Left Back
-
Posts
6,711 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Left Back
-
-
-
3 hours ago, Brazilianlex said:
If the ground part of the licence has been passed, the rest is just a case of spending money on various criteria such as Doctors etc.
They will be in the SPFL by the time they need to submit audited accounts though which might be interesting if rumours are true.
What rumours would they be then?
0 -
Gonna be a long afternoon for Italy I fear.
0 -
Who is Ross Tokely?
0 -
At the game I obviously had no idea if it was grounded at the end. I’ll get to that. I’ve now watched it on TV as well.
There wasn’t much in the game. I felt we controlled the first half and I said at half time we should have been 10 more points ahead. We weren’t clinical enough. Did the usual of persisting with the forwards battering away (our weakness) instead of using our backs (strength). No more apparent than when they’re down to 14 at the end of the first half and we didn’t convert.
Second half was criminal. We let it drift. We sat there and thought we’re playing a bang average French team so you lads make the running and we won’t impose ourselves. One piece of good play fucked that strategy. I’ve no idea where this forward pass idea in their try comes from. There was chat from Finn at the game and plenty on here. Not seeing it.
Nic Berry is a w**k. I watch a lot of rugby. Won’t be many that post on here that watch remotely as much. What normally happens here is the ref looks (and he was in a good position). He’s not sure so moves, looks again, moves again, then makes a decision. If he does that he sees the ball ends up grounded and awards the try. He didn’t. He made a snap decision and got it wrong.
In a melee like that it’s difficult to overturn it from the TMO. I’m watching it thinking no way he can overturn that, until they brought up the angle that showed the ball underneath the boys leg (someone posted a still of it). Hold on a minute. The TMO said it was down, Nic Berry is about to award the try then the TMO changes his mind.
I’ve seen many tries awarded by TMO’s on a lot less evidence than that.
1 -
45 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:
I see that Rishi is paying 23% of his income in tax. The same rate as someone earning about £52.5k PAYE.
Seems fair???
Capital gains should be taxed in line with income.
1 -
3 minutes ago, scottsdad said:
It's getting the blame alright.
You can see the early 2020 dip in the graph at the top. I don't believe deaths actually dropped, just that hospitals stopped admitting people and also attributed deaths to the virus.
There is no place for reasoned logic here.
1 -
2 minutes ago, scottsdad said:
Have a look at my post from March 21st 2023.
It goes into a detailed breakdown of the lancet article.
Anyway, as a reminder here is the graphs from that article.
Show me the big drop from 2018 please.
You’re missing the point. It’s now that pesky Covids fault alcohol deaths haven’t fallen like a stone.
0 -
19 minutes ago, sophia said:
Yes, that bastion of pro snp propaganda BBCs GMS had expert speakers contribute.
It's available on their sounds app
I suggest you read the SG’s own published report.
ETA beaten to it.
1 -
2 minutes ago, sophia said:
Using the very sad breakdown of a marriage for an internet win was wrong the first time and utterly tiresome when repeated ad nauseam. This thread is about minimum unit pricing for alcohol, a measure welcomed by experts in the overdue task in resetting our toxic relationship with drink.
Is there any evidence this has actually happened?
0 -
5 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:
https://www.cosla.gov.uk/news/2024/council-tax-principle-must-remain.
Announcement after the COSLA meeting today. Whose going to blink first. First LA budget announcements next week I think although a lot will ride on who is running the Council as to whether they ignore the freeze or not.
SG won’t want to pass on the consequentials mentioned in that release. They’ve got payrises to fund.
1 -
34 minutes ago, ICTChris said:
What are the alternatives to Yousaf and Continuinty Sturgeonism? Alba? Flags and marches? Kate Forbes?
If the SNP do suffer a significant electoral defeat then the reaction to it from the SNP at all levels will be very interesting - I can see quite a few ardent Scottish nationalists having a complete meltdown if the SNP face setbacks, there will be pressure on the party to go in a more radical direction but would that be the right decision? Who are the prospective leaders of different factions?
You’d have to put Sandy Cromarty on suicide watch.
Can’t tag him on my phone for some reason.
0 -
7 minutes ago, Molotov said:
Out of interest do MSPs that sanction these rises have a members bar at Holyrood? If so do they obey the same rules as the rest of the population?
Our elected UK MPs get significantly subsidised drinks at multiple bars/restaurants in London.
“The Strangers’ Bar is the Houses of Parliament’s popular in-house pub, and it serves up some serious bargains.
A pint of Carlsberg is just £3.56, and Green King IPA is even less at just £3.45. And wine drinkers will find their tipples a steal too: a small glass of sauvignon blanc white wine is a penny-pinching £3.05. Even champagne clocks in at under a tenner a glass.
It’s an impressively cheap price list, especially when you consider that the average London pint everywhere else costs £5.33, according to shopping comparison site Finder.com.”
There certainly used to be a bar at Holyrood. Mrs B used to work there. She can’t remember if it was subsidised or not. The restaurant definitely was.
0 -
19 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:
They'll just not sell the own brand stuff rather than push everything else up. All it does it punish those with less disposable income who have the cheek to want to have a drink.
But its not even just that. Take a standard 440ml can of Heineken, which contains 2.2 units. The minimum price per can is now £1.43 - an increase of 33p.
A 10 pack, which typically retails at around £10-12 down South, now needs to be at least £14.30 up here. And there is no hope of any 3 for £21 or buy 4 get 1 free type deals as they've been banned for years.
