Marmora Man

Booked for the first two plays - Privates on Parade and Peter & Alice. Looking forward to seeing Simon Russell Beale again and Judi Dench. I read somewhere that Judi Dench has failing eyesight so this could be a last chance to see her on stage. I first saw her 44 years in '68 (as Sally Bowles in Cabaret) and have followed get performances ever since, I wouldn't want to miss that.

right-clicking Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's all about marketing, nobody likes paying > taxes, but we freely give to charity (not as a tax > break) now we all know tax is the oil of our > society used however to govern, protect, educate, > welfare and all the rest. > Present Tax in different light by putting the > emphasis on it's there to help others, and maybe > it will be seen as an act of charity, and then > possibly people might think twice about skimping > on their bill? Two problems: 1. You are equating avoidance with evasion. It's not skimping on the bill to arrange your tax arrangements to minimise tax exposure and maximise personal gain. If gov't closed all loopholes then not paying the tax due would be skimping - but until that time ............. 2. While gov't does spend tax revenues on governing, protecting, educating, welfare and all the rest it tends to do so pretty inefficiently. The tension between tax raised, demands on gov't spending and individual / corporate desire to pay lower taxes should always be tight to maximise efficient use of a limited resource NOT having the public flinging money at gov't willy nilly - that's the way vanity projects are conceived and funded.

Katy Tonbridge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Alternatively: "This morning, a man offered a lift > to a child on his way to school, as the buses were > on strike. The child said no, which was very > sensible as you should NEVER accept a lift from > strangers. The incident took place in another > part of south London." Put this way, I hardly > think it was necessary to send texts to every > parent of the school. Katy T - your interpretation seems very sensible and balanced. I agree with you entirely.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I suspect that is more to do with lack of > > opportunity than any higher moral standing. > > Yep, of course it is. But MM seemed to be > suggesting that entertainers might somehow be > entitled to pay less tax because of their > perceived contribution to society. I'm saying that > they're not. What I was trying to suggest is that our "duty" toward society encompasses more than just the tax we pay. We are all, collectively and individually, more than just units of society that generate tax. As someone else pointed out nurses and teachers contribute more than just their taxes - as do police, service personnel, entertainers, charity workers and so on. Taking the amount of tax paid as a narrow measure of contribution is too limited an approach.

Personally I don?t find Jimmy Carr that funny but I am not sure I can join the howling mob that has persuaded him to withdraw from a legal tax avoidance scheme. He?s been using K2 to allegedly reduce his tax liability last year to about 1% of his ?3.3 million income (?33,000 ? a figure significantly higher that the average income tax take per individual) Mr Cameron and many others have alleged that, though legal, his tax avoidance was unfair. But why? He has paid the tax required by the law and HMRC regulation / legislation. How can what is morally right be differentiated from what is morally repugnant? What are the options? ?Everyone should be treated equally? ? but he?s already paying more than the average tax bill. ?Everyone should make an equal contribution to society? ? you could argue that in addition to paying more than the average income tax figure he also contributes by providing entertainment and pleasure to many thousands ? certainly far more of a contribution to society than made by me or most others. ?From each according to his ability, to each according to his need? ? ie taxes should maximise the welfare of the least well off. Is paying more than legally due tax to government, any government, the best way to achieve this nirvana? Of course the real culprit, as more serious commentators are beginning to recognise, is the fiendishly complicated UK tax system. Go to the flat tax that Hong Kong uses ? no tax breaks for film rights, forestry, charity, trust funds, loans, business losses or anything else. Set a high threshold (?20,000?) for paying any tax at all and tax the rest at 33% or another figure well below 50% and the whole business of tax avoidance becomes far less attractive and, I would argue, creates a tax system that has a far more moral basis.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No not me. Good Luck to them. Yes, getting by on a tax payer funded and index linked pension of ?48,000 - ?100,000 must be really tough.

Was there some kind of soccer match last night then? I was enjoying dinner en famille and must have missed the excitement.

I'd be far more p****d off if Harriet Harperson was made a Dame. Now there is a truly undeserving case!

Poverty: a. Can't afford to provide sufficient for for family b. No roof over one's head c. Can't afford to heat and furnish property (beds, chairs, tables, TV, ect) d. No / limited access to education & health services e. Can't afford to clothe family f. Insufficient disposable income to provide some pleasures (an outing to cinema, birthday presents, trip to seaside, etc) As Iain Duncan Smith has observed for the majority of the UK population these circumstances arise when the parent or parents are: 1. Unemployed 2. Drug dependent 3. Dysfunctional 4. Absent 5. Imprisoned 6. Abusive Tackle these issues and more will be achieved in taking children out of poverty than any amount of welfare benefits. Child poverty is a multi dimensional problem - simply measuring it as a % of the median household income is not only illogical but self defeating. There will ALWAYS be some proportion of the population that earn less than 60% of the median income.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Was it nuclear? Powered - not armed.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Das Boot Spot on - and this is what I was looking at:

I probably come over as right wing, libertarian Torygraph reader. In reality I'm a a pretty tolerant, slightly cynical, live and let live kind of person with a deep, very deep, suspicion of any prescriptive solution to the world's ills believing more in the cock up, rather than conspiracy, theory of life and history. And this is me - many years ago!

woodrot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > actually, I think I stumbled into someone I was do > seem to passively provoke, not so long ago. He was > reasonable in real life. I dont think he was aware > though. Have we met then?

jimbo1964 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I like McCloud. Does anyone know where the two > wooden eco houses are. The ones squeezed into an > old workshop space. They're lovely. Off Landells Road - tho you have to look carefully to find them.

