The prominent lawyer Jessica Simor QC, from Matrix chambers, has written to May asking her to release the legal advice under the Freedom of Information Act. Simor says she has been told by “two good sources” that the prime minister has been advised “that the article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29 March 2019 resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current favourable terms.
A glimmer of light appears in the darkness.
Really Ben - have you thought how this could be realised and how the wider public would react to us staying in the EU. If you think things are difficult at present, and they are, it is nothing to what will happen if attempts are made to reverse the referendum
What else would you expect from such a piece of bile?
She is really a b1tch.
And the level of mysogynism on the left continues apace. I suppose we ought to be relieved she's not Jewish as well.
You must know that Katie Hopkins if full of hated and bile. Sure there are some nasty, nasty people on the left too but it doesn't lessen Hopkins' vileness.
Never been a fan myself but I do kick back when it spills into gratuitous name-calling and mysogyny. Generally, with more than 8 O Levels you can be more classy - of course you omit to mention the grades....
Haha I got 4As, 3 Bs and a C.
But what is mysogynist about calling out Katie Hopkins for the nasty piece of work she is?!? Yes I know she happens to be female but I am just as happy to call out Hitler and Stalin as evil dictators.
It was your lefty mate Surbiton at 8.22pm 'She is really a b1tch.'. As I said it is endemic on the left. But my point is that once the name calling starts it quickly descends into the gutter. Just look at the anti-semitism in the Labour party. If you disagree with Ms Hopkins it is perfectly reasonable to counter her arguments or even laugh at her stupidity but the name-calling is counter-productive.
I'm not sure on another point that you want to go down the road of trying to remove citizenship rights from people over tax avoidance measures which are themselves not illegal. I doubt if it is even possible to do it. Of course the level of disregard for human rights practised by extreme left-wing governments is quite well-documented. At what point will membership of the Conservative party become grounds for similar measures?
Okay - you're making a little more of this than I am but it's a point worth exploring.
It has been implied (by a couple of individuals on here) that in the event of a Labour Government taking office they would re-locate their financial assets to another jurisdiction.
I find the juxtaposition of individual economic security and national identity curious. Even if it's not a Government you support or voted for, it is still the Government of your country, democratically elected by your fellow countrymen and women.
We saw in the 1970s individuals leaving Britain for tax reasons. If the money is earned in the UK and it's moved elsewhere simply to avoid paying tax - I understand it but I don't agree with it. It seems to reflect a narrow notion of identity - which is more important, living in your own country or living in a country in which you feel comfortable ?
If remaining in your country puts your life at risk, then I completely recognise the need to escape but is anyone seriously suggesting the coming of a Corbyn Government in those terms?
I entirely understand the idea of moving country - at least temporarily to avoid punitive taxation. As a basic point of principle it is wrong for the state to tax part of ones earnings at 98% as was the case in the late 60s.
Ok, 98% is definitely a 'move' kind of amount. It sounds so insane I struggle to believe it really happened - what on earth was the thinking, and how much of an impact did it have?
Norway once had a > 100% income tax bracket I believe.
I'm much more in favour of taxing wealth/assets, than income.
The economy is concentrating wealth at an incredible speed. We urgently need those with significant wealth to consume and spend, not save and invest (which is what they're doing right now).
Highly paid footballers are great for the economy that you and me live in. They earn loads and piss most of it away. The people who accumulate wealth and aim to pass it on in a trust or via property in the distant future are terrible.
Their wealth needs to be taxed.
Taxing wealth (or more sensibly assets) is economically (rather than politically) pretty sensible as:
1. It encourages the efficient allocation of resources. 2. It doesn't discourage work. 3. It discourages excessive leverage.
Okay - you're making a little more of this than I am but it's a point worth exploring.
It has been implied (by a couple of individuals on here) that in the event of a Labour Government taking office they would re-locate their financial assets to another jurisdiction.
I find the juxtaposition of individual economic security and national identity curious. Even if it's not a Government you support or voted for, it is still the Government of your country, democratically elected by your fellow countrymen and women.
We saw in the 1970s individuals leaving Britain for tax reasons. If the money is earned in the UK and it's moved elsewhere simply to avoid paying tax - I understand it but I don't agree with it. It seems to reflect a narrow notion of identity - which is more important, living in your own country or living in a country in which you feel comfortable ?
If remaining in your country puts your life at risk, then I completely recognise the need to escape but is anyone seriously suggesting the coming of a Corbyn Government in those terms?
I entirely understand the idea of moving country - at least temporarily to avoid punitive taxation. As a basic point of principle it is wrong for the state to tax part of ones earnings at 98% as was the case in the late 60s.
Ok, 98% is definitely a 'move' kind of amount. It sounds so insane I struggle to believe it really happened - what on earth was the thinking, and how much of an impact did it have?
Norway once had a > 100% income tax bracket I believe.
I'm much more in favour of taxing wealth/assets, than income.
The economy is concentrating wealth at an incredible speed. We urgently need those with significant wealth to consume and spend, not save and invest (which is what they're doing right now).
Highly paid footballers are great for the economy that you and me live in. They earn loads and piss most of it away. The people who accumulate wealth and aim to pass it on in a trust or via property in the distant future are terrible.
Their wealth needs to be taxed.
Nomination for the most ignorant post of the year appears to be a safe bet with this one.
Okay - you're making a little more of this than I am but it's a point worth exploring.
It has been implied (by a couple of individuals on here) that in the event of a Labour Government taking office they would re-locate their financial assets to another jurisdiction.
I find the juxtaposition of individual economic security and national identity curious. Even if it's not a Government you support or voted for, it is still the Government of your country, democratically elected by your fellow countrymen and women.
We saw in the 1970s individuals leaving Britain for tax reasons. If the money is earned in the UK and it's moved elsewhere simply to avoid paying tax - I understand it but I don't agree with it. It seems to reflect a narrow notion of identity - which is more important, living in your own country or living in a country in which you feel comfortable ?
If remaining in your country puts your life at risk, then I completely recognise the need to escape but is anyone seriously suggesting the coming of a Corbyn Government in those terms?
I entirely understand the idea of moving country - at least temporarily to avoid punitive taxation. As a basic point of principle it is wrong for the state to tax part of ones earnings at 98% as was the case in the late 60s.
Ok, 98% is definitely a 'move' kind of amount. It sounds so insane I struggle to believe it really happened - what on earth was the thinking, and how much of an impact did it have?
Norway once had a > 100% income tax bracket I believe.
I'm much more in favour of taxing wealth/assets, than income.
The economy is concentrating wealth at an incredible speed. We urgently need those with significant wealth to consume and spend, not save and invest (which is what they're doing right now).
