|
Couldn't they just do it at sea in international waters?
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 14, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
If you hurt someone by rugby tackling them you are doing it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Amen to that. Not unless assisted suicide has become legal of late.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Isn't Farage a public Schoolboy? He's probably a master at fencing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Is it possible to avoid the illegality if both parties consent? I'm thinking in the same way that it's not a criminal offence to rugby tackle someone in the course of a game, when it would be assault in a different circumstance? I seem to remember from my couple of weeks of 'law for dummies' many years ago that sport was a special case that probably can't be extended to include duelling. They could fence using those electric suits. (There's obvious exceptions for surgery, but I have no idea how body modification sits, it seems to be a gray area.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
BigPaddy posted:If you hurt someone by rugby tackling them you are doing it wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWIUp19bBoA
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Amen to that. Haha no dueling is super illegal, there is a limit to what you can consent to and dueling is pretty explicitly not included. If you had a duel you would probably both be convicted of joint enterprise attempted murder (or muder if you did it right)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:They could fence using those electric suits. This is obviously the sporting solution. Come on Nige, we'll put a piste down in Parliament Square. Also, thanks for the interesting answers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
I thought when you challenge someone to a duel they get to choose the weapons
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Inflammatory rhetoric at dawn
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
it's okay i found the secret message nice try getting that past us, ed
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
This is a whole new level of Clegging: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/the-northerner/2015/apr/13/nick-clegg-sends-student-to-stand-in-for-him-at-sheffield-hallam-hustingsquote:The deputy prime minister Nick Clegg failed to attend an election debate in his Sheffield constituency on Sunday night, sending a student as his replacement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
In that case I propose we use students to replace nick clegg in other aspects of his official capacity as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Ashcroft already projected a 36-34 Labour gain of that seat before the recent surge of Edmentum. It's likely that Clegg has simply given up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:This is a whole new level of Clegging: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/the-northerner/2015/apr/13/nick-clegg-sends-student-to-stand-in-for-him-at-sheffield-hallam-hustings I'll pick up Clegg's fallen flag - it's not quite as bad as it sounds. The headline reads: "Nick Clegg sends student to stand in for him at Sheffield debate" He did send a prospective councillor; someone who may be representing those same constituents after the elections. For anyone who just reads the headline, that's quite misleading. "Nick Clegg sends Lib Dem council candidate to Sheffield debate" just doesn't quite have the same ring to it. They then go on to say he was "too busy to attend election hustings" in the sub-headline. Observant readers will note further down that this was incapable of being a hustings because it wasn't on neutral ground - there are Labour Party offices within the social club. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this wasn't a bit of a short-notice stitch up by a Labour-supporting venue, carried with glee by an anti-coalition paper. Naturally, the article describes all of the attacks on Nick Clegg in great detail but nary a word on what the Lib Dem speaker had to say about Labour. I imagine that to book an appearance by a party leader this close to an election you would need to give months of notice. Or maybe he just decided that there wasn't much point in debating the Labour Party faithful. Prince John fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
So the real headline is "Media in cannot be trusted to tell the whole story shocker!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
BigPaddy posted:So the real headline is "Media in cannot be trusted to tell the whole story shocker!" Who'd'a' thunk it!
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
mrpwase posted:I'm fed up with all this bullshit about working people. Everybody in society matters, whether they work or not. Working people still face lovely conditions, but the unemployed and disabled people face far worse. I wanna go round with a big stamp that reads 'FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEED' and stamp all the copies of this manifesto. I totally agree. I'm also going to throw in all talk of "taxpayers" actually being about income tax payers, which really means not people on benefits. Even though everyone has to pay the most regressive of all taxes, VAT.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
VAT is a flat tax so not sure how it could be described as regressive, unless you are talking about how it impacts the poor more than the rich then yes it is socially regressive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
BigPaddy posted:VAT is a flat tax so not sure how it could be described as regressive, unless you are talking about how it impacts the poor more than the rich then yes it is socially regressive. What definition of regressive do you usually use?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:What definition of regressive do you usually use? Possibly as a counterpoint to a progressive tax, which would presumably be a tax with inverse proportional scaling. A reduction in VAT on specific items would be quite nice, basic foodstuffs and the like. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Quick legal question: my constituency was a Tory/Lib Dem marginal in the last election, and we've been getting bombarded with Lib Dem propaganda claiming that this is still the case and that the Lib Dems are the only option to keep the Tories out. The thing is, the most recent polls show that's an outright loving lie - Lib Dems are actually behind Labour here as of late 2014. (I know, Lib Dems lying, who'd have thought...) Given that I'm not affiliated with any party, would it be legal to flier my neighbourhood to say so, or would it fall foul of some obscure campaigning law? By "flier" I mean printed sheets of low-quality A4 rather than anything fancy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Possibly as a counterpoint to a progressive tax, which would presumably be a tax with inverse proportional scaling. Most basic foodstuffs are already zero VAT rated though?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Party Boat posted:Most basic foodstuffs are already zero VAT rated though? Oh, are they? I thought they were just cheap. Is that a common thing for everyday items? Because VAT isn't entirely flat if so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
