Soapy FFC
-
Posts
1,408 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Soapy FFC
-
-
1 minute ago, Ex-pat Scotty said:
And for the commissioners, it may trouble you to learn that they are appointed, not elected.
Appointed by the national governments, who we vote in to represent us.
2 -
2 hours ago, Ex-pat Scotty said:
2) Same with petrol, there's no actual shortage of the stuff, it's a shortage of tanker drivers. Which has nothing to do with brexit.
When you drive a diesel car, and you pass petrol stations with signs out saying "No Diesel", then to me it seem like there are shortages. Doesn't matter what politicians, experts etc say, if there is none available to buy, then it is a shortage.
1 -
1 hour ago, coprolite said:
I'm just enjoying the slow dawning of realisation from the gammons that the US only ever said they loved us so they could use our island for weapons.
You need to be careful, apparently Gammon is now considered an offensive term by Ofcom
0 -
1 hour ago, Hedgecutter said:
Move alone, nothing to see here.
0 -
1 hour ago, Hedgecutter said:
Also, which idiot decided to call the outer lane the 'inner lane' and the lane closest to the central reservation (which is very clearly the innermost part of the road) the outer lane?
Also nearside and offside!! I used to get confused if nearside is near to the kerb, or near to the oncoming traffic?
I always refer to driver side and passenger side if asked what side of the car something is on.
2 -
Laura on the BBC 10 o'clock news, saying that now Brexit is in the rear view mirror, Johnson can now maybe focus on the next election!!
And the report showed comments from the woman in Manchester who was on BBC breakfast this morning, and strangely enough her comments about brexit are no longer there.
3 -
17 minutes ago, Clown Job said:
From the same people who demand foreign criminals be deported pronto.
I also wonder how many of the people that say, as a 15yo she was old enough to understand and take responsibility for the decisions she made, are currently saying 15 year olds are not old enough to understand the consequences of deciding without parental consent to get the covid vaccine?
0 -
Maybe it's because I'm getting old. Maybe it's because I'm more cynical. Maybe it's because I've seen so many politicians come and go. Maybe it's because I have an idealistic notion that elected officials are there to serve us, the public, and not themselves. But never have I seen such a useless bunch of individuals in government.
1 -
-
2 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:
Don’t think so.
What somebody said as a student 20 or 30 years ago is totally irrelevant or, at least, should be.
The things I did as a teenager or student are totally cringeworthy which I would hope would apply to most youngsters.
Thats why I think the voting age should be, at the very least, be 21.
Not a popular view but hey-ho!
To a degree I agree with you on the first part, but to a certain extent it depends on what they did, and what they have done since then.
On the voting age, if we apply that principle, then why don't be ban people over a certain age, say 75, from voting, since they might not be here long enough to reap the benefits or consequences of what they voted for. If you're old enough to get married, drink, join the army etc etc, then you're old enough to vote.
0 -
1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:
The Tories really don’t care do they? I’m sure if she had checked with a civil servant before making the comment they could have explained why she was wrong, but she’s so disinterested she went for a cheap sound bite instead.
But, it goes down well with the target audience, as shown by the top comment on the Mail's report.
"I am fed up with hearing about children in poverty and my money via taxes being used to pay for their healthy start vouchers, free school meals and vouchers! I raised my own children by working 3 jobs. Children are in poverty because their parents priorities a mobile phone, sky tv and expensive take aways over buying healthy food (which is cheap) and paying the bills"
It's like a parallel universe on that site!
0 -
7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:
Yeah but she had to play 10 matches, I wouldn't get out of bed for that kind of money.
Seriously though, presumably she'll be paying NY hotel prices for her entourage as well for a month and airfares, that would make a fair dent unless they get expenses on top.
What I was trying to say, is the incremental amount of money for that one game is frightening to me.
I don't begrudge her the money at all. She 'works' in an industry that if you have one bad match at the start of a tournament, you get nothing, but still have all your expenses. Other sportsmen like footballers are insulated from the reality of having to win to get paid.
0 -
Two teenagers in the final, both guaranteed $1.25 million, with the winner getting $2.5 million. Imagine as a teenager being told, go play one tennis match and if you win I'll give you a million pounds!
I hope she continues her awesome run tomorrow, but no matter what matter what, it's been a fantastic tournament for her, and sets her up well for the future.
0 -
17 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:
I’d love to see the courts reverse this. Regardless she will still be the love child of the the gammons.
I'm so cynical now, I wouldn't put it past her to do something like this in the full knowledge that it would be reversed later.
0 -
21 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:
Not sure about Paypal being the same as the roaming cartel. There are many other ways of paying for shit than Paypal so if you don't like the charges, then use another method.
