Buce Posted 1 November 2018 Share Posted 1 November 2018 3 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said: Cheers. What made you choose your user name, US? Surely you are too young to remember the Bonzos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 1 November 2018 Share Posted 1 November 2018 39 minutes ago, Milo said: Not straw man at all - and I wasn't arguing against your post - I was just debating the point that you made regarding lower paid workers have been through austerity and need the tax cut money more, so that they can boost growth. I disagree with that and explained why, from my own perspective, I think it is just as valid that higher earners (or even more valid in some cases) receive benefits from the tax cuts. Please don't see offence where none was meant - my post was not at all a dig at you. I used the last sentence of your post to highlight my own experiences and viewpoint on the current topic of tax cuts in the budget. I probably should have started it as a separate topic. I don't really watch tv so wouldn't have seen the two programmes you mentioned. Fair enough. When you started by quoting me and saying "This is the kind of thinking that I believe is fundamentally flawed", I assumed you were then going on to describe views somehow associated with mine. Absolutely no offence taken, though, and not seen as a personal dig. I'm quite happy to have people argue with my opinions - I'm an argumentative sod. Anyway, we're just strangers on a football forum, it would be bonkers to take things personally. Mind you, I'm not sure who really expresses the views that you described: everyone being equal, business being all corporate greed and excess etc. Maybe a few immature students or Far Left fanatics, not many others. Perhaps there are a few people ranting about such ideas on Twitter, but I don't go there - or might be an exaggerated stereotype of Labour put about by opponents. Incidentally, despite disagreeing with the budget's tax priorities, I was pleased to see McDonnell say Labour wouldn't oppose it - shows an understanding of the need for compromise, strategy and presentation to non-converts, essential for success in politics. Corbyn is really lacking there, but McDonnell is much smarter. I'm sure you'd disagree but I could see him becoming a decent senior minister - which I struggle to imagine with Corbyn. The 2 links that I posted are 2-minute trailers for the same programme. You'd get a good idea of the programme from the trailers, if you can be bothered. I can certainly see it being valid for higher earners to get tax cuts in some circumstances. I just don't see it as the right priority in the current context. Anyway, agree to disagree on that. See you around (the forum, if not real life). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 1 November 2018 Share Posted 1 November 2018 Sports minister Tracey Crouch has resigned over "delays" to a crackdown on maximum stakes for fixed-odds betting machines. Chancellor Philip Hammond said in Monday's Budget that the cut in stakes from £100 to £2 would come into force in October 2019. Ms Crouch said pushing back the date was "unjustifiable" and it could cost the lives of problem gamblers. She tweeted: "Politicians come and go but principles stay with us forever." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46057548 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urban.spaceman Posted 2 November 2018 Share Posted 2 November 2018 2 hours ago, Buce said: What made you choose your user name, US? Surely you are too young to remember the Bonzos? Too young to have seen them when they were first about but I grew up on Monty Python in the late 90s and eventually discovered the Bonzos. Seen them in the flesh 3 times now, most recently in 2015!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted 2 November 2018 Share Posted 2 November 2018 I assume that there are no imminent elections scheduled, as Dianne Abbott was allowed to appear on national radio this morning. Bit of a car at crash and she didn’t really understand what was being put to her - impressively managed to contradict herself a number of times in a three minute segment. Highlight was John Humphreys asking her if it would be worse if he racially abused her, or punched her in the nose... Worth a listen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 2 November 2018 Share Posted 2 November 2018 17 minutes ago, Milo said: I assume that there are no imminent elections scheduled, as Dianne Abbott was allowed to appear on national radio this morning. Bit of a car at crash and she didn’t really understand what was being put to her - impressively managed to contradict herself a number of times in a three minute segment. Highlight was John Humphreys asking her if it would be worse if he racially abused her, or punched her in the nose... Worth a listen! Fook ups Don't really matter when ur sucking the leaders cock every night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breadandcheese Posted 2 November 2018 Share Posted 2 November 2018 9 hours ago, davieG said: Sports minister Tracey Crouch has resigned over "delays" to a crackdown on maximum stakes for fixed-odds betting machines. Chancellor Philip Hammond said in Monday's Budget that the cut in stakes from £100 to £2 would come into force in October 2019. Ms Crouch said pushing back the date was "unjustifiable" and it could cost the lives of problem gamblers. She tweeted: "Politicians come and go but principles stay with us forever." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46057548 Credit to the former sports minister. I think she's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voll Blau Posted 2 November 2018 Share Posted 2 November 2018 11 hours ago, davieG said: Sports minister Tracey Crouch has resigned over "delays" to a crackdown on maximum stakes for fixed-odds betting machines. Chancellor Philip Hammond said in Monday's Budget that the cut in stakes from £100 to £2 would come into force in October 2019. Ms Crouch said pushing back the date was "unjustifiable" and it could cost the lives of problem gamblers. She tweeted: "Politicians come and go but principles stay with us forever." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46057548 Got to admire her for that really. I'm very rarely in a bookies, but when I am it's jaw-dropping to see just how mindlessly folks fritter away notes on them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sol thewall Bamba Posted 2 November 2018 Share Posted 2 November 2018 1 hour ago, Milo said: Bit of a car at crash and she didn’t really understand what was being put to her Surely not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Alf Bentley Posted 2 November 2018 Popular Post Share Posted 2 November 2018 2 minutes ago, Voll Blau said: Got to admire her for that really. I'm very rarely in a bookies, but when I am it's jaw-dropping to see just how mindlessly folks fritter away notes on them. Yep. It's refreshing to see a politician take a principled stand. She makes the significance of the delay clear in her resignation letter: " From the time of the announcement to reduce stakes and its implementation, over £1.6bn will be lost on these machines.... In addition, two people will tragically take their lives every day due to gambling-related problems and, for that reason as much as any other, I believe this delay is unjustifiable" If those figures are accurate - £1.6bn gambled away over a couple of years & 2 suicides per day - they are truly jaw-dropping, and show why even a 6-month delay matters. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 2 November 2018 Share Posted 2 November 2018 4 hours ago, Voll Blau said: Got to admire her for that really. I'm very rarely in a bookies, but when I am it's jaw-dropping to see just how mindlessly folks fritter away notes on them. I'm so torn on this, belief in individual liberty or the greater good - these machines are horrible, ruined betting shops and do terrible damage to people. The real problem is people will still find a way to do it, it doesn't really make any sense to drop the limit to £2 in a shop if you can just instead go on your mobile or PC and carry on betting on what you want. I'm convinced the ability to lose the money we can on a device like a phone will be a national scandal one day and we'll wonder why it was allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 2 November 2018 Share Posted 2 November 2018 (edited) One thing I do love about Corbyn are these escapes from his house when being questioned Edited 2 November 2018 by MattP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 3 November 2018 Share Posted 3 November 2018 23 hours ago, MattP said: I'm so torn on this, belief in individual liberty or the greater good - these machines are horrible, ruined betting shops and do terrible damage to people. The real problem is people will still find a way to do it, it doesn't really make any sense to drop the limit to £2 in a shop if you can just instead go on your mobile or PC and carry on betting on what you want. I'm convinced the ability to lose the money we can on a device like a phone will be a national scandal one day and we'll wonder why it was allowed. You definitely have a point re. online betting. I've only ever placed a few bets over the counter at bookies, but presume it's even easier to lose large sums online than via fixed-odds terminals, is it? Maybe there should be limits on stakes or losses online, too? Consciously or unconsciously, perhaps the distinction relates to society's complicity. If someone wants to gamble recklessly in the privacy of their own home/phone, should the law intervene and curtail their freedom? Society can and does intervene to try to discourage it, but currently allows a lot of freedom (arguably too much, if stakes have very high limits). In contrast, someone gambling recklessly on machines in bookies is in the public domain. Not only is society effectively saying, "we're happy to stand and watch while you potentially ruin your life and your family's life", society is actively making it easy for gambling addicts to lose vast sums - and allowing public traders to make large profits from this. Of course, even if you closed down every bookie and online gambling site, people would still have the freedom to make private bets. You'd never stop it completely, even if you wanted to (which would be a draconian infringement of the liberty of those who gamble, mostly