There's gambling and there's gambling. Do we equate the intricacies of equine entertainment with the tedium of online roulette? I hope not though I appreciate those whose lives have been damaged by gambing addiction and their families and friends (and indeed many others) would rather see the opportunities for gambling removed from the High Street.
As with smoking and drink driving before it, there is a rich vein of puritanism about and the poll numbers suggest the awareness of the issue (as with so many other issues) is often partial and partisan.
The horse racing industry has mounted a strong campaign against harmonisation of general betting duty with remote gaming duty but the political clout of the sport, for all Lady Starmer is a fan, is reduced by the fact most MPs in horse racing constituencies are either Liberal Democrats or Conservatives and they simply don't have the numbers IF the urban Labour MPs want it to happen.
Dire consequences notwithstanding, it's an unpleasant truth the bookmaking industry (particularly groups like Entain and Flutter) seem to be full of money - comparisons with dealers and pimps may be overdoing it a little. Betting shops don't look the way they did when I worked in them and they aren't the same. They are more like casinos - I walked into one of my local Paddy Power shops at 10.30 yesterday morning and there were three "virtual" races (I always called them cartoon races) going off within a minute of each other and the three customers in the shop were playing the FOBTs.
Are the shops viable? Would there be mass closures if the tax regime changed? The horse racing and betting industry has tentacles beyond the immediate and whether it's stable staff, ground staff at race courses or betting shop staff, we all know who will be first for the chop if the margins tighten.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
A rare consensus on PB. Government should tax the type of gambling that PBers don't like, and leave the type of gambling that PBers do like alone.
I think they should tax all gambling. It's 100% discretionary and the information asymmetry between the punter and the bookie combined with universal accessibility via apps mean it's socially destructive in a way that it has never been before.
Can any single person be cashflow positive betting on EPL or the loosely motorsports based soap opera for middle aged white men? I doubt it these days,
Tony Bloom and Matthew Benham wave from their massive yachts....
But in general, as a former professional gambler, I tell people betting on things like the EPL is incredibly difficult as the market is extremely efficient. Tony Bloom has done it with a big team of maths PhDs. Also, if you do have an edge, getting money on is the hardest part. Haralabos Voulgaris has amazing stories of the lengths he had to go to actually bet on sports as nobody would take his money.
The American equivalent is a guy called Billy Walters, who used to bet millions on American Football back when it was pretty much only the Sports Books in Vegas. He had to keep turning over the people who worked on the ‘front line’ for him, as the casinos would ban anyone they suspected of placing money on his behalf. His book is a great read.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Fascinating! This is a whole new world to me as I upgrade. Looks like my timing is good
After chucking one in the Med on the last jolly, I think they are now incredibly risk-averse and will divert the jet on the slightest defect rather than risk losing it.
A rare consensus on PB. Government should tax the type of gambling that PBers don't like, and leave the type of gambling that PBers do like alone.
I think they should tax all gambling. It's 100% discretionary and the information asymmetry between the punter and the bookie combined with universal accessibility via apps mean it's socially destructive in a way that it has never been before.
Can any single person be cashflow positive betting on EPL or the loosely motorsports based soap opera for middle aged white men? I doubt it these days,
Tony Bloom and Matthew Benham wave from their massive yachts....
But in general, as a former professional gambler, I tell people betting on things like the EPL is incredibly difficult as the market is extremely efficient. Tony Bloom has done it with a big team of maths PhDs. Also, if you do have an edge, getting money on is the hardest part. Haralabos Voulgaris has amazing stories of the lengths he had to go to actually bet on sports as nobody would take his money.
The American equivalent is a guy called Billy Walters, who used to bet millions on American Football back when it was pretty much only the Sports Books in Vegas. He had to keep turning over the people who worked on the ‘front line’ for him, as the casinos would ban anyone they suspected of placing money on his behalf. His book is a great read.
The likes of Walters and Voulgaris were putting so much money on they could actually manipulate the lines across Vegas and also on Pinnacle. And Pinnacle used to be the sports book of sharps and so when their line moved, it moved all the other books. Thus, Walters in particular was known to send people to put on big bets on sides he thought would lose just to move the lines.
After chucking one in the Med on the last jolly, I think they are now incredibly risk-averse and will divert the jet on the slightest defect rather than risk losing it.
Whoops, they only just got one back that diverted to India a couple of months ago.
Don’t know the story on this latest one, but the earlier one was allegedly a fuel diversion in poor weather, but the plane was declared u/s on landing and needed parts and people shipped half way across the world to fix it.
If the government wants to introduce a tax on gambling they should target mobile games, gacha and other games which use ultra low odds mystery boxes to get kids to spend money on nonsense as well as partnerships with popular streamers who run tweaked versions of said games to make it seem as though the odds of pulling a top tier character/skin is substantially higher than the truth.
The level of fraud in that industry needs to be tackled and taxing them should be just a start.
I was unsurprised that the OSA did absolutely nothing to stop predatory games publishers targeting kids with gambling mechanics, it's almost as of the government doesn't know what it's doing and doesn't realise what is actually poisoning kids brains right now.
EA now only makes about 20% of it's revenue from the actual price of the game in shops. The rest comes from selling ultimate team packs for their sports games. Game publishers have ruthlessly exploited legal grey areas to get a generation of kids addicted to gambling mechanics and turn them into cash cows.
As rather brilliantly predicted in Reamde by Neal Stephenson in 2011.
Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched
Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves
“Ruse”. “Self Created”. “Reeves black hole”. “Addicted”.
What prompts did you use for this one?
I do not use prompts, just a fair observation of Reeves job destroying Autumn Statement and surely nobody denies labour are addicted to spending
The truth hurts at times
But literally none of this is true! You are telling reflexive untruths
1. A “ruse” is a trick, a deception. This article is an op-ed by a former leader, not even policy yet, it may never even be policy, which sets out (if adopted) exactly what they would do. How exactly is it a “ruse”?
2. “…not that popular according to polls…” is demonstrably untrue given the thread header confirms the (proposed) policy itself polls at 70% support.
3. “…self created black hole of £40 billion…” which you later go on to suggest was caused by the 30 October 2024 autumn statement. But this figure was being discussed BEFORE the Autumn statement. Here’s an article mentioning it 2 weeks earlier-
So when did Reeves create this “black hole” before the Autumn statement? Why was she looking to fill it? What economic levers did she disasterously pull between 4 July and October 2024 to create this oft quoted figure?
5. As for “addicted”…what do you want me to say here? The original sin of this government (winter fuel allowance) that precipitated its rapid fall in the polls was a significant spending cut.
I’m sorry but none of your post stood up to any scrutiny at all.
You are wrong about 3). Its based upon a new report by NIESR, that says against the new government targets set in their budget they will miss by £40bn by the end of the parliament.
The Government is not on track to meet its ‘stability rule’, with our forecast suggesting a current deficit of £41.2 billion in the fiscal year 2029-30
This is what Big_G_NorthWales is referring it and it has been widely reported across the media over the past week.
I’ll leave it to Big G to confirm exactly which of these many £40B figures he’s referring to.
I note that question has already been answered and this poll by yougov in July 24 is salient to the unpopularity of scraping the 2 child cap:
Regardless of the merits of the policy, the Labour leadership will be reassured that their current pledge of keeping the two-child limit is supported by six in ten Britons (60%), with less than three in ten (28%) believing it should be abolished.
There is support for keeping the cap across almost all voting and social groups, including Labour voters, who back it by 50% to 38%. The only exception is among 18-24 year olds, only a third (32%) of whom think the cap should be kept, with nearly half (46%) opposing it. Older voters are far more likely to favour the policy, with 69% of over-65s wanting it to stay and only 21% believing it should be abolished.
Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched
Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves
Yes and are then surprised when the country stagnates so they need to tax and spend even more to meet their own rules.
If, as according to various studies I've seen, a 1% increase in the tax rate reduces long run GDP by about 1%, the increase in the tax take of 1% over this Parliament (and in reality it will probably be a lot higher) will cost us about £20-25 billion/year forever. Or about £1600/year for a family of four. That may be understating it, for various reasons too technical for this site, but let's go with that.
And the 4% increase in the last Parliament cost four times that.
And that's before adding the huge cost of their buggering up of the labour market and all their other pointless regulations.
The true cost of a bunch of terrible governments. If it weren't hidden, there would doubtless be riots.
After chucking one in the Med on the last jolly, I think they are now incredibly risk-averse and will divert the jet on the slightest defect rather than risk losing it.
Whoops, they only just got one back that diverted to India a couple of months ago.
Don’t know the story on this latest one, but the earlier one was allegedly a fuel diversion in poor weather, but the plane was declared u/s on landing and needed parts and people shipped half way across the world to fix it.
The fuel was a lie. Fuck knows why they felt the need to lie, but they did. Possibly they thought it might be a quick fix and they could get it back to the deck before it became a big deal.
WIth this one, they have copped to an engineering defect straight away.
With the Sea Harrier you could VL it if the engine/nozzles worked, the water system was intact and the wings were still attached. F-35B needs to be 100/100 before they will attempt a VL.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time. I furnished this room with stuff they couldn't sell at a local auction house which regularly appears on Bargain Hunt et al. I had the Wearing and Gillows table, great granddad bought it for £10 before WW1 when a local pub went bust. I got 8 spindle leg dining chairs to match it with two that didn't quite match for £180. This manager's desk where I do all my work £30 I think. I got a Court Cupboard c1690 albeit rather mucked around with c1900 for £120. Certainly does the job. My only extravangance really was £500 for a Tall Case Clock bearing the name of the maker John Garthwaite who lived and died not 5 miles from my house.
I hold no brief for Prince Andrew, but why is it, when Epstein was publicly associated with Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Al Gore and Bill Gates, that every time Epstein comes back to public prominence, the media is wall-to-wall Randy Andy?
UK or US media? If the former, then the reason is obvious I would think?
Would you? Since when has the British media ignored prominent American celebrities and public figures?
Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched
Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves
“Ruse”. “Self Created”. “Reeves black hole”. “Addicted”.
What prompts did you use for this one?
I do not use prompts, just a fair observation of Reeves job destroying Autumn Statement and surely nobody denies labour are addicted to spending
The truth hurts at times
But literally none of this is true! You are telling reflexive untruths
1. A “ruse” is a trick, a deception. This article is an op-ed by a former leader, not even policy yet, it may never even be policy, which sets out (if adopted) exactly what they would do. How exactly is it a “ruse”?
2. “…not that popular according to polls…” is demonstrably untrue given the thread header confirms the (proposed) policy itself polls at 70% support.
3. “…self created black hole of £40 billion…” which you later go on to suggest was caused by the 30 October 2024 autumn statement. But this figure was being discussed BEFORE the Autumn statement. Here’s an article mentioning it 2 weeks earlier-
So when did Reeves create this “black hole” before the Autumn statement? Why was she looking to fill it? What economic levers did she disasterously pull between 4 July and October 2024 to create this oft quoted figure?
5. As for “addicted”…what do you want me to say here? The original sin of this government (winter fuel allowance) that precipitated its rapid fall in the polls was a significant spending cut.
I’m sorry but none of your post stood up to any scrutiny at all.
You are wrong about 3). Its based upon a new report by NIESR, that says against the new government targets set in their budget they will miss by £40bn by the end of the parliament.
The Government is not on track to meet its ‘stability rule’, with our forecast suggesting a current deficit of £41.2 billion in the fiscal year 2029-30
This is what Big_G_NorthWales is referring it and it has been widely reported across the media over the past week.
I’ll leave it to Big G to confirm exactly which of these many £40B figures he’s referring to.
I note that question has already been answered and this poll by yougov in July 24 is salient to the unpopularity of scraping the 2 child cap:
Regardless of the merits of the policy, the Labour leadership will be reassured that their current pledge of keeping the two-child limit is supported by six in ten Britons (60%), with less than three in ten (28%) believing it should be abolished.
There is support for keeping the cap across almost all voting and social groups, including Labour voters, who back it by 50% to 38%. The only exception is among 18-24 year olds, only a third (32%) of whom think the cap should be kept, with nearly half (46%) opposing it. Older voters are far more likely to favour the policy, with 69% of over-65s wanting it to stay and only 21% believing it should be abolished.
Make it proportional rather than a sharp cap at 2.
First kid 100% Second kid 80% Third kid 50% Fourth 25%
Probably doesn't cost much more than a cap at 2 but feels better to me.
