Huguenot

Hee hee, I suspect LadyD's vision is of a prelapsarian agricultural anarchy - an approach somewhat incompatible with our population size. The main problem I find with many 'alternative' systems is that they tend to be so disrespectful of human nature.

I think the charity question is a red herring. The government outsources plenty of its work because it's cheaper and more effective than recruiting, training and retaining full time staff. Some of these outsourced organisations are charitable institutions. It's not a case of government taking our tax and giving it to charity.

GENIUS!!!!

Those piecemeal suggestions kinda prove my point. None of your proposed targets are going to have much freedom for anything more than tweaking. Whilst budgets in those departments may be streamlined, all of those departments deliver vital services on behalf of our community (where business and 'privatised' government would not be interested), from the Forestry Commission and flood and disease prevention, to protecting our cultural heritage. The very existence of people who think our cultural heritage can be dismissed to the vagaries of the free market is proof of the absolute necessity of civic protection. Much like the irresponsibility of those who wanted to let banks fail during the credit crunch, the criticisms of these organisations come from people who don't know what they do and haven't considered the consequences. Either way, they're not going to have such a significant impact on government spending that you'd notice it in taxes.

What is it about people who come onto threads in order to control what other people may or may not talk about. If you want people to be mindful of the tragedy then feel free to use your persuasive powers. Force them to conform by shutting the thread? Who do you think you are?

Believe it or not, but with 7bn people in the world and climbing, the world's a very competitive place and resources are becoming scarcer. Running around putting flowers behind people's ears may assuage the feelings of guilt, but the chief driver of war expenditure is NOT antiquated missile systems, but the British people's insatiable desire for fossil fuels and cheap consumer durables. You need only see the ravings of householders on the CPZ thread to demonstrate the irresponsibility and fury of the average UK consumer when someone might make their life a little less convenient. No point in blaming the government. It's rather besides the point anyway - government spending is on things like welfare, pensions, healthcare and education. If you want to reduce government spending, these are the only expenditures you can really target. And of course we won't do that - so the debate is redundant.

What's this tune? It's driving me nuts. It would probably have been 70s or 80s, and I think it starts with a bit of frantic guitar action. It would have been a perfect intro for a motor racing show. It goes 'diddley diddley, diddley diddley, diddley diddley DAH DAH' and then repeats. Soundhound doesn't recognise it.

Sorry no, I meant spiritually. Loose with my words, gob smacked at our cricketing stupidity. It took so much of the joy out of the victory. I'm angry with them ;-) Grrrrrr.

I was there, but inexplicably unable to correspond as I watched the farce unfold. Still, there now.

DaveR - "H, I don't tell you to stop pontificating about things you barely understand (I tried, it didn't work) so why don't you just read and learn?" The world is a complex place, and it's entirely possible that your humphy chumphy world view based upon 'obvious' interpretations has been left spinning wheels in the dust by others who would prefer to think a few moves ahead. I could 'learn' from you, but I'd have to surgically remove most of my wit and wilfully deny evidence sat proudly on the end of my nose. In short, I'd need a mental wheelchair. I'm very happy to listen to your somewhat childish arguments, but I hope you appreciate that if you make personal attacks I will gleefully lay out your shortcomings. ;-)

Interesting LadyD - do you see the redistribution of wealth and the provision of services as an end in itself, or do you see that as a tool to create a happier more satisfying society. Because if you do - then you must be aware that the best way of doing this is to create a flourishing economy that can provide more wealth to be distributed and more services provided? If you are prepared to accept that concept - then you can see that it's a serious challenge to work out whether the best way to deal with a business is to tax them out of existence, or to incentivise them to grow, to deliver popular services and employ more people? I'm sure that you can see that challenge - which means that actually, you do understand why tax law has more importance than just 'take and spend'?

That entire report is unsubstantiated allegations, do you not think you have a moral responsibility to avoid trying to destroy this man's life until he has been found guilty? If it should transpire that these are wrong, I would whole heartedly support a court case against you, Top Banana, for defamation and libel. WTF is wrong with people that they think this kind of behaviour is okay?

Well, I don't believe that tax policy should be set by the media, by prejudice or by the EDF, no. I've stressed it before, but tax legislation is a great example of unintended consequences. Taxes are not just about getting money. They're about incentivising commerce and employment and facilitating economies. We shouldn't be running the country by 'gut feelings' that we're being cheated. This corporation tax crisis is being fuelled by a government keen to distract public concern away from their own policy decisions to focus on 'cheats' that are either not cheating, or they were complicit in creating.