Highly paid footballers are great for the economy that you and me live in. They earn loads and piss most of it away. The people who accumulate wealth and aim to pass it on in a trust or via property in the distant future are terrible.
Their wealth needs to be taxed.
This isn't taxation, more like expropriation.
Not sure I see the logic. I can amass property, savings, etc and then any income that I obtain from these things is taxed.
If the state just takes x percentage of the savings or property away from me over time, then over time I just have less and less income and pay less and less tax.
It makes more sense to just tax the income from savings at a higher level, and raise council tax for very large residential properties.
There's a great irony that remaining in the EU/single market is a strong buttress against the more loony policies of Corbyn.
That has always been the very worst argument for Remaining.
"We must stay in the EU because it will prevent our elected Government carrying out the policies they were elected for"
It shows the disdain Remoaners have for basic democracy.
Although you need to be slightly careful. It only takes a small rewording of that thesis to say "a Supreme Court that can overrule the elected government! That's an affront to democracy. If the people wanted it, and voted for it, they should have it."
Or, indeed, "a written constitution that constrains the legislature! That's an affront to democracy."
Mail reporting the guy arrested by the police at the National History Museum is an Uber driver who was screaming total gibberish.
Uber PR people are going to be earning their money !!!
Not good timing for Uber.
A few weeks ago a taxi driver told me he used to work 138 hour weeks. Now just does 80 hours. Working for these kinds of hours must take its toll on people.
No idea what the circumstances here are though, probably better not to speculate.
Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.
The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.
It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.
While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
It does make me laugh when PB tories assume that their visceral hatred of Jezza means he must be stupid.
What makes you think he isn't thick as shit? His CV is hardly one of somebody with supreme intellect.
He went to one of the best state schools in the country and got absolutely terrible qualifications.
You're confusing academic achievement with intelligence. His emotional intelligence is streets ahead of, for example, just about everybody in the cabinet.
I went to a good grammar school and managed the sum total of 8 'o' levels and I know I am not thick as shit
Now there is an interesting philosophical statement!
I've always wondered about this statement anyway. I mean, what sort of shit are we talking about? Bird shit isn't particularly thick, while elephant poo on the other hand...
Birds don't filter out the liquid, so their output is actually piss and shit.
Elephant-wise, there is a story TE Lawrence used to tell (at least I think he did, the internet doesn't seem to know about it). Lawrence was driving through rural Dorset with a friend who was a famous African big game hunter. They drove in silence until they encountered a huge pile of dung in the middle of the road, and the bgh said "Hm! Elephant!" Lawrence merely nodded and they drove on in silence. 10 miles later, they came to a travelling circus setting up camp for the night.
That is not too hard.
One of my favourite safari books is on the identification of spoor, tracks and poo.
Particularly in places that allow foot safaris like Zambia, it adds a frisson of excitement seeing fresh poo and being able to identify it- before it identifies you!
Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.
The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.
It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.
While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
It does make me laugh when PB tories assume that their visceral hatred of Jezza means he must be stupid.
What makes you think he isn't thick as shit? His CV is hardly one of somebody with supreme intellect.
He went to one of the best state schools in the country and got absolutely terrible qualifications.
I went to a good grammar school and managed the sum total of 8 'o' levels and I know I am not thick as shit
Now there is an interesting philosophical statement!
I've always wondered about this statement anyway. I mean, what sort of shit are we talking about? Bird shit isn't particularly thick, while elephant poo on the other hand...
Birds don't filter out the liquid, so their output is actually piss and shit.
Elephant-wise, there is a story TE Lawrence used to tell (at least I think he did, the internet doesn't seem to know about it). Lawrence was driving through rural Dorset with a friend who was a famous African big game hunter. They drove in silence until they encountered a huge pile of dung in the middle of the road, and the bgh said "Hm! Elephant!" Lawrence merely nodded and they drove on in silence. 10 miles later, they came to a travelling circus setting up camp for the night.
That is not too hard.
One of my favourite safari books is on the identification of spoor, tracks and poo.
Particularly in places that allow foot safaris like Zambia, it adds a frisson of excitement seeing fresh poo and being able to identify it- before it identifies you!
I'm an expert tracker. I can always tell when a horse or cow has been passing by.
One of my favourite safari books is on the identification of spoor, tracks and poo.
Particularly in places that allow foot safaris like Zambia, it adds a frisson of excitement seeing fresh poo and being able to identify it- before it identifies you!
With elephants it comes out very wet and dries quickly in typical African conditions, which is how you tell how recent it is.
What else would you expect from such a piece of bile?
She is really a b1tch.
And the level of mysogynism on the left continues apace. I suppose we ought to be relieved she's not Jewish as well.
You must know that Katie Hopkins if full of hated and bile. Sure there are some nasty, nasty people on the left too but it doesn't lessen Hopkins' vileness.
Never been a fan myself but I do kick back when it spills into gratuitous name-calling and mysogyny. Generally, with more than 8 O Levels you can be more classy - of course you omit to mention the grades....
Haha I got 4As, 3 Bs and a C.
But what is mysogynist about calling out Katie Hopkins for the nasty piece of work she is?!? Yes I know she happens to be female but I am just as happy to call out Hitler and Stalin as evil dictators.
It was your lefty mate Surbiton at 8.22pm 'She is really a b1tch.'. As I said it is endemic on the left. But my point is that once the name calling starts it quickly descends into the gutter. Just look at the anti-semitism in the Labour party. If you disagree with Ms Hopkins it is perfectly reasonable to counter her arguments or even laugh at her stupidity but the name-calling is counter-productive.
I'm not sure on another point that you want to go down the road of trying to remove citizenship rights from people over tax avoidance measures which are themselves not illegal. I doubt if it is even possible to do it. Of course the level of disregard for human rights practised by extreme left-wing governments is quite well-documented. At what point will membership of the Conservative party become grounds for similar measures?
Of course you are right, removing "citizenship rights from people over tax avoidance measures which are themselves not illegal" would be an outrageous infringement of human rights*. But making it illegal for a UK citizen to avoid paying UK taxes simply because they resided outside the UK would change that. I cannot see any human rights objection to that; after all there is no human rights argument that I shouldn't pay UK taxes as a UK resident.
(*Not that the current government seems very much enamoured by protecting human rughts anyway.)
What else would you expect from such a piece of bile?
She is really a b1tch.
And the level of mysogynism on the left continues apace. I suppose we ought to be relieved she's not Jewish as well.
You must know that Katie Hopkins if full of hated and bile. Sure there are some nasty, nasty people on the left too but it doesn't lessen Hopkins' vileness.
