Green Goose

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Duvaller Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > The fact that hundreds of thousands migrate to > the UK every year for work suggests that the > current system ain't all that bad. Many of these folks > make good and good on them for making the best > of the opportunity. They work hard and don't > complain. rendelharris Wrote: > Many of those people migrating here to work do so > because conditions in their own countries are so > poor that working here enables them to provide a > better life for their families back home. That's right! You may have seen the light. Agreed, they remit the money they earn to their native countries. The reality is that this is a drain on the UK balance of payments which in turns adversely affects the exchange rate. This remitted money is also a loss to the UK as it is not recirculated within our economy - a double negative. Back in the 50's and 60's we had exchange control which restricted remittances to protect the economy - but probably you were not aware of that. Now we have a proliferation of Western Union franchises that export that wealth of our country to build villas all the way from Lithuania, Pakistan and Nigeria.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > apbremer is an honest and clear commentator, > her/his admission of the possession of a feeble > brain is absolutely spot on. I feel put out Rendel, as I thought I was the only one you like insulting! You are showing your true colours now. I stand by the view that I expressed but it seems you want to denigrate me and apb because we have opinions that you don't agree with. You are the bigot. GG

Jim1234 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only conclusion I can draw from green goose's > post is that they must have never have experienced > the hardship of living on a low wage. Incorrect assumption. I have been skint and had to take up low wage employment and it was then that I realised that the system we live with does not owe anyone a well paid job. Market forces dictate that a job only pays for the worth of the work one does. Market realities dictate pay rates. GG

Gotcha again Rendell. You just can't resist can you. GG :)

edphstaff , you come across as a militant bunch of left wing whingers. If you dont like the pay rate, why did you take on the work in the first place? If you have the abilities, skills and work ethic to take on more remunerative employment then why not do so? There are plenty of opportunities out there. Unemploymentt is at its lowest level for years and immigrants are flocking to this country to take up work. Stop whinging and get real. The system we live with does not owe you a well paid job. The system pays you for the worth of the work you do. Market realities dictate pay rates. This is no socialist utopia. Such a thing does not exist. Why try to encite others to join your cause and take up your struggle on May Day when you want to slope off to rub shoulders with the Corbynistas, Solidarity types and other delude leftists?

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I was wondering just how long it would take you > RH > > to give us another of your Liberal judgemental > > contributions. > > > > You bang on about the Wild Animals (Protection > > Act), so may we assume you are sufficiently > > motivated to campaign against the humble mouse > > trap that uses a spring to crush the little > > critters? > > > > GG > > Glad I didn't disappoint. It's not actually my > liberal judgemental view though (though unlike > your ilk I don't regard it as an insult to be > called a liberal) but the law of the land. It would be disappointing if you hadn't responded as you just love being judgmental and besides, you always take any bait that passes your nose.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RRR's suggestion is excellent, should you follow > the rather unpleasant suggestions of GG please > make sure that your insurance is sufficient to > cover third party claims when the milkman, postman > and other visitors get carpet tacks in their feet, > oh and be prepared to take time off to appear in > court for prosecution under the Wild Mammals > (Protection) Act 1996, which makes it illegal to > "inflict unnecessary suffering, to mutilate, kick, > beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, > crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate any wild > mammal." > I was wondering just how long it would take you RH to give us another of your Liberal judgemental contributions. You bang on about the Wild Animals (Protection Act), so may we assume you are sufficiently motivated to campaign against the humble mouse trap that uses a spring to crush the little critters? GG

There's lots of ways -depending on how creative and determined you are. 1. Simple solution- get a piece of corrugated plastic of the type that estate agents boards are made of size about 20" x 20". Buy a pack of blue carpet tacks (cost about ?1.50) Press the carpet tacks through the corrugated plastic in one direction spaced about 2" apart. If you want some plastic, PM me your address and I willl drop some off if you are not too far away. Place the spikey plastic mat on the floor fixed with a few dabs of blu-tac under where your bag is hanging. That should sort him but whatever approach you take to solving this problem be prepared for foxy to take his revenge on you by leaving a "deposit" on your doorstep. 2. Make up a chilli and mustard sandwich and put it in a paper bag and leave that there overnight so that foxy gets to it before the delivery. 3. More expensive - buy a mesh box, like a cat/dog carrier and place milk etc inside but kake sure itt is firmly anchored as foxy will work on it. GG