?20.00 is close to the international benchmark for tall building visits: Empire State Building = $23.00 (roughly ?18.50) Burj Khalifa = AED 100 (roughly ?18.00)

Brilliant - as soon as I can I'm going up there and looking for my house - we'e watched the Shard grow floor by floor over the last three years.

This thread is getting more bizarre by the minute. I'm signing off.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Great programme. It goes to show how > overdevelopment causes destruction to community, > local economy and history. Jeremy take note. To me it showed how "progressive" social planning and engineering ruined a neighbourhood. A less progressive and more (small c) conservative approach would have allowed the area to evolve naturally at a pace that the community could be content with.

Real Republicans must be weary of the cynicism of Woodrot and his small following. Republicanism as a political theory posits that a Monarchy is not necessary because the wisdom and common sense of the citizens of any country can make a better stab at governing their country. Woodrot appear to turn that idea upside down - in his view it is the foolishness, naivety and sheeplike devotion to an outdated concept of British citizens (subjects?) that maintains the Monarchy. So rather than trusting the British people, Woodrot despises, insults and diminishes them. His stance also ignores the evolution of the British Constitution - where the Monarchy has given up true power and authority to the democratically elected government in return for a its continuance as a symbol of continuity and history.

Hats off to everyone that initiated, organised, managed and led today's brilliant street party on Marmora Road. Too many to name check individually - the day was great success - food, partying, the band, the Bouncy Castle, the Routemaster, the games - everything was brilliant and there was even some money left over for local good causes. Thanks also to Pickwick Estates which sponsored the Bouncy Castle and much of the BAR B QUE goods. Well done and thanks you all.

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MM, does this count as a nuanced view? > http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/10004 > 8709/the-history-of-british-india-will-serve-david > -cameron-well-as-long-as-he-doesnt-talk-about-it/ > > It is from the Daily Telegraph after all > > One of the links in the article is to this - > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770 > . I won't insist that we consider this > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 > as there is still some dispute about the (British) > administration's culpability. > > I quote you: > "those of us capable of a more nuanced look at the > world can see both the enormous benefits that came > out of the Britsh Empire as well as the many > negatives - tho' many of those negatives are only > so in the light of today's mores and not, of > themselves, absolutely wrong or evil." > > and ask two questions > man-made famines - are these an example of what is > no longer negative "in the light of today's mores > and not, of themselves, absolutely wrong or > evil."? > benefits of Empire - yes, of course there were/are > many, but you seem to be using ends to justify > means. Do I understand you correctly? > > No longer so easy to defend Empire. Even the > Queen's advisers suggest she lay it to rest > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/honours-lis > t/9249069/Queen-should-take-the-Empire-out-of-our- > honours-system-say-Lord-Lieutenants.html, Marginally more nuanced but it appears you still wish to paint the British Empire and all its works as irredeemably a bad thing. It wasn't. You misunderstand me - I was not trying to defend the indefensible, but trying to point out to those, such as Woodrot, that the world cannot be divided into Good / Bad; Right / Wrong; Left; Right as he seems to believe. I did not say that the wrongs you raise as examples are simply seen as wrong by today's standards. Indeed I was trying to make the point that at least in certain instances the British recognised that they were in the wrong and started to change matters. Remember Britain disengaged from what was then known as the Empire in a remarkably democratic fashion, handing over power and authority to the citizens of the many countries that now make up the Commonwealth, itself a positive organisation that is both democratic and a force for good in this world. Britain's handover didn't work well everywhere - the partition of India was clearly badly judged and mishandled, many African states fell into corruption and dictatorships but Britain didn't try to defend the impossible as France and Belgium did.

Fabricio the Guido Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Moral relativism is a brilliant concept. I would > also like to take a nuanced view of the Holocaust, > six million dead but the train service was top > notch. The conquistadors in Latin America, > millions dead from small pox but many now speak > Spanish and where would they be without the church > which justified slavery for the indigenous > people.http://youtu.be/0S2NKlMW0vc Try to be more nuanced in your responses please - this is pathetic.

I was there - and the best part of the Flotilla was the man powered section - hundreds of oar powered vessels crowding the river and squeezing through Tower Bridge in a messy and unchoreographed sequence made an great impression - I did see some of the TV highlights and TV somehow diminished the whole event - the boats appeared too small and the river too large. However, close up it worked. The various musical elements also added much - the final finale after the singing "Hope and Glory" with the London Symphony playing a Hornpipe ever faster was just great.

Woodrot - I was on the riverside yesterday, everyone around me was having fun. It was damp but there were many smiles, much laughter, a great atmosphere and a lot of excited and animated conversations between people that had never before met from all walks of life and many different nationalities. The only downcast and saddo's to be seen were the 100 or so anti monarchy demonstrators outside City Hall - most of whom did have the decency to look a little sheepish and embarrassed. Your reading of popular opinion, the monarchy, its history and the history of the British Empire (as was) is far too binary, those of us capable of a more nuanced look at the world can see both the enormous benefits that came out of the Britsh Empire as well as the many negatives - tho' many of those negatives are only so in the light of today's mores and not, of themselves, absolutely wrong or evil. One telling, example is the Slave Trade. Yes, the British did take part in the slave trade - refining an existing trade that had been in existence for over a 1,000 years and, until then, dominated by native African tribal chiefs and Middle Eastern traders. However, it was also the British, and their primary instrument of policy, the Royal Navy that led the way in abolishing the trade. Britain was not coerced into giving up the slave trade - the impetus cam from within the establishment - it was not easy and there was much opposition but the right way ultimately prevailed

To misquote P G Wodehouse: "It is never difficult to distinguish between Woodrot when ranting and a ray of sunshine"