papasmurf

Nov 25 2014, 07:51 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 07:44 PM

Well I certainly did which is how I discovered his 'evidence' was actually an article which revealed that Osborne was 'shocked' at the aggressive tax avoidance of just 20 high net worth earners

That "just 20 people" are responsible for many £billions in tax "avoidance." Another around 70 are responsible for £119.3 billion in tax evasion. (Recent debate in the house of commons, figure unchallenged by Cameron or Osborne.)

Steve K

Nov 25 2014, 08:56 PM

When you've posted such figures here you have been utterly unable to back them up once challenged

papasmurf

Nov 25 2014, 07:51 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 07:44 PM

Well I certainly did which is how I discovered his 'evidence' was actually an article which revealed that Osborne was 'shocked' at the aggressive tax avoidance of just 20 high net worth earners

That "just 20 people" are responsible for many £billions in tax "avoidance." Another around 70 are responsible for £119.3 billion in tax evasion. (Recent debate in the house of commons, figure unchallenged by Cameron or Osborne.)

papasmurf

Nov 25 2014, 10:05 PM

Steve K

Nov 25 2014, 08:56 PM

When you've posted such figures here you have been utterly unable to back them up once challenged

Actually I have backed them up, like RJD you can't be bothered to read the references.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141029/debtext/141029-0001.htm
29 Oct 2014 - [905714

Q2. [905714] Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): The tax gap has been calculated at a massive £119.3 billion, even a quarter of which would transform public finances, yet the Government have chosen to cut Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ staffing by more than 11,000 since 2010 and have utterly failed to close that tax gap. . . .

Steve K

Nov 25 2014, 10:51 PM

And you were shredded then and will be shredded again. What you seemingly do not understand is that the "tax gap" is not the same as "tax evasion" and that an opposition MP at question time is less than an authoritative source.

papasmurf

Nov 26 2014, 10:06 AM

Steve K

Nov 25 2014, 10:51 PM

And you were shredded then and will be shredded again. What you seemingly do not understand is that the "tax gap" is not the same as "tax evasion" and that an opposition MP at question time is less than an authoritative source.

I fully understand the difference as the 2nd reference details.

I am still mystified as to why a few people on this forum insist in defending a few filthy rich criminals who are robbing us all blind.
The evidence for that was give to HMRC on a plate two years ago now. They have done precisely nothing with it.
America, Germany, and France who were given similar detailed information have been jailing people and recovery many billions in the process.

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 07:44 PM

ACH1967

Nov 25 2014, 05:21 PM

papasmurf

Nov 25 2014, 05:13 PM

jaguar

Nov 25 2014, 04:59 PM

I would be interested in knowing, what are these The two organisations you are a member of, as you appear to spend a lot of time on the internet researching all your links?

Member of it not work for, my researching data means they don't need to, as I sort out what is of possible use to them and what isn't.

If you want to check this every weekday please feel free. (This is just one source.)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications

I wonder how many of your links they actually follow.

Well I certainly did which is how I discovered his 'evidence' was actually an article which revealed that Osborne was 'shocked' at the aggressive tax avoidance of just 20 high net worth earners. When the evidence invariably falls far short of proving statements and views, it is perfectly understandable if future 'evidence' is viewed with a somewhat jaundiced eye. I have no problem with a well argued opinion standing on its own merits, but when statements are proffered as incontrovertible fact and the evidence is repeatedly found to be wholly or partially lacking then that poster will rapidly be disregarded as a person of integrity. Would you not agree?

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 07:26 PM

ACH1967

Nov 25 2014, 04:14 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 01:33 PM

ACH1967

Nov 25 2014, 12:53 PM

Whilst "Greed " may be an emotive word that does not mean that it shouldn't be discussed. Sometimes just dismissing any attempts to discuss fairness (also a word acused of being overly emotive) by saying it is not about fairness but merely envy smacks of calling anyone wishing to discuss race or immigration a racist.

As to the schools situation surely the question is what tax breaks are the private schools getting and are they justified.

Entrenched privilege does exist and social mobility is poor. Trying to reduce these things is not spite and envy it should be something that all decent people should aspire to achieve.

Balancing equality of opportunities whilst allowing freedom to those who have wealth to use that wealth to their advantage will always be a difficult balancing act which is not helped by those from the further reaches of each political wing resorting to throwing little but slogans about.

