General News Thread

[Trav Le Bleu]

12 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I’ll take 20’s 

But how much are you willing to invest?

[Super_horns]

Very tight vote and got to go through the lords now .

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cg4ry0pge4kt

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

But how much are you willing to invest?

I’ll check with the Iranians 😉

[st albans fox]

Some strategic chatter that Russia may use trump’s delay to take a lead on trying to negotiate with Iran 

 

However, I think Iran will send a message via the talks today in Geneva what they are willing to accept if there is a ceasefire and talks with the USA can happen.  Whether that will be enough is the question. 

[Dr The Singh]

8 hours ago, hejammy said:

Well The The, it really was a genuine question, but happy to know that you'll not be answering it, so thank you for that.  

really, a shitty non news related question in the General News Thread.  I got your number kid.

[Leicesterpool]

Cant believe people are celebrating that assisting dying has been approved by mps 🙄 

 

I get people with terminally ill conditions should have the option but having people actually celebrate it... no 👎 

[Trav Le Bleu]

14 minutes ago, Leicesterpool said:

Cant believe people are celebrating that assisting dying has been approved by mps 🙄 

 

I get people with terminally ill conditions should have the option but having people actually celebrate it... no 👎 

I can imagine the adverts already.

 

"Lethal injection or pushed under a train? Cyanide tablet or held under water for 5 minutes?

 

The choice is yours at Sue Had Died Services.

 

We're there, so no one needs to care, anymore.

 

Credit available subject to eligibility. Terms and conditions apply."

[Dahnsouff]

26 minutes ago, Leicesterpool said:

Cant believe people are celebrating that assisting dying has been approved by mps 🙄 

 

I get people with terminally ill conditions should have the option but having people actually celebrate it... no 👎 

Why? You say you understand people should have the option, but are negative towards opening this capability as a positive, even celebratory for some.. Aren’t those two things at odds?

[Unabomber]

23 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Why? You say you understand people should have the option, but are negative towards opening this capability as a positive, even celebratory for some.. Aren’t those two things at odds?

Yeah that makes no sense. Those who think they should have the option are obviously going to be celebrating. Personally I think it’s a very good decision 

[Parafox]

25 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

Yeah that makes no sense. Those who think they should have the option are obviously going to be celebrating. Personally I think it’s a very good decision 

 

1 hour ago, Leicesterpool said:

Cant believe people are celebrating that assisting dying has been approved by mps 🙄 

 

I get people with terminally ill conditions should have the option but having people actually celebrate it... no 👎 

 

The difficult word here is "celebrating". This suggests the popping of corks and a barbie.

 

I think it's more "feeling relief".

[Bilsthorpe Blue]

1 hour ago, Leicesterpool said:

Cant believe people are celebrating that assisting dying has been approved by mps 🙄 

 

I get people with terminally ill conditions should have the option but having people actually celebrate it... no 👎 

My mother suffered from dementia and had a seizure, the LRI said there was nothing they could do, so she was put in a side room, pumped full of morphine and basically left to die by her own resources, my sister and myself had to sit with her in shifts for 7 days until she passed away. A doctor came in once and said is everything OK,  I replied with no I'm f...ing not we treat our animals more humanely,  we can put them to sleep when the time comes 

I'm all for it and so is my wife, if either of us gets to that stage then we are to instruct the doctor, if not sort it out ourselves 

[Dahnsouff]

13 minutes ago, Parafox said:

The difficult word here is "celebrating". This suggests the popping of corks and a barbie.

 

I think it's more "feeling relief".

Think that is just incendiary journalism in part, and possibly detracts from a serious story, no matter how any individual perceives it.

Edited 20 June 2025 by Dahnsouff

[blabyboy]

6 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

A pathetic lack of security. I thought this sort of base should be guarded by the RAF Regiment.

Depending upon your point of view, it very much puts a mockery on the presentation of the recent Defence Spending Review.... Or it validates that we haven't got a pot to pl55 in and need to start spending to bring our armed services up to snuff.

