coprolite

Sat in an orthodontist waiting room near a Mother and teenager combo. They both have runny noses but can't be arsed blowing them so are just sniffing and snorting constantly. Teen daughter is also watching tik tok at a reasonable volume so i can hear shite speeded up chipmunk sounding vocals. Sadly, i don't think orthodontics can easily go fatally wrong.

I'm going to get a plastic union jack bowler hat and a union jack waistcoat and camp out on the route. Might take some sort of placard, or just a bit of cardboard with God Save the King written on it. God bless em.

Whippersnapper. That'll always be Henry J Beans to me, with its legendary sticky carpets that stank of vomit.

Reminds me of another one. Buying jeans at Asda.

If Zahawi is telling the truth, and his penalty was for carelessness and if the reported 30% is right (both big "ifs") then we can infer that he has been as unco-operative as it is possible to be. When he says his conduct was "careless" and not "deliberate" these describe his behaviour in relation to whether he deliberately applied the law wrongly, nor whether he deliberately tried to avoid tax. Usually, where a taxpayer has taken professional advice on an avoidance scheme, they'll have taken reasonable care and not pay a penalty if the scheme doesn't work. Where penalties are charged it's usually because the scheme hasn't been implemented properly. There will be a list of instructors to follow to make the scheme work and failing to follow them is careless. It can be careless if the taxpayer does things on practice that the scheme paperwork says doesn't happen, eg if someone controls or benefits from a trust they aren't supposed to. A "careless" penalty doesn't rule out dishonesty. I strongly suspect that there would have been a faction within hmrc arguing for deliberate penalties, and that an amount of influence has been brought to bear. Tl-dr-He has deliberately tried to avoid tax, no question. If 30% is right he has been as obstructive as possible.

Piles

Anyone else have to zoom in to confirm this wasn’t “Gazza”?

Apparently 89% of prescriptions in England are free. People are exempt for all sorts of reasons, but there will still be admin that needs done on exempt prescriptions, so the charge has to cover that too. It’s difficult to see how the charge even pays for its own admin, never mind making a significant net contribution to budgets. Like I say, I haven’t found a robust analysis. But it was introduced by the first Tory government after the NHS so there’s a reasonable chance that it’s more ideological tokenism than economic logic.

They'll make a gross profit on most medicine, but there will be some where it's still in patent and the pharma companies will be gouging as much as they can. Remember they got caught colluding to inflate prices not long ago. There will be some where there's hundreds of pounds spent on the drugs. But whether or not it covers the cost of the medicine, i'd expect that a good chunk of the charge is spent on just administering the charge itself. Fairly sure that was an argument for it not being introduced here. It's a fairly common theme that the admin required to get payments in or out of the NHS contributes hugely to inefficiencies. GPs spend as much time filling forms as seeing patients.

Quite right. People should pull up their socks and diagnose their own cancer. If they really need an appointment they can jolly well turn their heating off and live off weetabix for a month first. Am i getting the hang of this?

Dogs are alright but they should be in the wild or in zoos, not bred into novelty shapes and kept in houses for entertainment. Working dogs excepted.

Davos is only a little bit sinister. It’s an excuse for some rich people to feel important while the usual leeches (consultants, banks etc) use it as a networking event and the press treat it like business Cannes. I suspect a real cabal of the elite wouldn’t publish their plans in glossy brochures with maddeningly meaningless infographics. Spectre would wipe the floor with this lot. In the absence of a recently banned poster I should point out: that’s what they want you to think, hiding in plain sight, wibble, etc.

From what I’ve seen there’s very little productive investment and a load of white elephants. Our local investment is £50m for a railway line between 2 stations in the city that are 15 mins walk apart, and saving you a five minute walk to the other station that already has a connection. Most of the money in Wales is going to build rural cycle routes and walkways which will presumably just be left to rot, like most of the other ones have been. As an aside, I haven’t seen a source for these figures but the (labour)Welsh government reckons they’re still £1.1bn short after losing EU funding, which the stupid c***s that live here voted for. Anyway, it’s all bread and circuses.

I get that, but that’s also about how it works not about the principle. It should be relatively easy to specify notice periods and minimum hours as well as maximum hours. I don’t know whether the Union is objecting to the flexible working in principle or in the form it’s been proposed. If it’s the latter then it’s easy to see why they would object. They don’t seem like a particularly bolshie union and I’d guess they probably do appreciate that they’ll need to give some ground, so agreeing to some form of flexibility is probably inevitable.

Ignore lists are for the weak. I prefer to be challenged by views that differ from my own. Plus seeing how tragic other people’s existence is can be a much needed boost to my self esteem.

Feeling the need to read the article on the BBC that explains why prices are still going up even though inflation is falling. Also the Tory MP on the radio who described this as "the cost of living going down from 10.7%" Too much latin at public schools.

You killed Julie!

That's what i first thought but clause 5 clearly states that's for the "hours of work specified below" and the hours of work are specified as 25 per week.

Jasmine done it

This is a great idea. I think my first target is to get light enough for my scales to work. I stopped smoking basically on a whim and did the same with booze and did it before with shite food. I just had a packet of crisps and some haribo and there really was no need. It’s not that hard to change a habit and just needs some, not a huge amount, of willpower.

I wouldn’t sign it as it is but if they specified a weekly maximum hours I don’t think an annual flexi system would be too bad in principle. But obviously they haven’t and you’d have rocks in your head to sign that. Out of interest, why would you not make the 28k ?

I don't usually give much credence to rumours about falling outs and favourites etc but there's a load of evidence that this is really the case with Goodwin. I think that the fact that we couldn't land two players who'd performed well for him at st mirren speaks volumes about how much players want to work for him.

This is why the Ethiopians didn't know it was Christmas Time. Because it wasn't.

That was a fucking disgrace. Hearts were competent, we were a shambles. Again.

Sakes. Embarrassingly naive, disorganised and getting worse. Oot.