I do not like that one man lives in a mansion whilst many others struggle to heat humble abodes. But it doesn't matter what I like it matters what I and all of us do.

So where is the line between greed and not greed lie?

At face value a reasonable post. However the principle behind it seems to be that those who have, will effectively give what they have until those who have not, also have. At what point does this extend from fairness to legalised theft? or from the greed of the rich to being the greed of the poor?

You accuse Porky of reading between the lines and now you tell me what the principle behind my post is

The whole point of the post is to have a serious adult conversation about greed. If there is any priciple it would be that certain wealth disparites are immoral. I beleive there should be disparities because peopel are different, have different talents and work with differing amounts of effort. To reward all the same would also be immoral. It is the level of the disparity that it would make sense to bring some balance too.

One of the problems that I have with the debate in general that those who discuss it are either advocating taxing other people more or adamantly defending not paying anymore themselves. I beleive it is a numbers game and cannot really be resolved by taxing the really rich more. Therefore to make life better for those less fortunate than me I would have to pay more tax. For that to be palatable all I would need would to be assured that I was not being taken for a ride...easier said than done.

Actually DP confirmed he was reading between the lines; I simply acknowledged his admission. With regard to your post I merely stated what seemed to me to be the principle behind your post which was an advocation of a redistribution of wealth. This is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint as is one that does not agree with a redistribution of wealth.

I will be interested to see how views regarding the emotionally charged word 'greed' sits with a practical approach of reducing public public sector expenditure and/or increasing tax collected.

papasmurf

Nov 26 2014, 10:06 AM

Steve K

Nov 25 2014, 10:51 PM

And you were shredded then and will be shredded again. What you seemingly do not understand is that the "tax gap" is not the same as "tax evasion" and that an opposition MP at question time is less than an authoritative source.

I fully understand the difference as the 2nd reference details.

I am still mystified as to why a few people on this forum insist in defending a few filthy rich criminals who are robbing us all blind.
The evidence for that was give to HMRC on a plate two years ago now. They have done precisely nothing with it.
America, Germany, and France who were given similar detailed information have been jailing people and recovery many billions in the process.

ACH1967

Nov 26 2014, 10:51 AM

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 07:26 PM

ACH1967

Nov 25 2014, 04:14 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 01:33 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

You accuse Porky of reading between the lines and now you tell me what the principle behind my post is

The whole point of the post is to have a serious adult conversation about greed. If there is any priciple it would be that certain wealth disparites are immoral. I beleive there should be disparities because peopel are different, have different talents and work with differing amounts of effort. To reward all the same would also be immoral. It is the level of the disparity that it would make sense to bring some balance too.

One of the problems that I have with the debate in general that those who discuss it are either advocating taxing other people more or adamantly defending not paying anymore themselves. I beleive it is a numbers game and cannot really be resolved by taxing the really rich more. Therefore to make life better for those less fortunate than me I would have to pay more tax. For that to be palatable all I would need would to be assured that I was not being taken for a ride...easier said than done.

Actually DP confirmed he was reading between the lines; I simply acknowledged his admission. With regard to your post I merely stated what seemed to me to be the principle behind your post which was an advocation of a redistribution of wealth. This is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint as is one that does not agree with a redistribution of wealth.

I will be interested to see how views regarding the emotionally charged word 'greed' sits with a practical approach of reducing public public sector expenditure and/or increasing tax collected.

I guess a reasonable question would be does public spending need to be reduced?

Major Sinic

Nov 26 2014, 10:57 AM

papasmurf

Nov 26 2014, 10:06 AM

Steve K

Nov 25 2014, 10:51 PM

And you were shredded then and will be shredded again. What you seemingly do not understand is that the "tax gap" is not the same as "tax evasion" and that an opposition MP at question time is less than an authoritative source.

I fully understand the difference as the 2nd reference details.

I am still mystified as to why a few people on this forum insist in defending a few filthy rich criminals who are robbing us all blind.
The evidence for that was give to HMRC on a plate two years ago now. They have done precisely nothing with it.
America, Germany, and France who were given similar detailed information have been jailing people and recovery many billions in the process.

You have never managed to grasp the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. The first is illegal and indefensible while the second is perfectly legal and morally sound. There is I accept, a grey area in the middle, which is now generally referred to as aggressive avoidance which is arguably immoral and questionnably legal but for which HMRC are able to take legal action to recover tax underpayments.