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > GG - in the context of what Jim has posted and the > story he has told, your comments are not necessary > and you come aross as a prize tit, mate. Typical intolerance of an alternative interpretation that does not meet the your view. > > Someone shouts terrorist at a Muslim couple and > you want pity for the perpetrator ? > That kind of event is hate-based. > Also, this BS about phobias, you can look on > Wikipedia all day long but Islamaphobia these days > is about hate, not 'fear'. The derivation of phobia is from the Greek word for fear. I hope you never get a real phobia - but then you might understand better. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=phobia >Where do you get this tripe, the Daily Mail ? .. typical derogatory response from an intolerant bigotted liberal who gets a daily fix from the Guardian. GG

Rolo Tomasi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose, > > Was that some kind of joke? If you do not agree with someone's well argued views, why just trash them? That's smacks of bigotry. GG

Jim1234 Wrote: > Clearly it was racism, islamophobia, > discrimination, whatever you want to call it. You make several hasty assumptions. It probably was islamophobia but it may not have been **clearly** "racism" or "discrimination". He/she may have been the same race as you or me or them. Were they white, black or clearly of a different race from the person who shouted out? There are white muslims and Chines muslims out there you know. By using the words **whatever you want to call it**, you are provocatively inviting readers to put whatever other prejudicial words they might want to assume apply. Probably the most applicable label you used is islamophobia i.e. a fear of Islam. The islamophobic person would be conditioned through fear of islam. Probably he/she has experienced or has seen evidence of atrocities carried out in the name of Islam by extremists. People who have phobias ( and there are many of them) should be pitied and helped and not prosecuted and condemned. They suffer on a daily basis with their phobias. So instead of stirring up prejudice through your (unsubstantiated) outcry, you should show some pity to the person with the phobia. GG

OK, here's a positive, creative and quick use for the money. Use it to dress-up vacant shops that give a negative impression ie make a mock-shop. Take for example to one next to William Roses'. If these eyesores are eliminated then that would be of benefit . Have alook here... http://www.britishbids.info/wp-content/uploads/PressCutting_Bournemouth_7Aug15.pdf http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255162/Fake-shopfronts-built-improve-look-recession-hit-high-streets.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2407935/High-Street-brought-life-art-Boarded-shops-recession-hit-town-painted-look-like-theyre-business.html

rigbydan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi, here is not the time or place to go in to > particulars, though I?m sure it?s all in the > public domain anyway. The initiative will be > funded by HSC and other sources but the project > has not even kicked off yet so all to be agreed as > it develops. You don't want to go into the particulars even though you've been awarded ?21,415! In effect you are saying that you work out as you go along! It's one hell of an indictment on how local government hands out cash. I would also ask... When can we see the cost-benefit analysis to justify this expenditure? Who makes the decisions on expenditure? Who is the treasurer of the project? Who will do the audit when the funds are all spent? When will the invoices and other expenditure details be published? As an owner of three local retail businessses, how much are you chipping in to supplement the ?21,415 given that you will be a major beneficiary?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They get re used somewhere else. So it is solely > the marginal cost to swap lamp posts if needed. That's the most stupid statement I've seen in ages, and from a councillor too! Southwark Council must think monet grows on trees, or lamp posts. It's just like Milton Friedman said aboutthe four ways to spned money.... ?There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you?re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I?m not so careful about the content of the present, but I?m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else?s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else?s money on myself, then I?m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else?s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else?s money on somebody else, I?m not concerned about how much it is, and I?m not concerned about what I get. And that?s government.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi rigbydan, can you tell us how much funding was > been given.Thanks. The amount being wasted ( sorry awarded) is ?21,415. And the cost of replacing onelamp post is circa ?1,800

buddug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Go to hell, Sue. Well, whatever you trolls want to > post, this is what happened in Oglander Road today > and also a burglary in Avondale Rise, who the > police thought were by the same people an hour > previously. Keep safe and ignore the trolls on > here who couldn't care less, and who keep arguing > the bloody toss. As always happens, you post > something public spirited, and then it's hijacked > by these ghastly trolls who think it's ok to > nit-pick and take your post off-topic. Yuck. Shame > on them. Good on you Buddug. Don't be put off by Sue. She/He is a right regular PITA

Mands Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Was it a road traffic accident? Just asking as > there is that cat killer that goes around killing > cats & foxes. What evidence do you have that there is a "cat killer" around who also kills foxes? Even if there is a "cat killer" around then it is highly unlikely that a fox would become a victim. They are very wary, very intelligent and fast.

