution of just taxing based on estimated property value rather than land value based taxes...
The answer to the 'moving wealth abroad' threat is a UK FATCA: every British citizen should pay UK taxes on their income and assets wherever they live, work or hold those assets, offsetting any local taxes they've paid.
Those who love money more than they love their country can f*ck right off. And apply for a visa* whenever they wish to visit the UK (an application I'd instruct UKVI to routinely reject on the basis of 'they chose to leave'.)
It's not exactly a sign your economy is doing well when you have to construct the financial equivalent of the Berlin Wall to keep people from getting out.
Remember, nobody ever tried to cross the wall *in* to East Germany. And therein lies the problem. You can keep people in, but you'll also keep every last penny of foreign money out.
While that is in many ways reassuring and heartwarming, the qualification does give me some pause - how many times have they unintentionally fired their guns?
Mr. Pointer, and when you try to tax wealth, will the wealthy and their assets stay in this country, or leave?
Not all wealth can be moved, of course. Council tax on steroids is possible. Or you could drive farmers into bankruptcy (the pre-election murmuring about imposing inheritance tax on farms might come true).
WRT farms, the budget might tweak a bit in order to deal with non-farmers usiing farms as tax planning; but there will be no major change to the exemption in ordinary 'family farm' cases.
What there should be (IHT currently only applies to 4% of estates) is a much wider net for IHT, incorporating lifetime gifts and many fewer exemptions, but a much lower rate - more like 5-10% than 40%. The current tweak for homes, which brings the threshold up to £1m for some households but not others, should also go by being incorporated into the current exempt sum.
Isn’t IHT on estates 4% *a year* so ending up at 40% every 10 years (obviously with the benefit of time value of money)
No. It applies to about 28,000 estates per year. That's about 280,000 in 10 years. In 10 years there are about 6,500,000 deaths. Just over 4% of deaths involve estates that pay IHT. Each person just dies the once.
I was muddling it up with the 10 Year Charge @ 6%
6% every ten years is a tax for U.K. trusts that property owning families like the Duke of Westminster use. A 6% inheritance tax on land and business outside a trust once every generation would be a way for the government to increase revenue. Would be survivable as the farms and business could borrow the money without assets having to be sold.
Does that also apply to authorial estates?
eg The Estate of TS Elliot, which made a fair amount of cash from Cats and similar.
I did say last night there was some missing parts of the jigsaw to the Chris Kaba case. It was obvious when there were reporting restrictions on who was the shooter in the plot that we already knew Kaba was involved in planning. Now we know he was the shooter.
We also now know the, but but he was expecting a child....the mother had already taken out a restraining order because he beat her.
Interesting from the other day. AA support for graduated driving licences.
Drivers aged under 21 who have just passed their tests should be prevented from carrying passengers of a similar age for their first six months as drivers, the AA has said.
It suggested tougher rules that would also see them handed six penalty points for not wearing a seatbelt during the period - meaning they could lose their licence.
The motoring organisation says the proposal for a particular type of licence targeted at new, young drivers has the potential to prevent 934 serious injuries and save 58 lives on UK roads each year.
Similar measures - known as graduated driving licensing (GDL) - already exist in Northern Ireland. The Department for Transport (DfT) has said it is not currently considering the measures for elsewhere in the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c361g6nz5j1o
DFT currently not thinking about it:
A Department for Transport spokesperson said it was not currently considering graduated driving licences and is looking for other ways of keeping young drivers safe. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7565nr19eko
It would be interesting to challenge something like that on age discrimination grounds. Car drivers over the age of 86 are more likely to be KSIed than those aged 17-24. For women, the rate is almost double.
There a significant increase in KSI rate starting at age 70, so a SPA linked re-test would be effective, notwithstanding the inevitable howls of outrage from the Telegraph.
I think the numbers are different enough and distinct enough that it would fly. There are already major differences by attributes - such as medical licences, plus the age restriction itself for getting a licence. The number afaics say restrict males more than females, but that is problematic - see what happened with insurance. Plus a version of Graduated Licences has been in place in NI since ~2016.
I think they are perhaps worried about the extra workload on the DVLA, plus the police. Both also need addressing.
Oh I don't doubt that at all. It's just curious that the same risk-based approach is not applied to older drivers too.
Not saying it's right, but maybe it's the perceived difference between a young person being killed who had their whole life still ahead of them, versus an oldie, who's already "had a good innings"
Depends who else they take out. Granted, your inexperienced young man with a car full is more likely to take others with him going too fast on a country road than your doddery old man/woman with perhaps one other person in the car and causing a prang at 20-30mph.
But I am put in mind of an incident I witnessed a few years back where an elderly man went the wrong way around a slightly oddly set up urban roundabout (you could go the wrong way in more or less a straight line, but the signage was clear) and very nearly took out a woman with a buggy and a couple of students - they stepped back just in time, having been crossing from a central island at an exit and looking mainly in the direction the traffic should have been coming from. He did, I was told by the police, surrender his licence voluntarily after they tracked him down (no further action was taken).
Apparently Trump has a good reputation in the advertising industry. Can @Roger confirm?
True story: I've made a LOT of commercials, and one thing the industry gossips about is which celebrities are jerks & which aren't. Eg., Everyone loves Tom Cruise. Directors/gaffers who've worked with him says he's super gung-ho and supportive.
Also…Trump! 👇
In the mid 2000's a good buddy of mine shot a spot with The Donald, and he raved about how nice and accommodating he was. It was surprising to me at the time, because in NYC he was known as a total bastard with business deals. And based on his Playboy personality, you might expect him to be a total douche IRL. Not so, said my friend.
Then, in 2009 I was on a long business trip w/ a different friend of mine, who had worked with Trump on a different ad campaign, and he said the exact same thing: that Trump was surprisingly cool. Again, I was a bit surprised. So I asked him to give me the deets.
I did say last night there was some missing parts of the jigsaw to the Chris Kaba case. It was obvious when there were reporting restrictions on who was the shooter in the plot that we already knew Kaba was involved in planning. Now we know he was the shooter.
The restrictions should have been on the name of the police officer.
Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
The latest fiscal numbers are a bit better than expected thanks to slightly higher tax receipts, even while this year to date has been worse than forecast.
But we’ve already run out of money. The outgoing government tried to bribe the voters with two very expensive NI cuts which have used up the entire fiscal headroom. The new government refusing to reverse these leaves us in a pretty poor position. Not a precarious one - our government bond yields aren’t doing anything worrying and our deficit position is better than several peers, so much so that the pound has been rising.
But there’s not going to be money for a spending bonanza anytime soon. It’s another decade of austerity ahead. Chronic austerity.
Problem is there are whole parts of the day to day running of the country where things have been cut to the bone already.
Court sitting days have reduced again while court cases are now being scheduled well into 2026...
There is a simple solution staring us all in the face: tax the £20tn of wealth in the country.
Unfortunately, no one seems clever enough to do it.
Haven't we covered this multiple times before - we always end up with a tax on property prices because it's the only thing that can't be quickly moved abroad.
Although that does remind me why I preferred the easier solution of just taxing based on estimated property value rather than land value based taxes...
The answer to the 'moving wealth abroad' threat is a UK FATCA: every British citizen should pay UK taxes on their income and assets wherever they live, work or hold those assets, offsetting any local taxes they've paid.
Those who love money more than they love their country can f*ck right off. And apply for a visa* whenever they wish to visit the UK (an application I'd instruct UKVI to routinely reject on the basis of 'they chose to leave'.)