I am not sure that there should be custodial penalties for a lack of morality. If there were most MPs, many Lords, a large proportion of police officers, a sizeable proportion of vicars and imams, dozens of Trade Union Leaders, thousands of taxi drivers, jobbing builders,electricians and plumbers would be doing time along with those wicked 20 tax non-payers you provided 'evidence' of!!

Major Sinic

Nov 26 2014, 11:41 AM

One overiding point is that no society can keep increasing borrowing ad infinitum; there will always come a point when it is unsustainable. The UK's public sector annual interest bill exceeds £50 billion and is socially entirely unproductive, and this is before any capital repayment. So borrowing has to be drastically reduced and ultimately halted. In simple terms we can either increase income (taxation) and/or cut expenditure.

Most rational people would acknowledge that there has to be a balance between these two broad strategies. Overtax and you compromise aspiration and with it the drivers of wealth creation. Wealth and its associated income is exported to comparatively benign tax regimes as we have seen in socialist France with its swingeing tax increases. Cut public expenditure excessively and society's most vulnerable suffer disproportionately.

The theoretical solution is to grow the economy so that the tax take increases without a tax rate increase and thus public expenditure can become sustainable. However although the economy is improving it is rather like Network Rails 'wrong type of leaves on the line' it is the wrong type of improvement. More people are in employment than ever before but they are in low skill low paid jobs yielding little or no tax revenue.

Major Sinic

Nov 26 2014, 11:41 AM

ACH1967

Nov 26 2014, 10:51 AM

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 07:26 PM

ACH1967

Nov 25 2014, 04:14 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Actually DP confirmed he was reading between the lines; I simply acknowledged his admission. With regard to your post I merely stated what seemed to me to be the principle behind your post which was an advocation of a redistribution of wealth. This is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint as is one that does not agree with a redistribution of wealth.

I will be interested to see how views regarding the emotionally charged word 'greed' sits with a practical approach of reducing public public sector expenditure and/or increasing tax collected.

I guess a reasonable question would be does public spending need to be reduced?

'Greed'. An excessive desire for food or wealth. Most people desire their view of sufficient. The operative word here is excessive, particularly with regard to wealth. There is a propensity by many who politically, economically and socially occupy that area to the left of centre, to refer to anyone who has wealth as greedy, nasty, crooked or selfish. Of course a proportion are; so to are a proportion of the poor. Unfortunately such accusations are invariably subjective moral judgements and as such have limited value in a practical discussion about public expenditure and taxation.

As what was once described as a 'one nation' Tory I believe in a small state, mixed economy incorporating welfare capitalism. However having an ideology and being able to implement it effectively are two different concepts as we have seen with all three major parties (now two) over the last couple of decades, none of which have performed competently in either government or opposition.

One overiding point is that no society can keep increasing borrowing ad infinitum; there will always come a point when it is unsustainable. The UK's public sector annual interest bill exceeds £50 billion and is socially entirely unproductive, and this is before any capital repayment. So borrowing has to be drastically reduced and ultimately halted. In simple terms we can either increase income (taxation) and/or cut expenditure.

Most rational people would acknowledge that there has to be a balance between these two broad strategies. Overtax and you compromise aspiration and with it the drivers of wealth creation. Wealth and its associated income is exported to comparatively benign tax regimes as we have seen in socialist France with its swingeing tax increases. Cut public expenditure excessively and society's most vulnerable suffer disproportionately.

The theoretical solution is to grow the economy so that the tax take increases without a tax rate increase and thus public expenditure can become sustainable. However although the economy is improving it is rather like Network Rails 'wrong type of leaves on the line' it is the wrong type of improvement. More people are in employment than ever before but they are in low skill low paid jobs yielding little or no tax revenue.

Tigger

Nov 26 2014, 12:23 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 26 2014, 11:41 AM

One overiding point is that no society can keep increasing borrowing ad infinitum; there will always come a point when it is unsustainable. The UK's public sector annual interest bill exceeds £50 billion and is socially entirely unproductive, and this is before any capital repayment. So borrowing has to be drastically reduced and ultimately halted. In simple terms we can either increase income (taxation) and/or cut expenditure.

Most rational people would acknowledge that there has to be a balance between these two broad strategies. Overtax and you compromise aspiration and with it the drivers of wealth creation. Wealth and its associated income is exported to comparatively benign tax regimes as we have seen in socialist France with its swingeing tax increases. Cut public expenditure excessively and society's most vulnerable suffer disproportionately.