After chucking one in the Med on the last jolly, I think they are now incredibly risk-averse and will divert the jet on the slightest defect rather than risk losing it.
Whoops, they only just got one back that diverted to India a couple of months ago.
Don’t know the story on this latest one, but the earlier one was allegedly a fuel diversion in poor weather, but the plane was declared u/s on landing and needed parts and people shipped half way across the world to fix it.
The fuel was a lie. Fuck knows why they felt the need to lie, but they did. Possibly they thought it might be a quick fix and they could get it back to the deck before it became a big deal.
WIth this one, they have copped to an engineering defect straight away.
With the Sea Harrier you could VL it if the engine/nozzles worked, the water system was intact and the wings were still attached. F-35B needs to be 100/100 before they will attempt a VL.
I had very little confidence in the story of a fuel diverted aircraft suddenly becoming otherwise unserviceable, unless they’re so unreliable that they need major maintenance between flights as a matter of routine. That it stayed parked up for several weeks said there was a lot more to the story than the official version of events.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Brown furniture has been in decline for ages. Once it's all gone, in about a decade's time, it might become a status symbol for the wealthy with large houses, and see an upswing.
Costly to warehouse, so it's not a canny long term investment either.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Brown furniture has been in decline for ages. Once it's all gone, in about a decade's time, it might become a status symbol for the wealthy with large houses, and see an upswing.
Costly to warehouse, so it's not a canny long term investment either.
I’m sure you’re right, but a really elegant table (originally a washstand but perfect as a small dining/writing table) from 1836, in lush mahogany, for £125?
That’s the price of a posh designer bog brush from John Lewis. It’s a bit ridiculous
After chucking one in the Med on the last jolly, I think they are now incredibly risk-averse and will divert the jet on the slightest defect rather than risk losing it.
At least Japan has the kit to get it started up again. And given the nosebleed cost of these things, I'd be risk averse too.
Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched
Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves
“Ruse”. “Self Created”. “Reeves black hole”. “Addicted”.
What prompts did you use for this one?
I do not use prompts, just a fair observation of Reeves job destroying Autumn Statement and surely nobody denies labour are addicted to spending
The truth hurts at times
But literally none of this is true! You are telling reflexive untruths
1. A “ruse” is a trick, a deception. This article is an op-ed by a former leader, not even policy yet, it may never even be policy, which sets out (if adopted) exactly what they would do. How exactly is it a “ruse”?
2. “…not that popular according to polls…” is demonstrably untrue given the thread header confirms the (proposed) policy itself polls at 70% support.
3. “…self created black hole of £40 billion…” which you later go on to suggest was caused by the 30 October 2024 autumn statement. But this figure was being discussed BEFORE the Autumn statement. Here’s an article mentioning it 2 weeks earlier-
So when did Reeves create this “black hole” before the Autumn statement? Why was she looking to fill it? What economic levers did she disasterously pull between 4 July and October 2024 to create this oft quoted figure?
5. As for “addicted”…what do you want me to say here? The original sin of this government (winter fuel allowance) that precipitated its rapid fall in the polls was a significant spending cut.
I’m sorry but none of your post stood up to any scrutiny at all.
Bollox, she made up teh 20 billion black hole as an excuse to tax more and has indeed added another 20 billion pounds minimum since , and rising at an alarming rate. The clown could not run a bath.
If the government wants to introduce a tax on gambling they should target mobile games, gacha and other games which use ultra low odds mystery boxes to get kids to spend money on nonsense as well as partnerships with popular streamers who run tweaked versions of said games to make it seem as though the odds of pulling a top tier character/skin is substantially higher than the truth.
The level of fraud in that industry needs to be tackled and taxing them should be just a start.
I was unsurprised that the OSA did absolutely nothing to stop predatory games publishers targeting kids with gambling mechanics, it's almost as of the government doesn't know what it's doing and doesn't realise what is actually poisoning kids brains right now.
EA now only makes about 20% of it's revenue from the actual price of the game in shops. The rest comes from selling ultimate team packs for their sports games. Game publishers have ruthlessly exploited legal grey areas to get a generation of kids addicted to gambling mechanics and turn them into cash cows.
As rather brilliantly predicted in Reamde by Neal Stephenson in 2011.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
We've been clearing my late MIL's house most of the year, it seems never ending. Most of the furniture has gone to charity. Attempts to sell stuff online have not really been worth the hassle. Problems like the 4 piece suite which doesn't have fire certificates on it (meaning charities will not trust it) have had us pulling our hair out. . Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched
Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves
“Ruse”. “Self Created”. “Reeves black hole”. “Addicted”.
What prompts did you use for this one?
I do not use prompts, just a fair observation of Reeves job destroying Autumn Statement and surely nobody denies labour are addicted to spending
The truth hurts at times
But literally none of this is true! You are telling reflexive untruths
1. A “ruse” is a trick, a deception. This article is an op-ed by a former leader, not even policy yet, it may never even be policy, which sets out (if adopted) exactly what they would do. How exactly is it a “ruse”?
2. “…not that popular according to polls…” is demonstrably untrue given the thread header confirms the (proposed) policy itself polls at 70% support.
3. “…self created black hole of £40 billion…” which you later go on to suggest was caused by the 30 October 2024 autumn statement. But this figure was being discussed BEFORE the Autumn statement. Here’s an article mentioning it 2 weeks earlier-
So when did Reeves create this “black hole” before the Autumn statement? Why was she looking to fill it? What economic levers did she disasterously pull between 4 July and October 2024 to create this oft quoted figure?
5. As for “addicted”…what do you want me to say here? The original sin of this government (winter fuel allowance) that precipitated its rapid fall in the polls was a significant spending cut.
I’m sorry but none of your post stood up to any scrutiny at all.
You are wrong about 3). Its based upon a new report by NIESR, that says against the new government targets set in their budget they will miss by £40bn by the end of the parliament.
The Government is not on track to meet its ‘stability rule’, with our forecast suggesting a current deficit of £41.2 billion in the fiscal year 2029-30
Russia invaded the Baltic states three times last century, occupying them for decades after WWII. It's not exactly surprising they're worried about a repeat.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia may become Putin's next target - because of this, the leaders of the Baltic countries criticized any attempts to force Ukraine to cede territory, writes FT. https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1954123898296975865
It’s been a very long running piece of irredentism that any land that was ever part of the Russian Empire is part of the New Russian Empire (of whatever version)
The USSR had it as policy. Putin has made it the policy of his party.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
We've been clearing my late MIL's house most of the year, it seems never ending. Most of the furniture has gone to charity. Attempts to sell stuff online have not really been worth the hassle. Problems like the 4 piece suite which doesn't have fire certificates on it (meaning charities will not trust it) have had us pulling our hair out. . Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
I'm out of parents now but if I had to do it again, I would wait until probate closed and the house was my property then burn it down and claim the insurance. Much simpler.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time. I furnished this room with stuff they couldn't sell at a local auction house which regularly appears on Bargain Hunt et al. I had the Wearing and Gillows table, great granddad bought it for £10 before WW1 when a local pub went bust. I got 8 spindle leg dining chairs to match it with two that didn't quite match for £180. This manager's desk where I do all my work £30 I think. I got a Court Cupboard c1690 albeit rather mucked around with c1900 for £120. Certainly does the job. My only extravangance really was £500 for a Tall Case Clock bearing the name of the maker John Garthwaite who lived and died not 5 miles from my house.
The Guy Rogers Manhattan settee and 2 armchairs I have left are worth something between about £800 and £1800, depending, by the look of it.
Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched
Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves
White the Tories just spent and borrowed.
Unprecented Covid and war in Ukraine and labour would have spent even more:
How much was spent on Covid-19 measures?
The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in very high levels of public spending. Current estimates of the total cost of government Covid-19 measures range from about £310 billion to £410 billion. This is the equivalent of about £4,600 to £6,100 per person in the UK.
Official figures show that spending in 2020/21 was about £179 billion higher than had been planned before the pandemic for that year.
Source: National Audit Office and HM Treasury (NAO/HMT), Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), and International Monetary Fund (IMF); see section 1.1 of this briefing for details. Calculated using UK population estimate from Office for National Statistics (ONS), Population estimates for the UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: mid-2020, 25 June 2021
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Brown furniture has been in decline for ages. Once it's all gone, in about a decade's time, it might become a status symbol for the wealthy with large houses, and see an upswing.
Costly to warehouse, so it's not a canny long term investment either.
I’m sure you’re right, but a really elegant table (originally a washstand but perfect as a small dining/writing table) from 1836, in lush mahogany, for £125?
That’s the price of a posh designer bog brush from John Lewis. It’s a bit ridiculous
For those that value it, it is absurdly cheap. But supply exceeds demand, and will do for a while.
Dura's wardrobes are the deadest pig.
Shame about the '300kg' of oak, though. There are a few carpenters who might have taken it, if it was quite so substantial.
I hold no brief for Prince Andrew, but why is it, when Epstein was publicly associated with Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Al Gore and Bill Gates, that every time Epstein comes back to public prominence, the media is wall-to-wall Randy Andy?
Andrew Lownie has just published a book about Andrew, which alleges not only randiness but also financial corruption. It was serialised in the Mail last week, and read by all the rest.
I shot a commercial for the Sunday Express (in my pre scruples days) using Andrew's squeeze at the time. I think it must have been at about the time the red tops were looking for a wife for him. I'd cast her as a model and was unaware of the furore that was surrounding her. But I remember her well. She was very bright and personable so I struggle to believe that had he been the monster he's been painted she'd have given him a second look.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
We've been clearing my late MIL's house most of the year, it seems never ending. Most of the furniture has gone to charity. Attempts to sell stuff online have not really been worth the hassle. Problems like the 4 piece suite which doesn't have fire certificates on it (meaning charities will not trust it) have had us pulling our hair out. . Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
We've just paid £2,900 to have my father's bungalow cleared by a contractor.
Seemed a lot but it was money well spent.
There was so much stuff that it would have taken between 4 and 5 skips and 2 to 3 days for me to do it myself (plus hotel bill and fuel to be there to do it).
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
We've been clearing my late MIL's house most of the year, it seems never ending. Most of the furniture has gone to charity. Attempts to sell stuff online have not really been worth the hassle. Problems like the 4 piece suite which doesn't have fire certificates on it (meaning charities will not trust it) have had us pulling our hair out. . Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
David, council take 5 large items away for 30 quid. Jigsaw and hammer can make the rest of smaller items into fire material, get yourself a 30 quid incinerator bin out of B&Q. So 60 quid and a bit of work and nothing beats a good fire.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
We've been clearing my late MIL's house most of the year, it seems never ending. Most of the furniture has gone to charity. Attempts to sell stuff online have not really been worth the hassle. Problems like the 4 piece suite which doesn't have fire certificates on it (meaning charities will not trust it) have had us pulling our hair out. . Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
The fire cert thing is full on mental. My mother tried to give away a chair she reupholstered (a hobby) in 100% wool. Impossible without a cert.
Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched
Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves
“Ruse”. “Self Created”. “Reeves black hole”. “Addicted”.
What prompts did you use for this one?
I do not use prompts, just a fair observation of Reeves job destroying Autumn Statement and surely nobody denies labour are addicted to spending
The truth hurts at times
But literally none of this is true! You are telling reflexive untruths
1. A “ruse” is a trick, a deception. This article is an op-ed by a former leader, not even policy yet, it may never even be policy, which sets out (if adopted) exactly what they would do. How exactly is it a “ruse”?
2. “…not that popular according to polls…” is demonstrably untrue given the thread header confirms the (proposed) policy itself polls at 70% support.
3. “…self created black hole of £40 billion…” which you later go on to suggest was caused by the 30 October 2024 autumn statement. But this figure was being discussed BEFORE the Autumn statement. Here’s an article mentioning it 2 weeks earlier-
So when did Reeves create this “black hole” before the Autumn statement? Why was she looking to fill it? What economic levers did she disasterously pull between 4 July and October 2024 to create this oft quoted figure?
5. As for “addicted”…what do you want me to say here? The original sin of this government (winter fuel allowance) that precipitated its rapid fall in the polls was a significant spending cut.
I’m sorry but none of your post stood up to any scrutiny at all.
You are wrong about 3). Its based upon a new report by NIESR, that says against the new government targets set in their budget they will miss by £40bn by the end of the parliament.
The Government is not on track to meet its ‘stability rule’, with our forecast suggesting a current deficit of £41.2 billion in the fiscal year 2029-30
This is what Big_G_NorthWales is referring it and it has been widely reported across the media over the past week.