[Parafox]

4 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Think that is just incendiary journalism in part, and possibly detracts from a serious story, no matter how any individual perceives it.

 

Written by AI?

 

 

[Dahnsouff]

7 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

Written by AI?

 

 

Probably.

[Unabomber]

29 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

 

The difficult word here is "celebrating". This suggests the popping of corks and a barbie.

 

I think it's more "feeling relief".

Yeah good point 

[urban.spaceman]

Cheers.

 

Rishi's crying.

 

Nice one.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgq7yvy1ke9o

[Muzzy_no7]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn81g4e0nlyo
 

Should’ve been done ages ago 

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, blabyboy said:

Depending upon your point of view, it very much puts a mockery on the presentation of the recent Defence Spending Review.... Or it validates that we haven't got a pot to pl55 in and need to start spending to bring our armed services up to snuff.

I tend to think the latter half of your statement is accurate 

[Alf Bentley]

After a press campaign about millionaires leaving Britain, Rachel Reeves is reportedly considering a U-turn on non-doms policy.

 

An interesting article here challenges claims that the policy is economically harmful - and says it should not be reversed....

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/06/let-the-non-doms-leave-rachel-reeves

 

"A common misconception is that rich people are economically similar. But there are two very different species: people who earn loads of money and people who have loads of money. People who earn lots of money typically pay a lot of tax. A banker in London on £600,000 a year should pay about £245,000 in income tax and National Insurance (assuming maximum pension contributions), contributing as much to the state in three years as the average Brit contributes over their whole working life. This makes them very important from a fiscal point of view. But it also means they’re less likely to leave when there’s a tax change, because they have a great job that it would be hard to get elsewhere, and because they demonstrably already tolerate a high level of taxation. And after the 2015 Budget [when Osborne tightened non-dom rules] , this is what they did: they stayed.

 

 

The other species are different. They are simply parking their wealth here, paying little tax, and leaving when the rules change. Arun Advani, the economist who led this research, told me that under the non-dom regime, the UK had effectively been a tax haven for people who had money here but didn’t earn money here: 'Everyone thinks, because they’re very wealthy, that means they must be paying a lot of tax,' he said, but the people who left after 2015 were recognisable as being 'not very well connected' to the economy by income  – 'but that’s also why they weren’t paying very much tax. So the cost of losing them is much lower.'

 

It’s very possible that this is what’s happening now: we are losing people whose connection to the economy was fleeting and low in value.

The stateless rich will be missed in some parts of London. Showrooms for ugly, dangerous cars will fall quiet; gaudy clothes with someone else’s name written all over them will go unsold; bad Mayfair restaurants and galleries for gaudy, laughable art will have to reconsider their value propositions. But the rest of us might benefit, thanks to the property market. Expensive London property drags the rest of the housing market upward, imposing trickle-down inflation on homeowners. It also eats into our housebuilding capacity."

[davieG]

2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Cheers.

 

Rishi's crying.

 

Nice one.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgq7yvy1ke9o

Let's hope it results in Leicestershire moving up from the bottom of the worst funded councils.

[st albans fox]

44 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

After a press campaign about millionaires leaving Britain, Rachel Reeves is reportedly considering a U-turn on non-doms policy.

 

An interesting article here challenges claims that the policy is economically harmful - and says it should not be reversed....

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/06/let-the-non-doms-leave-rachel-reeves

 

"A common misconception is that rich people are economically similar. But there are two very different species: people who earn loads of money and people who have loads of money. People who earn lots of money typically pay a lot of tax. A banker in London on £600,000 a year should pay about £245,000 in income tax and National Insurance (assuming maximum pension contributions), contributing as much to the state in three years as the average Brit contributes over their whole working life. This makes them very important from a fiscal point of view. But it also means they’re less likely to leave when there’s a tax change, because they have a great job that it would be hard to get elsewhere, and because they demonstrably already tolerate a high level of taxation. And after the 2015 Budget [when Osborne tightened non-dom rules] , this is what they did: they stayed.