The theoretical solution is to grow the economy so that the tax take increases without a tax rate increase and thus public expenditure can become sustainable. However although the economy is improving it is rather like Network Rails 'wrong type of leaves on the line' it is the wrong type of improvement. More people are in employment than ever before but they are in low skill low paid jobs yielding little or no tax revenue.

The real problems are at the top end of society and pay scale in my opinion, not the bottom end which only lives by the rules of the former and feeds off the scraps.

We no longer have true capitalism in the UK, we instead have a situation of too big to fail where failed institutions are no longer allowed to die, instead they are propped up at public expense and are not reformed in any meaningful way, we have created in effect an economy which is self looting!

By not allowing the death of failed businesses we lock out new people, new ideas and new ways of doing things which again in my opinion is why we have a rising trade deficit and worsening government spending, as conformation today's Telegraph reports more economic "growth" but tempers this with the fact it is almost entirely down to consumer spending and asset price inflation, business investment is down once again and wages show no signs of rising.

We really need to tackle the abuse and propping up that is taking place at the top end of society and in certain boardrooms and especially in Westminster.

ACH1967

Nov 26 2014, 12:36 PM

Tigger

Nov 26 2014, 12:23 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 26 2014, 11:41 AM

One overiding point is that no society can keep increasing borrowing ad infinitum; there will always come a point when it is unsustainable. The UK's public sector annual interest bill exceeds £50 billion and is socially entirely unproductive, and this is before any capital repayment. So borrowing has to be drastically reduced and ultimately halted. In simple terms we can either increase income (taxation) and/or cut expenditure.

Most rational people would acknowledge that there has to be a balance between these two broad strategies. Overtax and you compromise aspiration and with it the drivers of wealth creation. Wealth and its associated income is exported to comparatively benign tax regimes as we have seen in socialist France with its swingeing tax increases. Cut public expenditure excessively and society's most vulnerable suffer disproportionately.

The theoretical solution is to grow the economy so that the tax take increases without a tax rate increase and thus public expenditure can become sustainable. However although the economy is improving it is rather like Network Rails 'wrong type of leaves on the line' it is the wrong type of improvement. More people are in employment than ever before but they are in low skill low paid jobs yielding little or no tax revenue.

The real problems are at the top end of society and pay scale in my opinion, not the bottom end which only lives by the rules of the former and feeds off the scraps.

We no longer have true capitalism in the UK, we instead have a situation of too big to fail where failed institutions are no longer allowed to die, instead they are propped up at public expense and are not reformed in any meaningful way, we have created in effect an economy which is self looting!

By not allowing the death of failed businesses we lock out new people, new ideas and new ways of doing things which again in my opinion is why we have a rising trade deficit and worsening government spending, as conformation today's Telegraph reports more economic "growth" but tempers this with the fact it is almost entirely down to consumer spending and asset price inflation, business investment is down once again and wages show no signs of rising.

We really need to tackle the abuse and propping up that is taking place at the top end of society and in certain boardrooms and especially in Westminster.

Can I have some examples to support this. I am not disagreeing I would just like some more flesh on the bones of your contention.

Tigger

Nov 26 2014, 12:49 PM

ACH1967

Nov 26 2014, 12:36 PM

Tigger

Nov 26 2014, 12:23 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 26 2014, 11:41 AM

One overiding point is that no society can keep increasing borrowing ad infinitum; there will always come a point when it is unsustainable. The UK's public sector annual interest bill exceeds £50 billion and is socially entirely unproductive, and this is before any capital repayment. So borrowing has to be drastically reduced and ultimately halted. In simple terms we can either increase income (taxation) and/or cut expenditure.

Most rational people would acknowledge that there has to be a balance between these two broad strategies. Overtax and you compromise aspiration and with it the drivers of wealth creation. Wealth and its associated income is exported to comparatively benign tax regimes as we have seen in socialist France with its swingeing tax increases. Cut public expenditure excessively and society's most vulnerable suffer disproportionately.

The theoretical solution is to grow the economy so that the tax take increases without a tax rate increase and thus public expenditure can become sustainable. However although the economy is improving it is rather like Network Rails 'wrong type of leaves on the line' it is the wrong type of improvement. More people are in employment than ever before but they are in low skill low paid jobs yielding little or no tax revenue.