I’ll leave it to Big G to confirm exactly which of these many £40B figures he’s referring to.
In other words I have been talking mince, been found out and now try whataboutery to deflect from my stupidity.
Point 2 is also wrong, BigG was not referring to whether the tax on gambling polled badly, he referred to a spending commitment (presumably ending the 2-child benefit cap) necessitating the tax rise polling badly. Which afaicr it does.
Also, I read a fair bit of AI generated text (sadly) and nothing about BigG's post reminds me of AI text, which usually has very obvious tells.
That it stayed parked up for several weeks said there was a lot more to the story than the official version of events.
They had to...
- find a suitably qualified tech team willing to go a trip of open ended duration to India. - get the bits needed. JFL is extremely skinny on spare parts stock, they possibly had to come from the US. - secure permission from Lockheed-Martin to take it apart in an unsecure location (this wasn't exactly granted with urgency). - wait for an A400M and its crew of chubby halitosis suffers to haul the whole circus to Thiruvanathapuram.
Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched
Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves
“Ruse”. “Self Created”. “Reeves black hole”. “Addicted”.
What prompts did you use for this one?
I do not use prompts, just a fair observation of Reeves job destroying Autumn Statement and surely nobody denies labour are addicted to spending
The truth hurts at times
But literally none of this is true! You are telling reflexive untruths
1. A “ruse” is a trick, a deception. This article is an op-ed by a former leader, not even policy yet, it may never even be policy, which sets out (if adopted) exactly what they would do. How exactly is it a “ruse”?
2. “…not that popular according to polls…” is demonstrably untrue given the thread header confirms the (proposed) policy itself polls at 70% support.
3. “…self created black hole of £40 billion…” which you later go on to suggest was caused by the 30 October 2024 autumn statement. But this figure was being discussed BEFORE the Autumn statement. Here’s an article mentioning it 2 weeks earlier-
So when did Reeves create this “black hole” before the Autumn statement? Why was she looking to fill it? What economic levers did she disasterously pull between 4 July and October 2024 to create this oft quoted figure?
5. As for “addicted”…what do you want me to say here? The original sin of this government (winter fuel allowance) that precipitated its rapid fall in the polls was a significant spending cut.
I’m sorry but none of your post stood up to any scrutiny at all.
You are wrong about 3). Its based upon a new report by NIESR, that says against the new government targets set in their budget they will miss by £40bn by the end of the parliament.
The Government is not on track to meet its ‘stability rule’, with our forecast suggesting a current deficit of £41.2 billion in the fiscal year 2029-30
This is what Big_G_NorthWales is referring it and it has been widely reported across the media over the past week.
I’ll leave it to Big G to confirm exactly which of these many £40B figures he’s referring to.
In other words I have been talking mince, been found out and now try whataboutery to deflect from my stupidity.
Point 2 is also wrong, BigG was not referring to whether the tax on gambling polled badly, he referred to a spending commitment (presumably ending the 2-child benefit cap) necessitating the tax rise polling badly. Which afaicr it does.
Also, I read a fair bit of AI generated text (sadly) and nothing about BigG's post reminds me of AI text, which usually has very obvious tells.
I never use AI to write my posts - it would be too obvious - because there definitely isn't any tell-tale signs - which ChatGPT5 hasn't solved.
On topic this completely ridiculous non-hypothecation of taxes on "bad things" to justify them by showing the money is then spent on "good things" is completely out of hand and the source of very bad policy so it is hardly surprising we might find one Gordon Brown once again indulging in it.
We have seen it with the money supposedly being raised by the application of VAT on school fees which was supposed to fund additional spending (whilst completely ignoring the collateral costs dumped on local authorities as a result) in education. We had the "penny to save the NHS" from the Lib Dems. We have the pretense that NI has something to do with the funding of the NHS and the State Pension. We had the nonsense of taxes on Sugary drinks to supposedly fund school sports.
None of the hypothecations are legally binding. None of them are rational. The link between the money "raised" (or lost) is tenuous at best. It is a genuinely idiotic way to determine tax policy. We need to simplify and clarify our tax system to allow investment decisions to be made in a coherent context if we are to maximise growth. These policies are for the simple minded.
On topic this completely ridiculous non-hypothecation of taxes on "bad things" to justify them by showing the money is then spent on "good things" is completely out of hand and the source of very bad policy so it is hardly surprising we might find one Gordon Brown once again indulging in it.
We have seen it with the money supposedly being raised by the application of VAT on school fees which was supposed to fund additional spending (whilst completely ignoring the collateral costs dumped on local authorities as a result) in education. We had the "penny to save the NHS" from the Lib Dems. We have the pretense that NI has something to do with the funding of the NHS and the State Pension. We had the nonsense of taxes on Sugary drinks to supposedly fund school sports.
None of the hypothecations are legally binding. None of them are rational. The link between the money "raised" (or lost) is tenuous at best. It is a genuinely idiotic way to determine tax policy. We need to simplify and clarify our tax system to allow investment decisions to be made in a coherent context if we are to maximise growth. These policies are for the simple minded.
You know this, I know this, but unfortunately it works very well on getting the general public onboard. And vice versa when politicians are more upfront, hey you are going to have to pay extra for things that aren't sweeties / save the starving kids, they get hammered.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
We've been clearing my late MIL's house most of the year, it seems never ending. Most of the furniture has gone to charity. Attempts to sell stuff online have not really been worth the hassle. Problems like the 4 piece suite which doesn't have fire certificates on it (meaning charities will not trust it) have had us pulling our hair out. . Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
I'm out of parents now but if I had to do it again, I would wait until probate closed and the house was my property then burn it down and claim the insurance. Much simpler.
My elder son has said that when he deals with his 'inheritance' he'll rent a skip and chuck everything in.
However, I've a grandfather clock which was originally (we think..... might be older) a wedding present to the most prosperous (least unprosperous???) set of my Welsh great-grandparents and he quite fancies that.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
We've been clearing my late MIL's house most of the year, it seems never ending. Most of the furniture has gone to charity. Attempts to sell stuff online have not really been worth the hassle. Problems like the 4 piece suite which doesn't have fire certificates on it (meaning charities will not trust it) have had us pulling our hair out. . Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
We did ours via an auction house - they took all the stuff we did not want as a package, sold the good and the rest went to a charity they worked with for the purpose.
We ended up with about 3k, but it was 3 decent sized vans of furniture - so low prices.
And there was a gorgeous 1880s mirror backed sideboard which was about 8ft long and 8ft high, with arts and crafts decoration, but which just would not fit in a modern house and would need to go to the type of house for which it was made.
Russia invaded the Baltic states three times last century, occupying them for decades after WWII. It's not exactly surprising they're worried about a repeat.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia may become Putin's next target - because of this, the leaders of the Baltic countries criticized any attempts to force Ukraine to cede territory, writes FT. https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1954123898296975865
It’s been a very long running piece of irredentism that any land that was ever part of the Russian Empire is part of the New Russian Empire (of whatever version)
The USSR had it as policy. Putin has made it the policy of his party.
Russia devastated the Baltics several times in the 20thC (twice playing tag team with the Germans). Ideologically friendly Balts formed the backbone of the early Bolshevik Red Army, and the Cheka (and later died in Stalin's purges).
Others provided slave labour for various projects between the two world wars, or died in the gulags.
The hatred and distrust of Russia has deep and well grounded foundations.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
We've been clearing my late MIL's house most of the year, it seems never ending. Most of the furniture has gone to charity. Attempts to sell stuff online have not really been worth the hassle. Problems like the 4 piece suite which doesn't have fire certificates on it (meaning charities will not trust it) have had us pulling our hair out. . Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
I'm out of parents now but if I had to do it again, I would wait until probate closed and the house was my property then burn it down and claim the insurance. Much simpler.
My elder son has said that when he deals with his 'inheritance' he'll rent a skip and chuck everything in.
However, I've a grandfather clock which was originally (we think..... might be older) a wedding present to the most prosperous (least unprosperous???) set of my Welsh great-grandparents and he quite fancies that.
For me, absolutely not. Every piece of brown furniture, painting, crystal, will be made use of.
Russia invaded the Baltic states three times last century, occupying them for decades after WWII. It's not exactly surprising they're worried about a repeat.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia may become Putin's next target - because of this, the leaders of the Baltic countries criticized any attempts to force Ukraine to cede territory, writes FT. https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1954123898296975865
It’s been a very long running piece of irredentism that any land that was ever part of the Russian Empire is part of the New Russian Empire (of whatever version)
The USSR had it as policy. Putin has made it the policy of his party.
Russia devastated the Baltics several times in the 20thC (twice playing tag team with the Germans). Ideologically friendly Balts formed the backbone of the early Bolshevik Red Army, and the Cheka (and later died in Stalin's purges).
Others provided slave labour for various projects between the two world wars, or died in the gulags.
The hatred and distrust of Russia has deep and well grounded foundations.
AIUI things weren't a lot better in Tsarist times.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
We've been clearing my late MIL's house most of the year, it seems never ending. Most of the furniture has gone to charity. Attempts to sell stuff online have not really been worth the hassle. Problems like the 4 piece suite which doesn't have fire certificates on it (meaning charities will not trust it) have had us pulling our hair out. . Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
David, council take 5 large items away for 30 quid. Jigsaw and hammer can make the rest of smaller items into fire material, get yourself a 30 quid incinerator bin out of B&Q. So 60 quid and a bit of work and nothing beats a good fire.
Its only 3 items for £35 around here but 2 perfectly good mattresses and a broken washing machine are going away on Wednesday.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Fascinating! This is a whole new world to me as I upgrade. Looks like my timing is good
Also look at the sort of charity shops that specialise in furniture. We got a British Heart Foundation charity shop team to come and clear out my late parents' house (enormous rooms, huge furniture). That way they took care of all the stuff one way or another, from teaspoons upwards. Apparently some of the furniture sold within a week but we didn't have time or manpower to try and sell it ourselves and just wanted to get the house cleared and sold in the spring flush.
Bear in mind some furniture comes to bits, however!
On topic this completely ridiculous non-hypothecation of taxes on "bad things" to justify them by showing the money is then spent on "good things" is completely out of hand and the source of very bad policy so it is hardly surprising we might find one Gordon Brown once again indulging in it.
We have seen it with the money supposedly being raised by the application of VAT on school fees which was supposed to fund additional spending (whilst completely ignoring the collateral costs dumped on local authorities as a result) in education. We had the "penny to save the NHS" from the Lib Dems. We have the pretense that NI has something to do with the funding of the NHS and the State Pension. We had the nonsense of taxes on Sugary drinks to supposedly fund school sports.
None of the hypothecations are legally binding. None of them are rational. The link between the money "raised" (or lost) is tenuous at best. It is a genuinely idiotic way to determine tax policy. We need to simplify and clarify our tax system to allow investment decisions to be made in a coherent context if we are to maximise growth. These policies are for the simple minded.
It's a very good way to sell tax policy, though, as Brown demonstrated throughout his career.
The moral seesaw rhetoric is very hard to debunk successfully.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
We've been clearing my late MIL's house most of the year, it seems never ending. Most of the furniture has gone to charity. Attempts to sell stuff online have not really been worth the hassle. Problems like the 4 piece suite which doesn't have fire certificates on it (meaning charities will not trust it) have had us pulling our hair out. . Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
The fire cert thing is full on mental. My mother tried to give away a chair she reupholstered (a hobby) in 100% wool. Impossible without a cert.
TBF the fire cert is actually a label - not a piece of paperwork. But it is an issue. Another problem with upholstery is whether the owners were smokers. Impossible to get the smell out.
Of course the irony is that while most voters support increasing taxes on online gambling, they also want to keep the 2 child benefit cap which the extra revenue from the tax is supposed to enable scrapping
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
We've been clearing my late MIL's house most of the year, it seems never ending. Most of the furniture has gone to charity. Attempts to sell stuff online have not really been worth the hassle. Problems like the 4 piece suite which doesn't have fire certificates on it (meaning charities will not trust it) have had us pulling our hair out. . Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
The fire cert thing is full on mental. My mother tried to give away a chair she reupholstered (a hobby) in 100% wool. Impossible without a cert.
The regulations on furniture fire safety followed the Woolworths fire in Manchester in 1979
It's also the reason why you should never cut off the fire safety label from furniture
Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched
Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves
“Ruse”. “Self Created”. “Reeves black hole”. “Addicted”.