Never been a fan myself but I do kick back when it spills into gratuitous name-calling and mysogyny. Generally, with more than 8 O Levels you can be more classy - of course you omit to mention the grades....
Haha I got 4As, 3 Bs and a C.
But what is mysogynist about calling out Katie Hopkins for the nasty piece of work she is?!? Yes I know she happens to be female but I am just as happy to call out Hitler and Stalin as evil dictators.
It was your lefty mate Surbiton at 8.22pm 'She is really a b1tch.'. As I said it is endemic on the left. But my point is that
I'm not sure on another point that you want to go down the road of trying to remove citizenship rights from people over tax avoidance measures which are themselves not illegal. I doubt if it is even possible to do it. Of course the level of disregard for human rights practised by extreme left-wing governments is quite well-documented. At what point will membership of the Conservative party become grounds for similar measures?
Of course you are right, removing "citizenship rights from people over tax avoidance measures which are themselves not illegal" would be an outrageous infringement of human rights*. But making it illegal for a UK citizen to avoid paying UK taxes simply because they resided outside the UK would change that. I cannot see any human rights objection to that; after all there is no human rights argument that I shouldn't pay UK taxes as a UK resident.
(*Not that the current government seems very much enamoured by protecting human rughts anyway.)
By and large, governments find it preferable to tax people on the basis of their domicile and residence.
The one exception is the US government, which taxes it's citizens wherever they are - people who don't even know they're US citizens get hit with demands.
What else would you expect from such a piece of bile?
She is really a b1tch.
And the level of mysogynism on the left continues apace. I suppose we ought to be relieved she's not Jewish as well.
You must know that Katie Hopkins if full of hated and bile. Sure there are some nasty, nasty people on the left too but it doesn't lessen Hopkins' vileness.
Never been a fan myself but I do kick back when it spills into gratuitous name-calling and mysogyny. Generally, with more than 8 O Levels you can be more classy - of course you omit to mention the grades....
Haha I got 4As, 3 Bs and a C.
But what is mysogynist about calling out Katie Hopkins for the nasty piece of work she is?!? Yes I know she happens to be female but I am just as happy to call out Hitler and Stalin as evil dictators.
. At what point will membership of the Conservative party become grounds for similar measures?
Of course you are right, removing "citizenship rights from people over tax avoidance measures which are themselves not illegal" would be an outrageous infringement of human rights*. But making it illegal for a UK citizen to avoid paying UK taxes simply because they resided outside the UK would change that. I cannot see any human rights objection to that; after all there is no human rights argument that I shouldn't pay UK taxes as a UK resident.
(*Not that the current government seems very much enamoured by protecting human rughts anyway.)
Citizenship rights should be absolute and subject to constitutional protection. They shouldn't be used as a tax collecting enforcement measure.
If I move overseas then I shouldn't have to pay tax in the UK. It couldn't ever be justified because I don't recieve any services from the UK government in return. It would run counter to natural justice.
Incidentally, I think it was Theresa May who came up with the slogan that citizenship is a privilege and not a right. Although it was new labour who bought in laws that enable the government to revoke your citizenship if they decide that you are not conducive to the public good (or something along those lines).
The prominent lawyer Jessica Simor QC, from Matrix chambers, has written to May asking her to release the legal advice under the Freedom of Information Act. Simor says she has been told by “two good sources” that the prime minister has been advised “that the article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29 March 2019 resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current favourable terms.
Heseltine: "In a couple of years time the Brexit vote will be toxic, and the danger is the Conservatives will be the only party left making those sort of arguments." twitter.com/Channel4News/status/916745505241227269
Friday morning going slow I'm watching the election show Lots of Ladbrokes slips on the floor Memories of the night before Out knocking up and having fun Now I've stopped reading The Sun Waiting for the results to show But why I voted no one knows
Voting, polling Blogging, trolling And now I'm all alone In Brexit Land My only home
I think it's time to write a thread To vent the bemusement in my head Spent my money on online bookies Got nowt here but all the cookies Clean my suit and my rosette Election promises to forget Start campaigning all over again Kid myself I'm having fun
Voting, polling Blogging, trolling And now I'm all alone In Brexit Land My only home
Looking out from my worldview I've really nothing else to do Seems like I have started fretting Let's read Political Betting Forget The Mirror and The Times The battle bus with such great lines Look around and I can see A thousand punters just like me
Voting, polling Blogging, trolling And now I'm all alone In Brexit Land My only home
Voting, polling Blogging, trolling And now I'm all alone In Brexit Land My only home
Heseltine: "In a couple of years time the Brexit vote will be toxic, and the danger is the Conservatives will be the only party left making those sort of arguments." /twitter.com/Channel4News/status/916745505241227269
It would take quite crisis to bring down the government. An unexpected election with Toxic Tess at the helm would be a powerful motivator for the Tory backbenchers.
Just a question about what a solicitor can and can't do.
I have a solicitor acting for me (in a case I am defending that in his words is 'spurious').
I was told by my solicitor that he has spent some considerable time talking directly to the the other party, as opposed to talking to their solicitor.
Is this normal, right or acceptable? I am uneasy about it on several levels, one of which is the time goes on my bill, and I have no knowledge of what is going on.
It is vitally important for the Conservative government's wellbeing that they shield the electorate from the reality. If they have any sense they will just pretend to Brexit. I am not sure sense is in plentiful supply at the moment.
The individual who claims he was raped is a convicted pedophile (and still in jail), who has a long history of lying.
Wiltshire police have been made to look like a bunch of idiots.
I met Heath a few times when I was 17 - 20 (now 63), so while he was PM. I guess (if the accusations have any merit to them) I was beyond the desirable age. However, you often come away with a sense about people, be it that they are gay, dangerous, rampant, bi or hetro. With Heath the sense I took away was asexual. This despite all the gossip and innuendo at the time in Private Eye and the like.
The individual who claims he was raped is a convicted pedophile (and still in jail), who has a long history of lying.
Wiltshire police have been made to look like a bunch of idiots.
Definitely. Not helped by their fundamentally flawed approach used in many of these investigations, and their attempts to spin and save face by dressing up their 'grounds to suspect' claims and act as though anyone questioning them thinks no one should ever investigate historic claims (some may think that, but that is not the key problem) is very blatant.
Just a question about what a solicitor can and can't do.
I have a solicitor acting for me (in a case I am defending that in his words is 'spurious').
I was told by my solicitor that he has spent some considerable time talking directly to the the other party, as opposed to talking to their solicitor.
Is this normal, right or acceptable? I am uneasy about it on several levels, one of which is the time goes on my bill, and I have no knowledge of what is going on.