Well yes, exactly like colonisation.

Computedshorty will be able to tell you :)

Hee Hee. I've no doubt that ED will continue to plough its own furrow, if only because of an obstinate lack of cooperation with outside influences. It's an incredibly energised and proud community.

In support of Cyberia, there is no logical argument for private car ownership in a compact urban society aside from convenience. If cars were invented today, with traffic jams, atmospheric pollution and wars for oil noted as a by product on the marketing literature, nobody would buy them. In the end, the blah blah blah from car campaigners will be no more than a footnote in history referencing social inertia and an unwillingness to change. There's plenty of bright car campaigners who know that, what beats me is why they don't dedicate their enormous energy to advancing alternatives. When they don't they're either stupid or time wasting.

I think it deserves making clear that a crime is a crime. Paedophilia is not an exception regardless of the era (except that it is). Until recently (within the lifetime of people still alive today) it was okay for girls to be married at 12. In other words, it was okay to be a paedophile if daddy said so (mummies didn't get a look in). It's also worth pointing out that a crime is only a crime if public opinion says so - police and the courts are highly responsive to public opinion, and the law as made in parliament is ONLY responsive to public opinion. In addition, crimes need to be reported - there are plenty of transgressions that we all make every day that are technically illegal but we don't report them. So all those people who are saying 'a crime is a crime even if it was the 70s' are right technically, but fundamentally wrong in practice. Society makes laws by common acceptability, and the reality is that the despicable behaviour of these exploiters was not considered to be the same degree of crime at the time as it is today. Hence we are judging these twisted manipulators according to the social mores of the present day, not according to those of the time. You cannot extrapolate their behaviour then to their attitudes today.

My experience with HMRC is very much along the lines described by LondonMix. The characterisation of corporates as tax evaders and the Inland Revenue as cack-handed ineffectual administrators has little relevance to my experience of highly competent intelligent organisations pursuing government policy. Most of the ideas that people have suggested to recover 'missing' tax revenues have already been considered and found wanting. I've made it a matter of policy throughout the last ten years to never run a 'profitable' company - by reinvesting top line margins in staff, research, resources or facilities. This doesn't make me a tax evader. There are exceptions to this in organisations that transfer money internationally to service franchise fees. Howevere I've made the point before and I'll make it again - these fees are negotiated with HMRC and agreed by very bright people who bear in mind all the upsides and downsides.

CHARLOTTE W You are a mess of anxieties looking for an opinion. You need to stop, take a breath, and try and find a cohesive world view. I can't even begin to deconstruct the massively conflicting statements you've made regarding your world policies. However, you might want to start with the assumption that most people actually agree with your ambition, it's just that there are limitations on the funds available (which results in 'policy decisions') and there are limitations on resources (which results in 'wars'). If you can accept the premise that everybody wants the same thing that you want, but they'd like to do it in an organised step by step fashion with respect to available budgets, then you'll be 90% of the way to happiness.

I get a bit tired with these 'thin end of the wedge' arguments. The telephone is not the thin end of the wedge to brain control, the fridge is not the thin end of the wedge to Frankenstein foods. Likewise a statutory body for press complaints to stop papers literally making stuff up to target a family who lost their child is NOT the thin end of the wedge for a Stalinist state. I am persistently surprised when I hear grown adults making these claims. It's schoolboy conspiracy theories claiming that 'police' is the thin end of the wedge for Nazis. Stop it.

Well, LondonMix, if you call yourself a Libertarian but only want a few bits of it, I think Libertarians would be right to question your badge. ;-) I think it's fair to say that all the illustrations provided by DaveR work on social levels of less than 200 no? Amateur dramatics, Tolpuddle Martyrs ( 6 ), WI. These people didn't build roads, power stations or cross channel ferries - they just had a laugh (or got imprisoned) with their mates. Protest, or Football fan bases, are not an organised force for creation, and don't count in this assessment. Any pillock can camp outside St. Paul's cathedral, but when it comes to buying sandwiches they get locked down in teepee debates about who is paying. These are not sensible illustrations of collective action. There aren't any example of libertarianism resulting in anything but arse.

Forgive me for thinking it would be a large number of polarised righteous dickheads demanding respect for pointless fist punching.

Point taken. What do you think is the outcome of free association in a large number of people?

:D I was beginning to wonder!