The real problems are at the top end of society and pay scale in my opinion, not the bottom end which only lives by the rules of the former and feeds off the scraps.

We no longer have true capitalism in the UK, we instead have a situation of too big to fail where failed institutions are no longer allowed to die, instead they are propped up at public expense and are not reformed in any meaningful way, we have created in effect an economy which is self looting!

By not allowing the death of failed businesses we lock out new people, new ideas and new ways of doing things which again in my opinion is why we have a rising trade deficit and worsening government spending, as conformation today's Telegraph reports more economic "growth" but tempers this with the fact it is almost entirely down to consumer spending and asset price inflation, business investment is down once again and wages show no signs of rising.

We really need to tackle the abuse and propping up that is taking place at the top end of society and in certain boardrooms and especially in Westminster.

Can I have some examples to support this. I am not disagreeing I would just like some more flesh on the bones of your contention.

The most obvious examples are of course banks, but it would also include businesses which do not invest in new machinery of better ways of doing things and instead rely on disposable labour, I'll give an example of this British disease, back in the sixties the textile industries in the north of England came under threat from Asian producers, what the domestic industry should have done was dump the Victorian machinery and invest in new plant, not a bit of it! They just imported Asians to do the work here! The Asians back home of course did eventually invest in new plant, game over. In my opinion we are repeating these mistakes.

And currently we have sky high asset prices and especially land and property bubbles that benefit only the better off and not the productive, these values do not reflect what the productive economy of goods and services can afford and in fact stifle real wealth creation, you can demonstrably make easy money trading stocks or flipping land or property because it is state supported but doing something genuinely productive is harder than ever, the former is the reason.

papasmurf

Nov 25 2014, 04:27 PM

RJD

Nov 25 2014, 04:20 PM

I am very surprised that you have much time for such charitable work. None the less you miss the point, here on this Forum, you have shown over the years absolute zero interest in anything that improves opportunity for more jobs, opportunity for individuals to improve their CV in order that they may be considered more suitable for such.

The two organisations I am a member of do just what you are stating I have no interest in. Do wake up RJD.

ACH1967

Nov 26 2014, 02:25 PM

Tigger

Nov 26 2014, 12:49 PM

ACH1967

Nov 26 2014, 12:36 PM

Tigger

Nov 26 2014, 12:23 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Can I have some examples to support this. I am not disagreeing I would just like some more flesh on the bones of your contention.

The most obvious examples are of course banks, but it would also include businesses which do not invest in new machinery of better ways of doing things and instead rely on disposable labour, I'll give an example of this British disease, back in the sixties the textile industries in the north of England came under threat from Asian producers, what the domestic industry should have done was dump the Victorian machinery and invest in new plant, not a bit of it! They just imported Asians to do the work here! The Asians back home of course did eventually invest in new plant, game over. In my opinion we are repeating these mistakes.

And currently we have sky high asset prices and especially land and property bubbles that benefit only the better off and not the productive, these values do not reflect what the productive economy of goods and services can afford and in fact stifle real wealth creation, you can demonstrably make easy money trading stocks or flipping land or property because it is state supported but doing something genuinely productive is harder than ever, the former is the reason.

OK so I get the banks but the argument there was if they weren’t propped up the whole thing would collapse. I am not sure whether they are doing anything to prevent this happening in the future as one lot of people say one thing and another lot the other. Depending on which is true this case should be kept in or removed from the equation.
Asset prices. Are there other assets apart from property you are referring to?
How is easy money made from flip flopping land?
How is easy money made from trading shares? (I watched a programme where lots of people were trying this and they were all pretty much failing.

ACH1967

Nov 26 2014, 10:45 AM

You have not addressed the questions you were asked.

Tigger

Nov 26 2014, 07:23 PM

ACH1967

Nov 26 2014, 02:25 PM

Tigger

Nov 26 2014, 12:49 PM

ACH1967

Nov 26 2014, 12:36 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

The most obvious examples are of course banks, but it would also include businesses which do not invest in new machinery of better ways of doing things and instead rely on disposable labour, I'll give an example of this British disease, back in the sixties the textile industries in the north of England came under threat from Asian producers, what the domestic industry should have done was dump the Victorian machinery and invest in new plant, not a bit of it! They just imported Asians to do the work here! The Asians back home of course did eventually invest in new plant, game over. In my opinion we are repeating these mistakes.