It is, I believe, a breach of the rules. It's normal in commercial practice to email counterparty as well as their advocate but in litigation that would be very unusual.
What else would you expect from such a piece of bile?
She is really a b1tch.
And the level of mysogynism on the left continues apace. I suppose we ought to be relieved she's not Jewish as well.
Haha I got 4As, 3 Bs and a C.
But what is mysogynist about calling out Katie Hopkins for the nasty piece of work she is?!? Yes I know she happens to be female but I am just as happy to call out Hitler and Stalin as evil dictators.
. At what point will membership of the Conservative party become grounds for similar measures?
Of course you are right, removing "citizenship rights from people over tax avoidance measures which are themselves not illegal" would be an outrageous infringement of human rights*. But making it illegal for a UK citizen to avoid paying UK taxes simply because they resided outside the UK would change that. I cannot see any human rights objection to that; after all there is no human rights argument that I shouldn't pay UK taxes as a UK resident.
(*Not that the current government seems very much enamoured by protecting human rughts anyway.)
Citizenship rights should be absolute and subject to constitutional protection. They shouldn't be used as a tax collecting enforcement measure.
If I move overseas then I shouldn't have to pay tax in the UK. It couldn't ever be justified because I don't recieve any services from the UK government in return. It would run counter to natural justice.
Incidentally, I think it was Theresa May who came up with the slogan that citizenship is a privilege and not a right. Although it was new labour who bought in laws that enable the government to revoke your citizenship if they decide that you are not conducive to the public good (or something along those lines).
If you no longer wish to be a UK citizen then that's fine, you shouldn't need to pay UK taxes. If you want to remain a UK citizen, pay your taxes. If as UK citizen living overseas you receive fewer UK services, well, it's your choice to live overseas, no one is forcing you, and you can come back at any time.
In the context of the conversation on this thread, where posters were talking about avoiding tax by moving overseas, very few of the general population will have any sympathy with your view.
The individual who claims he was raped is a convicted pedophile (and still in jail), who has a long history of lying.
Wiltshire police have been made to look like a bunch of idiots.
I met Heath a few times when I was 17 - 20 (now 63), so while he was PM. I guess (if the accusations have any merit to them) I was beyond the desirable age. However, you often come away with a sense about people, be it that they are gay, dangerous, rampant, bi or hetro. With Heath the sense I took away was asexual. This despite all the gossip and innuendo at the time in Private Eye and the like.
There was a guy one Sky on the day of the release of this report who was interviewed under caution and they put it to them that boys were being purchased and delivered to him via the backdoor of his home so that the security services didn't see them.
a) anybody with half a brain would find it very unlikely that a PM with round the clock security would have the backdoor unattended.
b) the guy pointed out to the police that the only way to the rear of the property that didn't involve going past the main entrance, was via the river. So either they were being delivered by boat or they swam.
The police officer questioning him admitted they had never looked at that specific location. And this was half way through the inquiry.
It all reminded me of that bloke who plays Ken Barlow, which actually got to trial. Only for his lawyer to point out pretty much for every case that the days he was supposed to be up to no good he was on set, and they showed never had access to the properties he was supposed to have used (in fact he had never visited them or knew of their existence) and the cars he was supposed to have picked the girls up in he never owned or had access to.
Some how the plod or the CPS lawyers never checked this stuff out and got absolutely roasted in court.
What else would you expect from such a piece of bile?
She is really a b1tch.
And the level of mysogynism on the left continues apace. I suppose we ought to be relieved she's not Jewish as well.
You must know that Katie Hopkins if full of hated and bile. Sure there are some nasty, nasty people on the left too but it doesn't lessen Hopkins' vileness.
Never been a fan myself but I do kick back when it spills into gratuitous name-calling and mysogyny. Generally, with more than 8 O Levels you can be more classy - of course you omit to mention the grades....
Haha I got 4As, 3 Bs and a C.
But what is mysogynist about calling out Katie Hopkins for the nasty piece of work she is?!? Yes I know she happens to be female but I am just as happy to call out Hitler and Stalin as evil dictators.
It was your lefty mate Surbiton at 8.22pm 'She is really a b1tch.'. As I said it is endemic on the left. But my point is that
I'm not sure on another point that you want to go down the road of trying to remove citizenship rights from people over tax avoidance measures which are themselves not illegal. I doubt if it is even possible to do it. Of course the level of disregard for human rights practised by extreme left-wing governments is quite well-documented. At what point will membership of the Conservative party become grounds for similar measures?
Of course you are right, removing "citizenship rights from people over tax avoidance measures which are themselves not illegal" would be an outrageous infringement of human rights*. But making it illegal for a UK citizen to avoid paying UK taxes simply because they resided outside the UK would change that. I cannot see any human rights objection to that; after all there is no human rights argument that I shouldn't pay UK taxes as a UK resident.
(*Not that the current government seems very much enamoured by protecting human rughts anyway.)
By and large, governments find it preferable to tax people on the basis of their domicile and residence.
The one exception is the US government, which taxes it's citizens wherever they are - people who don't even know they're US citizens get hit with demands.
For once the Americans have got the right approach.
It is vitally important for the Conservative government's wellbeing that they shield the electorate from the reality. If they have any sense they will just pretend to Brexit. I am not sure sense is in plentiful supply at the moment.
Wow! That is a scary chart for the Government! If that many people believe we are going to be better off, given that most sober, informed Leavers accept we will take an economic hit, and the (over) due recession anyway, That is quite a circle to square!
It comes as an Opinium poll for the Observer suggests the Conservatives are seen as more divided than Labour for the first time since Jeremy Corbyn’s shock Labour leadership win. Almost half (47%) think the Tories are divided, up from 40% before the conferences, while 42% think Labour is split, down from 48%.
I think it's a case of the electorate not having noticed adverse indications that they link to Brexit. It's happening during a world economic upswing. The British boat is only sinking relative to the rising tide.
The individual who claims he was raped is a convicted pedophile (and still in jail), who has a long history of lying.
Wiltshire police have been made to look like a bunch of idiots.
I met Heath a few times when I was 17 - 20 (now 63), so while he was PM. I guess (if the accusations have any merit to them) I was beyond the desirable age. However, you often come away with a sense about people, be it that they are gay, dangerous, rampant, bi or hetro. With Heath the sense I took away was asexual. This despite all the gossip and innuendo at the time in Private Eye and the like.
There was a guy one Sky on the day of the release of this report who was interviewed under caution and they put it to them that boys were being purchased and delivered to him via the backdoor of his home so that the security services didn't see them.
a) anybody with half a brain would find it very unlikely that a PM with round the clock security would have the backdoor unattended.
b) the guy pointed out to the police that the only way to the rear of the property that didn't involve going past the main entrance, was via the river. So either they were being delivered by boat or they swam.