Why moan about Southwark? They don't do road cleansing 24/7. It's only road-kill and no big deal. If it bothers you that much why dont you uput it in a bin bag then tip it in your brown bin. DiD Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's a dead fox outside the scout's hut on the > pavement on Bellenden rd, and its been there all > day. I (and I think several others) contacted the > council and they said it would be removed in 4 > hours (including on weekends) but its still there, > with blood all over the pavement. I suppose it > will stay there all night now. Quite distressing. > > > I contacted a local animal charity and they said > it was the council's job. > > I'm not asking for suggestions, just grumbling > about Southwark.

Amaryllis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Even Helen Hayes has petitioned TFL > to change the route and they sadly haven't > listened to her either... Her credibilty is shot as she is always whinging about TFL and train operators. They just ignore her now.

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Firstly, I'm not a leftie. Secondly, before you > start spouting ignorance about human rights, try > actually reading the HRA or ECHR. It's not really > that hard to engage brain, you know. Thirdly, > don't give up the day job for the third rate > comedy. Well, with your comments about "Daily Fail or the Sun" you did come across as either a Leftie or even worse a bleeding heart LibDem. A lot of folk out there have had a bellyfull of politicos spouting on about HRA and ECHR.

DovertheRoad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bruv. CGT on disposal from foreign investors > kicked in in April last year. About ten years too > late but welcome nonetheless. Have been looking on line for info on this but as far as I can see most of the changes apply to non doms who have been resident in UK for over 15 years, as follows:- ""Long term UK resident non domiciliaries will be deemed UK domiciled for income tax and capital gains tax from April 2017"" My interpretation of this is that non residents who are also non doms will continue to avoid CGT, IHT and tax on rental income. A similar situation applies to foreign trusts where the settlors and benficiaries are all non res and non dom. Is this interpretation correct? I ask because someone I know has just bought a flat in London where the ownership was held by a trust registered in South Africa.

OK, if we cannot employ differential tariffs against individual countries, why dont we stick it to the French with non-tariff barriers on wine exports. Like, all wine exports to the UK must be bulk imported (as is much Australian wine nowadays) and then bottled locally.

OK, I accept the source of the figures but I dont think they tell the whole story. Here is the take from another wine expert. He says the WTO rate is 32%. http://wine-pages.com/community/threads/wine-and-the-eu.1484/ GG

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apologies DaveR - you're right. My sentence > earlier should have read: > > Current EU tariffs on imported wine (of less than > 15% ABV) are between 10 eurocents and 15 eurocents > per litre (depending on strength and whether it is > bottled or bulk). Loz, Well no lessa wine expert than Jancis Robinson reckons 32% applies . Here is an excerpt from http://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/what-would-brexit-mean-for-wine-lovers QUOTE Because the UK has negotiated as part of the EU at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), it is likely that it would inherit the EU's tariff regime at the time of leaving, meaning, at least initially, higher prices would be faced by consumers buying imports from the EU and those countries with which the EU has trade agreements. Without any change, a 32% tariff would be levied on imports of wine, for instance.' Yes, you read that correctly, 32% ... This is a worst case, however. An alternative is most likely to be agreed as part of a negotiated position between the UK and EU following Brexit. The UK market is such a big market for Spanish, French and Italian wine producers that you would expect that the removal or significant reduction in the WTO's 32% tariff would have to be part of any deal. UNQUOTE

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > The key item is the 32% tariff currently imposed > > by the EU on wines from elsewhere in the world. > Well, if that is your 'key item' you can forget > about it, because you are utterly wrong. You are > confusing current EU tariffs with the standard WTO > tariff. Or, in other words, if they fall back to > the standard WTO rates, that is what the UK will > charge come Brexit for ALL imports of wine. You just don't get it do you. We don't have to fall back on WTO tariff rates. We can make a tariff rate at whatever %age we want on selected items like French wines -just like the EU do at 32% on non-EU wine imports. Same as we can set the rate for German cars. That's when it will really hit home to the French and the Gerries. The UK imports much, much more from Germany and France than we export to them - hence we have the whip hand on the negotiations. The French and Germans are the two countries that run the show in Brussels and that's why Teresa May went to Berlin and Paris last week. The other members of the EU are relatively insignificant in terms of influence. If we set out now to agree free trade with other countries (eg USA, Japan, Canada, Korea, Australia, China etc etc) in advance of leaving the EU, then we hve massive leverage against the EU when it comes to negotiating with them. They have more to loose than the UK.