VAT Chat: Food and drink for human consumption is usually zero-rated but some items are standard-rated, including alcoholic drinks, confectionery, crisps and savoury snacks, hot food, sports drinks, hot takeaways, ice cream, soft drinks and mineral water. Because certain food and drink is zero-rated, so are certain animals and animal feeds, and plants and seeds - if the animal or plant produces food that is normally used for human consumption. Clothing and footwear Babywear 0% Children’s clothes and footwear 0% Protective and safety equipment Carrycots with restraint straps 5% Children’s car seats, booster seats and booster cushions 5% Children’s safety seats with bare wheeled framework 5% Cycle helmets - CE marked 0% Motorcycle helmets that meet safety standards 0% Protective boots and helmets for industrial use 0% If you really want to know: https://www.gov.uk/rates-of-vat-on-different-goods-and-services
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:What definition of regressive do you usually use? OwlFancier posted:Possibly as a counterpoint to a progressive tax, which would presumably be a tax with inverse proportional scaling. Exactly this. VAT is not a regressive tax as it does not change as the amount taxed goes up or down. However it is socially regressive as it impacts the poor more than the rich.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Oh, are they? I thought they were just cheap. Is that a common thing for everyday items? Because VAT isn't entirely flat if so. It's weird for food. For example, McVities went to court to establish that Jaffa Cakes were indeed a cake and not a biscuit. Chocolate covered cakes attract no VAT, but chocolate biscuits do (or did back then anyway). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Cakes#Categorisation_as_cake_or_biscuit_for_VAT
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
VAT is regressive as it impacts the poor more, there's no difference between "socially regressive" and regressive they mean the same thing
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
any sales tax is going to impact the poor more though....
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
I admit the reason why VAT impacts the poor more isn't terribly obvious to me, assuming a decent portion of food is not taxed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
TheHoodedClaw posted:It's weird for food. For example, McVities went to court to establish that Jaffa Cakes were indeed a cake and not a biscuit. Chocolate covered cakes attract no VAT, but chocolate biscuits do (or did back then anyway). it's weird in general. Over the years there's been campaigns to get sanitary products classified as a zero rated item rather than rated at the lower rate of 5% as it is currently, but toilet paper is standard rated and no one seems to think that's a bit weird.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I admit the reason why VAT impacts the poor more isn't terribly obvious to me, assuming a decent portion of food is not taxed. The poor spend all they earn, therefore a higher proportion of their earnings is spent on VAT. The rich use a smaller proportion of their income for consumption, therefore spend a smaller proportion on VAT.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I admit the reason why VAT impacts the poor more isn't terribly obvious to me, assuming a decent portion of food is not taxed. because 20% tax on a whisper is a higher burden as percentage of income to someone earning £12,000 a year than £120,000. the only ways to have a non regressive VAT policy are either abolish VAT and make all taxation proportional to income, or have a sliding scale for VAT rates based on income which would be absolutely ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Probably because toilet paper tax affects everyone, but tampon tax is clearly rooted in discrimination against women.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I admit the reason why VAT impacts the poor more isn't terribly obvious to me, assuming a decent portion of food is not taxed. It takes up a higher % of their income: Tax Research UK blog post from 2011 with chart JFairfax posted:any sales tax is going to impact the poor more though.... Agreed. You could put a sales tax on luxury items I suppose but in general sales taxes are regressive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:the only ways to have a non regressive VAT policy are either abolish VAT If memory serves, I think this is forbidden under EU law. So, we're stuck with the horrible mess. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Prince John posted:If memory serves, I think this is forbidden under EU law. So, we're stuck with the horrible mess. Because if you abolish VAT/sales taxes then guess where everyone is going to want to spend their money? Of course the EU could just have all member abolish them but then that would mean the EU would have done something that helps which is against it's principals of being a feeding trough for washed up politicians.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Is it really that horrible? The majority of states have a sales tax of one degree or another. It's the exception to not have one, and just because things cost those with less money a higher proportion of their income than those with more, does it really represent a big problem? A VAT rate of 0% isn't going to lift the poorest out of poverty is it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Is it really that horrible? The majority of states have a sales tax of one degree or another. It's the exception to not have one, and just because things cost those with less money a higher proportion of their income than those with more, does it really represent a big problem? No as the money would have to come from somewhere else which will just as likely have the same impact on the poor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 14, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
Prince John posted:The poor spend all they earn, therefore a higher proportion of their earnings is spent on VAT. The rich use a smaller proportion of their income for consumption, therefore spend a smaller proportion on VAT. Ah, I see. And here I was forgetting that rich people don't spend all their money, weirdos.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:42
|
|