And currently we have sky high asset prices and especially land and property bubbles that benefit only the better off and not the productive, these values do not reflect what the productive economy of goods and services can afford and in fact stifle real wealth creation, you can demonstrably make easy money trading stocks or flipping land or property because it is state supported but doing something genuinely productive is harder than ever, the former is the reason.

OK so I get the banks but the argument there was if they weren’t propped up the whole thing would collapse. I am not sure whether they are doing anything to prevent this happening in the future as one lot of people say one thing and another lot the other. Depending on which is true this case should be kept in or removed from the equation.
Asset prices. Are there other assets apart from property you are referring to?
How is easy money made from flip flopping land?
How is easy money made from trading shares? (I watched a programme where lots of people were trying this and they were all pretty much failing.

You should be able to find out the answers to these questions for yourself with a little effort, I'll happily raise points but I'll not walk people through them.

papasmurf

Nov 26 2014, 07:32 PM

ACH1967

Nov 26 2014, 10:45 AM

You have not addressed the questions you were asked.

I have.

Quote:

 

Mitchell, 'the nasty little man' you refer to, was an elected member of our Parliament whose reputation and career were largely destroyed by the lies and corruption within the Metropolitan Police. There is no evidence that he referred to anyone as a pleb that day. But you, as a biased, bigoted, uninformed cretin full of bile and venom, simply see Mitchell as a 'privileged Tory' and out pours your usual resentment and envy and assumption that he is guilty as charged. Thick pigs like you make assumptions that they can never support.

disgruntled porker

Nov 28 2014, 06:37 PM

Ah, the roaring silence. To be expected I suppose.

RJD

Nov 28 2014, 06:43 PM

disgruntled porker

Nov 28 2014, 06:37 PM

Ah, the roaring silence. To be expected I suppose.

Why do you object to being called a Pleb? What does it conjure up in your mind? I have no objection to being called such and would prefer it to being labelled a "lefty". Born a Pleb and will die such, so bloody what?

disgruntled porker

Nov 28 2014, 11:49 PM

It's not the word ReJ, it's the inferences. It's the "I am infinitely superior to you in every way", which irks.

RJD

Nov 28 2014, 06:43 PM

disgruntled porker

Nov 28 2014, 06:37 PM

Ah, the roaring silence. To be expected I suppose.

Why do you object to being called a Pleb? What does it conjure up in your mind? I have no objection to being called such and would prefer it to being labelled a "lefty". Born a Pleb and will die such, so bloody what?

disgruntled porker

Nov 28 2014, 11:49 PM

RJD

Nov 28 2014, 06:43 PM

disgruntled porker

Nov 28 2014, 06:37 PM

Ah, the roaring silence. To be expected I suppose.

Why do you object to being called a Pleb? What does it conjure up in your mind? I have no objection to being called such and would prefer it to being labelled a "lefty". Born a Pleb and will die such, so bloody what?

It's not the word ReJ, it's the inferences. It's the "I am infinitely superior to you in every way", which irks. It's the inferences which made a govnt minister realise he had dropped the political bollock of the century and gambled all on being vindicated in court. If a govnt minister thinks this way regarding a policeman who is there to protect him, he must hold the rest of us in an even lower regard. Not a very good impression to give out to the plebs who put you in power was it?

Lewis

Nov 29 2014, 12:03 PM

RJD

Nov 28 2014, 06:43 PM

disgruntled porker

Nov 28 2014, 06:37 PM

Ah, the roaring silence. To be expected I suppose.

Why do you object to being called a Pleb? What does it conjure up in your mind? I have no objection to being called such and would prefer it to being labelled a "lefty". Born a Pleb and will die such, so bloody what?

Well I would rather be called a lefty than a 'pleb'. Not that I'm either. Being a centrist, I abhor extremes of the left or right. Just that the extremist right wingers seem to have taken charge of the Tory Party at present.

RJD

Nov 29 2014, 03:16 PM

Only a fool with a chip on his shoulder would consider such a person as his superior.

RJD

Nov 29 2014, 03:17 PM

Lewis

Nov 29 2014, 12:03 PM

RJD

Nov 28 2014, 06:43 PM

disgruntled porker

Nov 28 2014, 06:37 PM

Ah, the roaring silence. To be expected I suppose.

Why do you object to being called a Pleb? What does it conjure up in your mind? I have no objection to being called such and would prefer it to being labelled a "lefty". Born a Pleb and will die such, so bloody what?

