Earl Aelfheah

It's probably not helpful to speculate. I hope no one was seriously hurt.

She's off shored it on her yacht. When the tax man approaches she sails away, sails away, sails away.

The constitutional club perhaps?

You say that kids wearing ripped jeans are acting like sheep, but they're still in the minority. Wearing regular fit chinos and a casual shirt (or whatever) is no less following a 'fashion' in the sense of it being conformity to a 'look'. It's silly to think that whatever one wears that it's not influenced by the norms and whims of others. Otherwise why would you not be wearing a comfortable moo moo and sandles?

I always thought Zac seemed quite principled / decent, but this latest attempt to insinuate that Sadiq is somehow 'dangerous' and 'extreme' is pretty awful.

Nice

If we crash out of Europe, who knows what'll happen.

It's so fashionable to be anti-fashion.

Is that an offer quids?

I agree that by taking out an injunction they have made it a much bigger story. I do have some sympathy with them however, in that this really isn't something which the press should have been publishing in the first place. It is a total invasion of privacy and potentially quite damaging to their family. I don't buy the argument that there is any public interest angle.

All nice pubs Help-Ma-Boab, although the Sylvan Post has bad acoustics.

Unless you're one of the tracksuited nitwits of course.

There can't be many people (at least amongst those who are interested) who don't already know the identity of the couple involved. The injunction seems a little ineffective. That said, I really can't see what the public interest angle would be on this one. Just tabloid salaciousness.

New Cross, Brixton, Peckham if you're more youthful than I. The white horse in Pecknam I quite like. There are some decent pubs in Dulwich too though. It's great how the whole of SE London is changing, with new places opening up all the time.

that house would cost a fortune to maintain and you'd be rattling around it with nothing to do, in the middle of nowhere. Looks nice though.

minder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely the OP would have done some homework on > where's best to park? Seems a strange question as > they probably know parking is a problem anyway. Parking's not a problem on Quorn Road (or the surrounding roads).

I didn't realise Melange have reopened on Maxted Road - good to know.

Chief Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Park somewhere else and catch a bus or cab to the > station please. We don't want you, and other > non-residents, clogging up our roads! They're not 'your' roads though. They're public roads. There is more than enough parking space around Quorn Road, just across from the station.

If he'd put it in those words no, but I think if he'd been upfront about it, the story would have died fairly quickly, yes. By putting out a succession of obviously evasive statements, the press sensed blood and possibly a much bigger story.

That's really not the point. Cameron made 5 statements all intended to mislead, or at the very least obfuscate. That's pretty inexcusable, especially when you've been calling for transparency. The story wouldn't have gone anywhere but for his attempts to mislead the press and the public.

I'm pretty sure Uncleglen is a closet communist.

I'm currently intending to vote in, but must admit to feeling fairly ambivalent about the whole thing.

It's a fair point Dover, but Cameron has pontificated on this a fair bit and as someone who makes the rules, he should rightly be held to a higher standard. The biggest issue for me was that he spend five days making weasel statements and trying to hide the fact of his past interests in Blairmore. This is someone who has repeatedly called for transparency in peoples tax affairs.... And he's the PM ffs. I don't think it's a hanging offence, but he's shown pretty poor judgment and is entirely to blame for creating this circus.

I feel pretty old, does that mean I can have the seat.

Everyone gets that there is a difference between breaking the law and not. There is also a clear difference between a 'wink and a nod' when paying in cash and simply paying someone in cash. Not everyone does the former. Morality isn't clear cut and each person must do what they believe to be right, but that is not to suggest that one can't engage in discussions of ethics and morality. As someone else stated, not everything which is legal is moral and not everything which is illegal necessarily immoral. In terms of your three points: -I do agree there is (inevitably) hypocrisy in this debate. But that doesn't mean that a debate of both how things are and how things ought to be is not worthwhile, or instructive. Cameron himself has been fairly hypocritical in my view and we can reasonably expect him as PM (and someone who influences policy / law) to hold himself to a higher standard. - I don't accept that people are too stupid to understand the differences between avoidance and evasion. The grey area has shrunk since the general avoidance rules came in at the beginning of the year, but prior to that there was fairly broad scope for morally questionable avoidance (which may or may not have been considered 'legitimate' depending on one's point of view). - It's up to each individual to pay the appropriate tax. If you somehow conspire in tax avoidance then that's pretty clear cut. I don't accept that everyone does this. I don't like the supposed 'truism' that 'everyone's at it'. It's simply not true.