It's not exactly a sign your economy is doing well when you have to construct the financial equivalent of the Berlin Wall to keep people from getting out.
Remember, nobody ever tried to cross the wall *in* to East Germany. And therein lies the problem. You can keep people in, but you'll also keep every last penny of foreign money out.
Autarky in the UK.
'Almost all of the UK’s international peers already levy an ‘exit tax’ on the gains of people who cease to be tax resident. This includes Australia, Canada, the US, France, Germany, and Japan, amongst others. Within the G7, Italy is the only other country which does not have any CGT on emigrants.'
Despite all the hand-wringing about the Kaba case, it strikes me that the law, including the role of the jury, has worked just fine in reaching the correct outcome. It would set a dangerous precedent for a police officer to be able to shoot dead an unarmed man without any charges being brought - in this case, the officer has been vindicated. The only thing I find deeply unsatisfactory is that it took over two years to get to this point, which must have been painful for Blake and his family.
While that is in many ways reassuring and heartwarming, the qualification does give me some pause - how many times have they unintentionally fired their guns?
Several, I would think. These may be unintended consequqnces rather than the pulling of the trigger being unintentional.
Despite all the hand-wringing about the Kaba case, it strikes me that the law, including the role of the jury, has worked just fine in reaching the correct outcome. It would set a dangerous precedent for a police officer to be able to shoot dead an unarmed man without any charges being brought - in this case, the officer has been vindicated. The only thing I find deeply unsatisfactory is that it took over two years to get to this point, which must have been tortuous for Blake and his family.
No, we already have a number of layer of oversight to assess this without the need for a trial every time they shoot somebody. If it was instantly a murder trial, no officer is ever shooting. In this case, they didn't shoot until they gave him plenty of time to surrender and even then fired one shot.
We aren't the US, the fire arms officers have a fantastic record over a very very long period of time. The fact we can name the times they got it wrong on one hand says a lot.
Interesting from the other day. AA support for graduated driving licences.
Drivers aged under 21 who have just passed their tests should be prevented from carrying passengers of a similar age for their first six months as drivers, the AA has said.
It suggested tougher rules that would also see them handed six penalty points for not wearing a seatbelt during the period - meaning they could lose their licence.
The motoring organisation says the proposal for a particular type of licence targeted at new, young drivers has the potential to prevent 934 serious injuries and save 58 lives on UK roads each year.
Similar measures - known as graduated driving licensing (GDL) - already exist in Northern Ireland. The Department for Transport (DfT) has said it is not currently considering the measures for elsewhere in the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c361g6nz5j1o
DFT currently not thinking about it:
A Department for Transport spokesperson said it was not currently considering graduated driving licences and is looking for other ways of keeping young drivers safe. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7565nr19eko
It would be interesting to challenge something like that on age discrimination grounds. Car drivers over the age of 86 are more likely to be KSIed than those aged 17-24. For women, the rate is almost double.
There a significant increase in KSI rate starting at age 70, so a SPA linked re-test would be effective, notwithstanding the inevitable howls of outrage from the Telegraph.
I think the numbers are different enough and distinct enough that it would fly. There are already major differences by attributes - such as medical licences, plus the age restriction itself for getting a licence. The number afaics say restrict males more than females, but that is problematic - see what happened with insurance. Plus a version of Graduated Licences has been in place in NI since ~2016.
I think they are perhaps worried about the extra workload on the DVLA, plus the police. Both also need addressing.
Oh I don't doubt that at all. It's just curious that the same risk-based approach is not applied to older drivers too.
Not saying it's right, but maybe it's the perceived difference between a young person being killed who had their whole life still ahead of them, versus an oldie, who's already "had a good innings"
Depends who else they take out. Granted, your inexperienced young man with a car full is more likely to take others with him going too fast on a country road than your doddery old man/woman with perhaps one other person in the car and causing a prang at 20-30mph.
But I am put in mind of an incident I witnessed a few years back where an elderly man went the wrong way around a slightly oddly set up urban roundabout (you could go the wrong way in more or less a straight line, but the signage was clear) and very nearly took out a woman with a buggy and a couple of students - they stepped back just in time, having been crossing from a central island at an exit and looking mainly in the direction the traffic should have been coming from. He did, I was told by the police, surrender his licence voluntarily after they tracked him down (no further action was taken).
Apparently Trump has a good reputation in the advertising industry. Can @Roger confirm?
True story: I've made a LOT of commercials, and one thing the industry gossips about is which celebrities are jerks & which aren't. Eg., Everyone loves Tom Cruise. Directors/gaffers who've worked with him says he's super gung-ho and supportive.
Also…Trump! 👇
In the mid 2000's a good buddy of mine shot a spot with The Donald, and he raved about how nice and accommodating he was. It was surprising to me at the time, because in NYC he was known as a total bastard with business deals. And based on his Playboy personality, you might expect him to be a total douche IRL. Not so, said my friend.
Then, in 2009 I was on a long business trip w/ a different friend of mine, who had worked with Trump on a different ad campaign, and he said the exact same thing: that Trump was surprisingly cool. Again, I was a bit surprised. So I asked him to give me the deets.
Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
The latest fiscal numbers are a bit better than expected thanks to slightly higher tax receipts, even while this year to date has been worse than forecast.
But we’ve already run out of money. The outgoing government tried to bribe the voters with two very expensive NI cuts which have used up the entire fiscal headroom. The new government refusing to reverse these leaves us in a pretty poor position. Not a precarious one - our government bond yields aren’t doing anything worrying and our deficit position is better than several peers, so much so that the pound has been rising.
But there’s not going to be money for a spending bonanza anytime soon. It’s another decade of austerity ahead. Chronic austerity.
Problem is there are whole parts of the day to day running of the country where things have been cut to the bone already.
Court sitting days have reduced again while court cases are now being scheduled well into 2026...
There is a simple solution staring us all in the face: tax the £20tn of wealth in the country.
Unfortunately, no one seems clever enough to do it.
Haven't we covered this multiple times before - we always end up with a tax on property prices because it's the only thing that can't be quickly moved abroad.
Although that does remind me why I preferred the easier solution of just taxing based on estimated property value rather than land value based taxes...
The answer to the 'moving wealth abroad' threat is a UK FATCA: every British citizen should pay UK taxes on their income and assets wherever they live, work or hold those assets, offsetting any local taxes they've paid.
Those who love money more than they love their country can f*ck right off. And apply for a visa* whenever they wish to visit the UK (an application I'd instruct UKVI to routinely reject on the basis of 'they chose to leave'.)
It's not exactly a sign your economy is doing well when you have to construct the financial equivalent of the Berlin Wall to keep people from getting out.
Remember, nobody ever tried to cross the wall *in* to East Germany. And therein lies the problem. You can keep people in, but you'll also keep every last penny of foreign money out.
Autarky in the UK.
'Almost all of the UK’s international peers already levy an ‘exit tax’ on the gains of people who cease to be tax resident. This includes Australia, Canada, the US, France, Germany, and Japan, amongst others. Within the G7, Italy is the only other country which does not have any CGT on emigrants.'
We also levy an exit tax on companies that cease to be UK resident, based on the market value of assets at the time of migration. Just not on individuals. A lot of this, as well as the non-dom regime, dates back to the time of empire when it was in Britain’s interest to export entrepreneurs and officials to far flung locations.
Despite all the hand-wringing about the Kaba case, it strikes me that the law, including the role of the jury, has worked just fine in reaching the correct outcome. It would set a dangerous precedent for a police officer to be able to shoot dead an unarmed man without any charges being brought - in this case, the officer has been vindicated. The only thing I find deeply unsatisfactory is that it took over two years to get to this point, which must have been painful for Blake and his family.