What prompts did you use for this one?
I do not use prompts, just a fair observation of Reeves job destroying Autumn Statement and surely nobody denies labour are addicted to spending
The truth hurts at times
But literally none of this is true! You are telling reflexive untruths
1. A “ruse” is a trick, a deception. This article is an op-ed by a former leader, not even policy yet, it may never even be policy, which sets out (if adopted) exactly what they would do. How exactly is it a “ruse”?
2. “…not that popular according to polls…” is demonstrably untrue given the thread header confirms the (proposed) policy itself polls at 70% support.
3. “…self created black hole of £40 billion…” which you later go on to suggest was caused by the 30 October 2024 autumn statement. But this figure was being discussed BEFORE the Autumn statement. Here’s an article mentioning it 2 weeks earlier-
So when did Reeves create this “black hole” before the Autumn statement? Why was she looking to fill it? What economic levers did she disasterously pull between 4 July and October 2024 to create this oft quoted figure?
5. As for “addicted”…what do you want me to say here? The original sin of this government (winter fuel allowance) that precipitated its rapid fall in the polls was a significant spending cut.
I’m sorry but none of your post stood up to any scrutiny at all.
You are wrong about 3). Its based upon a new report by NIESR, that says against the new government targets set in their budget they will miss by £40bn by the end of the parliament.
The Government is not on track to meet its ‘stability rule’, with our forecast suggesting a current deficit of £41.2 billion in the fiscal year 2029-30
This is what Big_G_NorthWales is referring it and it has been widely reported across the media over the past week.
I’ll leave it to Big G to confirm exactly which of these many £40B figures he’s referring to.
In other words I have been talking mince, been found out and now try whataboutery to deflect from my stupidity.
Point 2 is also wrong, BigG was not referring to whether the tax on gambling polled badly, he referred to a spending commitment (presumably ending the 2-child benefit cap) necessitating the tax rise polling badly. Which afaicr it does.
Also, I read a fair bit of AI generated text (sadly) and nothing about BigG's post reminds me of AI text, which usually has very obvious tells.
I never use AI to write my posts - it would be too obvious - because there definitely isn't any tell-tale signs - which ChatGPT5 hasn't solved.
We communicate here for pleasure. I can't imagine ever wanting to do an AI post. Just don't do a post if you can't be arsed, it's not homework.
On topic this completely ridiculous non-hypothecation of taxes on "bad things" to justify them by showing the money is then spent on "good things" is completely out of hand and the source of very bad policy so it is hardly surprising we might find one Gordon Brown once again indulging in it.
We have seen it with the money supposedly being raised by the application of VAT on school fees which was supposed to fund additional spending (whilst completely ignoring the collateral costs dumped on local authorities as a result) in education. We had the "penny to save the NHS" from the Lib Dems. We have the pretense that NI has something to do with the funding of the NHS and the State Pension. We had the nonsense of taxes on Sugary drinks to supposedly fund school sports.
None of the hypothecations are legally binding. None of them are rational. The link between the money "raised" (or lost) is tenuous at best. It is a genuinely idiotic way to determine tax policy. We need to simplify and clarify our tax system to allow investment decisions to be made in a coherent context if we are to maximise growth. These policies are for the simple minded.
It's a very good way to sell tax policy, though, as Brown demonstrated throughout his career.
The moral seesaw rhetoric is very hard to debunk successfully.
Jilted John told us all we needed to know as long ago as 1978 (bloody hell, really??)
But I know he's a moron Gordon is a moron Gordon is a moron Gordon is a moron
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
We've been clearing my late MIL's house most of the year, it seems never ending. Most of the furniture has gone to charity. Attempts to sell stuff online have not really been worth the hassle. Problems like the 4 piece suite which doesn't have fire certificates on it (meaning charities will not trust it) have had us pulling our hair out. . Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
We did ours via an auction house - they took all the stuff we did not want as a package, sold the good and the rest went to a charity they worked with for the purpose.
We ended up with about 3k, but it was 3 decent sized vans of furniture - so low prices.
And there was a gorgeous 1880s mirror backed sideboard which was about 8ft long and 8ft high, with arts and crafts decoration, but which just would not fit in a modern house and would need to go to the type of house for which it was made.
Most people will come across this problem sometime. The game ought to have rules.
Rule 1: Price is what you can get.There is no other measure. Madness follows if you overlook this. Rule 2: It is massively in the public interest that Local Authorities have a statutory duty to collect and dispose of otherwise impossible items from domestic premises at no or small charge. (This prevents fly tipping). Rule 3: What you can get depends on whether you want to make getting maximum price your full time job for an indefinite period. This especially applies to books. Rule 4: The piano should never have been invented. It should be a criminal offence to try to own a grand piano. Rule 5: No-one ever moves house/clears a house without leaving behind at least one piece of unfinished business.
Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched
Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves
“Ruse”. “Self Created”. “Reeves black hole”. “Addicted”.
What prompts did you use for this one?
I do not use prompts, just a fair observation of Reeves job destroying Autumn Statement and surely nobody denies labour are addicted to spending
The truth hurts at times
But literally none of this is true! You are telling reflexive untruths
1. A “ruse” is a trick, a deception. This article is an op-ed by a former leader, not even policy yet, it may never even be policy, which sets out (if adopted) exactly what they would do. How exactly is it a “ruse”?
2. “…not that popular according to polls…” is demonstrably untrue given the thread header confirms the (proposed) policy itself polls at 70% support.
3. “…self created black hole of £40 billion…” which you later go on to suggest was caused by the 30 October 2024 autumn statement. But this figure was being discussed BEFORE the Autumn statement. Here’s an article mentioning it 2 weeks earlier-
So when did Reeves create this “black hole” before the Autumn statement? Why was she looking to fill it? What economic levers did she disasterously pull between 4 July and October 2024 to create this oft quoted figure?
5. As for “addicted”…what do you want me to say here? The original sin of this government (winter fuel allowance) that precipitated its rapid fall in the polls was a significant spending cut.
I’m sorry but none of your post stood up to any scrutiny at all.
You are wrong about 3). Its based upon a new report by NIESR, that says against the new government targets set in their budget they will miss by £40bn by the end of the parliament.
The Government is not on track to meet its ‘stability rule’, with our forecast suggesting a current deficit of £41.2 billion in the fiscal year 2029-30
This is what Big_G_NorthWales is referring it and it has been widely reported across the media over the past week.
I’ll leave it to Big G to confirm exactly which of these many £40B figures he’s referring to.
In other words I have been talking mince, been found out and now try whataboutery to deflect from my stupidity.
Point 2 is also wrong, BigG was not referring to whether the tax on gambling polled badly, he referred to a spending commitment (presumably ending the 2-child benefit cap) necessitating the tax rise polling badly. Which afaicr it does.
Also, I read a fair bit of AI generated text (sadly) and nothing about BigG's post reminds me of AI text, which usually has very obvious tells.
Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched
Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves
“Ruse”. “Self Created”. “Reeves black hole”. “Addicted”.
What prompts did you use for this one?
I do not use prompts, just a fair observation of Reeves job destroying Autumn Statement and surely nobody denies labour are addicted to spending
The truth hurts at times
But literally none of this is true! You are telling reflexive untruths
1. A “ruse” is a trick, a deception. This article is an op-ed by a former leader, not even policy yet, it may never even be policy, which sets out (if adopted) exactly what they would do. How exactly is it a “ruse”?
2. “…not that popular according to polls…” is demonstrably untrue given the thread header confirms the (proposed) policy itself polls at 70% support.
3. “…self created black hole of £40 billion…” which you later go on to suggest was caused by the 30 October 2024 autumn statement. But this figure was being discussed BEFORE the Autumn statement. Here’s an article mentioning it 2 weeks earlier-
So when did Reeves create this “black hole” before the Autumn statement? Why was she looking to fill it? What economic levers did she disasterously pull between 4 July and October 2024 to create this oft quoted figure?
5. As for “addicted”…what do you want me to say here? The original sin of this government (winter fuel allowance) that precipitated its rapid fall in the polls was a significant spending cut.
I’m sorry but none of your post stood up to any scrutiny at all.
You are wrong about 3). Its based upon a new report by NIESR, that says against the new government targets set in their budget they will miss by £40bn by the end of the parliament.
The Government is not on track to meet its ‘stability rule’, with our forecast suggesting a current deficit of £41.2 billion in the fiscal year 2029-30
This is what Big_G_NorthWales is referring it and it has been widely reported across the media over the past week.
I’ll leave it to Big G to confirm exactly which of these many £40B figures he’s referring to.
In other words I have been talking mince, been found out and now try whataboutery to deflect from my stupidity.
Point 2 is also wrong, BigG was not referring to whether the tax on gambling polled badly, he referred to a spending commitment (presumably ending the 2-child benefit cap) necessitating the tax rise polling badly. Which afaicr it does.
Also, I read a fair bit of AI generated text (sadly) and nothing about BigG's post reminds me of AI text, which usually has very obvious tells.
Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched
Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves
“Ruse”. “Self Created”. “Reeves black hole”. “Addicted”.
What prompts did you use for this one?
I do not use prompts, just a fair observation of Reeves job destroying Autumn Statement and surely nobody denies labour are addicted to spending
The truth hurts at times
But literally none of this is true! You are telling reflexive untruths
1. A “ruse” is a trick, a deception. This article is an op-ed by a former leader, not even policy yet, it may never even be policy, which sets out (if adopted) exactly what they would do. How exactly is it a “ruse”?
2. “…not that popular according to polls…” is demonstrably untrue given the thread header confirms the (proposed) policy itself polls at 70% support.
3. “…self created black hole of £40 billion…” which you later go on to suggest was caused by the 30 October 2024 autumn statement. But this figure was being discussed BEFORE the Autumn statement. Here’s an article mentioning it 2 weeks earlier-
So when did Reeves create this “black hole” before the Autumn statement? Why was she looking to fill it? What economic levers did she disasterously pull between 4 July and October 2024 to create this oft quoted figure?
5. As for “addicted”…what do you want me to say here? The original sin of this government (winter fuel allowance) that precipitated its rapid fall in the polls was a significant spending cut.
I’m sorry but none of your post stood up to any scrutiny at all.
You are wrong about 3). Its based upon a new report by NIESR, that says against the new government targets set in their budget they will miss by £40bn by the end of the parliament.
The Government is not on track to meet its ‘stability rule’, with our forecast suggesting a current deficit of £41.2 billion in the fiscal year 2029-30
This is what Big_G_NorthWales is referring it and it has been widely reported across the media over the past week.
I’ll leave it to Big G to confirm exactly which of these many £40B figures he’s referring to.
In other words I have been talking mince, been found out and now try whataboutery to deflect from my stupidity.
Point 2 is also wrong, BigG was not referring to whether the tax on gambling polled badly, he referred to a spending commitment (presumably ending the 2-child benefit cap) necessitating the tax rise polling badly. Which afaicr it does.
Also, I read a fair bit of AI generated text (sadly) and nothing about BigG's post reminds me of AI text, which usually has very obvious tells.
I never use AI to write my posts - it would be too obvious - because there definitely isn't any tell-tale signs - which ChatGPT5 hasn't solved.
We communicate here for pleasure. I can't imagine ever wanting to do an AI post. Just don't do a post if you can't be arsed, it's not homework.
There are few saps on here who have outsourced their entire personalities to LLM. The prose style is unmistakeable.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Houses smaller, more people renting, more old people dying and their houses being cleared out onto the market ...
And no cable runs.
The evidence for brown furniture's collapse is it no longer appears on Antiques Roadshow: compare recent programmes with 30 years ago. This from 1994, for instance:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jsyrlmv6R-Q
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Houses smaller, more people renting, more old people dying and their houses being cleared out onto the market ...
Is that it? That confirms and explains what my friend says
“People don’t want antiques, the market is saturated by eBay and Facebook and Etsy”
He reckons my table could easily have cost 4x this 15-20 years ago
Gold, silver, jewellery, stamps, will quite reliably appreciate in value.
The rest? I think buy what one likes. I buy quite a lot of paintings and cut glass.
Will anyone care as much about stamps when a couple of generations of people have never used one?
It's a good point. I collected coins pre decimalisation as a youngster. You could find semi rare coins in your change. It was popular. The market fell after decimalisation and has never recovered as the collectors evaporated. Similar with low value value classic cars like MGAs, MGBs, Morris Minors, etc. Not many of us left who grew up with them (My first car was an Austin A40) so the market has dropped.
Russia invaded the Baltic states three times last century, occupying them for decades after WWII. It's not exactly surprising they're worried about a repeat.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia may become Putin's next target - because of this, the leaders of the Baltic countries criticized any attempts to force Ukraine to cede territory, writes FT. https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1954123898296975865
It’s been a very long running piece of irredentism that any land that was ever part of the Russian Empire is part of the New Russian Empire (of whatever version)
The USSR had it as policy. Putin has made it the policy of his party.
Russia devastated the Baltics several times in the 20thC (twice playing tag team with the Germans). Ideologically friendly Balts formed the backbone of the early Bolshevik Red Army, and the Cheka (and later died in Stalin's purges).
Others provided slave labour for various projects between the two world wars, or died in the gulags.
The hatred and distrust of Russia has deep and well grounded foundations.
AIUI things weren't a lot better in Tsarist times.
The Russian Empire was an *empire*
Which generally doesn’t mean a pleasant invitation to afternoon tea.
I recall one of The Realists saying here, just before the Ukraine invasion, that - “Calling Russia an empire makes the word meaningless”
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Houses smaller, more people renting, more old people dying and their houses being cleared out onto the market ...
Is that it? That confirms and explains what my friend says
“People don’t want antiques, the market is saturated by eBay and Facebook and Etsy”
He reckons my table could easily have cost 4x this 15-20 years ago
Gold, silver, jewellery, stamps, will quite reliably appreciate in value.
The rest? I think buy what one likes. I buy quite a lot of paintings and cut glass.
Will anyone care as much about stamps when a couple of generations of people have never used one?
Stamps are a lesson in above inflation increases. In 1955 it cost 2.5d to post a letter. In 2025 it’s £1.75 for a first class stamp. 2.5d adjusted for inflation would be 34p. No wonder we’re not posting letters any more.
On topic this completely ridiculous non-hypothecation of taxes on "bad things" to justify them by showing the money is then spent on "good things" is completely out of hand and the source of very bad policy so it is hardly surprising we might find one Gordon Brown once again indulging in it.
We have seen it with the money supposedly being raised by the application of VAT on school fees which was supposed to fund additional spending (whilst completely ignoring the collateral costs dumped on local authorities as a result) in education. We had the "penny to save the NHS" from the Lib Dems. We have the pretense that NI has something to do with the funding of the NHS and the State Pension. We had the nonsense of taxes on Sugary drinks to supposedly fund school sports.
None of the hypothecations are legally binding. None of them are rational. The link between the money "raised" (or lost) is tenuous at best. It is a genuinely idiotic way to determine tax policy. We need to simplify and clarify our tax system to allow investment decisions to be made in a coherent context if we are to maximise growth. These policies are for the simple minded.
It's a very good way to sell tax policy, though, as Brown demonstrated throughout his career.
The moral seesaw rhetoric is very hard to debunk successfully.
Jilted John told us all we needed to know as long ago as 1978 (bloody hell, really??)
But I know he's a moron Gordon is a moron Gordon is a moron Gordon is a moron
But that song was inspired by impotent frustration and jealousy. The said "Gordon" being smart and cool and trendy and generally all-conquering.
It's essentially Jilted John channelling the Conservative Party and its supporters from 1997 to 2010. Quite a feat of prescience since he released it in 1978.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Houses smaller, more people renting, more old people dying and their houses being cleared out onto the market ...
Is that it? That confirms and explains what my friend says
“People don’t want antiques, the market is saturated by eBay and Facebook and Etsy”
He reckons my table could easily have cost 4x this 15-20 years ago
Gold, silver, jewellery, stamps, will quite reliably appreciate in value.
The rest? I think buy what one likes. I buy quite a lot of paintings and cut glass.
Will anyone care as much about stamps when a couple of generations of people have never used one?
There’s enough schoolboy interest in geography and history to keep the hobby going.
Is there? Pictures of exotic places are free on the interwebs these days. No need for stamps. And footballers and sci-fi characters fill the schoolboy collectables niche.
On topic: They should distinguish punting (our sort of thing which is brilliant and one of life's essentials) from gambling as in those 'online casinos'. The latter sector is pure poison (it's like drug dealing) and should be where the extra tax is directed. It's a no-brainer. There's no need to link it to the two child benefit cap. That should be assessed on its own merits. In general I really dislike this "raise this thing to pay for that thing" mentality even if it's mainly presentational. It makes big ticket fiscal management sound like running some sweaty spreadsheet in the corner of a struggling factory. "If we skip cleaning on a Wednesday we'll be able to keep Jim on". It's just not like that. The numbers are huge and liquid and all is fungible. Everything funds everything. Or rather it doesn't and the shortfall is borrowed. Hence the power of the bond markets and why Reeves is so boxed in. It's a bummer but there's no point pretending otherwise.
A rare consensus on PB. Government should tax the type of gambling that PBers don't like, and leave the type of gambling that PBers do like alone.
I think they should tax all gambling. It's 100% discretionary and the information asymmetry between the punter and the bookie combined with universal accessibility via apps mean it's socially destructive in a way that it has never been before.
Can any single person be cashflow positive betting on EPL or the loosely motorsports based soap opera for middle aged white men? I doubt it these days,
The gambling industry is a licence to print money. Tax it properly – and turbocharge the fight against child poverty
[snip the 90 per cent about starving children]
Excluding the lottery, betting and gaming was an £11.5bn sector last year that incurred only £2.5bn in tax. As much as £3bn extra can be raised from taxing it properly. Remote gaming duty (effectively the tax on online slots games) is about 35% in the Netherlands, 40% in Austria, 50% in Pennsylvania and 57% in tax haven Delaware, two of the few US states where it is legal. Yet the same activity is taxed at just 21% in the UK, raising only £1bn. Applying a 50% levy – much less than the 80% tax on cigarettes and the 70% tax on whisky – would raise £1.6bn more. Raising the general betting duty on bookmakers’ profits from 15% to 25% could generate an additional £450m, after returning £100m as additional support to boost the horseracing industry.
To achieve parity with their online equivalents, machine game duty payable on the revenue from in-person slot machines should also increase from 25% to 50%. According to IPPR estimates, this would raise an additional £880m.
The government could then start to reduce child poverty. Unlike almost all other businesses, most gaming and betting is exempt from VAT. Its most addictive practices are responsible for social harm that costs the NHS and other public services more than £1bn a year.
Gambling levies aren’t the only source of revenue that could pay to alleviate child poverty. But this should be one straightforward budget choice. The government can fulfil today’s unmet needs by taxing an undertaxed sector. Gambling won’t build our country for the next generation, but children, freed from poverty, will. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/06/gambling-industry-profitable-tax-fight-child-poverty
At least Gordon Brown does seem to recognise not all gambling is the same.
The problem is that the wider debate has moved on. There is a lot more condemnation of gambling out there, and it may go the way of cigarettes if abolitionists win against the sin tax lobby.
Gambling is 100% discretionary and essentially socially destructive so, of all of the things the government could tax, it seems like an excellent choice.
You know what website you're on that you choose to spend much of your social time on, right?
Russia invaded the Baltic states three times last century, occupying them for decades after WWII. It's not exactly surprising they're worried about a repeat.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia may become Putin's next target - because of this, the leaders of the Baltic countries criticized any attempts to force Ukraine to cede territory, writes FT. https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1954123898296975865
It’s been a very long running piece of irredentism that any land that was ever part of the Russian Empire is part of the New Russian Empire (of whatever version)
The USSR had it as policy. Putin has made it the policy of his party.
Russia devastated the Baltics several times in the 20thC (twice playing tag team with the Germans). Ideologically friendly Balts formed the backbone of the early Bolshevik Red Army, and the Cheka (and later died in Stalin's purges).
Others provided slave labour for various projects between the two world wars, or died in the gulags.
The hatred and distrust of Russia has deep and well grounded foundations.
AIUI things weren't a lot better in Tsarist times.
The Russian Empire was an *empire*
Which generally doesn’t mean a pleasant invitation to afternoon tea.
I recall one of The Realists saying here, just before the Ukraine invasion, that - “Calling Russia an empire makes the word meaningless”
The Russian elite internalised the values of their Mongol conquerors (the House of Rurik proudly claimed descent from Genghis Khan.). Under the Tsars, the Reds, and now Putin, its leaders see it as a patrimonial state.
In the 18th century, its rulers were mostly Germans who spoke French (Russian was spoken to menial servants).
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
We've been clearing my late MIL's house most of the year, it seems never ending. Most of the furniture has gone to charity. Attempts to sell stuff online have not really been worth the hassle. Problems like the 4 piece suite which doesn't have fire certificates on it (meaning charities will not trust it) have had us pulling our hair out. . Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
We did ours via an auction house - they took all the stuff we did not want as a package, sold the good and the rest went to a charity they worked with for the purpose.
We ended up with about 3k, but it was 3 decent sized vans of furniture - so low prices.
And there was a gorgeous 1880s mirror backed sideboard which was about 8ft long and 8ft high, with arts and crafts decoration, but which just would not fit in a modern house and would need to go to the type of house for which it was made.
Most people will come across this problem sometime. The game ought to have rules.
Rule 1: Price is what you can get.There is no other measure. Madness follows if you overlook this. Rule 2: It is massively in the public interest that Local Authorities have a statutory duty to collect and dispose of otherwise impossible items from domestic premises at no or small charge. (This prevents fly tipping). Rule 3: What you can get depends on whether you want to make getting maximum price your full time job for an indefinite period. This especially applies to books. Rule 4: The piano should never have been invented. It should be a criminal offence to try to own a grand piano. Rule 5: No-one ever moves house/clears a house without leaving behind at least one piece of unfinished business.
I have had several friends say that they were reduced almost to tears when doing house clearance for their late parents, items of furniture and china that their parents really treasured and were convinced were worth a lot went for peanuts at auction because currently they are not fashionable.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
We've been clearing my late MIL's house most of the year, it seems never ending. Most of the furniture has gone to charity. Attempts to sell stuff online have not really been worth the hassle. Problems like the 4 piece suite which doesn't have fire certificates on it (meaning charities will not trust it) have had us pulling our hair out. . Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
David, council take 5 large items away for 30 quid. Jigsaw and hammer can make the rest of smaller items into fire material, get yourself a 30 quid incinerator bin out of B&Q. So 60 quid and a bit of work and nothing beats a good fire.
Its only 3 items for £35 around here but 2 perfectly good mattresses and a broken washing machine are going away on Wednesday.
British Heart Foundation take large items, at least around my way, including mattresses but have to be in good condition. No stains, fire label on etc.
And they are strict about their rules and will just walk away if not met.
A rare consensus on PB. Government should tax the type of gambling that PBers don't like, and leave the type of gambling that PBers do like alone.
I think they should tax all gambling. It's 100% discretionary and the information asymmetry between the punter and the bookie combined with universal accessibility via apps mean it's socially destructive in a way that it has never been before.
Can any single person be cashflow positive betting on EPL or the loosely motorsports based soap opera for middle aged white men? I doubt it these days,
Tony Bloom and Matthew Benham wave from their massive yachts....
But in general, as a former professional gambler, I tell people betting on things like the EPL is incredibly difficult as the market is extremely efficient. Tony Bloom has done it with a big team of maths PhDs. Also, if you do have an edge, getting money on is the hardest part. Haralabos Voulgaris has amazing stories of the lengths he had to go to actually bet on sports as nobody would take his money.
Bloom and Benham were, of course, betting into the ‘black market’ decades before it became fashionable because they can't get on over here.
Not sure about air pollution benefits. What about all the smoke from the burning at the protests?
I'm more annoyed by the ancient Rule 4. Every single time I win on the horses I seem to be cut by at least 20%.
I feel sorry for Brown, tries to make his mission reducing child poverty, hated. Clegg paid millions for encouraging teen suicide etc, people like him.
Do they? The 2015 election rather suggests otherwise
Russia invaded the Baltic states three times last century, occupying them for decades after WWII. It's not exactly surprising they're worried about a repeat.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia may become Putin's next target - because of this, the leaders of the Baltic countries criticized any attempts to force Ukraine to cede territory, writes FT. https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1954123898296975865
It’s been a very long running piece of irredentism that any land that was ever part of the Russian Empire is part of the New Russian Empire (of whatever version)
The USSR had it as policy. Putin has made it the policy of his party.