The police officer questioning him admitted they had never looked at that specific location. And this was half way through the inquiry.
It all reminded me of that bloke who plays Ken Barlow, which actually got to trial. Only for his lawyer to point out pretty much for every case that the days he was supposed to be up to no good he was on set, and they showed never had access to the properties he was supposed to have used (in fact he had never visited them or knew of their existence) and the cars he was supposed to have picked the girls up in he never owned or had access to.
Delivery via the backdoor is a very unfortunate expression, under the circumstances! Police are not always very bright, seems a logical conclusion from the above.
Another example of the plod / CPS incompetence in high profile peado cases.
Rolf Harris would have got away with the main case, as again the authorities hadn't checked out the stories properly and Harris lawyers provided evidence that he had visited a different location on that particular date.
The CPS had initially presented no evidence to be able to tie him to the location of the attack (I remember it was some festival or fete). It was only because a random member of the public came forward during the trial with the required evidence and they had to go through special proceedings to allow this to be used.
The individual who claims he was raped is a convicted pedophile (and still in jail), who has a long history of lying.
Wiltshire police have been made to look like a bunch of idiots.
I met Heath a few times when I was 17 - 20 (now 63), so while he was PM. I guess (if the accusations have any merit to them) I was beyond the desirable age. However, you often come away with a sense about people, be it that they are gay, dangerous, rampant, bi or hetro. With Heath the sense I took away was asexual. This despite all the gossip and innuendo at the time in Private Eye and the like.
There was a guy one Sky on the day of the release of this report who was interviewed under caution and they put it to them that boys were being purchased and delivered to him via the backdoor of his home so that the security services didn't see them.
a) anybody with half a brain would find it very unlikely that a PM with round the clock security would have the backdoor unattended.
b) the guy pointed out to the police that the only way to the rear of the property that didn't involve going past the main entrance, was via the river. So either they were being delivered by boat or they swam.
The police officer questioning him admitted they had never looked at that specific location. And this was half way through the inquiry.
It all reminded me of that bloke who plays Ken Barlow, which actually got to trial. Only for his lawyer to point out pretty much for every case that the days he was supposed to be up to no good he was on set, and they showed never had access to the properties he was supposed to have used (in fact he had never visited them or knew of their existence) and the cars he was supposed to have picked the girls up in he never owned or had access to.
Delivery via the backdoor is a very unfortunate expression, under the circumstances! Police are not always very bright, seems a logical conclusion from the above.
The police were caught out over not acting when they should have done.
The individual who claims he was raped is a convicted pedophile (and still in jail), who has a long history of lying.
Wiltshire police have been made to look like a bunch of idiots.
I met Heath a few times when I was 17 - 20 (now 63), so while he was PM. I guess (if the accusations have any merit to them) I was beyond the desirable age. However, you often come away with a sense about people, be it that they are gay, dangerous, rampant, bi or hetro. With Heath the sense I took away was asexual. This despite all the gossip and innuendo at the time in Private Eye and the like.
There was a guy one Sky on the day of the release of this report who was interviewed under caution and they put it to them that boys were being purchased and delivered to him via the backdoor of his home so that the security services didn't see them.
a) anybody with half a brain would find it very unlikely that a PM with round the clock security would have the backdoor unattended.
b) the guy pointed out to the police that the only way to the rear of the property that didn't involve going past the main entrance, was via the river. So either they were being delivered by boat or they swam.
The police officer questioning him admitted they had never looked at that specific location. And this was half way through the inquiry.
It all reminded me of that bloke who plays Ken Barlow, which actually got to trial. Only for his lawyer to point out pretty much for every case that the days he was supposed to be up to no good he was on set, and they showed never had access to the properties he was supposed to have used (in fact he had never visited them or knew of their existence) and the cars he was supposed to have picked the girls up in he never owned or had access to.
Delivery via the backdoor is a very unfortunate expression, under the circumstances! Police are not always very bright, seems a logical conclusion from the above.
It didn't pass me by, I just couldn't think how else to retell the tale.
It comes as an Opinium poll for the Observer suggests the Conservatives are seen as more divided than Labour for the first time since Jeremy Corbyn’s shock Labour leadership win. Almost half (47%) think the Tories are divided, up from 40% before the conferences, while 42% think Labour is split, down from 48%.
What else would you expect from such a piece of bile?
She is really a b1tch.
And the level of mysogynism on the left continues apace. I suppose we ought to be relieved she's not Jewish as well.
Haha I got 4As, 3 Bs and a C.
But what is mysogynist about calling out Katie Hopkins for the nasty piece of work she is?!? Yes I know she happens to be female but I am just as happy to call out Hitler and Stalin as evil dictators.
. At what point will membership of the Conservative party become grounds for similar measures?
(*Not that the current government seems very much enamoured by protecting human rughts anyway.)
Citizenship rights should be absolute and subject to constitutional protection. They shouldn't be used as a tax collecting enforcement measure.
If I move overseas then I shouldn't have to pay tax in the UK. It couldn't ever be justified because I don't recieve any services from the UK government in return. It would run counter to natural justice.
Incidentally, I think it was Theresa May who came up with the slogan that citizenship is a privilege and not a right. Although it was new labour who bought in laws that enable the government to revoke your citizenship if they decide that you are not conducive to the public good (or something along those lines).
If you no longer wish to be a UK citizen then that's fine, you shouldn't need to pay UK taxes. If you want to remain a UK citizen, pay your taxes. If as UK citizen living overseas you receive fewer UK services, well, it's your choice to live overseas, no one is forcing you, and you can come back at any time.
In the context of the conversation on this thread, where posters were talking about avoiding tax by moving overseas, very few of the general population will have any sympathy with your view.
So, if the UK under Corbyn introduced a tax rate of 50% then that is what I would pay, even if I was on a modest income in a foreign country and the local tax rate was 10%.
Instead of taking home 18k out of 20k, i'd take home 10k out of 20k.
It would make moving overseas impossible.
I would howl with laughter at wealthy Brexit voters being taxed in this way, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
So the fudge being reported on the Citizens Rights/ECJ matter, as far as I can see, is that the UK Supreme Court will rule on the rights of EU nationals (which are part of the A50 treaty, having the status as an international agreement) and that they are ALLOWED, but NOT OBLIGED to refer matters to the ECJ. If they do so, the ECJ decision is final.
I have to admit that, whatever my own views, it is quite a creative solution.
Questions to the PBers:
1. Does this breach the UK’s red line on jurisdiction of ECJ? 2. Who got the better of this deal? 3. Would the EU have been better to accept a joint tribunal that was on offer? 4. What precedent does this set for the ECJ in trade and other discussions?
