Loz

It's something to do with a moistened bint lobbing scimitars.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it would actually iron out more of the excesses within the property system and would > discourage landlords thus bringing house prices down. ... or would concentrate land ownership towards the rich even more. The tax would then be passed on down to the renter resulting in higher rentals in urban areas. It would also push people out of urban areas, putting more pressure on public transport and increasing greenhouse emissions.

I think PGC is not only at the Oval but also facing the Indian bowling.

Ask a neighbour that does not have Virgin - there may be a communal aerial that is available. It might even be behind the cable point - they might have just reused the same socket. (And no, Virgin don't do any freeview stuff)

Ridgley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Very true blue collar crime is judged far more > harshly then white collar crime that has not > changed over the centuries. On the other hand, white collar crime often carry some more intangible punishments - generally loss of career with the associated loss of earnings for the rest of their working lives. Most white collar crime involves an abuse of trust, so you will find these people will never be allowed into such a position ever again.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > [...] an end to their council tax discount wouldn't go amiss either. I must admit, I've never understood the logic behind that one.

Well, if Gordon hadn't sold all our gold at a knock-down price a few years ago...

I was just watching Russell Howard on TV and he had a quick clip of this bloke. Put a few things into perspective. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciYk-UwqFKA (Oi, Admin - how come embedding doesn't work anymore?)

It's in the key: 6/4 = 6 peak trains per hour, 4 off-peak trains per hour.

If your driving instructor's useful help starts and ends at 'you should just know', then the best advice I can give is 'get a new driving instructor'. Like one that can teach.

OK, we have the latest incarnation... Allfornun thomastillingthe3rd sagatelsagouni georgegarrett albertcadwell and now... MissNoodleHats Registered a week ago. I give this latest version another week.

What *are* you talking about?? You asked the question about the Great Firewall of China - twice. Now you are complaining I answered it?

It did get retweeted quite a bit on the evening in question.

Mrmike, The plasmas are new and unboxed, though the boxes may have some scorch/burn marks. The phones are all ex-display and may contain some broken glass.

It's arguably a danger of the tuition fees protests in that it will needlessly scare people off from higher education.

That wasn't a brick that hit the Palmeston - it was a slab of frozen fois gras.

MissNoodlesHats Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can I ask why you think that China, who are pretty advanced in terms of strategic thought as well as > technology have built what can only be described as a pretty large wall around itself with regard > to incoming and outgoing information traffic? Ah, an attempt at a reverse Paxman. Good try, Allfornun, but sadly not effective this time. China currently holds with the communist ideal of information control. They are especially worried about the information from western news streams, as the Beeb and the VOA, which carry information that the authorities deem to be not suitable for the populace. It is pretty obvious though, that as China opens up more and more to western trading and both business and leisure travel, this approach will be considered unsustainable in the longer term, as they will not only be forced to accept free flow of news and ideas (purely as it is virtually part and parcel of participation in a global market) but they will also discover that free speech is, in general, not a danger to effective government. In other words, the question you ask is pretty irrelevant to your idea blogs have "effects of which are global and affecting (sic) change." as China is only one country (i.e. not global), blogs are a minor part of the target set of the Great Firewall of China and it is based on a paranoia rather than and actual power of the blog. Certainly a flow of ideas is a positive thing, and some grassroots ideas do make it to the big time, but if you are actually trying to say "The power of blogs is coming - tremble O Big Brother" then you are sadly mistaken. Now if you had gone with Twitter and Facebook, you would have certainly had a case. But even then, they only generally have such power in single or a small number of unstable countries. Facebook campaigns in the UK no longer have any real effect and globally they've never really come off. Facebook is now just another marketing tool (notable by the easy way it is to 'like' something, but the 'unlike' is squirrelled away in a very hard to find place. You can't have all that advertising going unnoticed or turned off, now.) Happy? We are a-wwayyyy off on a tangent from the OP, but for old time's sake, where is your proof that blogs have "effects of which are global and effecting change." (And I've even fixed your grammar.)

The easy thing about taxing income. profit and spending is that they are already liquid. Taxing assets and land value only works if the person has the necessary liquid finds to pay the tax, otherwise they have to liquidate the asset. This often happens with inheritance tax, though as that is a new asset to the person, there is often less of an issue in liquidating it. But not always - children (and until not long ago, gay partners) living with an ageing relative find that although the inherit the house, the associated tax bill forces them to sell up and move. But for an normal asset tax, consider these: A pensioner owns a house in a nice suburb, simply because they happened to buy it when the area was less desirable. Tax that and you will force them from their home. Or a person's only asset might be their business, that is struggling at the moment - tax that and you will force them to sell up. Or someone's savings are in gold - the tax point was the 5th May, but the gold price crashes on the 10th May. It's a nice idea, but it would cause major unintended consequences.

I'm not arguing that DJKQ - but is a scholarship more worthy in covering the costs of getting people into university today, or covering future costs when they may not be earning ?21K, but 40K, 50K or more. What more useful and supportive - helping them with rent, food and costs while they are at Uni (and probably jobless or part time), or saving them about ?25 a week when they graduate?

I'm starting to see a pattern - poor argument, resort to primary school-level ad hominem when questioned... I think we should be adding MissNoodleHats to the AllForNun spotters thread.

From the Beeb:

Hurrah! I finally managed to get the cat to use the flat cap! http://7reasons.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/flatcapcatincatflap.gif?cda6c1 In fact it as so successful I did the same with all the local cats. They've now formed a band. http://www.rathergood.com/independent_woman

At least they were being serious, this guy got a ?3000 fine, similar in costs and a lifetime ban at the airport in question for making a joke on Twitter.

I saw Jamie Oliver in Sainsburys. His picture was attached to a oil and vinegar set. (Is that better, Hona?)

[paxman_mode] Look, if you can't answer the question, just say so - is there any actual proof of emerging change? [/paxman_mode]