The officer was identified legally; I don't think that was "just fine" or "the correct outcome"
Apparently Trump has a good reputation in the advertising industry. Can @Roger confirm?
True story: I've made a LOT of commercials, and one thing the industry gossips about is which celebrities are jerks & which aren't. Eg., Everyone loves Tom Cruise. Directors/gaffers who've worked with him says he's super gung-ho and supportive.
Also…Trump! 👇
In the mid 2000's a good buddy of mine shot a spot with The Donald, and he raved about how nice and accommodating he was. It was surprising to me at the time, because in NYC he was known as a total bastard with business deals. And based on his Playboy personality, you might expect him to be a total douche IRL. Not so, said my friend.
Then, in 2009 I was on a long business trip w/ a different friend of mine, who had worked with Trump on a different ad campaign, and he said the exact same thing: that Trump was surprisingly cool. Again, I was a bit surprised. So I asked him to give me the deets.
AIUI he was a ruthless businessman, who wouldn’t pay suppliers until the job was perfect, but that most of the people who work for him directly say he’s wonderful and many of the senior managers stayed with him for decades.
Despite all the hand-wringing about the Kaba case, it strikes me that the law, including the role of the jury, has worked just fine in reaching the correct outcome. It would set a dangerous precedent for a police officer to be able to shoot dead an unarmed man without any charges being brought - in this case, the officer has been vindicated. The only thing I find deeply unsatisfactory is that it took over two years to get to this point, which must have been tortuous for Blake and his family.
No, we already have a number of layer of oversight to assess this without the need for a trial every time they shoot somebody. If it was instantly a murder trial, no officer is ever shooting.
We aren't the US, the fire arms officers have a fantastic record over a very very long period of time. The fact we can name the times they got it wrong on one hand says a lot.
I wasn't suggesting all such cases should be an instant murder trial, but in this particular case it was necessary to ascertain that the police officer wasn't being unreasonably reckless, which was possible on the facts given to the CPS. Kaba's back story is, of course, irrelevant to the bringing of the case.
Donald Trump’s ground game in Arizona and Nevada may be undercut by canvassers working for America Pac using GPS spoofing to pretend they have knocked on doors when they haven’t, according to multiple people familiar with the practice and a leaked how-to-fake-location video.
The ramifications for Trump may be far reaching, given America Pac has taken on the bulk of the Trump campaign’s ground game in the battleground states, and the election increasingly appears set to be decided by turnout.
A bootleg how-to-spoof video, made by an America Pac canvasser in Nevada and obtained by the Guardian, shows the apparent ease with which locations can be changed to fake door-knocks, calling into question how many Trump voters have actually been reached by the field operation.
The video, shared with a few hundred canvassers, walks through the setup: a user downloads a GPS-spoofing app to falsely place themself at the door of a Trump voter, fakes responses to the survey and takes steps to cover up the fraud by varying the survey responses to make it believable.
Despite all the hand-wringing about the Kaba case, it strikes me that the law, including the role of the jury, has worked just fine in reaching the correct outcome. It would set a dangerous precedent for a police officer to be able to shoot dead an unarmed man without any charges being brought - in this case, the officer has been vindicated. The only thing I find deeply unsatisfactory is that it took over two years to get to this point, which must have been tortuous for Blake and his family.
No, we already have a number of layer of oversight to assess this without the need for a trial every time they shoot somebody. If it was instantly a murder trial, no officer is ever shooting.
We aren't the US, the fire arms officers have a fantastic record over a very very long period of time. The fact we can name the times they got it wrong on one hand says a lot.
I wasn't suggesting all such cases should be an instant murder trial, but in this particular case it was necessary to ascertain that the police officer wasn't being unreasonably reckless, which was possible on the facts given to the CPS. Kaba's back story is, of course, irrelevant to the bringing of the case.
You literally "it would set a dangerous precedent for a police officer to be able to shoot an unarmed man without charges being brought".
As I say, there are numerous layers of oversight to this, rules of engagement etc, there is nothing that suggests they didn't follow them, yet the officer still ended up on trial for doing his job. That is not right and a result has been the MET are down 250 armed response officers as people have quit and people won't take on the role (they don't get paid more for this role).
Should calm a few nerves in the Harris camp after the flood of GOP trash polls designed to help Trumps “ Stop the Steal “ narrative .
The thing that really spooked me was Tipp – yes, it might come from a GOP source, but it was spot on last time. It is a very reliable pollster. It had swung to a 2pt Trump lead from a 4pt Harris lead in the space of a week.
This morning, it was back to a tie. Suggests that there might have been a very Trumpy (outlier?) sample last week which is now existing the tracker?
I took a quick read of the other content on TIPP - the stuff published along with their tracker poll. It's wall-to-wall Trumpist drivel. So, ok, their numbers might be untainted but ... well let's just say I'm not taking it as the King James bible.
Yes, that's fair and valid. However, last time it was spot on (albeit in partnership with Investors' Business Daily, which no longer sponsors the survey).
Mr. Pointer, and when you try to tax wealth, will the wealthy and their assets stay in this country, or leave?
Not all wealth can be moved, of course. Council tax on steroids is possible. Or you could drive farmers into bankruptcy (the pre-election murmuring about imposing inheritance tax on farms might come true).
WRT farms, the budget might tweak a bit in order to deal with non-farmers usiing farms as tax planning; but there will be no major change to the exemption in ordinary 'family farm' cases.
What there should be (IHT currently only applies to 4% of estates) is a much wider net for IHT, incorporating lifetime gifts and many fewer exemptions, but a much lower rate - more like 5-10% than 40%. The current tweak for homes, which brings the threshold up to £1m for some households but not others, should also go by being incorporated into the current exempt sum.
Making most homes liable for inheritance tax would be hugely unpopular regardless of the rate, the family home is otherwise exempt for a married couple
There are some egregious errors in this comment, but DYOR. If anyone believes that only houses worth over £1m are liable to IHT they might have a horrible shock.
They are for married couples
Only married couples with no other assets.
The vast majority of married couples, even home owning married couples, do not have non property assets of around £400,000 or more to take them over the threshold
But your original post saiud "now only homes worth over £1 million pay inheritance tax".
That's flat wrong and it's all part of the Tory lying about IHT applying to many people were it not for the kind benevolent Conservatives.
It was correct, Osborne took homes under £1 million out of IHT for all married couples whatever far left spin you want to put on it
At this stage it is starting to be easier to ask which females who came into contact weren't. Some serious questions to ask about how it was allowed to happen, again seemingly everybody knew, it wasn't subtle.
Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
The latest fiscal numbers are a bit better than expected thanks to slightly higher tax receipts, even while this year to date has been worse than forecast.
But we’ve already run out of money. The outgoing government tried to bribe the voters with two very expensive NI cuts which have used up the entire fiscal headroom. The new government refusing to reverse these leaves us in a pretty poor position. Not a precarious one - our government bond yields aren’t doing anything worrying and our deficit position is better than several peers, so much so that the pound has been rising.
But there’s not going to be money for a spending bonanza anytime soon. It’s another decade of austerity ahead. Chronic austerity.
Problem is there are whole parts of the day to day running of the country where things have been cut to the bone already.
Court sitting days have reduced again while court cases are now being scheduled well into 2026...
There is a simple solution staring us all in the face: tax the £20tn of wealth in the country.
Unfortunately, no one seems clever enough to do it.