There's a great irony that remaining in the EU/single market is a strong buttress against the more loony policies of Corbyn.
That has always been the very worst argument for Remaining.
"We must stay in the EU because it will prevent our elected Government carrying out the policies they were elected for"
It shows the disdain Remoaners have for basic democracy.
Several leavers I know have made the same argument, including SeanT on here.
I have not heard it made by Leavers because that makes no sense. If you are a Leaver then you are campaigning for the EU to stop having that ability, not to retain it.
@nielh - DTT would protect you unless those are being abrogated. Which would lead to a collapse of, among other things, the UK banking system. Still collateral damage, eh.
Edit - I'd add that the UK system regarding the maximum number of nights PA in the U.K. is pretty sensible to catch those trying to arbitrage tax.
So the fudge being reported on the Citizens Rights/ECJ matter, as far as I can see, is that the UK Supreme Court will rule on the rights of EU nationals (which are part of the A50 treaty, having the status as an international agreement) and that they are ALLOWED, but NOT OBLIGED to refer matters to the ECJ. If they do so, the ECJ decision is final.
I have to admit that, whatever my own views, it is quite a creative solution.
Questions to the PBers:
1. Does this breach the UK’s red line on jurisdiction of ECJ? 2. Who got the better of this deal? 3. Would the EU have been better to accept a joint tribunal that was on offer? 4. What precedent does this set for the ECJ in trade and other discussions?
It would depend on the actual wording of course as all these things do.
If the only body or individual who can refer it up to the ECJ is the UK Supreme Court then it seems to me that it is a pointless procedure. The only time that the Supreme Court would feel the need to do this would be if its judgement was not being accepted by the Government in which case I don't see why it is any more likely that the Government of the time would accept an ECJ ruling if they would not accept a Supreme Court ruling.
On that basis the answer to your questions would be:
1. No it doesn't cross the red line 2. The UK by a long way although it is a pointless arrangement 3. Yes the EU would have been far better going for a joint tribunal 4. Not as far as I can see although again that would depend on the wording
If however it was possible for anyone else to appeal a Supreme Court decision up to the ECJ as it is at the moment then it is in effect giving the ECJ ultimate control over our laws which would be unacceptable.
It is vitally important for the Conservative government's wellbeing that they shield the electorate from the reality. If they have any sense they will just pretend to Brexit. I am not sure sense is in plentiful supply at the moment.
We need a chart how a different government would do with Brexit ?
It is vitally important for the Conservative government's wellbeing that they shield the electorate from the reality. If they have any sense they will just pretend to Brexit. I am not sure sense is in plentiful supply at the moment.
Wow! That is a scary chart for the Government! If that many people believe we are going to be better off, given that most sober, informed Leavers accept we will take an economic hit, and the (over) due recession anyway, That is quite a circle to square!
Well, in that case, if we're worse off after Brexit, a lot of people will blame the Government for cocking up a situation where we should have been better off.
So the fudge being reported on the Citizens Rights/ECJ matter, as far as I can see, is that the UK Supreme Court will rule on the rights of EU nationals (which are part of the A50 treaty, having the status as an international agreement) and that they are ALLOWED, but NOT OBLIGED to refer matters to the ECJ. If they do so, the ECJ decision is final.
I have to admit that, whatever my own views, it is quite a creative solution.
Questions to the PBers:
1. Does this breach the UK’s red line on jurisdiction of ECJ? 2. Who got the better of this deal? 3. Would the EU have been better to accept a joint tribunal that was on offer? 4. What precedent does this set for the ECJ in trade and other discussions?
It would depend on the actual wording of course as all these things do.
If the only body or individual who can refer it up to the ECJ is the UK Supreme Court then it seems to me that it is a pointless procedure. The only time that the Supreme Court would feel the need to do this would be if its judgement was not being accepted by the Government in which case I don't see why it is any more likely that the Government of the time would accept an ECJ ruling if they would not accept a Supreme Court ruling.
On that basis the answer to your questions would be:
1. No it doesn't cross the red line 2. The UK by a long way although it is a pointless arrangement 3. Yes the EU would have been far better going for a joint tribunal 4. Not as far as I can see although again that would depend on the wording
If however it was possible for anyone else to appeal a Supreme Court decision up to the ECJ as it is at the moment then it is in effect giving the ECJ ultimate control over our laws which would be unacceptable.
I cannot see any agreement being reached. A British government would not be able to publicly say that we will pay so much to the EU for existing commitments if that figure is greater than £20bn.
Therefore, the Tories will finally go for no deal with its attendant chaos for the year or two.
The other alternative is : a second referendum and no Brexit.
The individual who claims he was raped is a convicted pedophile (and still in jail), who has a long history of lying.
Wiltshire police have been made to look like a bunch of idiots.
I met Heath a few times when I was 17 - 20 (now 63), so while he was PM. I guess (if the accusations have any merit to them) I was beyond the desirable age. However, you often come away with a sense about people, be it that they are gay, dangerous, rampant, bi or hetro. With Heath the sense I took away was asexual. This despite all the gossip and innuendo at the time in Private Eye and the like.
As I have said before, I have an enormous amount of both sympathy and empathy for Heath. There are a couple of interviews where he is asked directly about his private life. As I recall he had been in love with a woman and she had married someone else which had caused him huge emotional grief. He knew because of the accusations that he was gay that it was not something he could completely avoid discussing but it is clear from seeing him in those interviews how incredibly awkward and painful it was for him.
I absolutely believe that much if not all of the reason he has been targeted since his death is because of the suspicion he was gay and his clear issues with showing an emotional side. As such I think he is deserving of sympathy not criticism.
@nielh - DTT would protect you unless those are being abrogated. Which would lead to a collapse of, among other things, the UK banking system. Still collateral damage, eh.
Edit - I'd add that the UK system regarding the maximum number of nights PA in the U.K. is pretty sensible to catch those trying to arbitrage tax.
If the banking systems already collapsed, there'd be nothing to lose!
Yes, I couldn't agree more, Mike. Corbyn's price for next PM is a complete mystery to me.
As you indicate, his only chance of being the next PM is if TM stays on to fight the next election. The chances of that happening are small, and diminishing daily. I would make it at least 10/1 against, maybe more like 20/1, and even in the event that she does endure the full term, Corbyn has to still be Labour Leader and still has to beat her. Though both conditions are likely, they are not givens.
It follows therefore that Corbyn's price in the next PM market should be somewhere in excess of 10/1, quite a bit in excess in my view.