responsibly). There's an equivalent with booze, isn't there? Society tries to discourage alcoholics from drinking excessively, but cannot stop them from doing so in the privacy of their homes. If I wanted to buy 6 bottles of Scotch and sit at home drinking myself to death, I'd be free to do so. But if I did the same in the street, I'd probably be arrested - and if I did the same in a pub, the landlord/bar staff would probably be arrested if they continued to serve me. Personal liberty v. Societal responsibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 3 November 2018 Share Posted 3 November 2018 (edited) It's a tough one isn't it??? At the height of my gambling addiction I once woke up at 4am and lost the months wage I'd been paid overnight before 7am. I went to work and everyone was happy as they had been paid and I was having to borrow a fiver for a pint as I'd lost it all. It's a silent addiction as well, people will usually know if your are a drug addict or an alcoholic as it will show itself. I honestly don't know how to regulate the industry, it's out of control. Every football match now it's a bombardment of betting adverts. Edited 3 November 2018 by MattP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 3 November 2018 Share Posted 3 November 2018 22 hours ago, MattP said: One thing I do love about Corbyn are these escapes from his house when being questioned I do despair of him sometimes. I know some of the journalists are just there looking for a means of damaging Labour, but he has several better options to deal with this, which don't leave him looking like a sour, petty-minded git who's refusing to address the issue. He could play a straight bat by saying that Labour is addressing anti-semitism and, of course, supports police action against any isolated individuals who have committed crimes. Or he could introduce a bit of humour, maybe say: "Of course, I support legal action against anyone guilty of anti-semitic crimes. But, I'm afraid I must go now as I have some radishes to pick on my allotment". Unfortunately, the Tories have been very lucky that Corbyn happened to be the candidate when Labour turned to the Left. Over decades, MPs in the Campaign Group took it in turns to be the Left's leadership candidate, with no chance of winning. It just happened to be Corbyn's turn when they gained a surprise victory. If it had been Benn, Livingstone (before he went bonkers) or McDonnell, I suspect that Labour would now be ahead in the polls, possibly well ahead, given general levels of dissatisfaction - and the incompetence of the govt. As for the accusations, of course anyone guilty of such crimes should be up in court, be they Labour members or anyone else. But I do wonder if the massive expansion of the media/internet over the last 20 years is giving a false impression that this is a bigger issue than it used to be. 30 years ago, I can remember people making dodgy comments about political opponents, but there was no Internet so they weren't on record - now they're on Twitter/Facebook, so there's a record for potential legal action, and it also stokes up more conflict and polarisation by provoking political opponents. Same applies re. the aggressive comments made about May by Tory MPs, in a way - I suspect there were people making similar comments 30 years, but they weren't ending up in the media to the same extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 3 November 2018 Share Posted 3 November 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, MattP said: It's a tough one isn't it??? At the height of my gambling addiction I once woke up at 4am and lost the months wage I'd been paid overnight before 7am. I went to work and everyone was happy as they had been paid and I was having to borrow a fiver for a pint as I'd lost it all. It's a silent addiction as well, people will usually know if your are a drug addict or an alcoholic as it will show itself. I honestly don't know how to regulate the industry, it's out of control. Every football match now it's a bombardment of betting adverts. Yep. Shocking, though unsurprising that it's so easy to lose so much. I don't know enough to be sure, but imagine that with everything computerised it wouldn't be too difficult to impose a maximum monthly stake that people could gamble - covering all UK-approved gambling sites. Maybe there could be an option for people to have a higher maximum figure if they could prove that they had the income or capital to cover that without causing themselves major problems? That's just one problem, though: losing £1000 could ruin someone on low income who was behind with rent/mortgage, but might be an acceptable loss for someone earning megabucks or a professional gambler. Then there's the global nature of the Internet. UK legislators could presumably do little about the rules applied by, say, US gambling web sites. Even if they could, there'd be the risk of sites moving offshore to places with permissive legislation, as happens with tax havens. You'll know a lot more than me about the industry, so if you don't see how it could be regulated...... Good luck at keeping to less damaging ways of getting a bit of excitement. Edited 3 November 2018 by Alf