Haven't we covered this multiple times before - we always end up with a tax on property prices because it's the only thing that can't be quickly moved abroad.
Although that does remind me why I preferred the easier solution of just taxing based on estimated property value rather than land value based taxes...
The answer to the 'moving wealth abroad' threat is a UK FATCA: every British citizen should pay UK taxes on their income and assets wherever they live, work or hold those assets, offsetting any local taxes they've paid.
Those who love money more than they love their country can f*ck right off. And apply for a visa* whenever they wish to visit the UK (an application I'd instruct UKVI to routinely reject on the basis of 'they chose to leave'.)
It's not exactly a sign your economy is doing well when you have to construct the financial equivalent of the Berlin Wall to keep people from getting out.
Remember, nobody ever tried to cross the wall *in* to East Germany. And therein lies the problem. You can keep people in, but you'll also keep every last penny of foreign money out.
Autarky in the UK.
Angela Merkel and her family defected from West Germany to East Germany. Closing down nuclear power to rely on Russian gas and unlimited immigration are communist policies.
Despite all the hand-wringing about the Kaba case, it strikes me that the law, including the role of the jury, has worked just fine in reaching the correct outcome. It would set a dangerous precedent for a police officer to be able to shoot dead an unarmed man without any charges being brought - in this case, the officer has been vindicated. The only thing I find deeply unsatisfactory is that it took over two years to get to this point, which must have been painful for Blake and his family.
It hasn't worked particularly well: if reports are to be believed the policeman involved now has a price on his head.
The Mail are reporting that Blake now has a price on his head.
Why on earth was his identity revealed in the first place? Epic fail.
The police and the CPS are either terrified of being called racist or, more worryingly, actively sympathetic to the agenda of BLM.
I don't believe Blake should have been charged and named. Kaba was clearly a bad guy and the World is a safer place without him. I'd have shot the f***** if I was armed and with a two tonne Audi pointed at me. However, the confidence of the usual PB suspects that the trial was a conspiracy by BLM/Khan/ Starmer/CPS/ ECHR/ EU and the BBC is a bit of a stretch.
The Mail are reporting that Blake now has a price on his head.
Why on earth was his identity revealed in the first place? Epic fail.
The police and the CPS are either terrified of being called racist or, more worryingly, actively sympathetic to the agenda of BLM.
I don't believe Blake should have been charged and named. Kaba was clearly a bad guy and the World is a safer place without him. I'd have shot the f***** if I was armed and with a two tonne Audi pointed at me. However, the confidence of the usual PB suspects that the trial was a conspiracy by Khan/ Starmer/CPS/ ECHR/ EU and the BBC is a bit of a stretch.
Who says it is a massive conspiracy. You seem to be inventing all these enemies in your head, its all a bit Steve Bray.
Despite all the hand-wringing about the Kaba case, it strikes me that the law, including the role of the jury, has worked just fine in reaching the correct outcome. It would set a dangerous precedent for a police officer to be able to shoot dead an unarmed man without any charges being brought - in this case, the officer has been vindicated. The only thing I find deeply unsatisfactory is that it took over two years to get to this point, which must have been tortuous for Blake and his family.
No, we already have a number of layer of oversight to assess this without the need for a trial every time they shoot somebody. If it was instantly a murder trial, no officer is ever shooting.
We aren't the US, the fire arms officers have a fantastic record over a very very long period of time. The fact we can name the times they got it wrong on one hand says a lot.
I wasn't suggesting all such cases should be an instant murder trial, but in this particular case it was necessary to ascertain that the police officer wasn't being unreasonably reckless, which was possible on the facts given to the CPS. Kaba's back story is, of course, irrelevant to the bringing of the case.
But the car's backstory isn't. Hardly a surprise that the jury took only three hours to say not guilty.
Despite all the hand-wringing about the Kaba case, it strikes me that the law, including the role of the jury, has worked just fine in reaching the correct outcome. It would set a dangerous precedent for a police officer to be able to shoot dead an unarmed man without any charges being brought - in this case, the officer has been vindicated. The only thing I find deeply unsatisfactory is that it took over two years to get to this point, which must have been painful for Blake and his family.
Quite.
You have to laugh that the majority on here would support common law, founded in Magna Carta 800 years ago.
Which meant that the law applied to both the King and common man, and open justice is a fundamental principle.
Yet suddenly people want exceptions and identities hidden in court.
You can argue that it shouldn't have got to court (as murder), however the fact that it did increases the trust in the whole system.
The jury system and having open courts isn't perfect but seems the least worst of any alternatives.
The Mail are reporting that Blake now has a price on his head.
Why on earth was his identity revealed in the first place? Epic fail.
The police and the CPS are either terrified of being called racist or, more worryingly, actively sympathetic to the agenda of BLM.
I don't believe Blake should have been charged and named. Kaba was clearly a bad guy and the World is a safer place without him. I'd have shot the f***** if I was armed and with a two tonne Audi pointed at me. However, the confidence of the usual PB suspects that the trial was a conspiracy by BLM/Khan/ Starmer/CPS/ ECHR/ EU and the BBC is a bit of a stretch.
The trial established that (a) this was lawful self defence (b) Kaba was a scumbag.
Sergeant Blake performed a public service, when he shot him.
Mr. Pointer, and when you try to tax wealth, will the wealthy and their assets stay in this country, or leave?
Not all wealth can be moved, of course. Council tax on steroids is possible. Or you could drive farmers into bankruptcy (the pre-election murmuring about imposing inheritance tax on farms might come true).
WRT farms, the budget might tweak a bit in order to deal with non-farmers usiing farms as tax planning; but there will be no major change to the exemption in ordinary 'family farm' cases.
What there should be (IHT currently only applies to 4% of estates) is a much wider net for IHT, incorporating lifetime gifts and many fewer exemptions, but a much lower rate - more like 5-10% than 40%. The current tweak for homes, which brings the threshold up to £1m for some households but not others, should also go by being incorporated into the current exempt sum.
Making most homes liable for inheritance tax would be hugely unpopular regardless of the rate, the family home is otherwise exempt for a married couple
There are some egregious errors in this comment, but DYOR. If anyone believes that only houses worth over £1m are liable to IHT they might have a horrible shock.
They are for married couples
Only married couples with no other assets.
The vast majority of married couples, even home owning married couples, do not have non property assets of around £400,000 or more to take them over the threshold
But your original post saiud "now only homes worth over £1 million pay inheritance tax".
That's flat wrong and it's all part of the Tory lying about IHT applying to many people were it not for the kind benevolent Conservatives.
It was correct, Osborne took homes under £1 million out of IHT for all married couples whatever far left spin you want to put on it
That is a mendaciously incomplete statement. 2 x RNRB is only 350K.
Why keep fibbing to the (comparatively) intelligent audience on PB?
The Mail are reporting that Blake now has a price on his head.
Why on earth was his identity revealed in the first place? Epic fail.
The police and the CPS are either terrified of being called racist or, more worryingly, actively sympathetic to the agenda of BLM.
I don't believe Blake should have been charged and named. Kaba was clearly a bad guy and the World is a safer place without him. I'd have shot the f***** if I was armed and with a two tonne Audi pointed at me. However, the confidence of the usual PB suspects that the trial was a conspiracy by Khan/ Starmer/CPS/ ECHR/ EU and the BBC is a bit of a stretch.
Who says it is a massive conspiracy. You seem to be inventing all these enemies in your head, its all a bit Steve Bray.
Leon has made several claims (with citations) that Khan was rooting for Kaba and Cookie claimed the CPS (personified by Starmer- my interpretion) was terrified by BLM. To be fair to the BBC they had a commentary from Jenrick on WATO. Jenrick was OK too.
Despite all the hand-wringing about the Kaba case, it strikes me that the law, including the role of the jury, has worked just fine in reaching the correct outcome. It would set a dangerous precedent for a police officer to be able to shoot dead an unarmed man without any charges being brought - in this case, the officer has been vindicated. The only thing I find deeply unsatisfactory is that it took over two years to get to this point, which must have been painful for Blake and his family.
Quite.
You have to laugh that the majority on here would support common law, founded in Magna Carta 800 years ago.
Which meant that the law applied to both the King and common man, and open justice is a fundamental principle.
Yet suddenly people want exceptions and identities hidden in court.
You can argue that it shouldn't have got to court (as murder), however the fact that it did increases the trust in the whole system.
The jury system and having open courts isn't perfect but seems the least worst of any alternatives.
Identities are hidden in court all the time - rape accusers for example. This is done for good reason even when it turns out the accusation was false because society is served better by the small chance of error but the protection of identities in various circumstances - this is a classic case where the identity of the accused could risk danger to the life of them or their family and no benefit was served by life tidying them.
'Prison is not working at the moment' Justice Secretary @ShabanaMahmood says the government is 'expanding punishment outside of prison' The government has announced it's reviewing sentencing to address the crisis in jails"
The Mail are reporting that Blake now has a price on his head.
Why on earth was his identity revealed in the first place? Epic fail.
The police and the CPS are either terrified of being called racist or, more worryingly, actively sympathetic to the agenda of BLM.
I don't believe Blake should have been charged and named. Kaba was clearly a bad guy and the World is a safer place without him. I'd have shot the f***** if I was armed and with a two tonne Audi pointed at me. However, the confidence of the usual PB suspects that the trial was a conspiracy by BLM/Khan/ Starmer/CPS/ ECHR/ EU and the BBC is a bit of a stretch.
The trial established that (a) this was lawful self defence (b) Kaba was a scumbag.
Sergeant Blake performed a public service, when he shot him.
Did I say otherwise? I don't believe Blake should have seen the inside of a courtroom. I am calling out the PB conspiracy theories as to why Blake was charged. For clarification. He shouldn't have been.
The Mail are reporting that Blake now has a price on his head.
Why on earth was his identity revealed in the first place? Epic fail.
The police and the CPS are either terrified of being called racist or, more worryingly, actively sympathetic to the agenda of BLM.
I don't believe Blake should have been charged and named. Kaba was clearly a bad guy and the World is a safer place without him. I'd have shot the f***** if I was armed and with a two tonne Audi pointed at me. However, the confidence of the usual PB suspects that the trial was a conspiracy by BLM/Khan/ Starmer/CPS/ ECHR/ EU and the BBC is a bit of a stretch.
The trial established that (a) this was lawful self defence (b) Kaba was a scumbag.
Sergeant Blake performed a public service, when he shot him.
Did I say otherwise? I don't believe Blake should have seen the inside of a courtroom. I am calling out the PB conspiracy theories as to why Blake was charged. For clarification. He shouldn't have been.
Apparently Trump has a good reputation in the advertising industry. Can @Roger confirm?
True story: I've made a LOT of commercials, and one thing the industry gossips about is which celebrities are jerks & which aren't. Eg., Everyone loves Tom Cruise. Directors/gaffers who've worked with him says he's super gung-ho and supportive.
Also…Trump! 👇
In the mid 2000's a good buddy of mine shot a spot with The Donald, and he raved about how nice and accommodating he was. It was surprising to me at the time, because in NYC he was known as a total bastard with business deals. And based on his Playboy personality, you might expect him to be a total douche IRL. Not so, said my friend.
Then, in 2009 I was on a long business trip w/ a different friend of mine, who had worked with Trump on a different ad campaign, and he said the exact same thing: that Trump was surprisingly cool. Again, I was a bit surprised. So I asked him to give me the deets.
AIUI he was a ruthless businessman, who wouldn’t pay suppliers until the job was perfect, but that most of the people who work for him directly say he’s wonderful and many of the senior managers stayed with him for decades.
I believe the security details always like him as he does the same - pays them some personal attention. Mind you Biden is the same - talks to everyone etc etc.
Only one of them wants to destroy the constitution though.
The Mail are reporting that Blake now has a price on his head.
Why on earth was his identity revealed in the first place? Epic fail.
The police and the CPS are either terrified of being called racist or, more worryingly, actively sympathetic to the agenda of BLM.
I don't believe Blake should have been charged and named. Kaba was clearly a bad guy and the World is a safer place without him. I'd have shot the f***** if I was armed and with a two tonne Audi pointed at me. However, the confidence of the usual PB suspects that the trial was a conspiracy by BLM/Khan/ Starmer/CPS/ ECHR/ EU and the BBC is a bit of a stretch.
The trial established that (a) this was lawful self defence (b) Kaba was a scumbag.
Sergeant Blake performed a public service, when he shot him.
And if Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls & probably the greatest English judge of modern times according to Thatcher, had the choice he would have hanged the Birmingham six.
'Prison is not working at the moment' Justice Secretary @ShabanaMahmood says the government is 'expanding punishment outside of prison' The government has announced it's reviewing sentencing to address the crisis in jails"
The Mail are reporting that Blake now has a price on his head.
Why on earth was his identity revealed in the first place? Epic fail.
The police and the CPS are either terrified of being called racist or, more worryingly, actively sympathetic to the agenda of BLM.
I don't believe Blake should have been charged and named. Kaba was clearly a bad guy and the World is a safer place without him. I'd have shot the f***** if I was armed and with a two tonne Audi pointed at me. However, the confidence of the usual PB suspects that the trial was a conspiracy by BLM/Khan/ Starmer/CPS/ ECHR/ EU and the BBC is a bit of a stretch.
The trial established that (a) this was lawful self defence (b) Kaba was a scumbag.
Sergeant Blake performed a public service, when he shot him.
Did I say otherwise? I don't believe Blake should have seen the inside of a courtroom. I am calling out the PB conspiracy theories as to why Blake was charged. For clarification. He shouldn't have been.
These conspiracy theories exist only in your mind
Maybe. But have you recently revisited some of your racially charged conspiracies?
Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
The latest fiscal numbers are a bit better than expected thanks to slightly higher tax receipts, even while this year to date has been worse than forecast.
But we’ve already run out of money. The outgoing government tried to bribe the voters with two very expensive NI cuts which have used up the entire fiscal headroom. The new government refusing to reverse these leaves us in a pretty poor position. Not a precarious one - our government bond yields aren’t doing anything worrying and our deficit position is better than several peers, so much so that the pound has been rising.
But there’s not going to be money for a spending bonanza anytime soon. It’s another decade of austerity ahead. Chronic austerity.
Problem is there are whole parts of the day to day running of the country where things have been cut to the bone already.
Court sitting days have reduced again while court cases are now being scheduled well into 2026...
There is a simple solution staring us all in the face: tax the £20tn of wealth in the country.
Unfortunately, no one seems clever enough to do it.
Haven't we covered this multiple times before - we always end up with a tax on property prices because it's the only thing that can't be quickly moved abroad.
Although that does remind me why I preferred the easier solution of just taxing based on estimated property value rather than land value based taxes...
The answer to the 'moving wealth abroad' threat is a UK FATCA: every British citizen should pay UK taxes on their income and assets wherever they live, work or hold those assets, offsetting any local taxes they've paid.
Those who love money more than they love their country can f*ck right off. And apply for a visa* whenever they wish to visit the UK (an application I'd instruct UKVI to routinely reject on the basis of 'they chose to leave'.)
It's not exactly a sign your economy is doing well when you have to construct the financial equivalent of the Berlin Wall to keep people from getting out.
Remember, nobody ever tried to cross the wall *in* to East Germany. And therein lies the problem. You can keep people in, but you'll also keep every last penny of foreign money out.
Autarky in the UK.
Angela Merkel and her family defected from West Germany to East Germany. Closing down nuclear power to rely on Russian gas and unlimited immigration are communist policies.
Despite all the hand-wringing about the Kaba case, it strikes me that the law, including the role of the jury, has worked just fine in reaching the correct outcome. It would set a dangerous precedent for a police officer to be able to shoot dead an unarmed man without any charges being brought - in this case, the officer has been vindicated. The only thing I find deeply unsatisfactory is that it took over two years to get to this point, which must have been painful for Blake and his family.
Quite.
You have to laugh that the majority on here would support common law, founded in Magna Carta 800 years ago.
Which meant that the law applied to both the King and common man, and open justice is a fundamental principle.
Yet suddenly people want exceptions and identities hidden in court.
You can argue that it shouldn't have got to court (as murder), however the fact that it did increases the trust in the whole system.
The jury system and having open courts isn't perfect but seems the least worst of any alternatives.
Identities are hidden in court all the time - rape accusers for example. This is done for good reason even when it turns out the accusation was false because society is served better by the small chance of error but the protection of identities in various circumstances - this is a classic case where the identity of the accused could risk danger to the life of them or their family and no benefit was served by life tidying them.
rape accusers aren't on trial.
The idea that his identity could be covered up from people who wished to do him harm is simply delusional .
Sure the general public wouldn't know, but probably 90% of the public would buy him a drink.
Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
The latest fiscal numbers are a bit better than expected thanks to slightly higher tax receipts, even while this year to date has been worse than forecast.
But we’ve already run out of money. The outgoing government tried to bribe the voters with two very expensive NI cuts which have used up the entire fiscal headroom. The new government refusing to reverse these leaves us in a pretty poor position. Not a precarious one - our government bond yields aren’t doing anything worrying and our deficit position is better than several peers, so much so that the pound has been rising.
But there’s not going to be money for a spending bonanza anytime soon. It’s another decade of austerity ahead. Chronic austerity.
Problem is there are whole parts of the day to day running of the country where things have been cut to the bone already.
Court sitting days have reduced again while court cases are now being scheduled well into 2026...
There is a simple solution staring us all in the face: tax the £20tn of wealth in the country.
Unfortunately, no one seems clever enough to do it.
Haven't we covered this multiple times before - we always end up with a tax on property prices because it's the only thing that can't be quickly moved abroad.
Although that does remind me why I preferred the easier solution of just taxing based on estimated property value rather than land value based taxes...
The answer to the 'moving wealth abroad' threat is a UK FATCA: every British citizen should pay UK taxes on their income and assets wherever they live, work or hold those assets, offsetting any local taxes they've paid.
You do pay taxes on your UK income whether or not you're a UK resident, offsetting local taxes and subject to double taxation treaties, which are extremely complicated and not worth discussing here. It's actually harsher than that, because you often don't get a personal allowance if you're outside the UK.
You don't pay taxes on your FOREIGN income if you spend more than 15-183 days outside the country, depending on your circumstances.
That's exactly the right divide I think.
What the US does that's different is charge overseas residents on their FOREIGN income, for no reason and with no justification. No-one has seriously proposed adopting that here that I'm aware of, and no other civilised countries do so, for the obvious reason that people living overseas use no UK government services, and the UK government makes no contribution to generating foreign income.
The Mail are reporting that Blake now has a price on his head.
Why on earth was his identity revealed in the first place? Epic fail.
The police and the CPS are either terrified of being called racist or, more worryingly, actively sympathetic to the agenda of BLM.
I don't believe Blake should have been charged and named. Kaba was clearly a bad guy and the World is a safer place without him. I'd have shot the f***** if I was armed and with a two tonne Audi pointed at me. However, the confidence of the usual PB suspects that the trial was a conspiracy by BLM/Khan/ Starmer/CPS/ ECHR/ EU and the BBC is a bit of a stretch.
The trial established that (a) this was lawful self defence (b) Kaba was a scumbag.
Sergeant Blake performed a public service, when he shot him.
Did I say otherwise? I don't believe Blake should have seen the inside of a courtroom. I am calling out the PB conspiracy theories as to why Blake was charged. For clarification. He shouldn't have been.
These conspiracy theories exist only in your mind
Maybe. But have you recently revisited some of your racially charged conspiracies?
Mr. Pointer, and when you try to tax wealth, will the wealthy and their assets stay in this country, or leave?
Not all wealth can be moved, of course. Council tax on steroids is possible. Or you could drive farmers into bankruptcy (the pre-election murmuring about imposing inheritance tax on farms might come true).
WRT farms, the budget might tweak a bit in order to deal with non-farmers usiing farms as tax planning; but there will be no major change to the exemption in ordinary 'family farm' cases.
What there should be (IHT currently only applies to 4% of estates) is a much wider net for IHT, incorporating lifetime gifts and many fewer exemptions, but a much lower rate - more like 5-10% than 40%. The current tweak for homes, which brings the threshold up to £1m for some households but not others, should also go by being incorporated into the current exempt sum.
Making most homes liable for inheritance tax would be hugely unpopular regardless of the rate, the family home is otherwise exempt for a married couple
There are some egregious errors in this comment, but DYOR. If anyone believes that only houses worth over £1m are liable to IHT they might have a horrible shock.
They are for married couples
Only married couples with no other assets.
The vast majority of married couples, even home owning married couples, do not have non property assets of around £400,000 or more to take them over the threshold
But your original post saiud "now only homes worth over £1 million pay inheritance tax".
That's flat wrong and it's all part of the Tory lying about IHT applying to many people were it not for the kind benevolent Conservatives.
It was correct, Osborne took homes under £1 million out of IHT for all married couples whatever far left spin you want to put on it
This repeated mistake (see above in the thread) is still a mistake. Do not take financial/legal advice from this source, a source which seems to have a difficulty with ever being incorrect. DYOR.
Mr. Pointer, and when you try to tax wealth, will the wealthy and their assets stay in this country, or leave?
Not all wealth can be moved, of course. Council tax on steroids is possible. Or you could drive farmers into bankruptcy (the pre-election murmuring about imposing inheritance tax on farms might come true).
WRT farms, the budget might tweak a bit in order to deal with non-farmers usiing farms as tax planning; but there will be no major change to the exemption in ordinary 'family farm' cases.
What there should be (IHT currently only applies to 4% of estates) is a much wider net for IHT, incorporating lifetime gifts and many fewer exemptions, but a much lower rate - more like 5-10% than 40%. The current tweak for homes, which brings the threshold up to £1m for some households but not others, should also go by being incorporated into the current exempt sum.
Making most homes liable for inheritance tax would be hugely unpopular regardless of the rate, the family home is otherwise exempt for a married couple
There are some egregious errors in this comment, but DYOR. If anyone believes that only houses worth over £1m are liable to IHT they might have a horrible shock.
They are for married couples
Only married couples with no other assets.
The vast majority of married couples, even home owning married couples, do not have non property assets of around £400,000 or more to take them over the threshold
But your original post saiud "now only homes worth over £1 million pay inheritance tax".