I'll express an interest. I have layed the bearded wonder for as much as I could find, but I would not be doing my duty with my PB punting friends if I did not say that the man is the lay of the year. The decade, even. Nay, the century!
There's a great irony that remaining in the EU/single market is a strong buttress against the more loony policies of Corbyn.
That has always been the very worst argument for Remaining.
What's the best argument for Remaining, in your view?
Genuinely? I don't know of one.
I can see nothing that the EU does for us that makes things better and much that makes things worse. The economic hit of leaving is described in terms of reduction in rates of growth which for me is acceptable (and I am neither rich nor able to retire/move out of the country).
I have never heard a reasonable, compelling argument for why we should remain in the EU even from those whose views I have a good deal of time for such as (on here) SouthamObserver or Nick Palmer.
The biggest negative consequence of leaving the EU that I can see is that it will swing the balance of the bloc even further in favour of the state interventionist/socialist model and away from the free market model. I am sorry for those countries that do not wish that but then of course they have the choice to take our path if they choose (not that I expect any of them to do so)
We appear to be playing a game of Deal or No Deal where all the boxes have negative amounts in and it looks like some are prepared to open the last box having refused the small minuses
We appear to be playing a game of Deal or No Deal where all the boxes have negative amounts in and it looks like some are prepared to open the last box having refused the small minuses
Monty Hall opens a door and shows you a bottomless abyss.
There's a great irony that remaining in the EU/single market is a strong buttress against the more loony policies of Corbyn.
That has always been the very worst argument for Remaining.
What's the best argument for Remaining, in your view?
Genuinely? I don't know of one.
I can see nothing that the EU does for us that makes things better and much that makes things worse. The economic hit of leaving is described in terms of reduction in rates of growth which for me is acceptable (and I am neither rich nor able to retire/move out of the country).
I have never heard a reasonable, compelling argument for why we should remain in the EU even from those whose views I have a good deal of time for such as (on here) SouthamObserver or Nick Palmer.
The biggest negative consequence of leaving the EU that I can see is that it will swing the balance of the bloc even further in favour of the state interventionist/socialist model and away from the free market model. I am sorry for those countries that do not wish that but then of course they have the choice to take our path if they choose (not that I expect any of them to do so)
Leaving will turn Britain into an ugly insular bigoted nation run by hapless cretins. But it won't need to deal directly with other EU countries so I guess you see that as a sacrifice worth making.
The answer to the Tories problems in two words Ruth Davidson.
She is good on TV, but she's not an MP . She has never run anything. Like Ant and Dec.
To be clear I don't want Davidson as PM. But, I never understood this argument that someone succeeding to the Premiership from within the governing party MUST have had ministerial experience beforehand. When Tony Blair became PM in 97 he had not had ministerial experience. Labour had not even been in Government since before he became an MP. When Cameron became PM in 2010 he had not had ministerial experience.
So why is it that, apparently uniquely, not having had ministerial experience when standing for PM from within the governing party is meant to exclude anyone?
There's a great irony that remaining in the EU/single market is a strong buttress against the more loony policies of Corbyn.
That has always been the very worst argument for Remaining.
What's the best argument for Remaining, in your view?
Genuinely? I don't know of one.
I can see nothing that the EU does for us that makes things better and much that makes things worse. The economic hit of leaving is described in terms of reduction in rates of growth which for me is acceptable (and I am neither rich nor able to retire/move out of the country).
I have never heard a reasonable, compelling argument for why we should remain in the EU even from those whose views I have a good deal of time for such as (on here) SouthamObserver or Nick Palmer.
The biggest negative consequence of leaving the EU that I can see is that it will swing the balance of the bloc even further in favour of the state interventionist/socialist model and away from the free market model. I am sorry for those countries that do not wish that but then of course they have the choice to take our path if they choose (not that I expect any of them to do so)
Leaving will turn Britain into an ugly insular bigoted nation run by hapless cretins. But it won't need to deal directly with other EU countries so I guess you see that as a sacrifice worth making.
Surely leaving won't turn us into a nation of bigots, we would have to have been one all along, in your view, in order for the vote to succeed. That being the case, the change will only be political and economic, not in national character.
Comments
I'm not sure on another point that you want to go down the road of trying to remove citizenship rights from people over tax avoidance measures which are themselves not illegal. I doubt if it is even possible to do it. Of course the level of disregard for human rights practised by extreme left-wing governments is quite well-documented. At what point will membership of the Conservative party become grounds for similar measures?
1. It encourages the efficient allocation of resources.
2. It doesn't discourage work.
3. It discourages excessive leverage.
Uber PR people are going to be earning their money !!!
Not sure I see the logic. I can amass property, savings, etc and then any income that I obtain from these things is taxed.
If the state just takes x percentage of the savings or property away from me over time, then over time I just have less and less income and pay less and less tax.
It makes more sense to just tax the income from savings at a higher level, and raise council tax for very large residential properties.
Or, indeed, "a written constitution that constrains the legislature! That's an affront to democracy."
A few weeks ago a taxi driver told me he used to work 138 hour weeks. Now just does 80 hours. Working for these kinds of hours must take its toll on people.
No idea what the circumstances here are though, probably better not to speculate.
One of my favourite safari books is on the identification of spoor, tracks and poo.
Particularly in places that allow foot safaris like Zambia, it adds a frisson of excitement seeing fresh poo and being able to identify it- before it identifies you!
(*Not that the current government seems very much enamoured by protecting human rughts anyway.)
BREAKING NEWS: Police 'catch woman in her 30s trying to climb over the front gates of Buckingham Palace'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4958956/Woman-arrested-climbing-Buckingham-Palace.html
The one exception is the US government, which taxes it's citizens wherever they are - people who don't even know they're US citizens get hit with demands.
If I move overseas then I shouldn't have to pay tax in the UK. It couldn't ever be justified because I don't recieve any services from the UK government in return. It would run counter to natural justice.
Incidentally, I think it was Theresa May who came up with the slogan that citizenship is a privilege and not a right. Although it was new labour who bought in laws that enable the government to revoke your citizenship if they decide that you are not conducive to the public good (or something along those lines).
REMAIN 48%
Wiltshire Police is facing further questions about the strength of child sex abuse allegations it presented against Sir Edward Heath.
The most serious claim - an alleged rape of an 11-year-old boy in 1961 - was investigated by the Metropolitan Police in 2015 and no action was taken.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41538276
The individual who claims he was raped is a convicted pedophile (and still in jail), who has a long history of lying.
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/916745505241227269
Brexitter
-------------
New words by Sunil, original music by Marc Almond & Dave Ball.