Well I would rather be called a lefty than a 'pleb'. Not that I'm either. Being a centrist, I abhor extremes of the left or right. Just that the extremist right wingers seem to have taken charge of the Tory Party at present.

You are not of the centre, that is where Cameron has placed his colours.

RJD

Nov 29 2014, 03:16 PM

disgruntled porker

Nov 28 2014, 11:49 PM

RJD

Nov 28 2014, 06:43 PM

disgruntled porker

Nov 28 2014, 06:37 PM

Ah, the roaring silence. To be expected I suppose.

Why do you object to being called a Pleb? What does it conjure up in your mind? I have no objection to being called such and would prefer it to being labelled a "lefty". Born a Pleb and will die such, so bloody what?

It's not the word ReJ, it's the inferences. It's the "I am infinitely superior to you in every way", which irks. It's the inferences which made a govnt minister realise he had dropped the political bollock of the century and gambled all on being vindicated in court. If a govnt minister thinks this way regarding a policeman who is there to protect him, he must hold the rest of us in an even lower regard. Not a very good impression to give out to the plebs who put you in power was it?

Only a fool with a chip on his shoulder would consider such a person as his superior. Me thinks the left gives indignation a bad name. Mitchell was a prat and no doubt was provoked by Mr Jobs-worthy Bobby.

disgruntled porker

Nov 28 2014, 06:37 PM

Ah, the roaring silence. To be expected I suppose.

Major Sinic

Nov 30 2014, 12:54 AM

disgruntled porker

Nov 28 2014, 06:37 PM

Ah, the roaring silence. To be expected I suppose.

I replied to your 'challenge' in the thread 'A sense of irony'. My post #4 in that thread refers. I am not going to chase you round the whole forum acknowledging my reluctant acceptance of this judgement. You really have too much time on your hands if you have nothing better to do than try to prolong an unproductive and senseless exchange of personal insults? We are each quite aware of what our opinions of one another are. I really don't wish to have to give you a moments further thought so just grow up and move on.

RJD

Nov 28 2014, 06:43 PM

disgruntled porker

Nov 28 2014, 06:37 PM

Ah, the roaring silence. To be expected I suppose.

Why do you object to being called a Pleb? What does it conjure up in your mind? I have no objection to being called such and would prefer it to being labelled a "lefty". Born a Pleb and will die such, so bloody what?

disgruntled porker

Nov 30 2014, 09:42 AM

RJD

Nov 28 2014, 06:43 PM

disgruntled porker

Nov 28 2014, 06:37 PM

Ah, the roaring silence. To be expected I suppose.

Why do you object to being called a Pleb? What does it conjure up in your mind? I have no objection to being called such and would prefer it to being labelled a "lefty". Born a Pleb and will die such, so bloody what?

I object because the person who called me such, admits in his own words, that since the Mitchell case, the word PLEB has become the ultimate insult. I can only assume from this that he thought he was casting the ultimate insult in my direction.

RJD

Dec 1 2014, 05:00 PM

disgruntled porker

Nov 30 2014, 09:42 AM

RJD

Nov 28 2014, 06:43 PM

disgruntled porker

Nov 28 2014, 06:37 PM

Ah, the roaring silence. To be expected I suppose.

Why do you object to being called a Pleb? What does it conjure up in your mind? I have no objection to being called such and would prefer it to being labelled a "lefty". Born a Pleb and will die such, so bloody what?

I object because the person who called me such, admits in his own words, that since the Mitchell case, the word PLEB has become the ultimate insult. I can only assume from this that he thought he was casting the ultimate insult in my direction.

Only since Mitchell allegedly used the word? Mr Pig I do not believe you.

disgruntled porker

Dec 2 2014, 09:22 AM

RJD

Dec 1 2014, 05:00 PM

disgruntled porker

Nov 30 2014, 09:42 AM

RJD

Nov 28 2014, 06:43 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

I object because the person who called me such, admits in his own words, that since the Mitchell case, the word PLEB has become the ultimate insult. I can only assume from this that he thought he was casting the ultimate insult in my direction.

Only since Mitchell allegedly used the word? Mr Pig I do not believe you.

Seriously ReJinalD, your replies are incoherant and do not make any sense. I say one thing and off you go on a tangent. You don't believe me? I don't think you are even grasping what I'm saying.