That's flat wrong and it's all part of the Tory lying about IHT applying to many people were it not for the kind benevolent Conservatives.
It was correct, Osborne took homes under £1 million out of IHT for all married couples whatever far left spin you want to put on it
This repeated mistake (see above in the thread) is still a mistake. Do not take financial/legal advice from this source, a source which seems to have a difficulty with ever being incorrect. DYOR.
No mistake about it, Osborne took homes over £1 million out of IHT for married couples ie the vast majority of home owners pay no IHT now
Mr. Pointer, and when you try to tax wealth, will the wealthy and their assets stay in this country, or leave?
Not all wealth can be moved, of course. Council tax on steroids is possible. Or you could drive farmers into bankruptcy (the pre-election murmuring about imposing inheritance tax on farms might come true).
WRT farms, the budget might tweak a bit in order to deal with non-farmers usiing farms as tax planning; but there will be no major change to the exemption in ordinary 'family farm' cases.
What there should be (IHT currently only applies to 4% of estates) is a much wider net for IHT, incorporating lifetime gifts and many fewer exemptions, but a much lower rate - more like 5-10% than 40%. The current tweak for homes, which brings the threshold up to £1m for some households but not others, should also go by being incorporated into the current exempt sum.
Making most homes liable for inheritance tax would be hugely unpopular regardless of the rate, the family home is otherwise exempt for a married couple
There are some egregious errors in this comment, but DYOR. If anyone believes that only houses worth over £1m are liable to IHT they might have a horrible shock.
They are for married couples
Only married couples with no other assets.
The vast majority of married couples, even home owning married couples, do not have non property assets of around £400,000 or more to take them over the threshold
But your original post saiud "now only homes worth over £1 million pay inheritance tax".
That's flat wrong and it's all part of the Tory lying about IHT applying to many people were it not for the kind benevolent Conservatives.
It was correct, Osborne took homes under £1 million out of IHT for all married couples whatever far left spin you want to put on it
This repeated mistake (see above in the thread) is still a mistake. Do not take financial/legal advice from this source, a source which seems to have a difficulty with ever being incorrect. DYOR.
No mistake about it, Osborne took homes over £1 million out of IHT for married couples ie the vast majority of home owners pay no IHT now
Mr. Pointer, and when you try to tax wealth, will the wealthy and their assets stay in this country, or leave?
Not all wealth can be moved, of course. Council tax on steroids is possible. Or you could drive farmers into bankruptcy (the pre-election murmuring about imposing inheritance tax on farms might come true).
WRT farms, the budget might tweak a bit in order to deal with non-farmers usiing farms as tax planning; but there will be no major change to the exemption in ordinary 'family farm' cases.
What there should be (IHT currently only applies to 4% of estates) is a much wider net for IHT, incorporating lifetime gifts and many fewer exemptions, but a much lower rate - more like 5-10% than 40%. The current tweak for homes, which brings the threshold up to £1m for some households but not others, should also go by being incorporated into the current exempt sum.
Making most homes liable for inheritance tax would be hugely unpopular regardless of the rate, the family home is otherwise exempt for a married couple
There are some egregious errors in this comment, but DYOR. If anyone believes that only houses worth over £1m are liable to IHT they might have a horrible shock.
They are for married couples
Only married couples with no other assets.
The vast majority of married couples, even home owning married couples, do not have non property assets of around £400,000 or more to take them over the threshold
But your original post saiud "now only homes worth over £1 million pay inheritance tax".
That's flat wrong and it's all part of the Tory lying about IHT applying to many people were it not for the kind benevolent Conservatives.
It was correct, Osborne took homes under £1 million out of IHT for all married couples whatever far left spin you want to put on it
This repeated mistake (see above in the thread) is still a mistake. Do not take financial/legal advice from this source, a source which seems to have a difficulty with ever being incorrect. DYOR.
No mistake about it, Osborne took homes over £1 million out of IHT for married couples ie the vast majority of home owners pay no IHT now
Under £1m
If you can't even get that right..
Under than but the point is clear homes under £1 million owned by married couples do not pay IHT. End that exemption and push most homes certainly in London and the home counties back in IHT and detached homes too elsewhere and it would be political suicide for Labour
1978: Gilbert Baker I. Eight-horizontal stripe version designed by Gilbert Baker in 1978. Pink, Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Turquoise, Indigo, Violet.
1978: Seven-colour-stripe flag. Seven-colour version due to unavailability of pink fabric. Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Turquoise, Indigo, Violet.
1979: Six-colour-stripe flag.Six-color version popular since 1979, with turquoise and indigo replaced with blue. Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Violet.
2017: Gilbert Baker II. Nine-stripe version designed by Gilbert Baker in 2017, adding a lavender stripe to symbolize diversity. Lavender, Pink, Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Turquoise, Indigo, Violet.
2017: Philadelphia flag. Eight-stripe version with black and brown stripes on top of the standard six-colour flag. Designed by the marketing firm Tierney, adopted by the city of Philadelphia. Black, Brown Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Violet.
2018: Progress Pride Flag. Six-colour flag with Five chevrons. Designed by Daniel Quasar incorporating elements from both the Philadelphia flag and trans pride flag. Six stripes (as six-colour version), five chevrons black, brown, light blue, pink, and white.
2018: Social Justice Pride Flag. Six-colour flag with three chevrons. Designed by Chennai-based Moulee. Six stripes (as six-colour version), three chevrons black, blue, red.
2021: Intersex Inclusive Progress Pride Flag. Six-colour flag with six chevrons and one brown circle. Designed by Valentino Vecchietti of Intersex Equality Rights UK. As Progress Pride Flag but with a yellow chevron and a brown circle added.
And remember: it's not called the "Pride Jack" unless it's flown at sea.
At this stage it is starting to be easier to ask which females who came into contact weren't. Some serious questions to ask about how it was allowed to happen, again seemingly everybody knew, it wasn't subtle.
A general response of "It's just X being X". Bit of a shrug, bit of a giggle.
MeToo was about changing this. I hope it's had at least some impact.
The Mail are reporting that Blake now has a price on his head.
Why on earth was his identity revealed in the first place? Epic fail.
The police and the CPS are either terrified of being called racist or, more worryingly, actively sympathetic to the agenda of BLM.
I don't believe Blake should have been charged and named. Kaba was clearly a bad guy and the World is a safer place without him. I'd have shot the f***** if I was armed and with a two tonne Audi pointed at me. However, the confidence of the usual PB suspects that the trial was a conspiracy by BLM/Khan/ Starmer/CPS/ ECHR/ EU and the BBC is a bit of a stretch.
I have commented on BLM. I am not suggesting a conspiracy, but I think the sensitivity around BLM at the time helped get this to a trial. Just the same as the shame of not exposing Saville led to an over-reaction in more recent cases.
Comments
So whatevs.
Remember, nobody ever tried to cross the wall *in* to East Germany. And therein lies the problem. You can keep people in, but you'll also keep every last penny of foreign money out.
Autarky in the UK.
eg The Estate of TS Elliot, which made a fair amount of cash from Cats and similar.
https://tseliot.com/
We also now know the, but but he was expecting a child....the mother had already taken out a restraining order because he beat her.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/22/chris-kaba-gunned-down-rival-oval-space-nightclub/
But I am put in mind of an incident I witnessed a few years back where an elderly man went the wrong way around a slightly oddly set up urban roundabout (you could go the wrong way in more or less a straight line, but the signage was clear) and very nearly took out a woman with a buggy and a couple of students - they stepped back just in time, having been crossing from a central island at an exit and looking mainly in the direction the traffic should have been coming from. He did, I was told by the police, surrender his licence voluntarily after they tracked him down (no further action was taken).