Russia devastated the Baltics several times in the 20thC (twice playing tag team with the Germans). Ideologically friendly Balts formed the backbone of the early Bolshevik Red Army, and the Cheka (and later died in Stalin's purges).
Others provided slave labour for various projects between the two world wars, or died in the gulags.
The hatred and distrust of Russia has deep and well grounded foundations.
Rather than rely on history, with nearly all the actors no longer alive, it's best to concentrate on the present. The Baltic States seem all to have large majorities who are happy to be independent, and we should support that, while reserving the right to be critical of treatment of pro-Russian minorities. Personally I doubt if there's a serious threat, because of their NATO membership, which makes them very different from Ukraine, but there's no reason why we shouldn't reinforce the commitment to supporting their independence.
Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched
Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves
“Ruse”. “Self Created”. “Reeves black hole”. “Addicted”.
What prompts did you use for this one?
I do not use prompts, just a fair observation of Reeves job destroying Autumn Statement and surely nobody denies labour are addicted to spending
The truth hurts at times
But literally none of this is true! You are telling reflexive untruths
1. A “ruse” is a trick, a deception. This article is an op-ed by a former leader, not even policy yet, it may never even be policy, which sets out (if adopted) exactly what they would do. How exactly is it a “ruse”?
2. “…not that popular according to polls…” is demonstrably untrue given the thread header confirms the (proposed) policy itself polls at 70% support.
3. “…self created black hole of £40 billion…” which you later go on to suggest was caused by the 30 October 2024 autumn statement. But this figure was being discussed BEFORE the Autumn statement. Here’s an article mentioning it 2 weeks earlier-
So when did Reeves create this “black hole” before the Autumn statement? Why was she looking to fill it? What economic levers did she disasterously pull between 4 July and October 2024 to create this oft quoted figure?
5. As for “addicted”…what do you want me to say here? The original sin of this government (winter fuel allowance) that precipitated its rapid fall in the polls was a significant spending cut.
I’m sorry but none of your post stood up to any scrutiny at all.
You are wrong about 3). Its based upon a new report by NIESR, that says against the new government targets set in their budget they will miss by £40bn by the end of the parliament.
The Government is not on track to meet its ‘stability rule’, with our forecast suggesting a current deficit of £41.2 billion in the fiscal year 2029-30
This is what Big_G_NorthWales is referring it and it has been widely reported across the media over the past week.
I’ll leave it to Big G to confirm exactly which of these many £40B figures he’s referring to.
In other words I have been talking mince, been found out and now try whataboutery to deflect from my stupidity.
Point 2 is also wrong, BigG was not referring to whether the tax on gambling polled badly, he referred to a spending commitment (presumably ending the 2-child benefit cap) necessitating the tax rise polling badly. Which afaicr it does.
Also, I read a fair bit of AI generated text (sadly) and nothing about BigG's post reminds me of AI text, which usually has very obvious tells.
I never use AI to write my posts - it would be too obvious - because there definitely isn't any tell-tale signs - which ChatGPT5 hasn't solved.
We communicate here for pleasure. I can't imagine ever wanting to do an AI post. Just don't do a post if you can't be arsed, it's not homework.
There are few saps on here who have outsourced their entire personalities to LLM. The prose style is unmistakeable.
Unfair. Pretty sure I remember over-written, clichéd banality in the pre AI noughties.
Russia invaded the Baltic states three times last century, occupying them for decades after WWII. It's not exactly surprising they're worried about a repeat.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia may become Putin's next target - because of this, the leaders of the Baltic countries criticized any attempts to force Ukraine to cede territory, writes FT. https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1954123898296975865
It’s been a very long running piece of irredentism that any land that was ever part of the Russian Empire is part of the New Russian Empire (of whatever version)
The USSR had it as policy. Putin has made it the policy of his party.
Russia devastated the Baltics several times in the 20thC (twice playing tag team with the Germans). Ideologically friendly Balts formed the backbone of the early Bolshevik Red Army, and the Cheka (and later died in Stalin's purges).
Others provided slave labour for various projects between the two world wars, or died in the gulags.
The hatred and distrust of Russia has deep and well grounded foundations.
AIUI things weren't a lot better in Tsarist times.
The Russian Empire was an *empire*
Which generally doesn’t mean a pleasant invitation to afternoon tea.
I recall one of The Realists saying here, just before the Ukraine invasion, that - “Calling Russia an empire makes the word meaningless”
The Russian elite internalised the values of their Mongol conquerors (the House of Rurik proudly claimed descent from Genghis Khan.). Under the Tsars, the Reds, and now Putin, its leaders see it as a patrimonial state.
In the 18th century, its rulers were mostly Germans who spoke French (Russian was spoken to menial servants).
The more you read about Russian history the more you realise how deeply their psychy has been affected by the Mongol invasion.
Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched
Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves
“Ruse”. “Self Created”. “Reeves black hole”. “Addicted”.
What prompts did you use for this one?
I do not use prompts, just a fair observation of Reeves job destroying Autumn Statement and surely nobody denies labour are addicted to spending
The truth hurts at times
But literally none of this is true! You are telling reflexive untruths
1. A “ruse” is a trick, a deception. This article is an op-ed by a former leader, not even policy yet, it may never even be policy, which sets out (if adopted) exactly what they would do. How exactly is it a “ruse”?
2. “…not that popular according to polls…” is demonstrably untrue given the thread header confirms the (proposed) policy itself polls at 70% support.
3. “…self created black hole of £40 billion…” which you later go on to suggest was caused by the 30 October 2024 autumn statement. But this figure was being discussed BEFORE the Autumn statement. Here’s an article mentioning it 2 weeks earlier-
So when did Reeves create this “black hole” before the Autumn statement? Why was she looking to fill it? What economic levers did she disasterously pull between 4 July and October 2024 to create this oft quoted figure?
5. As for “addicted”…what do you want me to say here? The original sin of this government (winter fuel allowance) that precipitated its rapid fall in the polls was a significant spending cut.
I’m sorry but none of your post stood up to any scrutiny at all.
You are wrong about 3). Its based upon a new report by NIESR, that says against the new government targets set in their budget they will miss by £40bn by the end of the parliament.
The Government is not on track to meet its ‘stability rule’, with our forecast suggesting a current deficit of £41.2 billion in the fiscal year 2029-30
This is what Big_G_NorthWales is referring it and it has been widely reported across the media over the past week.
I’ll leave it to Big G to confirm exactly which of these many £40B figures he’s referring to.
In other words I have been talking mince, been found out and now try whataboutery to deflect from my stupidity.
Point 2 is also wrong, BigG was not referring to whether the tax on gambling polled badly, he referred to a spending commitment (presumably ending the 2-child benefit cap) necessitating the tax rise polling badly. Which afaicr it does.
Also, I read a fair bit of AI generated text (sadly) and nothing about BigG's post reminds me of AI text, which usually has very obvious tells.
I never use AI to write my posts - it would be too obvious - because there definitely isn't any tell-tale signs - which ChatGPT5 hasn't solved.
We communicate here for pleasure. I can't imagine ever wanting to do an AI post. Just don't do a post if you can't be arsed, it's not homework.
There are few saps on here who have outsourced their entire personalities to LLM. The prose style is unmistakeable.
Unfair. Pretty sure I remember over-written, clichéd banality in the pre AI noughties.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
We've been clearing my late MIL's house most of the year, it seems never ending. Most of the furniture has gone to charity. Attempts to sell stuff online have not really been worth the hassle. Problems like the 4 piece suite which doesn't have fire certificates on it (meaning charities will not trust it) have had us pulling our hair out. . Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
David, council take 5 large items away for 30 quid. Jigsaw and hammer can make the rest of smaller items into fire material, get yourself a 30 quid incinerator bin out of B&Q. So 60 quid and a bit of work and nothing beats a good fire.
Its only 3 items for £35 around here but 2 perfectly good mattresses and a broken washing machine are going away on Wednesday.
British Heart Foundation take large items, at least around my way, including mattresses but have to be in good condition. No stains, fire label on etc.
And they are strict about their rules and will just walk away if not met.
My Council have a free "large item" waste collection service, you get one free lot of up to 3 items in 12 months.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
We've been clearing my late MIL's house most of the year, it seems never ending. Most of the furniture has gone to charity. Attempts to sell stuff online have not really been worth the hassle. Problems like the 4 piece suite which doesn't have fire certificates on it (meaning charities will not trust it) have had us pulling our hair out. . Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
We did ours via an auction house - they took all the stuff we did not want as a package, sold the good and the rest went to a charity they worked with for the purpose.
We ended up with about 3k, but it was 3 decent sized vans of furniture - so low prices.
And there was a gorgeous 1880s mirror backed sideboard which was about 8ft long and 8ft high, with arts and crafts decoration, but which just would not fit in a modern house and would need to go to the type of house for which it was made.
Most people will come across this problem sometime. The game ought to have rules.
Rule 1: Price is what you can get.There is no other measure. Madness follows if you overlook this. Rule 2: It is massively in the public interest that Local Authorities have a statutory duty to collect and dispose of otherwise impossible items from domestic premises at no or small charge. (This prevents fly tipping). Rule 3: What you can get depends on whether you want to make getting maximum price your full time job for an indefinite period. This especially applies to books. Rule 4: The piano should never have been invented. It should be a criminal offence to try to own a grand piano. Rule 5: No-one ever moves house/clears a house without leaving behind at least one piece of unfinished business.
I have had several friends say that they were reduced almost to tears when doing house clearance for their late parents, items of furniture and china that their parents really treasured and were convinced were worth a lot went for peanuts at auction because currently they are not fashionable.
When my old dad finally died his house on S.Harris was full of brown furniture from my then recently deceased gran. Out of sentimental attachment we spent quite a lot on transporting it back to the mainland, even then we were aware it wasn’t really financially sensible. Ironically there was quite a lot of modular Ercol furniture bought from the previous owner (widow of the retired head of SOE as it happens) which we left for the new owner, it would be worth a handy chunk of money now.
The loot boxes and ultimate team packs are bad, but those free to play mobile games which are implemented in a way that it is a) play to win and b) cut your play time unless you pay more "coins" are pure cancer.
I know somebody who works in that industry and the money for one of those games is predicated on a small number of people becoming so addicted they spend insane amounts of money like a gambling addict (but without any of the tools that gambling sites must have like time outs, deposit limits and affordability checks).
This sort of behaviour isn't limited to mobile games by any means, a lot of PC games are now use very underhand tactics to milk players.
One game I play occasionally is Word of Warships, and while it's generally a fun game to play the ways they find to milk players are repulsive. Several times a year they run 'events' where players can buy loot boxes that have a small chance of dropping a valuable Premium ship. Being nice guys they have a mechanism where you're guaranteed to get a ship after opening so many boxes (usually 50).
But what they failed to tell anyone was the loot box system had a 'shortlist' of 30 low-value ships and only once you have all of those ships do the boxes start dropping the valuable stuff. So anyone buying a small number of boxes had zero chance of getting what they wanted, and it was mathematically possible to have to buy 1500 (30x50) boxes to get a good ship. The boxes cost £1.50 each...
The whole this is set up so people with addictive or obsessive personalities will have reasons to keep spending.
Russia invaded the Baltic states three times last century, occupying them for decades after WWII. It's not exactly surprising they're worried about a repeat.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia may become Putin's next target - because of this, the leaders of the Baltic countries criticized any attempts to force Ukraine to cede territory, writes FT. https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1954123898296975865
It’s been a very long running piece of irredentism that any land that was ever part of the Russian Empire is part of the New Russian Empire (of whatever version)
The USSR had it as policy. Putin has made it the policy of his party.
Russia devastated the Baltics several times in the 20thC (twice playing tag team with the Germans). Ideologically friendly Balts formed the backbone of the early Bolshevik Red Army, and the Cheka (and later died in Stalin's purges).
Others provided slave labour for various projects between the two world wars, or died in the gulags.
The hatred and distrust of Russia has deep and well grounded foundations.
Rather than rely on history, with nearly all the actors no longer alive, it's best to concentrate on the present. The Baltic States seem all to have large majorities who are happy to be independent, and we should support that, while reserving the right to be critical of treatment of pro-Russian minorities. Personally I doubt if there's a serious threat, because of their NATO membership, which makes them very different from Ukraine, but there's no reason why we shouldn't reinforce the commitment to supporting their independence.
There must be a very real threat if there's any discord in the NATO ranks. Say the sort of thing that'd result if Trump traded most of Ukraine away, but gave himself a little Trump enclave to fill with golf courses, hotels and ladies of his tastes to cash in on the Russian holiday market.