Bentley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 3 November 2018 Share Posted 3 November 2018 3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said: Yep. Shocking, though unsurprising that it's so easy to lose so much. I don't know enough to be sure, but imagine that with everything computerised it wouldn't be too difficult to impose a maximum monthly stake that people could gamble - covering all UK-approved gambling sites. Maybe there could be an option for people to have a higher maximum figure if they could prove that they had the income or capital to cover that without causing themselves major problems? That's just one problem, though: losing £1000 could ruin someone on low income who was behind with rent/mortgage, but might be an acceptable loss for someone earning megabucks or a professional gambler. Then there's the global nature of the Internet. UK legislators could presumably do little about the rules applied by, say, US gambling web sites. Even if they could, there'd be the risk of sites moving offshore to places with permissive legislation, as happens with tax havens. You'll know a lot more than me about the industry, so if you don't see how it could be regulated...... Good luck at keeping to less damaging ways of getting a bit of excitement. There is an option to self-impose a limit on internet gambling but it’s entirely voluntary and easily overridden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 4 November 2018 Share Posted 4 November 2018 (edited) “A new study by YouGov for the People’s Vote campaign shows that the 67 Conservative MPs with majorities under 5,000 are all in constituencies where there is a majority in favour of a people’s vote. The average support for the public being given the final say in these seats is 56% – compared with 44% against – when “don’t knows” are excluded. In each seat, the number of Conservative voters who back a people’s vote is significantly bigger than their MP’s majority at the last election. Voters in Labour’s top 100 target seats – including those that it needs to win if it is to form a government with a workable Commons majority – also back a people’s vote by an average margin 58% to 42%.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/04/tony-blair-urges-mps-vote-down-theresa-may-brexit-deal Edited 4 November 2018 by Buce 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nalis Posted 5 November 2018 Share Posted 5 November 2018 Off sick feeling sorry for myself watching politics live and I've a q re: US politics. Is there a Democratic leader (or a leader of the opposition)? Or is there only one when there's an election, ie, the candidate for presidency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 5 November 2018 Share Posted 5 November 2018 12 minutes ago, Nalis said: Off sick feeling sorry for myself watching politics live and I've a q re: US politics. Is there a Democratic leader (or a leader of the opposition)? Or is there only one when there's an election, ie, the candidate for presidency? The latter - when an American party doesn't have the presidency, they don't really have that kind of figurehead, no executive leader, as it were. The closest the Dems have to such right now would probably be their leaders of the House and Senate, so the legislative area - Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, respectively, though I expect neither of them will run for President in 2020. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoboFox Posted 5 November 2018 Share Posted 5 November 2018 Erm, pardon? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wymsey Posted 5 November 2018 Share Posted 5 November 2018 English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson has been formally released from bail. Getty ImagesCopyright: Getty Images Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC announced that the campaigner, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was no longer subject to any bail conditions after referring his contempt of court case to the Attorney General. In a brief hearing at the Old Bailey, the judge said: "This is simply to indicate in open court that now the matter has been referred to the Attorney General, Mr Yaxley-Lennon is no longer on bail to this court." Neither Mr Robinson nor his lawyer were required to attend the brief hearing. He was freed from prison in August after three leading judges quashed a contempt of court finding made at Leeds Crown Court. The Attorney General has the power to discontinue the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 7 November 2018 Share Posted 7 November 2018 If they implement a red meat tax, @MattP you get the shovels, I'll get the gunpowder, it's Fawkes time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 7 November 2018 Share Posted 7 November 2018 45 minutes ago, Finnegan said: If they implement a red meat tax, @MattP you get the shovels, I'll get the gunpowder, it's Fawkes time. Oh God. This is the sort of crazy nonsense that is more than possible as well in 2018. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 7 November 2018 Share Posted 7 November 2018 Jordan Peterson and Diane Abbott on Question Time tomorrow, should be well worth a watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts