Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

General News Discussion


Guest Atlanteanlost

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

well she didnt just pop down to the local NHS did she?

The NHS is staffed by people. Who staffs private hospitals? :P

I just think they should of waited (I can see why they annouced it, always thought the royals would be better at cover ups),

that's the great leveller about life, no matter who you are and where you come from, we all shit and piss, and we all have a tendency to gossip.

So while some people love to invent the most stupid conspiracy theories going, the simple fact is that it would be impossible to keep such things secret - because even if you bumped people off, someone has to do the bumping and they'd be likely to blab eventually.

because if something goes wrong (which i know could happen at any time but from im told more likely in the first 12 weeks) having to face a miscarriage must be awful let alone in front of the world

but think of the sympathy they could milk from it!! it would guarantee the monarchy for another 100 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin

I was cynically thinking the exact same thing... and then we could have an update every month on the chances of a succesful pregnancy... and then.... well, just imagine the build up!

I'm not being quite so cynical as to think that was an - excuse the pun - pre-conceived plan.

It's merely a useful consequence of the whole situation if things were to come out for the worst from Bill & Kate's point of view.

Me, i'd say the useful consequence is one less leech, for the moment at least. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not being quite so cynical as to think that was an - excuse the pun - pre-conceived plan.

It's merely a useful consequence of the whole situation if things were to come out for the worst from Bill & Kate's point of view.

Me, i'd say the useful consequence is one less leech, for the moment at least. tongue.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what I was wanting to say was yeah, that's something to feel sorry for. I bet the starving and homeless wished they were treated twice as badly as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely Kate is the member of the royals to feel the LEAST sorry for? She wasn't born into it, brought up in the environment. She chose it. She chose to marry into the family. It was her decision to have that sort of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so it was the autumn statement yesterday, whats people assessments of it? I didn't managed to get to watch it but from the clips ive seen labour look liked they missed another open goal (both Miliband and Balls performances were under whelming)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

so it was the autumn statement yesterday, whats people assessments of it? I didn't managed to get to watch it but from the clips ive seen labour look liked they missed another open goal (both Miliband and Balls performances were under whelming)

It's piss-taking amusing .... loads of people on middle incomes have been told their tax rate is rising by one percent (which by itself I have no issue with; part of the heart of the problem is that income taxes have been cut by over 1/3 in the last 30 years to benefit the richest) while meanwhile the richest 1% are going to be getting a 5% income tax cut from this April - which is worth £50k each year (about twice the average wage) to someone earning £1m pa.

And yet people still choose to believe that the economic policies of this coalition are about cutting the deficit. Yeah, OK. :lol:

Fuck me people are stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Economics Foundation sent a brilliant very consises email about it yesterday. The giest was that the government was failing on its own terms and it was an overly regresstive mini budget.

I also note, as a public sector employee, that the chansalor has grashously allowed me to have only a 1.7% pay cut this year. Yay! (N.B thats 2.2% in old RPI money). That will be lovley with my yet further increased pension conributions; notably the only public sector employees not facing this are the MPs. Funny that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

notably the only public sector employees not facing this are the MPs. Funny that.

there should be a law which says that MPs have to have the same pay-increase terms as the worst of other public sector employees - it might increase their focus just a little.

There should also be a law which says that 2% of any turnover from business done in the UK is paid as corporation tax, deductable against a greater amount of corporation tax being paid if the tax on company profits (at current rates) is a greater amount than that 2% of turnover - it would stop the likes of Starbucks taking the piss while having no effect on companies that don't take the piss.

And any of those poor little darlings who might have to pay up-to an extra £2500 in tax on their pension contributions and who moan about it should be tarred and feathered and dragged thru the street while the other 90% of us throw eggs at them. It's no fucking good their 'champions' saying "but that might effect too many middle income tax-payers", because anyone who can afford to put twice the average wage into their pension in any year is not going to miss a measely two and half grand which they'll not notice the govt taking anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should also be a law which says that 2% of any turnover from business done in the UK is paid as corporation tax, deductable against a greater amount of corporation tax being paid if the tax on company profits (at current rates) is a greater amount than that 2% of turnover - it would stop the likes of Starbucks taking the piss while having no effect on companies that don't take the piss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

if I've understood what you're saying right (and apologies if I havent) wouldnt that just mean that business that are barely profitable or operating a loss (say because they have just started up) are more likely to go bust?

