Loz

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > VAT in this country is very high and its a very regressive form of taxation [...] There is a LOT of debate on whether VAT is progressive, regressive or even proportional.

Long haul flights can vary quite considerably and, if you can be a little flexible, you can get some great deals. I use the Kayak site and turn on the "+/- 3 days" feature and it gives you a nice table showing you the best price on each particular day. You can also turn off certain airlines you shudder at the thought of flying with (yeah, that's you, China Southern). Generally Tuesday flying, both ways, is your best day for a cheapie. But, I booked some to Oz earlier in the year and the day had no bearing on price, so YMMV. Obviously Cathay will be good as it flies direct, but the best service at the moment is on the Middle East airlines - Emirates and Qatar. And you can get some rather tasty prices on them at the moment.

> So Loz you reckon that, say, a flat bought for > ?500k two years ago would now fetch only ?450k? > Hmm, show me the evidence. Yep, that's right. The St Francis Estate (SE22 8DJ/8DL/8DP/8DU) has a good set of houses to see this, as they are all very similar properties and so have similar values. If you look at the 2 beds there over that time period, you'll see they were selling for 550-580 back in Spring 2014 and are now going for 470-520.

As someone who thought the 'Blurred Lines' decision was utterly ridiculous, I think Led Zepp might be ponying up the dosh for this one. (If you want to jump the rather overlong intro, skip to about 40 seconds in.)

Reg Smeeton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I predict prices will have fallen 10% from their peak by October this > year. Any takers? Considering the peak was the mad times of Spring 2014, I suggest this (and more) has already happened

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It has already been suggested that the people who want change 'Brexit' are more likely to cast their vote. That's entirely possible. On the other hand, the large number of 'undecided' are usually more likely to stick with the status quo.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The story wouldn't have gone anywhere but for his attempts to mislead the press and the public. You think that if Cameron's opening gambit had have been "Yeah, I had a few grand in an offshore account a few years ago.", the story would have died? I don't think so.

Terrible news today that James Taylor has been forced to retire with a heart condition. Currently, he's probably England's most technically gifted batsman. Very sad.

PennyDreadful Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just as an aside...today Dennis Skinner was ejected from the Commons for referring to Cameron > as "Dodgy Dave", whereas last December there was no comeback for Cameron when he referred to > opposition MPs as "terrorist sympathisers"... That's because the Cameron's comment didn't happen in the House of Commons.

Villager Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As the other posts have made clear, the only way is draconian sentences. I would also suggest that > offenders forfeit their benefits for 5 years on release - unless they volunteer for 5 years > military service. Compulsory service works in other countries and helps many to drop their drug > dependency. > > We just need to stop molly-coddling the ferals and treat the problem with resolve. Is this satire? Someone please tell me that this is satire.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So that makes both OK? No. I'm wondering how one of them seems to be inquisitor-in-chief.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fact is that Cameron rallied against tax avoidance. He called it immoral and he called for > transparency in people's tax affairs whilst being rather evasive about his own. So, just like the Guardian, then. Only their tax avoidance was in the hundreds of millions, rather than thousands.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're all crazy. Anyone who thinks we should remain comes up with the same old story. Rather > than criticise the other side, why don't you try to convince us sceptics of the pro's of remaining? > Not heard ONE convincing argument for us remaining. Not one, and I'm being serious here. OK. Here's five. 1) Money. We won't actually save any money - in fact, leaving would probably cost us MORE money. The UK's net contribution is about ?8.5bn a year. But we will need to replace the functions of the EU. Even a small government department like the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills had a budget of over 16bn last year. 2) Repercussions. A lot of the arguments to leave assume the EU will want to stay on friendly terms and renegotiating stuff will be easy. But the EU will see Brexit as a massive danger to the European project and will almost certainly want to give us a very hard time to discourage other potential exiteers. Which leads us to... 3) Trade. The EU is a single market in which no tariffs are imposed on imports and exports between member states. If we leave we might be able to negotiate something similar, but there are zero guarantees on this (especially of the EU want to make an example of us). This includes services, which is a huge part of our exports and not covered by many other trade agreements. 4) Financial Sector. London's position as the premier European financial centre would be in serous danger if it not part of Europe. Frankfurt is already preparing plans to attract London's financial institutions should Brexit arise. Finance is over 20% of our GDP. The knock on effect on jobs, trade and GDP could be immense. 5) Confusion. Leaving would leave us in a state of limbo for a number of years. The best estimates for disentangling UK from the EU say about two to three years. It will be longer. In that time we won't be in, but we won't be out either, leaving us in a position of complete uncertainty.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I watched a bit of the repeat of questiontime last night http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b076zn7t and > there was a brilliant view from Chris Bryant MP where through gritted teeth he supported the PM, > saying that the Brexit campaign focused on process rather than substance and got a cheer from the > audience. Thank ffign God for a bit or reality at last without political posturing. I'm glad someone from Labour has stood up. I think the biggest danger at the moment to the Remain campaign is the seemingly-paralysed state of Labour. Given the Tories are split and bickering on the matter, Labour should be shoring up their support, but we're hearing nary a peep from them. On the subject of QT, that had to be the worst panel on the programme for a long time. Dreadful.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Channel 4 also found links to Camerons father and another tax haven investment yesterday, so this is > going to carry on for Cameron. And Nigel Farage has been exposed too as having set up an account > in a tax haven - for all his pretence at being a common man, he is a city boy to the end. I alluded to this up at the start of the thread, but not to forget the Guardian here. They're well known for using offshore tax havens, most notably to avoid a large tax bill for the sale of their stake in Autotrader.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Coming home from a tiring shift on a helpline late last night, unlocking my bike in Brixton only to > realise from the slimy feel of the D-lock that someone had vomited all over it. I'm really sure I wouldn't file that under "Tiny Little Things". I'd file that under 'Utterly Revolting Things".

