vladi

Sounds better than getting sent to Rwanda.

Looking for a wrought iron bench with wooden slats in need of restoration - something like this. Will pay for right bench!

If my understanding is correct, David Lammy asserted that Farage "flirted with the Hitler Youth". This doesn't quite compute because the Hitler Youth ceased to exist in 1945 with the end of WW2 whereas Farage was not born until 1964. Maybe Lammy confused the Hitler Youth with the Combined Cadet Force (CCF) because Farage was member of the CCF during his time at Dulwich College. Having informed us that Henry V11 succeeded Henry V111, we cannot but conclude that arithmetic was never Lammy's strongest suit. Then again, on a question on history, he claimed that Marie Antoinette won a Nobel prize

There is a case to be made for Rachel Reeves increasing taxes in this area whilst also closing some of the loopholes. She has a free hand as offshore companies don't have a vote in a general election. There are about 65,000 medium to high value residential properties in the UK that are owned by offshore companies. In the majority of cases the reason for this is primarily tax avoidance. Offshore ownership has distinct tax advantages in relation to Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT). A similar situation exists with Inheritance Tax. But significantly also, it protects assets from local creditors, lawsuits, or bankruptcy proceedings. Where such property is rented out then there are also tax advantages such as offsetting mortgage interest and other items. Then there's corporation tax of 25% compared to 40% for a private individual in the higher tax band. Not forgetting that the proceeds of crime are accumulated in offshore trusts and companies.

Possibly & possibly but let's get the thread back on topic ie Lammy.

How credible can this report be given that the "former friend" failed to identify himself.

To help me understand your logic, can you mention a few countries from where the proceeds of crime would result as inflows to the UK.

You got my point exactly. Sending money out of the country is disinvestment. Successive government's here make a big noise about incoming investment by foreign businesses. but keep quiet about the outflow of £28.5 Bn annually by remittances. Also £28.5 Bn is 4 times the UK foreign aid budget. I can't recall any recent inflows matching that amount. No wonder the country is getting poorer by the day.

Both France and Germany impose taxes on remittances above a certain amount. Why not the UK?

Don't think they are externalising these billions to thwart Reeves. They are doing it to build mansions in Lagos, Lahore, Hyderabad and the Caribbean . Plus set up businesses overseas , not the UK. Plus of course externalise the proceeds from crime. Twenty years ago, processors such as Western Union did not exist. Now they have outlets on every street. They externalise money without any controls. It's gotta change to protect the UK economy.

If not taxing remittances, then something should be about reducing the scale of these remittances. It represents negative investment in the UK to the amount estimated to be £28 billion p.a. That's equivalent to half the UK defence budget at a time when the fiscal deficit is massive and increasing. It is a crisis. The last time there was a crisis similar to this was in the post war period. For 3 decades post ww2, the UK enforced strict exchange control measures. These were designed to conserve foreign currency reserves, particularly U.S. dollars, which were vital for post-war recovery. The system restricted the movement of money abroad and tightly controlled foreign investment, overseas travel allowances, and imports. British citizens needed official permission to externalise funds. Exchange controls reflected the economic difficulties of the time, including balance-of -payments pressures.

I hope he survives as it wasn't quite a hanging offence. He does tend to be a bit accident prone such as saying that Henry V11 succeeded Henry V111 and that Marie Antoinette won the Nobel prize.

What would you suggest that government should do to tighten up the black market?

Is anyone renting out a parking space locally? I'm trying to get a feel for the market potential - given that parking anywhere these days is difficult with the controlled parking measures. We are very close to ND station, Alleyns and JAGS. Any advice would be appreciated.

I get that but what I can't figure out why someone would read a particular post for a wanted item when they don't have an item to offer? Like on Monday, I made a post wanting a "garden bench". It got 495 views! So what would prompt 495 people to view the post if they didn't have something to offer? To further this research, I will adjust the header of my post and see what happens.

We are currently de-cluttering so I regularly look at the “Wanted” section to see if someone is looking for something that I may wish to dispose of in the near future. I am amazed at the number of views for posts which appear not to have elicited a single response. Some posts have zero responses despite recording between 1,000 and 2,000 views. This far exceeds the number of views per individual item in the “For Sale” section. Any suggestions?

Well spotted; read "Dulwich area"

There's a new repair workshop in the process of being in established in the Dulwich. The organisers are in the process of organising a group of volunteers who have a variety of skills. They had their first meeting last week so I suggest you keep an eye open for an announcement.

Would it make a good site for a petrol station - given it's location on the South Circular?

Yes, Dulwich Village commands a premium and justifiably so given access to the City via London Bridge plus the top rate schools within walking distance. The bus services are really good also - 37, 42 and P4. The P4 is useful for connecting to the Victoria line at Brixton. It's worthwhile waiting for the right property. I know of one which will be coming on the market in a few weeks - 4 bedrooms and south facing garden circa £2.5m.

Definitely not intended to come across as "gleeful". Quite the opposite, because developments such as this will only encourage extreme right-wingers such as Reform. And heaven help us if they ever formed a government. It's incumbent on Labour to come up with an effective policy to "smash the gangs" otherwise we are facing Farage and his gang further down the road.

Is the decision by the High Court not to deport an Eritrean man to France on Wednesday anything other than a massive boost for Farage and reform. Farage has made a commitment for the UK to exit the ECHR which limits the independence of our justice system The UK Government’s “one in, one out” has failed at the first hurdle - just as the Rwanda scheme did under the Tories. To make it even more embarrassing is that the accommodation for deportees in Rwanda paid for by the UK is now being used by the USA for its deportees. If we are to have Farage thrust upon us as a result of such judicial decisions, then God help us.

Title changed to reflect the latest developments.

You are right . It isn't going to change him for the better. Sending such a negative message is potentially counter-productive. Trump is narcissistic, arrogant, unpredictable, spiteful, divisive, and dishonest, with a penchant for a total a disregard for democratic norms. He is one who bears a grudge so there's a case to be made for not offending him as he could react with a bunch of adverse actions such as deciding to increase import tariffs on UK exports to the US.

Many MP's have been exposed by the media in relation to abuse of expenses over the years. Without doubt the Tories have the worst record on abuses of the system. As ambitious politicians climb the greasy pole to ministerial office or party leadership their past indiscretions become more widely known. Some of us have speculated about the prospects of Andy Burnham becoming party leader if Sir Keir falls on his sword but how many of us are aware that he claimed £17,000 in expenses to rent a London flat, despite owning another within walking distance of the House of Commons?