The mobile companies are all acting in concert which to me looks like a cartel. Unless one of them isn't raising roaming charges.
With regards to Paypal I agree, but in that article it mentions that both Visa and Mastercard are raising their fees five fold, so given that they control most of the credit cards, it's hard to escape an increase in fees. Well maybe as a buyer you might not notice, but sellers will feel it and probably respond by increasing prices.
As for roaming, the mobile networks were all just waiting for one of the others to re-introduce charges, so they could then follow. And why wouldn't they. No one is going to stop them from doing it, and they know that people have no choice but to still use them. They will all be seeing it as a return to the good old days of fleecing their customers.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:
PayPal raises post-Brexit fees between UK and Europe
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/paypal-raises-post-brexit-fees-between-uk-and-europe-289640/?amp&__twitter_impression=true
'Course it does.This and roaming are just examples of why companies need regulated, and just not left to market forces and self regulation, because given the freedom to do as they want they will just rip the p*sh.
0 -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58501527
Now Three are starting to charge for roaming.
I love the doublespeak that they use to justify the introduction of charges;
"In a statement, Three said: "The new charge ensures that customers are clear on what they will pay when using their phone in another country and only those who roam will pay for the service.""
I was clear on what I paid, nothing, it was already included!!
0 -
I noticed that Johnson in PMQs said, and I quote
"As I think everybody understood in the long statement yesterday, this is the first time that the state has come in to deal with the threat of these catastrophic costs, thereby enabling the private sector—the financial services industry—to supply the insurance products that people need to guarantee themselves against the cost of care."
So, is this just a way of creating more products and markets for the Tory Party's friends in the financial sector?
0 -
Surprise surprise, just another opportunity for some to make more money. This will never be sorted out as too many people in power stand to lose too much.
It's funny how if a car manufacturer identifies a safety issue with a car it is liable to fix it, no matter who owns the car or how old the car is. But with a building it's the poor sod who sits in it that seems to be liable. Too many vested interests above the owner, so all the crap drops down.
0 -
1 hour ago, Suspect Device said:
I've got a question re NIC's
Could someone explain the reason why the rate of NIC's falls to 2% on income over £50k?
It's 12% on income between £9.5k and £50k (soon to be 13.25%) but then falls.
NI used to be capped at a maximum amount each week, so once you earned above a certain amount you paid no additional NI. Then in a previous budget the NI rate was increased, but the increase applied to everything earned, but the original capped amount remained. GOvts since then have kept the capped element, but made increases to the uncapped element.
2 -
14 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:
Surely it’s a UK tax increase and Scotland will get its share via Barnett?
Johnson said in his ramble that Scotland would get its share, in fact he said that more would go to Scotland than it raises (15% more as I remember it). Which once again begs the question, if we consistently get more from the Union than we put in, why is the UK govt so keen to stop Independence?
0 -
1 hour ago, Michael W said:
This is it, in a nutshell. Theresa May's previous attempt at this wouldn't have lead to houses being sold to pay for care either, but the government would recoup the costs after the individual concerned had died and therfore it would eat into the estate. Widespread fury erupted and she ended up almost chucking away the election.
Alrhough I'd add that this is also to avoid angering the people in those houses who will be seething at their children's inheritance being reduced via care costs. And they won't be paying a penny extra in tax to fund this either.
A lot of peoples estates will be wiped out by Equity Release companies getting their pound of flesh, given the amount of adverts on the TV for it these days.
0 -
So, dividend tax is being increased to make sure those who pay themselves using dividends pay their fair share. Sounds OK, but I've always assumed that the bulk of UK dividends paid don't go to individuals, but into pension funds. So what we have is another very sneaky hidden tax on peoples future. Governments do like to use these hidden taxes on pensions as they are well clear of things by the time people realise the damage done. The increase in dividend taxes in the 70's and 80' by both Thatcher and Blair govts laid the foundation for the collapse of most company final salary schemes in recent years.
0 -
4 minutes ago, Aladdin said:
Cracking down on tax avoidance by the wealthy is obviously needed.
It's obvious, but won't happen. It's easier to just increase the tax of those on PAYE, the lower earners, as they pay, whether they want to or not.
0
Seriously though, presumably she'll be paying NY hotel prices for her entourage as well for a month and airfares, that would make a fair dent unless they get expenses on top.
Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.
in The Politics Forum
Posted
That's just plain wrong. Each national govt nominates a commissioner. Only people nominated by their respective govt can become a commissioner. Yes they have to be approved in some way, but it's still the case that the respective national govt chooses who will be their commissioner.