Ladymuck

I agree that all drivers should spend some time on a bicycle if only to make them appreciate just how vulnerable cyclists are on our busy London roads. As for getting cyclists to drive a car, that would of course only be possible where the cyclist is of driving age. White vans? Hmmmm...not nearly as bad as black cab/bus drivers though, in my experience.

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Without wishing to cause any offence, is there > possibly a culture clash here? The 'originals' > mostly appear to be university graduates well > versed in sophisticated levels of discourse with a > finely tuned sense of humour involving clever > satire and irony whereas the newbies tend to hail > from the hoi polloi side of the tracks? Speak for yourself!!!!!!! *desperately tries not to laugh*

Given that we have a plethora of cycling/cylist/bike threads scattered all over the place, I thought I would create a little space here specifically for bike issues. Feel free to comment, advise, rant, rave on anything bike related. Personally, I'd like to start with the proposition that there should be a Cycling Act. As far as I am aware there isn't one. Instead, legislation and rules governing cycling/cyclists are found in other Statutes, Statutory Orders, Bye-laws, Regulations, The Highway Code - you name it. Moreover, any rules/laws are very fragmented and piecemeal which makes accessing them difficult. As clause 1 of this Act I would insist that all pedal cycles are registered on a National Database (which would have to be set up).

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyM I never said we don't get on, just that I've > stepped back from the forum a bit. New Class just > meant a new group, like all the new freshers > starting uni. No offence intended. No offence caused...just think it's a little sad that's all.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However, gambling's another story... > > ...Everyone won! Hmmmm, not so sure about that.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can you imagine what the additional hardship for > the poor, weak, ill, old, etc will be like if the > country goes bust LadyM? Actually, I can't...doesn't bear thinking about.

Keef Wrote: --------------------------------- >Later, a load of other people joined, like MickMac, LadyMuck, >Woof, BBW, charliecharlie and so on joined in...I simply feel >that I had my time on here, and there is a "new class" in >here now, that I don't really feel so much a part of. Well I for one am sad that you feel that way...what makes you so sure we wouldn't have got on? And as for a "new class", what do you mean by this?

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Am surprised that lottery/gambolling (sic) aren't > taxed. Hardly a luxury, and the winnings are > tax-free too. sssshhhhhhhh... *looks over shoulder to ensure PGC's observation is out of George Osbourne's earshot*

OK, so you're good at maths. As for the consumption of liquorice toffees, in my defence, 95% of my journeys are by bike/foot. This makes me healthier/fitter than most, which in turn gives me the right to scoff as many as I wish - right? And besides, they provide vital energy like nothing else. Peeved to hear that they are classed as "luxuries" though.;-)

OK, OK, I take your point Mr. H. But seriously though, 25p (multiplied by however many times) is probably going to have a negative impact on someone who is destitute. I'm alright though, I think nothing of spending ?1.25 on a bag of liquorice toffees. Hey...do sweets come under "food" or "luxuries" for the purposes of VAT?

Just to say: GREAT THREAD DAIZIE. Just what the Doctor ordered.

I'm flattered Loz, but you are SO wrong! Ask anyone who knows me! Erm...perhaps you should read my...erm...contribution on David_Carnell's Cultural Relativism thread... *laughs tits off* Now back to "equality"...I note there's an item on existing inequalities in our education system on the news today...

Well, if you have grey pubic hairs, my guess is that it cannot be too long before your PMS symptoms (your other thread?) come to an end. So you see...cloud...silver lining and all that...

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >PlEASE NOTE > taxing bankers bonuses at 200% won't get us out of > this mess. I presume the coalition are not going to extend Labour's tax on bank bonuses; a missed opportunity if that is the case. Does anyone know?

Relieved you've cleared that one up. *keeps on gloves for a little longer...just in case...*

*puts on boxing gloves* OK Quids, I'll bite. Who exactly is trying to score political points...? As per Robert De Niro...are you talking to me?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now that's a great question! You sound surprised! > I can't see any argument for increasing welfare > payments in the short term to support the purchase > of non-necessity items. If guys on the welfare are > spending substantial sums on luxury goods then > it's not unreasonable to point out that they need > to cut their expenditure on booze, sweets and > Levis by 2.1% because the economy's fecked and > it's not their money anyway. Fine...but what if, as oppposed to purchasing Levis, they need to buy a pair of Primark jeans? Extra VAT even on Primark clothing will cause people on low incomes additional hardship.