Friday morning going slow
I'm watching the election show
Lots of Ladbrokes slips on the floor
Memories of the night before
Out knocking up and having fun
Now I've stopped reading The Sun
Waiting for the results to show
But why I voted no one knows
Voting, polling
Blogging, trolling
And now I'm all alone
In Brexit Land
My only home
I think it's time to write a thread
To vent the bemusement in my head
Spent my money on online bookies
Got nowt here but all the cookies
Clean my suit and my rosette
Election promises to forget
Start campaigning all over again
Kid myself I'm having fun
Voting, polling
Blogging, trolling
And now I'm all alone
In Brexit Land
My only home
Looking out from my worldview
I've really nothing else to do
Seems like I have started fretting
Let's read Political Betting
Forget The Mirror and The Times
The battle bus with such great lines
Look around and I can see
A thousand punters just like me
Voting, polling
Blogging, trolling
And now I'm all alone
In Brexit Land
My only home
Voting, polling
Blogging, trolling
And now I'm all alone
In Brexit Land
My only home
(I'm waiting for Brexit
Or am I wasting time)
Lol. Hesaltine.
Just a question about what a solicitor can and can't do.
I have a solicitor acting for me (in a case I am defending that in his words is 'spurious').
I was told by my solicitor that he has spent some considerable time talking directly to the the other party, as opposed to talking to their solicitor.
Is this normal, right or acceptable? I am uneasy about it on several levels, one of which is the time goes on my bill, and I have no knowledge of what is going on.
It is vitally important for the Conservative government's wellbeing that they shield the electorate from the reality. If they have any sense they will just pretend to Brexit. I am not sure sense is in plentiful supply at the moment.
I met Heath a few times when I was 17 - 20 (now 63), so while he was PM. I guess (if the accusations have any merit to them) I was beyond the desirable age. However, you often come away with a sense about people, be it that they are gay, dangerous, rampant, bi or hetro. With Heath the sense I took away was asexual. This despite all the gossip and innuendo at the time in Private Eye and the like.
From a resident of Wiltshire.
In the context of the conversation on this thread, where posters were talking about avoiding tax by moving overseas, very few of the general population will have any sympathy with your view.
a) anybody with half a brain would find it very unlikely that a PM with round the clock security would have the backdoor unattended.
b) the guy pointed out to the police that the only way to the rear of the property that didn't involve going past the main entrance, was via the river. So either they were being delivered by boat or they swam.
The police officer questioning him admitted they had never looked at that specific location. And this was half way through the inquiry.
It all reminded me of that bloke who plays Ken Barlow, which actually got to trial. Only for his lawyer to point out pretty much for every case that the days he was supposed to be up to no good he was on set, and they showed never had access to the properties he was supposed to have used (in fact he had never visited them or knew of their existence) and the cars he was supposed to have picked the girls up in he never owned or had access to.
Some how the plod or the CPS lawyers never checked this stuff out and got absolutely roasted in court.
If that many people believe we are going to be better off, given that most sober, informed Leavers accept we will take an economic hit, and the (over) due recession anyway,
That is quite a circle to square!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/07/tory-party-reshuffle-conservative-cabinet-may
Delivery via the backdoor is a very unfortunate expression, under the circumstances!
Police are not always very bright, seems a logical conclusion from the above.
Of course for those of us in an NHS swimming in cash it will be fine.
Rolf Harris would have got away with the main case, as again the authorities hadn't checked out the stories properly and Harris lawyers provided evidence that he had visited a different location on that particular date.
The CPS had initially presented no evidence to be able to tie him to the location of the attack (I remember it was some festival or fete). It was only because a random member of the public came forward during the trial with the required evidence and they had to go through special proceedings to allow this to be used.
The police were caught out over not acting when they should have done.
So they over-reacted to compensate.
JC is just mainstream. Dead centre of British politics.
Instead of taking home 18k out of 20k, i'd take home 10k out of 20k.
It would make moving overseas impossible.
I would howl with laughter at wealthy Brexit voters being taxed in this way, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
Deckchairs. Titanic.
I have to admit that, whatever my own views, it is quite a creative solution.
Questions to the PBers:
1. Does this breach the UK’s red line on jurisdiction of ECJ?
2. Who got the better of this deal?
3. Would the EU have been better to accept a joint tribunal that was on offer?
4. What precedent does this set for the ECJ in trade and other discussions?
Edit - I'd add that the UK system regarding the maximum number of nights PA in the U.K. is pretty sensible to catch those trying to arbitrage tax.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4958848/Thousands-football-fans-march-against-terror-London.html
If the only body or individual who can refer it up to the ECJ is the UK Supreme Court then it seems to me that it is a pointless procedure. The only time that the Supreme Court would feel the need to do this would be if its judgement was not being accepted by the Government in which case I don't see why it is any more likely that the Government of the time would accept an ECJ ruling if they would not accept a Supreme Court ruling.
On that basis the answer to your questions would be:
1. No it doesn't cross the red line
2. The UK by a long way although it is a pointless arrangement
3. Yes the EU would have been far better going for a joint tribunal
4. Not as far as I can see although again that would depend on the wording
If however it was possible for anyone else to appeal a Supreme Court decision up to the ECJ as it is at the moment then it is in effect giving the ECJ ultimate control over our laws which would be unacceptable.
THE MAGIC MONEY TREE
The tories sign up to Corbynomics.
Corbyn really is going to be PM
Bloody brilliant idea to vote BREXIT
Therefore, the Tories will finally go for no deal with its attendant chaos for the year or two.
The other alternative is : a second referendum and no Brexit.
Lancing that boil doesn't seem to work.
I absolutely believe that much if not all of the reason he has been targeted since his death is because of the suspicion he was gay and his clear issues with showing an emotional side. As such I think he is deserving of sympathy not criticism.
I If the banking systems already collapsed, there'd be nothing to lose!
So they are spending billions on customs technology they probably wont ever need, to try and improve our negotiating position? The mind boggles.
A very wise choice methinks
Get building.
I can see nothing that the EU does for us that makes things better and much that makes things worse. The economic hit of leaving is described in terms of reduction in rates of growth which for me is acceptable (and I am neither rich nor able to retire/move out of the country).
I have never heard a reasonable, compelling argument for why we should remain in the EU even from those whose views I have a good deal of time for such as (on here) SouthamObserver or Nick Palmer.
The biggest negative consequence of leaving the EU that I can see is that it will swing the balance of the bloc even further in favour of the state interventionist/socialist model and away from the free market model. I am sorry for those countries that do not wish that but then of course they have the choice to take our path if they choose (not that I expect any of them to do so)
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/13/customs_union/
Do you switch?
So why is it that, apparently uniquely, not having had ministerial experience when standing for PM from within the governing party is meant to exclude anyone?