 

 

The other species are different. They are simply parking their wealth here, paying little tax, and leaving when the rules change. Arun Advani, the economist who led this research, told me that under the non-dom regime, the UK had effectively been a tax haven for people who had money here but didn’t earn money here: 'Everyone thinks, because they’re very wealthy, that means they must be paying a lot of tax,' he said, but the people who left after 2015 were recognisable as being 'not very well connected' to the economy by income  – 'but that’s also why they weren’t paying very much tax. So the cost of losing them is much lower.'

 

It’s very possible that this is what’s happening now: we are losing people whose connection to the economy was fleeting and low in value.

The stateless rich will be missed in some parts of London. Showrooms for ugly, dangerous cars will fall quiet; gaudy clothes with someone else’s name written all over them will go unsold; bad Mayfair restaurants and galleries for gaudy, laughable art will have to reconsider their value propositions. But the rest of us might benefit, thanks to the property market. Expensive London property drags the rest of the housing market upward, imposing trickle-down inflation on homeowners. It also eats into our housebuilding capacity."

This ignores that wealthy people spend lots of money (supporting the economy and contributing lots of vat) - if you can ignore the property bubble at the top which they create then surely we’re better having them here rather than them being elsewhere. ????

 

 

[Dahnsouff]

8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

After a press campaign about millionaires leaving Britain, Rachel Reeves is reportedly considering a U-turn on non-doms policy.

 

An interesting article here challenges claims that the policy is economically harmful - and says it should not be reversed....

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/06/let-the-non-doms-leave-rachel-reeves

 

"A common misconception is that rich people are economically similar. But there are two very different species: people who earn loads of money and people who have loads of money. People who earn lots of money typically pay a lot of tax. A banker in London on £600,000 a year should pay about £245,000 in income tax and National Insurance (assuming maximum pension contributions), contributing as much to the state in three years as the average Brit contributes over their whole working life. This makes them very important from a fiscal point of view. But it also means they’re less likely to leave when there’s a tax change, because they have a great job that it would be hard to get elsewhere, and because they demonstrably already tolerate a high level of taxation. And after the 2015 Budget [when Osborne tightened non-dom rules] , this is what they did: they stayed.

 

 

The other species are different. They are simply parking their wealth here, paying little tax, and leaving when the rules change. Arun Advani, the economist who led this research, told me that under the non-dom regime, the UK had effectively been a tax haven for people who had money here but didn’t earn money here: 'Everyone thinks, because they’re very wealthy, that means they must be paying a lot of tax,' he said, but the people who left after 2015 were recognisable as being 'not very well connected' to the economy by income  – 'but that’s also why they weren’t paying very much tax. So the cost of losing them is much lower.'

 

It’s very possible that this is what’s happening now: we are losing people whose connection to the economy was fleeting and low in value.

The stateless rich will be missed in some parts of London. Showrooms for ugly, dangerous cars will fall quiet; gaudy clothes with someone else’s name written all over them will go unsold; bad Mayfair restaurants and galleries for gaudy, laughable art will have to reconsider their value propositions. But the rest of us might benefit, thanks to the property market. Expensive London property drags the rest of the housing market upward, imposing trickle-down inflation on homeowners. It also eats into our housebuilding capacity."

The  point about being asset rich vs earnt wealth is valid I think.
Assets should suffer wealth capture at a higher rate than earnt wealth for many reasons. One of which is to incentivise work.

 

In terms of the article, fair enough, not the sort of wealth we want really.

[Md9]

Not sure but I think he is a bit upset that he hasn’t had a noble peace prize. Clown

[South Shire Fox]

15 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I can imagine the adverts already.

 

"Lethal injection or pushed under a train? Cyanide tablet or held under water for 5 minutes?

 

The choice is yours at Sue Had Died Services.

 

We're there, so no one needs to care, anymore.

 

Credit available subject to eligibility. Terms and conditions apply."

Its for people who are terminally ill,  and are going to die anyway. If your pet is seriously ill then they are taken to the vet to be humanely put to sleep to stop any more suffering. Why should it be any different for humans? People deserve the option to die with dignity on their terms instead of turning into a vegetable