aintforever

Oh come on, it doesn't matter which way you vote, the British public in general are not the brightest bunch - how else do you explain Tony Blair getting re-elected after an illegal war, the Sun being the best selling paper, or the X factor? My point about the leaflet is because it has the HM Government logo on it and it is designed like an information leaflet - it will work in that it will persuade some people to vote in. I have studied and worked in advertising/design for over 25 years and I'm pretty sure this dishonest, underhand approach will work better than if they had produced a leaflet with the Britain Stronger In logo on (which in my opinion is what they should have done) so people could recognise it as propaganda and not think they are just reading the facts of the issue. Britain will vote to stay in anyway, it won't even be close.

Except next to nothing has been reformed. And I still don't think it's right that they spend tax payers money on propaganda leaflets in the guise of sending out a government factual leaflet.

So Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Gove, Chris Grayling, Theresa Villiers, John Whittingdale are not part of the government then?

Who are "The government" then if it is not the current elected MPs? Surely to be factually correct the leaflet should have stated "some people within the government think..." because who what I can see a large part of the government want to leave the EU.

It's what it implies that is wrong. It is designed as if it is an official document giving us the necessary information when it is just propaganda aimed at misleading. I am amazed that a government is allowed to be so biased in a referendum like this. The whole point in a refurendum is to let the people not the MPs decide. Also how can a leaflet say "the government thinks this and that" when most of the Tory party, the party elected by us, are anti EU? This leaflet will probably work though, the British public in the main are ****ing stupid so won't see this leaflet for what it is.

You clearly have problems reading, I don't agree with what either of them have done.

Don't agree with that either

The 200 grand pressie from his mum avoided any inheritance tax from his daddies estate. Not crime of the century but but a bit hypocritical given his pretend outrage at other people's tax avoidance. Plus these offshore things are always dodgy, remember the only reason we know anything at all about this one is because information was leaked and he had to say something, god knows what else his family has squirrelled away. These things are always too clever to leave a paper trail to anything illegal but it's the sneaky, greedy nature of it I don't like given his position.

He hasn’t done anything illegal (from what we know) but wether what he done is wrong or not is obviously a matter of opinion. Personally, I’m not a big fan of tax avoidance, I don’t get why people with such vast amounts of money go through so much trouble to keep a bit more - I guess greed is the new norm. I just find it very sad. I think the Prime Minister should be setting an example to the rest of the UK so going out of his way to avoid paying tax is not a great example. It is particularly galling in Cameron’s case because: 1. He’s personally been responsible for cutting public services and benefits for the disabled using lack of public funds as a reason/excuse. 2. He has gained political capital by pretending to be against tax avoidance. Plenty wrong IMO.

It's a good job they are getting tough, I hope they get tougher. Many of my mates have small businesses and they have a million and one ways of getting out of paying tax, most of them run rings round the tax man.

How many times has he changed his story now? Only yesterday he said he hadn't benefitted from offshore funds.

Surely in the interests of democracy the only fair thing to do would be to give the out campaign the same amount? I thought the purpose of a referendum was to gauge public opinion, not just a vehicle to get the public to do what the government want you to do.

It's all irrelevant, we all work and pay tax (except the obvious scrounges). If you work your ass off in some low paid salaried job you don't get the option of squirrelling it away in an offshore scheme and you sure as **** put a higher percentage of what you earn back into the economy.

Contracts are irrelevant when it comes to managers though, doesn't matter if he has 6 years or 6 months left, he could leave whenever he wants.

I can't see him leaving. I doubt any of the big boys will be in for him and with Leicester proving that now anyone can win the league it makes sense for him to stay here and challenge for the title next season.

I'm not sure how questioning the PM on possible tax avoidance goes against any new era principles. I would say it's his duty as leader of the opposition to do it. What's your idea of 'new era' - sit there and say nothing about anything that might make the tories look bad?

It's not though is it, like if someone asks you did you **** a pig. If you didn't **** a pig you would say " I didnt **** a pig". If you did, and knew you were not allowed to lie you wouldn't answer the question.

To be fair if he's sacking board members because of the colour of their skin or sex it is.

True, we don't know exactly what was said but someone must have told the women to sit on one side and the men on the other. I'm all for being tolerant of other religions and cultures but there is no reason why we should tolerate sexism, racism or homophobia in today's society. I could'nt care less what god people choose to worship but if you are trying to install your backward ways of thinking on us **** back off to your middle eastern **** hole.

Like saying, "you're female - sit over there"

Maybe the situation has changed and the UK wants to change their policy? Either way, the democratically elected UK government should decide not a bunch of foreigners.

I think it might be EU rules that stop us subsidising the steel industry like China do. Probably deemed unfair to steel companies in Poland or something.

True, but they say they are doing it because of the religion and the suicide aspect of it does suggest a belief in the religion they say they are doing it for. It appears to some of similar faith they are considered good wholesome muslims.

This. There is a difference between someone of a certain religion doing something bad, and someone doing something bad because (or in the name of) of the religion. Using football violence as an example. If someone who happens to be a Saints fan does something violent it's nothing to do with Saints or football. If a Saints fan goes to a game and kicks the **** out of someone because they are an opposition fan, it is.

Agree. I never think it's right when judges decide to make examples of people to serve as a deterant to others. Punishment should fit the crime. It was the same for those riots in 2012. People had the book thrown at them for minor offences just to get headlines.