Every Laugh Is The Energy

Behind_The_Sofa_2

Savvybuyer

zippydooda wrote: »

what preparations you going to do then? I expect absolutely nothing, that will make any difference to you or anyone else.

Possibly. I don't know - maybe if they start means-testing something, I'll have to give to someone else in the household who's currently on means-tested benefits (but just enough to keep them, permanently, under the threshold). It's all about legitimate use of whatever rules they put in place. Or maybe I'll have to spend up - but then will I have enough to cover for my pension in future years? Particularly if they take further contributions towards that away. I heard about one woman who, over her life, did things absolutely brilliantly - putting just the right amount into a child's account and then taking some of it, at just the right times, so that it was legitimate use by her, avoided tax liability on her part and then managed to leave it all without creating inheritance tax liability. That's the way it has to be done. I'm on the side of the view that inheritance tax changes, anyway, are not a priority as they do not affect most people who are not rich enough to be subject to paying the tax anyway.

Goodnight:wave:.

Behind_The_Sofa_2

Two men at Oxford. One campaigned against rent rises, the other joined a club that bullies and taunts homeless.

Savvybuyer

itch_for_a_glitch wrote: »

lol

I always read the instructions after I've bodged the job.

:rotfl::rotfl:

I've just thought: wasn't me that bodged the job though - others "bodged" it for me (yet again, as usual) and me left repairing the matter. Again.

Savvybuyer

fairclaire wrote: »

The human rights contained within British law are based on the articles contained [1] within European law. We have a human rights act....[2] but we never wrote it. We relied on European law for that

There are no cases that I know of that rely on British human rights acts?

Happy to be proved wrong

[1] Which we helped write.

[2] Our Human Rights Act was written by us - it is UK domestic law but we chose to require our courts to interpret our legislation so as to be compatible with the European Convention.

We've never had a written (or, to put it more accurately, codified) Constitution, or a "Bill of Rights" in the sense of what we'd understand as such. We have had Magna Carta of course and a Bill of Rights 1688/89, but it's not a Bill of Rights in the sense of protecting the ordinary person's right - more contained protection for Parliamentary privileges that sort of thing. The Major government had to pass legislation to alter the Bill of Rights to allow Neil Hamilton to sue the Guardian newspaper in a libel case, which later collapsed. (The Guardian greeted it with the headline "A Liar and a Cheat". Not to be confused with the case of Jonathan Aitken, who famously fell on his "sword of truth" and prompted the Guardian's "He lied and lied and lied" headline in 1997.)

I'd long supported a codified Constitution and a Bill of Rights, but I don't think we need the latter in the light of having the Human Rights Act. The move of scrapping the Act and having a Bill of Rights though raises the interesting (for me) points that I've thought of.

Anyway, I have to go! See you later:wave::wave:.

henlans

Sunshinemummy wrote: »

Can we please have more topless men? x



Hello Happy Chappy.



Henlans was rather nice to me when I first found this thread. I was awol when he disappeared and never really understood it (same with a number of other people).

Hi SSM



Talking about politics. I would vote to stay in the EU and continue to support the human rights. Personally think scrapping that would be terrible and protects every one. Re the conservatives. Just wait for the pain they will inflict on the less rich people in the UK. The next few years will be hard.

About benefits, about time wages are increased to the level in other EU states, once these are dealt with then that will make work pay. The wages in the UK are low. I think everyone in the UK knows someone on benefits and see another side that does not match what the "media" go on about. You might get a few but that's not everyone

henlans

fairclaire wrote: »

Moff to bed soon.

We had Henlans posting the other day (if it was indeed him) and he got lots of welcome backs. He never left, he just posted here under various ailases all that time.
I personally never understood why he was vilified at the time. I was new but he did no worse than what goes on on a daily basis here now. The 'line' was probably different then.

There are lots of people that post here who aren't what or who they seem. There always will be. You accept them because they share glitches. That's what we are all here for at the end of the day.