I'm not against progressive taxation ????, on the contrary - especially (as you say) given the current economic crisis and that horrible D-word (deficit). It is where the measures constitute regressive taxation where my concerns lie (or is that lay). I am happy to pay my share of extra tax for the greater good.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > According to orioles... > I'm afraid the combination of non-controversial > and non-combatitive Females... OY! You talking to me? Wanna smack in the gob?

Mr. Barber, As you now appear to be participating on this thread, I wonder if I could put you to good use?;-) David_Carnell very helpfully provided a link on the latest VAT increase on this thread a short while back. Here it is again. I have to say that whilst I am in favour of increased taxation aimed at reducing the gap between the richest/poorest (and, again well done to the blue/yellow coalition for raising the capital gains tax rate to streamline it with income tax as well as increasing the income tax threshold to ?10,000), I am extremely concerned about the repercussions for the poorest in our society vis a vis this proposed VAT increase. Please, would you be so kind as to provide answers to the following: - will this proposed measure be implemented alone? i.e. does the coalition intend, for example increasing the rates of various benefits so as to mitigate the impact of any additional tax burden for those on low incomes? - may I presume that the increase to 20% will be in respect of most goods and services which currently bear the rate of 17.5%? - what about those items which currently attract a reduced rate of VAT at 5%, e.g. children's car seats and domestic fuel or power? Will the rate for those items rise too? If so, to what? - what of those goods (some of which are necessities) on which we currently pay zero VAT such as food, books, newspapers and magazines, young children's clothing/footwear, and special exempt items such as equipment for disabled people? Will there be any change there? Thank you in advance.

karter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the cliques walk in herds. Moooooo

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Ladymuck, > You stated Labour tradionally have fought for > fairness. > > It was a great Liberal Lloyd George who introduced > state pensions 100 years ago before the Labour > party existed... @ Mr. Barber PS: by stating that "Labour have traditionally fought for fairness" I don't believe I was implying that the Liberals had not. The two facts are not mutually exclusive.

Have just realised...I have referred to "WUPOM" / "WUPOMs" in a couple of posts. If you haven't worked it out already: WUPOM = White, Upper/middle-class, Public school, Oxbridge-educated Man WUPOMs = White, Upper/middle-class, Public school, Oxbridge-educated Men I don't think you'll find this via Google - I made it up. Makes life easier in the long term!

Hello to you too Mr. Barber, Have you got my quote please? I seem unable to locate it. Whilst it sounds like something I would say, I wouldn't mind viewing the context. Was I comparing Labour with the Tories for example? Notwithstanding your comments I stand by my words: Labour have traditionally fought for fairness. Moreover, they continue to do so (e.g. the "hot off the press" Equality Act 2010). Regarding your final sentence, I have actually acknowledged part of this on other threads...ah yes...here...on one of your threads in fact...did you not read my post?;-) Re: Copy of Lib Dem coalition agreement with Tories Posted by: Ladymuck May 12, 09:30PM ...That said, I am pleased to note that the blue/yellow coalition will be raising the capital gains tax rate to streamline it with income tax as well as increasing the income tax threshold to ?10,000. Hopefully, both these measures should go some way to reducing the huge income equality gap between the richest/poorest. Though much more needs to be done. Ooooh...I mentioned it again; this time on one of Loz's threads but - look, what have we here - my post was in direct response to a comment made by you, no less. Hmmmm, had you forgotten Mr. Barber? Re: Election Predictions Posted by: Ladymuck May 14, 02:01AM James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can't say I like the idea of nationally being in > colaition with the tories. Echoed. But we may as well get used to it. Anyhow, I am in favour of the raising of the capital gains tax rate to streamline it with income tax as well as increasing the income tax threshold to ?10,000. I am hoping both these measures will assist in reducing the huge income equality gap between the richest/poorest. Not nearly enough - but it's a start.

Blimey! Just what we needed to liven things up a bit!:)) *pulls up chair and awaits the fireworks... hee hee*