The EU should suggest a deal to Russia whereby they give back all of Ukraine, but get Alaska in return. See how Trump likes that.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Yes, for quite a long time.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
Big and brown has been difficult to give away for a long time.
When the LAB LEAKED covid killed my mother I burned most of her antique furniture in the paddock of her house in North Yorks because getting rid of it was such a tiresome pain in the dick. There is literally no way to get rid of a massive 300kg 18th C. Flemish oak wardrobe other than burning it.
We've been clearing my late MIL's house most of the year, it seems never ending. Most of the furniture has gone to charity. Attempts to sell stuff online have not really been worth the hassle. Problems like the 4 piece suite which doesn't have fire certificates on it (meaning charities will not trust it) have had us pulling our hair out. . Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
We did ours via an auction house - they took all the stuff we did not want as a package, sold the good and the rest went to a charity they worked with for the purpose.
We ended up with about 3k, but it was 3 decent sized vans of furniture - so low prices.
And there was a gorgeous 1880s mirror backed sideboard which was about 8ft long and 8ft high, with arts and crafts decoration, but which just would not fit in a modern house and would need to go to the type of house for which it was made.
Most people will come across this problem sometime. The game ought to have rules.
Rule 1: Price is what you can get.There is no other measure. Madness follows if you overlook this. Rule 2: It is massively in the public interest that Local Authorities have a statutory duty to collect and dispose of otherwise impossible items from domestic premises at no or small charge. (This prevents fly tipping). Rule 3: What you can get depends on whether you want to make getting maximum price your full time job for an indefinite period. This especially applies to books. Rule 4: The piano should never have been invented. It should be a criminal offence to try to own a grand piano. Rule 5: No-one ever moves house/clears a house without leaving behind at least one piece of unfinished business.
I have had several friends say that they were reduced almost to tears when doing house clearance for their late parents, items of furniture and china that their parents really treasured and were convinced were worth a lot went for peanuts at auction because currently they are not fashionable.
When my old dad finally died his house on S.Harris was full of brown furniture from my then recently deceased gran. Out of sentimental attachment we spent quite a lot on transporting it back to the mainland, even then we were aware it wasn’t really financially sensible. Ironically there was quite a lot of modular Ercol furniture bought from the previous owner (widow of the retired head of SOE as it happens) which we left for the new owner, it would be worth a handy chunk of money now.
I'd been prepared for the issue by the experiences of a friend whose parents died younger than mine. But we did get a pro valuer in - partly to get the cast iron valuation for IHT (not that it was needed, but ...) and partly to identify what if anything was worth selling when things like transport and fees are allowed for. Not that there was much but it enormously simplified decision making about stuff we didn't want to keep.
Algarkirk's rules are good. I'd add another - that the price in an antique dealer's window is always a significant multiple of what the dealer has paid the original owner/executor. No doubt adding to the shock. Differential is apparently not quite so bad for auctions, but they have their fees and costs - especially removal vans for the furniture.
Just been out for a lovely Sunday morning walk in Ukraine.
Walked outside to the sound of church bells, (something of a novelty when living in a different culture!), everybody coming in wearing their Sunday Best. Kids playing in the park, teenagers riding around on rental scooters, coffee shops, bars, and restaurants all doing a bustling Sunday trade. Now see groups of people walking past in green shirts, all on their way to see the local football club play in a few minutes’ time.
Dozens of photos, that all show a normal city on a normal Sunday…
This is my photo today. Taken outside the Town Hall, Zhytomyr. In this city of 250,000 people, it shows the images of 720 brave people, including half a dozen women, who have given their lives recently for their country.
Most of them younger than I, many of them young enough to be my son. A few born this century who lived unspeakably short lives. They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.
Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched
Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves
White the Tories just spent and borrowed.
Unprecented Covid and war in Ukraine and labour would have spent even more:
How much was spent on Covid-19 measures?
The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in very high levels of public spending. Current estimates of the total cost of government Covid-19 measures range from about £310 billion to £410 billion. This is the equivalent of about £4,600 to £6,100 per person in the UK.
Official figures show that spending in 2020/21 was about £179 billion higher than had been planned before the pandemic for that year.
Source: National Audit Office and HM Treasury (NAO/HMT), Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), and International Monetary Fund (IMF); see section 1.1 of this briefing for details. Calculated using UK population estimate from Office for National Statistics (ONS), Population estimates for the UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: mid-2020, 25 June 2021
A picture is sometimes better than many words
The COVID response really was the biggest waste of 💰 ever..did no-one in government think of the future..but I suppose when it's not your money in the first place..🥴
Russia invaded the Baltic states three times last century, occupying them for decades after WWII. It's not exactly surprising they're worried about a repeat.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia may become Putin's next target - because of this, the leaders of the Baltic countries criticized any attempts to force Ukraine to cede territory, writes FT. https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1954123898296975865
It’s been a very long running piece of irredentism that any land that was ever part of the Russian Empire is part of the New Russian Empire (of whatever version)
The USSR had it as policy. Putin has made it the policy of his party.
Russia devastated the Baltics several times in the 20thC (twice playing tag team with the Germans). Ideologically friendly Balts formed the backbone of the early Bolshevik Red Army, and the Cheka (and later died in Stalin's purges).
Others provided slave labour for various projects between the two world wars, or died in the gulags.
The hatred and distrust of Russia has deep and well grounded foundations.
Rather than rely on history, with nearly all the actors no longer alive, it's best to concentrate on the present. The Baltic States seem all to have large majorities who are happy to be independent, and we should support that, while reserving the right to be critical of treatment of pro-Russian minorities. Personally I doubt if there's a serious threat, because of their NATO membership, which makes them very different from Ukraine, but there's no reason why we shouldn't reinforce the commitment to supporting their independence.
Is NATO meaningful now, though, with this new America? Eg if Russia were to attack the Baltics the US might intervene but it wouldn't be because of a treaty obligation (which Trump laughs at) it would be because he feels personally slighted, or just likes the idea for some reason or other. Conversely if he doesn't they won't.
Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched
Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves
White the Tories just spent and borrowed.
Unprecented Covid and war in Ukraine and labour would have spent even more:
How much was spent on Covid-19 measures?
The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in very high levels of public spending. Current estimates of the total cost of government Covid-19 measures range from about £310 billion to £410 billion. This is the equivalent of about £4,600 to £6,100 per person in the UK.
Official figures show that spending in 2020/21 was about £179 billion higher than had been planned before the pandemic for that year.
Source: National Audit Office and HM Treasury (NAO/HMT), Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), and International Monetary Fund (IMF); see section 1.1 of this briefing for details. Calculated using UK population estimate from Office for National Statistics (ONS), Population estimates for the UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: mid-2020, 25 June 2021
A picture is sometimes better than many words
Indeed it does. You can see the problem started, to give it a political date, after the 2001 election, when the investment spending taps were well and truly turned on by Gordon Brown.
The country was in a bad place even before the 2008 recession, and has never properly recovered. There were still deficits 12 years later when the pandemic hit.
Russia invaded the Baltic states three times last century, occupying them for decades after WWII. It's not exactly surprising they're worried about a repeat.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia may become Putin's next target - because of this, the leaders of the Baltic countries criticized any attempts to force Ukraine to cede territory, writes FT. https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1954123898296975865
It’s been a very long running piece of irredentism that any land that was ever part of the Russian Empire is part of the New Russian Empire (of whatever version)
The USSR had it as policy. Putin has made it the policy of his party.
Russia devastated the Baltics several times in the 20thC (twice playing tag team with the Germans). Ideologically friendly Balts formed the backbone of the early Bolshevik Red Army, and the Cheka (and later died in Stalin's purges).
Others provided slave labour for various projects between the two world wars, or died in the gulags.
The hatred and distrust of Russia has deep and well grounded foundations.
I just bought a handsome William IV mahogany table for £129
wtf. A friend tells me “antique prices have collapsed”. “Especially for old brown stuff”
Is this true? It seems true from this deal
OTOH I might get it and find it collapses on arrival
Houses smaller, more people renting, more old people dying and their houses being cleared out onto the market ...
Is that it? That confirms and explains what my friend says
“People don’t want antiques, the market is saturated by eBay and Facebook and Etsy”
He reckons my table could easily have cost 4x this 15-20 years ago
Gold, silver, jewellery, stamps, will quite reliably appreciate in value.
The rest? I think buy what one likes. I buy quite a lot of paintings and cut glass.
Will anyone care as much about stamps when a couple of generations of people have never used one?
It's a good point. I collected coins pre decimalisation as a youngster. You could find semi rare coins in your change. It was popular. The market fell after decimalisation and has never recovered as the collectors evaporated. Similar with low value value classic cars like MGAs, MGBs, Morris Minors, etc. Not many of us left who grew up with them (My first car was an Austin A40) so the market has dropped.
Friends with a mid-60s Alvis take it to car shows but report a massive fall in acknowledgements from other drivers on the way there and back. You are right, a lot of collectability is driven by nostalgia.
I hold no brief for Prince Andrew, but why is it, when Epstein was publicly associated with Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Al Gore and Bill Gates, that every time Epstein comes back to public prominence, the media is wall-to-wall Randy Andy?
Foreign criminals to face deportation after sentencing under new plans
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn72dknzepjo Under the proposals, those who are given fixed-term sentences could be deported straight away and would be barred from re-entering the UK. The decision over whether they go on to serve their sentences abroad would be up to the country they are sent to, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) told the BBC. In theory, this means that some criminals may be able to walk free upon arrival in their destination country. Foreign offenders make up around 12% percent of the prison population, with prison places costing £54,000 a year on average, according to the government. It says the new powers would save money for British taxpayers and protect the public. Those serving life sentences, such as terrorists and murderers, will serve their full prison sentence in the UK before being considered for deportation, it said. Once a custodial sentence is handed down by a judge, the decision over whether someone will be deported will fall to a prison governor, the MoJ said. Authorities would retain the power to keep criminals in custody if, for example, they were planning further crimes against the UK's interests or were seen as a danger to national security. The MoJ told the BBC that its definition of a foreign national is based on the conditions laid out in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act. If passed, the new powers could be applied to those already in prison, meaning the government could begin deportations immediately. As of January 2024, there were about 10,400 foreign nationals in the prison system...
This has the look of something being an excellent idea in theory but presenting serious problems in practice.
First thought; what if something is a crime in GB but not in wherever the criminal is being deported to? Or 'serious' here but not there?
The main problem with it is: why hasn't it been happening all along?
A rare consensus on PB. Government should tax the type of gambling that PBers don't like, and leave the type of gambling that PBers do like alone.
I think they should tax all gambling. It's 100% discretionary and the information asymmetry between the punter and the bookie combined with universal accessibility via apps mean it's socially destructive in a way that it has never been before.
Can any single person be cashflow positive betting on EPL or the loosely motorsports based soap opera for middle aged white men? I doubt it these days,
Tony Bloom and Matthew Benham wave from their massive yachts....
But in general, as a former professional gambler, I tell people betting on things like the EPL is incredibly difficult as the market is extremely efficient. Tony Bloom has done it with a big team of maths PhDs. Also, if you do have an edge, getting money on is the hardest part. Haralabos Voulgaris has amazing stories of the lengths he had to go to actually bet on sports as nobody would take his money.
The American equivalent is a guy called Billy Walters, who used to bet millions on American Football back when it was pretty much only the Sports Books in Vegas. He had to keep turning over the people who worked on the ‘front line’ for him, as the casinos would ban anyone they suspected of placing money on his behalf. His book is a great read.
The likes of Walters and Voulgaris were putting so much money on they could actually manipulate the lines across Vegas and also on Pinnacle. And Pinnacle used to be the sports book of sharps and so when their line moved, it moved all the other books. Thus, Walters in particular was known to send people to put on big bets on sides he thought would lose just to move the lines.
Who are the whales in political betting. I know there was one in POTUS 2024: are there others and do we know their names?