It wasn't too long ago I picked up 40 cans in an offer down South for £30. Those same 40 cans would now cost at least £57.20 here.
I'm fortunate that I'm down South often enough I can plan ahead and stock up, but given the extra cash is just going into the retailer's pocket it's an absolutely abysmal kick in the stones for many.
The most shocking thing about this thread is someone admitting they willingly drink Heineken tbh.
10 -
4 minutes ago, Derry Pele said:
A 70cl of Absolut vodka (38% ABV and mid-range, not “scummy”) is currently £18 in Tesco, and the minimum price will be £18.20 when MUP comes into effect, so it’s transcended that argument.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make here.
You’re saying that mid-range alcohol will be pretty much unaffected? I’ll take your word for the prices.
a cheap bottle of Vodka will now cost the same as Absolut so people that would buy cheaper vodka will now be paying more?
I assume you’re not saying that 20p on top of an £18 purchase is the problem here?
0 -
1 hour ago, Billy Jean King said:
They have no requirement to submit receipts to be reimbursed. They are asked to keep receipts should they ever be audited but the reality is they never have been and the "allowance" is paid without scrutiny. It's been well publicised this is the case for decades. They can (and do in many cases) get handed up to 115k a year on submission of a request for payment so shoes to use your example are totally possible. There has never been any public disclosure of what has been claimed for as there is no actual record. It is to all intents and purposes a hand out. Your linked article even states the position over submission.
It's been raised and debated numerous times in both chambers but as the saying goes, Turkey's don't vote for Christmas.
As far as I can recall it’s raised and debated about the amount of people claiming it and why they should be able to. Truss and Clegg being the main targets. Nothing I’m aware of regarding the validity of the expenses which are subject to scrutiny by the CO (not impartial) and the NAO (impartial)
0 -
49 minutes ago, coprolite said:
That’s an interesting comparison.
Raising capital taxes would still increase revenue though. Not by nearly enough to replace income tax or reduce VAT or anything.
Raising corporation tax would probably raise revenue too, again not by a huge amount. Not sure I agree with @Freedom Farter that that would be a tax on ownership in as straightforward a way as capital gains tax is. In conjunction with tax on dividends it is, but income in a company can be earned by doing stuff as well as owning it.
What other countries do doesn’t show the whole range of what we could or should do differently.
Unearned income disproportionately goes to the richest in the country. There is a moral case to tax that income at least as heavily, if not more so, than the fruits of labour.
So you agree it’s not as straightforward as “tax anyone that has/earns more than me”?
Personally I think there’s a lot we can learn from other countries. Of course some of it wouldn’t be popular with the groupthink on this forum.
Even in that article I posted it talked about examples of benefits and pensions having a link to salaries. Whether that’s a viable solution or not who knows but I can imagine the seethe of most on here.
Alternatively It might stop tax avoidance if people think they may get something back eventually. If you got a pension linked to earnings from the state you might feel less inclined to hoard more in your own pension fund (as an example). I think all ideas are worth exploring instead of setting one demographic against another.
There will always be people that have more and people that have less. That’s an unavoidable fact. You have to show the haves the benefit of contributing more to get them on board instead of making them feel punished.
Of course we could carry on the way we are with pretty much everyone being pissed off with the tax regime but that’s not going to solve anything.
0 -
4 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkant said:
My hilarity was at the types meaningless shite these fuckers claim as “expenses”. As Truss will be doing. Former PM or not.
I know most of it is meaningless shite. Ex-pm’s should be put out to pasture and apart from their (healthy) parliamentary pension should be ignored from a government perspective. They shouldn’t be asked/expected to do anything other than be a normal citizen then this noise wouldn’t happen.
Too many people are just like the poster that raised it though. Raging about something they’ve got an entirely incorrect understanding about.
1 -
9 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkant said:
aye I’m sure they do.
You’re probably right. They scribble out a receipt on the back of a fag packet that says “office expenses:£115k” the hand it to someone and say money cunto.
No journalist would ever pick up on that.
0 -
1 hour ago, Rugster said:
What official duties as an ex Pm? It’s a gravy train and you know it. What did Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron do to incur £115k or thereabouts of “expenses” in 2021?
That’s an entirely different question. Apparently there are some things ex-Pm’s are expected to do. If so they should be reimbursed. Seems fair if they’re expected to do it. How is that a gravy train?
Fire in an FOI request or dig it out of a government website. They have to provide receipts and records kept etc.
I did some digging years ago and came to the conclusion I was OK with this. Do your own digging and make up your own mind instead of jumping to conclusions.
1 -
2 minutes ago, Rugster said:
For fucks sake pedant. Allowance.
For expenses incurred doing official duties as an ex-PM. She doesn’t get handed £115k to spend on shoes. No personal gain from it. Not that I think you were trying to imply that in any way whatsoever.
Loads of things to call her a boot about but this isn’t one.
0 -
1 minute ago, Rugster said:
Ok, grant then, not pension, sorry.
It’s not a grant either.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Rugster said:
Indeed, like Liz Truss taking a £115,000 a year pension for her disastrous time in office.
Not even close to being accurate.
0 -
8 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:
That's 100% not relevant is it? Part of the rather snobby attitude that only scummy drinks for scummy folk are affected. All thats relevant is whether they can demonstrate this policy works, which they seem unable to. If not, then it is, as Todd said, nannying pish.
Some people refer to policies that disproportionately affect the poorest as punching down…
0
Magnificent names archive
in The General Nonsense Forum
Posted