Anyway goodnight

I think I have to agree with you. Not about posting under various
ailases tho, that line again. I don't have a line, I'll abuse anything as long as I think it's not illegal so I guess I do have a line. Breaking the law is for criminals and I'm not. You don't get to get 2 trips to Orlando for free by doing 1 shop at a time. I'm quite open but being open gives or persuades others to do more shops.

altojack

:mad: Another restless night. Sciatica now not just down my leg into my foot and toes, it has decided that it likes the look of my right butt cheek:eek:
Can't sit down for long due to intense pain in the back of my thigh grr

Mind you, I'm not feeling too much pain from the knee replacement. Why has it ALL got to be in the same bloody leg:mad:

3Dogs

I'm with you on the nerve pain altojack, unable to sleep

After an hour or so of catching up after my weekend away in which I spent aboput 30 minutes if that on here, I am looking forward to the new thread tomorrow/well later today after all the politics on here

Bikertov wrote: »

Just because everyone else is talking Politics, I will throw a few thoughts of my own in too:

Look at all the election results over the last 40 years at least ...

NO PARTY has ever got more than 50% of the vote - the highest is 42/43%. So you could say that in EVERY election, the 'winning' party was NOT wanted by the majority of the electorate - including every Labour government elected.

The 1997 Labour "landslide" - 57% of the electorate did NOT want Labour. They got 40% more votes, but got 2 1/2 times the seats (compared to the Tories).

So let us not be selective about voting results and seats - it works both ways.

If we had Proportional Representation, you would still have a 'ruling' party that most people did not want (in the first instance), but it would most likely be less stable, as you would always need some form of coalition.

Having First Past the Post at least gives relative stability, especially with a majority of seats. It allows a clear period to put in place policies, and see if they work or not. If they don't, then just vote that party out at the next election.

If we had PR, then the SNP would have very few seats, and UKIP would have loads - twice as many as SNP, more than the LibDems, and just under half of Labour.


And finally, forget all the fancy theories - a basic economic fact is surely that you can't go on spending more than you earn, by borrowing and borrowing. No different at Household level, Company level or Country level. Eventually you will go bust.

The fact is, to have a generous Welfare State costs money, and if no-one is paying into it, bar a few 'rich' people, it will fail. Surely Welfare should be for the poorest few only, that really can't afford the basics, not for so many that seems to be the case now. Poverty is relative - we really don't have the slums and poverty of 50 / 60 years ago or more. And Poverty does NOT mean not having flat screen TV's and mobile phones, or enough money for 40 cigarettes a day. Basic sensible household economics could sort a lot of issues (not all of course ... ). But the fundamental fact is that work and earning should be the aim and the norm, not benefits.

And the world we live in is such that success breeds wealth, and that pays for all the things we all want. If you discourage success, where is the wealth going to be generated from that pays for all these 'free' things you want ?

If you stifle success, by taxing it out of existance, you will have no growth, and no success.

Despite what they say, Government DON'T create real jobs (and I don't mean Civil Service jobs that create and produce NOTHING, just a cost to the country). Only businesses do, from Self Employed, through Micro, SME and big Corporations. Stifle those, and the economy will not thrive.

There will always be 'Fat Cats' - but I see no-one calling for the 'Fat Cats' of Sports (eg overpaid, underworked footballers, paying little tax probably ??) or entertainment (overpaid self-engrosed 'Celebrities', also avoiding tax ?) being called to task - actually, they are worshiped by most of the country. So let's not have one opinion for one and one for another.

No doubt some of my comments and opinions will get slated. So be it - we all have the right to an opinion in this country - but you can't say the same in some countries, where there is genuine poverty and suffering (even though there is often great wealth and resources, just that it is kept by corrupt ruling groups).


Anyway, a few things to ponder over, so off my soap box now ... .

Bananababe wrote: »

Bikertov that post is tremendous. A full understanding of the position of politics and the role of the government.


Post of the week

Thankyou :T:T:T

pk04 wrote: »

Thank you for writing what I wanted to say in a way I never could have

/\ /\ /\ What they said :j :beer:

I have a long drive tomorrow, to take loads of bags of bedding and aid to Rochdale to go on wagon to Romania at end of the month, for the animals. We car is totally full of donations :j

Gonna try to get a little sleep now

altojack

I'm still awake, went down and tried to sit in conservatory with a cuppa watching the hedgehogs. Ended up laying on the sofa out there :eek:
Drive with care later 3Dogs x