Foreign criminals to face deportation after sentencing under new plans
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn72dknzepjo Under the proposals, those who are given fixed-term sentences could be deported straight away and would be barred from re-entering the UK. The decision over whether they go on to serve their sentences abroad would be up to the country they are sent to, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) told the BBC. In theory, this means that some criminals may be able to walk free upon arrival in their destination country. Foreign offenders make up around 12% percent of the prison population, with prison places costing £54,000 a year on average, according to the government. It says the new powers would save money for British taxpayers and protect the public. Those serving life sentences, such as terrorists and murderers, will serve their full prison sentence in the UK before being considered for deportation, it said. Once a custodial sentence is handed down by a judge, the decision over whether someone will be deported will fall to a prison governor, the MoJ said. Authorities would retain the power to keep criminals in custody if, for example, they were planning further crimes against the UK's interests or were seen as a danger to national security. The MoJ told the BBC that its definition of a foreign national is based on the conditions laid out in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act. If passed, the new powers could be applied to those already in prison, meaning the government could begin deportations immediately. As of January 2024, there were about 10,400 foreign nationals in the prison system...
This has the look of something being an excellent idea in theory but presenting serious problems in practice.
First thought; what if something is a crime in GB but not in wherever the criminal is being deported to? Or 'serious' here but not there?
The main problem with it is: why hasn't it been happening all along?
Because the desire for justice to be seen to be done, i.e. with incarceration in a British prison, was stronger than the desire for deportation.
Comments
There's gambling and there's gambling. Do we equate the intricacies of equine entertainment with the tedium of online roulette? I hope not though I appreciate those whose lives have been damaged by gambing addiction and their families and friends (and indeed many others) would rather see the opportunities for gambling removed from the High Street.
As with smoking and drink driving before it, there is a rich vein of puritanism about and the poll numbers suggest the awareness of the issue (as with so many other issues) is often partial and partisan.
The horse racing industry has mounted a strong campaign against harmonisation of general betting duty with remote gaming duty but the political clout of the sport, for all Lady Starmer is a fan, is reduced by the fact most MPs in horse racing constituencies are either Liberal Democrats or Conservatives and they simply don't have the numbers IF the urban Labour MPs want it to happen.
Dire consequences notwithstanding, it's an unpleasant truth the bookmaking industry (particularly groups like Entain and Flutter) seem to be full of money - comparisons with dealers and pimps may be overdoing it a little. Betting shops don't look the way they did when I worked in them and they aren't the same. They are more like casinos - I walked into one of my local Paddy Power shops at 10.30 yesterday morning and there were three "virtual" races (I always called them cartoon races) going off within a minute of each other and the three customers in the shop were playing the FOBTs.
Are the shops viable? Would there be mass closures if the tax regime changed? The horse racing and betting industry has tentacles beyond the immediate and whether it's stable staff, ground staff at race courses or betting shop staff, we all know who will be first for the chop if the margins tighten.
It's also driven by large furniture and houses getting smaller, and fashion.
Mum and dad were in a 5000sqft former manor house for their last 40 years, of which restoration took 25 years. They had at least 3 full size (8 person) dining tables from relatives, and had amassed a collection of Guy Rogers 1960s Manhattan teak furniture of 3 full size double bed converting sofas, and about 9 chairs, as old friends moved to smaller houses - different period, same principle.
Estate sales of boomers (OK: former boomers) are one place to be.
https://www.ft.com/content/297b01f4-e629-4811-8726-aed9dceea334
When a politician talks about promising fairness to cushion the blow you know you better get plenty of lube in for the shafting.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/general/billy-walters-sports-betting-tips-strategies-joe-rogan-experience
https://www.nst.com.my/world/world/2025/08/1258070/british-fighter-jet-makes-emergency-landing-japan-airport
After chucking one in the Med on the last jolly, I think they are now incredibly risk-averse and will divert the jet on the slightest defect rather than risk losing it.
Don’t know the story on this latest one, but the earlier one was allegedly a fuel diversion in poor weather, but the plane was declared u/s on landing and needed parts and people shipped half way across the world to fix it.
Regardless of the merits of the policy, the Labour leadership will be reassured that their current pledge of keeping the two-child limit is supported by six in ten Britons (60%), with less than three in ten (28%) believing it should be abolished.
There is support for keeping the cap across almost all voting and social groups, including Labour voters, who back it by 50% to 38%. The only exception is among 18-24 year olds, only a third (32%) of whom think the cap should be kept, with nearly half (46%) opposing it. Older voters are far more likely to favour the policy, with 69% of over-65s wanting it to stay and only 21% believing it should be abolished.
If, as according to various studies I've seen, a 1% increase in the tax rate reduces long run GDP by about 1%, the increase in the tax take of 1% over this Parliament (and in reality it will probably be a lot higher) will cost us about £20-25 billion/year forever. Or about £1600/year for a family of four. That may be understating it, for various reasons too technical for this site, but let's go with that.
And the 4% increase in the last Parliament cost four times that.
And that's before adding the huge cost of their buggering up of the labour market and all their other pointless regulations.
The true cost of a bunch of terrible governments. If it weren't hidden, there would doubtless be riots.
WIth this one, they have copped to an engineering defect straight away.
With the Sea Harrier you could VL it if the engine/nozzles worked, the water system was intact and the wings were still attached. F-35B needs to be 100/100 before they will attempt a VL.
First kid 100%
Second kid 80%
Third kid 50%
Fourth 25%
Probably doesn't cost much more than a cap at 2 but feels better to me.
Once it's all gone, in about a decade's time, it might become a status symbol for the wealthy with large houses, and see an upswing.
Costly to warehouse, so it's not a canny long term investment either.
That’s the price of a posh designer bog brush from John Lewis. It’s a bit ridiculous
And given the nosebleed cost of these things, I'd be risk averse too.
.
Dinning room table with 6 matching chairs, crockery sideboards, glass cabinets, we literally cannot give them away.
The USSR had it as policy. Putin has made it the policy of his party.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=Guy+Rogers+Manhattan&_sacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2332490.m570.l1313
But supply exceeds demand, and will do for a while.
Dura's wardrobes are the deadest pig.
Shame about the '300kg' of oak, though. There are a few carpenters who might have taken it, if it was quite so substantial.
Seemed a lot but it was money well spent.
There was so much stuff that it would have taken between 4 and 5 skips and 2 to 3 days for me to do it myself (plus hotel bill and fuel to be there to do it).
The rest? I think buy what one likes. I buy quite a lot of paintings and cut glass.
My mother tried to give away a chair she reupholstered (a hobby) in 100% wool.
Impossible without a cert.
Also, I read a fair bit of AI generated text (sadly) and nothing about BigG's post reminds me of AI text, which usually has very obvious tells.
- find a suitably qualified tech team willing to go a trip of open ended duration to India.
- get the bits needed. JFL is extremely skinny on spare parts stock, they possibly had to come from the US.
- secure permission from Lockheed-Martin to take it apart in an unsecure location (this wasn't exactly granted with urgency).
- wait for an A400M and its crew of chubby halitosis suffers to haul the whole circus to Thiruvanathapuram.
We have seen it with the money supposedly being raised by the application of VAT on school fees which was supposed to fund additional spending (whilst completely ignoring the collateral costs dumped on local authorities as a result) in education. We had the "penny to save the NHS" from the Lib Dems. We have the pretense that NI has something to do with the funding of the NHS and the State Pension. We had the nonsense of taxes on Sugary drinks to supposedly fund school sports.
None of the hypothecations are legally binding. None of them are rational. The link between the money "raised" (or lost) is tenuous at best. It is a genuinely idiotic way to determine tax policy. We need to simplify and clarify our tax system to allow investment decisions to be made in a coherent context if we are to maximise growth. These policies are for the simple minded.
However, I've a grandfather clock which was originally (we think..... might be older) a wedding present to the most prosperous (least unprosperous???) set of my Welsh great-grandparents and he quite fancies that.
We ended up with about 3k, but it was 3 decent sized vans of furniture - so low prices.
And there was a gorgeous 1880s mirror backed sideboard which was about 8ft long and 8ft high, with arts and crafts decoration, but which just would not fit in a modern house and would need to go to the type of house for which it was made.
Ideologically friendly Balts formed the backbone of the early Bolshevik Red Army, and the Cheka (and later died in Stalin's purges).
Others provided slave labour for various projects between the two world wars, or died in the gulags.
The hatred and distrust of Russia has deep and well grounded foundations.
Bear in mind some furniture comes to bits, however!
The moral seesaw rhetoric is very hard to debunk successfully.
https://news.sky.com/story/mo-salah-criticises-uefa-tribute-to-palestinian-pele-suleiman-al-obeid-13409501
It's also the reason why you should never cut off the fire safety label from furniture
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20598600
But I know he's a moron
Gordon is a moron
Gordon is a moron
Gordon is a moron
Rule 1: Price is what you can get.There is no other measure. Madness follows if you overlook this.
Rule 2: It is massively in the public interest that Local Authorities have a statutory duty to collect and dispose of otherwise impossible items from domestic premises at no or small charge. (This prevents fly tipping).
Rule 3: What you can get depends on whether you want to make getting maximum price your full time job for an indefinite period. This especially applies to books.
Rule 4: The piano should never have been invented. It should be a criminal offence to try to own a grand piano.
Rule 5: No-one ever moves house/clears a house without leaving behind at least one piece of unfinished business.
The evidence for brown furniture's collapse is it no longer appears on Antiques Roadshow: compare recent programmes with 30 years ago. This from 1994, for instance:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jsyrlmv6R-Q
Which generally doesn’t mean a pleasant invitation to afternoon tea.
I recall one of The Realists saying here, just before the Ukraine invasion, that - “Calling Russia an empire makes the word meaningless”
It's essentially Jilted John channelling the Conservative Party and its supporters from 1997 to 2010. Quite a feat of prescience since he released it in 1978.
However, no such distinction will be made.
It's none of the Government's business.
In the 18th century, its rulers were mostly Germans who spoke French (Russian was spoken to menial servants).
And they are strict about their rules and will just walk away if not met.
Rather than rely on history, with nearly all the actors no longer alive, it's best to concentrate on the present. The Baltic States seem all to have large majorities who are happy to be independent, and we should support that, while reserving the right to be critical of treatment of pro-Russian minorities. Personally I doubt if there's a serious threat, because of their NATO membership, which makes them very different from Ukraine, but there's no reason why we shouldn't reinforce the commitment to supporting their independence.
Pretty sure I remember over-written, clichéd banality in the pre AI noughties.
https://www.ashfield.gov.uk/freebulkywastecollection
It's an Ashfield Independents distinctive.
But I can really see how it would help with fly tipping, which would hep pay for it.
One game I play occasionally is Word of Warships, and while it's generally a fun game to play the ways they find to milk players are repulsive. Several times a year they run 'events' where players can buy loot boxes that have a small chance of dropping a valuable Premium ship. Being nice guys they have a mechanism where you're guaranteed to get a ship after opening so many boxes (usually 50).
But what they failed to tell anyone was the loot box system had a 'shortlist' of 30 low-value ships and only once you have all of those ships do the boxes start dropping the valuable stuff. So anyone buying a small number of boxes had zero chance of getting what they wanted, and it was mathematically possible to have to buy 1500 (30x50) boxes to get a good ship. The boxes cost £1.50 each...
The whole this is set up so people with addictive or obsessive personalities will have reasons to keep spending.
The EU should suggest a deal to Russia whereby they give back all of Ukraine, but get Alaska in return. See how Trump likes that.
Algarkirk's rules are good. I'd add another - that the price in an antique dealer's window is always a significant multiple of what the dealer has paid the original owner/executor. No doubt adding to the shock. Differential is apparently not quite so bad for auctions, but they have their fees and costs - especially removal vans for the furniture.
Walked outside to the sound of church bells, (something of a novelty when living in a different culture!), everybody coming in wearing their Sunday Best. Kids playing in the park, teenagers riding around on rental scooters, coffee shops, bars, and restaurants all doing a bustling Sunday trade. Now see groups of people walking past in green shirts, all on their way to see the local football club play in a few minutes’ time.
Dozens of photos, that all show a normal city on a normal Sunday…
This is my photo today. Taken outside the Town Hall, Zhytomyr. In this city of 250,000 people, it shows the images of 720 brave people, including half a dozen women, who have given their lives recently for their country.
Most of them younger than I, many of them young enough to be my son. A few born this century who lived unspeakably short lives.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
(Various causes.)
The country was in a bad place even before the 2008 recession, and has never properly recovered. There were still deficits 12 years later when the pandemic hit.
All occupations have collaborators. Some even managed to work for both sides.
The point of all this is not that others don't have unpleasant history, it's that Russia is effectively the same now as it was then.
Bucha, Mariupol, occupied Donetsk, all provide ample evidence of that.
Here are two former Top Gear presenters discussing classic cars and the perils of auctions (one-minute video):-
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/b6tnl7KmscM