You can look it that way if you wish to, but there's a whole massive other side to it too (which I'll get to in a moment). But in regard to that, it would just be, at the end of the day, another operating cost - so new businesses would have to factor in that added cost before starting, and nothing would change (because the same would apply in all directions, and that start-up would therefore be no more or less profitable against the competition than it was).

But the other side is that a business that is barely profitable is depriving the exchequer of taxes - because it's depriving the profitable businesses of that business. Capitalist theory says it needs to ship up or shut down.

What is profit is infinitely manipulable, while turnover is not (tho for certain sectors, there's big holes. I'm not saying it's perfect). It will never be possible to fairly tax by going after profits because of that, and so a 'trade tax' on turnover is a much better way to go.

It stops, for example, the c**ts from robbing us all via leveraged buy-outs, where we pay for them to become billionaires. It also stops an awful lot of the no-added-value speculative traders anywhere from city banks to your local high street, and returns that business to value-adding traders. The ups to the idea are endless.

I came up with the idea last night, so don't go expecting a full-formulated plan from me ... and I have identified a few areas where there's some big problems with the idea, but all sorts of exceptions could be made around those if really necessary - for example, you could say that businesses in their first year are exempt; and to stop people taking the piss you could say that only businesses where all shareholders hadn't been involved in another start-up-trade-tax-exemption business for the last five years were eligible to be exempt.

It's not like a system with lots of exemptions and special cases is a wacky idea in our tax system, is it? tongue.png

The tax could be brought in slowly too, so its impact was minimised while companies adjust - that takes away many of the problems, because companies are always having to adjust their budgets anyway - but for most businesses, the ones that are 'officially' profitable, it's not an added cost at all anyway.

Is it a more flawed idea than what we have currently? I don't think it is.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can look it that way if you wish to, but there's a whole massive other side to it too (which I'll get to in a moment). But in regard to that, it would just be, at the end of the day, another operating cost - so new businesses would have to factor in that added cost before starting, and nothing would change (because the same would apply in all directions, and that start-up would therefore be no more or less profitable against the competition than it was).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Wouldnt the cost them just be passed on to the customer? So you would have (potentially) a massive increase in corporation tax funded out of the pockets, partly at least, of consumers.

for any business making a 10% margin before corp tax it's cost neutral, because what is collected via that 'trade tax' would be offset against any corp-tax bill. So, for most firms it's cost neutral, so there's nothing to be passed onto the customer.

For the others, currently they're essentially being subsided by the tax-payer to stay in business - cos businesses are meant to make a profit in a capitalist system, else they go to the wall. They've stealing business from the 'good' businesses, and the tax-payer is paying them to be able to do that ... and the owner is getting rich of course (again, paid for by the taxpayer). So who really cares if these businesses go to the wall? The trade will go elsewhere, to a better place - and if there needs to be a small price increase as a result then that's a market adjustment to the new rules of the market. It's a price worth paying for a fairer market without the w*nkers - we all win via that in the end.

Any economic solution that anyone might suggest is going to have negative impacts in one direction or another, that's an inevitable consequence of any tweak to the system - but it's not a reason by itself it not make those tweaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for any business making a 10% margin before corp tax it's cost neutral, because what is collected via that 'trade tax' would be offset against any corp-tax bill. So, for most firms it's cost neutral, so there's nothing to be passed onto the customer.

For the others, currently they're essentially being subsided by the tax-payer to stay in business - cos businesses are meant to make a profit in a capitalist system, else they go to the wall. They've stealing business from the 'good' businesses, and the tax-payer is paying them to be able to do that ... and the owner is getting rich of course (again, paid for by the taxpayer). So who really cares if these businesses go to the wall? The trade will go elsewhere, to a better place - and if there needs to be a small price increase as a result then that's a market adjustment to the new rules of the market. It's a price worth paying for a fairer market without the w*nkers - we all win via that in the end.

Any economic solution that anyone might suggest is going to have negative impacts in one direction or another, that's an inevitable consequence of any tweak to the system - but it's not a reason by itself it not make those tweaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...