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That account Liz is very partial / partisan in the sense that it takes as read that Cameron is the > best person to be trusted with running things. Except it does not assert that at all. Read it again.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not exactly an impartial summary, Loz... It is actually. It just wasn't very clearly written, so it takes a couple of reads. What he's saying is that those that voted Tory last time around did it knowing who Cameron was and the events of this week haven't changed that knowledge much. And those that didn't vote Tory last time around also did it knowing who Cameron was and the events of this week haven't changed that either. I mean, who would have been surprised if Cameron didn't have some money involved in this sort of thing at some stage in his life?

This, from one of the polling people, is probably the best summary of the situation...

Just a possibility - it might nit have been Southwark. There are a lot of scrap metal merchants who drive around, picking up metal things. Which would explain why they only took the BBQ and scarpered when you yelled. Did you see Southwark markings on the van?

I looked at Benenden. It's a bit strange. It basically is a health fund where you apply for funding when you get ill and they might give it to you. Very cheap, though. Not quite sure what to make of it. Didn't seem to be reliable enough.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On a lighter side.. Brussels having control over the U.K. Is like having the In-laws controlling > your marriage.. On that basis, Wales, NI and Scotland could take the same view about the UK. And probably Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool about London.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm looking for the same Loz, as I don't like > sharing the waiting room with other 'sick/skiving' people Won't work for you Seabag. You still have to front up to the GP. It just cuts that 12-18 week waiting time for the consultant to a week or so. Anyone here with BUPA or Aviva? They seem to be the main two coming up. Anyone with some other company?

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How can you possibly say Europe doesn't make us less democratic? Well, considering of our top three UK legislative levels of government, two of them are unelected, so we nationally we only elect 33% of our legislative layers of government. The EU is comprised of two legislative levels: EU Parliament (Elected) and the EU Council (unelected). So, adding them in makes 2 of 5 now elected. Therefore taking both national and EU legislature together, we now actually elect 40% of our legislative layers of government. But, that's actually the worst way of looking at it. The EU Council is more like the UK Cabinet, since it comprised of 1 member per national government. So you could even make that percentage 2/4 = 50% (if, like the Cabinet, you don't count it) or 3/5 = 60% (if you consider it elected by extension of elected national governments). Therefore, quite provably, the EU has made us more democratic. And that's because the UK legislative government is so completely undemocratic to start with. QED. You might also want to consider that, of the single layer of the UK legislature we do get to elect, we use possibly one of the most undemocratic election systems possible - First Past the Post.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Trouble is as much as I want to capitlise on this, the story is coming with one hell of a slant/agenda. The Graun's headline on Simon Cowell being a case in point today. Read the story and you find that his accountant created two companies in order to buy some property in Barbados. In the end he didn't use ever them and they are now dormant. But it did mean they could rather dishonestly squeeze Cowell's name into a headline. However much a non-story it was.