True story: I've made a LOT of commercials, and one thing the industry gossips about is which celebrities are jerks & which aren't. Eg., Everyone loves Tom Cruise. Directors/gaffers who've worked with him says he's super gung-ho and supportive.
Also…Trump! 👇
In the mid 2000's a good buddy of mine shot a spot with The Donald, and he raved about how nice and accommodating he was. It was surprising to me at the time, because in NYC he was known as a total bastard with business deals. And based on his Playboy personality, you might expect him to be a total douche IRL. Not so, said my friend.
Then, in 2009 I was on a long business trip w/ a different friend of mine, who had worked with Trump on a different ad campaign, and he said the exact same thing: that Trump was surprisingly cool. Again, I was a bit surprised. So I asked him to give me the deets.
And this is the story he told me:
https://x.com/erichhartmann/status/1848158759127847074
Give it a year or two,and there’ll be another along.
https://www.financialfairness.org.uk/docs?editionId=5e8fdd7c-5215-43d4-b9d1-b20200d84252
Autarky in the G7.
This one was unintentional, I think - policemen killed during training exercise:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jun/09/4
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29243771
And this one, who shot himself. I hope for his future reactions from colleagues it wasn't in his foot:
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2024-04-20/police-firearms-officer-injured-after-shooting-himself-in-training-accident
We aren't the US, the fire arms officers have a fantastic record over a very very long period of time. The fact we can name the times they got it wrong on one hand says a lot.
https://x.com/ericldaugh/status/1848097086069153830
AIUI he was a ruthless businessman, who wouldn’t pay suppliers until the job was perfect, but that most of the people who work for him directly say he’s wonderful and many of the senior managers stayed with him for decades.
Donald Trump’s ground game in Arizona and Nevada may be undercut by canvassers working for America Pac using GPS spoofing to pretend they have knocked on doors when they haven’t, according to multiple people familiar with the practice and a leaked how-to-fake-location video.
The ramifications for Trump may be far reaching, given America Pac has taken on the bulk of the Trump campaign’s ground game in the battleground states, and the election increasingly appears set to be decided by turnout.
A bootleg how-to-spoof video, made by an America Pac canvasser in Nevada and obtained by the Guardian, shows the apparent ease with which locations can be changed to fake door-knocks, calling into question how many Trump voters have actually been reached by the field operation.
The video, shared with a few hundred canvassers, walks through the setup: a user downloads a GPS-spoofing app to falsely place themself at the door of a Trump voter, fakes responses to the survey and takes steps to cover up the fraud by varying the survey responses to make it believable.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/22/trump-ground-game-door-knock-hack-gps
https://x.com/america/status/1848486087468986474
Shannon from McKees Rocks, PA was today’s recipient of $1M for signing our petition to support the Constitution
Every day until Election Day, a person who signs the petition will be selected to earn $1M as a spokesperson for America PAC
petition.theamericapac.org
I’d say they’re more worried about lottery law than electoral law.
As I say, there are numerous layers of oversight to this, rules of engagement etc, there is nothing that suggests they didn't follow them, yet the officer still ended up on trial for doing his job. That is not right and a result has been the MET are down 250 armed response officers as people have quit and people won't take on the role (they don't get paid more for this role).
The 37-year-old claimed the Egyptian businessman would grope her and force her to kiss him during their weekly meetings when she worked for him."
https://news.sky.com/story/it-was-horrific-paul-gascoignes-daughter-bianca-says-she-was-sexually-assaulted-by-mohamed-al-fayed-13238490
https://x.com/WorldBollard/status/1845112907165565241
* My favourite bollards. Require a surprisingly large hole for the underground structure.
You have to laugh that the majority on here would support common law, founded in Magna Carta 800 years ago.
Which meant that the law applied to both the King and common man, and open justice is a fundamental principle.
Yet suddenly people want exceptions and identities hidden in court.
You can argue that it shouldn't have got to court (as murder), however the fact that it did increases the trust in the whole system.
The jury system and having open courts isn't perfect but seems the least worst of any alternatives.
Sergeant Blake performed a public service, when he shot him.
Why keep fibbing to the (comparatively) intelligent audience on PB?
https://www.copfs.gov.uk/about-copfs/news/fai-determination-with-significant-recommendations-published-following-death-of-xander-irvine/
Sensible recommendations imo.
The Harris campaign is concerned about Michigan and North Carolina - NBC
Only one of them wants to destroy the constitution though.
Would that have been a public service ?
The idea that his identity could be covered up from people who wished to do him harm is simply delusional .
Sure the general public wouldn't know, but probably 90% of the public would buy him a drink.
See here:
https://www.gov.uk/tax-uk-income-live-abroad
You don't pay taxes on your FOREIGN income if you spend more than 15-183 days outside the country, depending on your circumstances.
That's exactly the right divide I think.
What the US does that's different is charge overseas residents on their FOREIGN income, for no reason and with no justification. No-one has seriously proposed adopting that here that I'm aware of, and no other civilised countries do so, for the obvious reason that people living overseas use no UK government services, and the UK government makes no contribution to generating foreign income.
Democrats brace for a possible crack in the blue wall and signs of North Carolina slipping
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/democrats-brace-crack-blue-wall-signs-north-carolina-slipping-rcna176046
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_flag_(LGBTQ)
I didn't know the original version of the flag had more colours in horizontal stripes.
I hope complacency isn't creeping in. They need to be flat out right to the line.
2x more 2020 GOP Election Day voters are now voting early compared to 2020 Democratic Election Day voters.
In terms of younger people 18 to 34 a new poll shows Harris beating Trump 60 to 40 in a head to head .
Thats a similar margin to Biden in 2020 .
NEW THREAD
If you can't even get that right..
Changes to the Rainbow Flag over time are
- 1978: Gilbert Baker I. Eight-horizontal stripe version designed by Gilbert Baker in 1978. Pink, Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Turquoise, Indigo, Violet.
- 1978: Seven-colour-stripe flag. Seven-colour version due to unavailability of pink fabric. Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Turquoise, Indigo, Violet.
- 1979: Six-colour-stripe flag.Six-color version popular since 1979, with turquoise and indigo replaced with blue. Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Violet.
- 2017: Gilbert Baker II. Nine-stripe version designed by Gilbert Baker in 2017, adding a lavender stripe to symbolize diversity. Lavender, Pink, Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Turquoise, Indigo, Violet.
- 2017: Philadelphia flag. Eight-stripe version with black and brown stripes on top of the standard six-colour flag. Designed by the marketing firm Tierney, adopted by the city of Philadelphia. Black, Brown Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Violet.
- 2018: Progress Pride Flag. Six-colour flag with Five chevrons. Designed by Daniel Quasar incorporating elements from both the Philadelphia flag and trans pride flag. Six stripes (as six-colour version), five chevrons black, brown, light blue, pink, and white.
- 2018: Social Justice Pride Flag. Six-colour flag with three chevrons. Designed by Chennai-based Moulee. Six stripes (as six-colour version), three chevrons black, blue, red.
- 2021: Intersex Inclusive Progress Pride Flag. Six-colour flag with six chevrons and one brown circle. Designed by Valentino Vecchietti of Intersex Equality Rights UK. As Progress Pride Flag but with a yellow chevron and a brown circle added.
And remember: it's not called the "Pride Jack" unless it's flown at sea.MeToo was about changing this. I hope it's had at least some impact.