trousers

Do what I did and get a t-shirt printed with it on.

Recently bought a 2009 Renault Grand Espace. Not the prettiest looking vehicle in the world but comfortable holds 7 adults / teenagers. Would recommend for growing families looking for flexibility and space. Driving 6 of us down to Italy in August.

Nice one, although it's several tens of millions of pounds that they've avoided paying HMRC rather than a measly few hundred thousand :-)

On the surface, I agree, 3 years sounds relatively high in this case. That said, 12 men and women decided he was guilty of a crime that, one assumes, they would have known what the maximum punishment was for it. As such, he's been judged by his peers in accordance with a system that's been in use for hundreds of years. Whether we think this is right or wrong, I'm sure we'd all agree that it'll make people think hard before even jesting about inciting riots in the future. I'm not agreeing with the sentence per se, just trying to see both sides of the coin. I assume we'll see this go to appeal anyway and a lesser sentence handed down in due course.

This is true and there have been several debates on here and eleswhere about the seemingly disproportionate punishments for various different crimes. When someone gets a tougher sentence for a lesser crime the natural reaction is often to say that the lesser crime should attract a lesser sentence. People rarely look at it the other way around - i.e. that the worst crimes should attract a much higher sentence. The are two ways of making punishments proportional to the crime....lower the disproportionately high punishments so they are below the existing punishments for the worst crimes or raise the disproportionately low punishments for the worst crimes so they are above the not so bad crimes. That's a long winded way of me saying that I would increase the punishments for worse crimes rather than, necessarily, decrease the punishment for lesser crimes.

Great Tits?

I agree with pap :-)

Yeah, I know....sorry, just getting caught up in the usual heady SWF banter.... :-)

Almost as boring as those jumping on the "hypocritical Tory rich gits" bandwagon.... ;-)

And there was me thinking the squeals we all heard was everyone saying: "eh? how come Labour let those rich gits have all that extra money for 12 years".... ;-)

I must admit, my master plan, whilst philisophically a thing of beauty, does have a few logistical flaws in it....

I wonder if Ken Livingstone approves of what Carr has done?

Before we start judging people's moral values, Cameron included, does anyone actually know what Carr has done with the tax money he has avoided paying? For all we know he's opened 16 orphanages with it thus benefiting 100s of deprived kids. As usual, we're all assuming that the state spends our money more wisely and morally than we as individuals are capable of...

Under which law would he not allow it? (that's the crux behind my hypothetical question)

http://www.dinnertool.com/recipe/shredded-chicken-and-snake-soup It's what she would have wanted....

Ah, ok - cheers. I learn something everyday on this thread. If nothing else, this thread is educational! :-)

All humans are hypocrites.

How do we know that Cameron is fully supportive of his Dad's exploits? (two devil's advocate cards played in one thread by Trousers...go me)

Indeed. I assume PKF now get to vote at the CVA meeting....what with them now being on the ever growing Pompey debt list.....? edit: ah, just seen View From The Top's post about PKF being a Football Creditor and thus not subject to the derisory 2p in the £ offer.... no conflict of interests there then....

In a devil's advocate kinda way, anyone on PAYE has "chosen" not to avoid tax in this way. What is there to stop anyone going to their company and saying: "Hey....I want to opt out of this PAYE malarkey....instead of paying me directly, please forward an equivalent sum of money to this trust fund in Jersey and leave the rest to me..." Ok, I know most companies in the country would tell an employee where to stick such a proposal but is there anything LEGALLY or TECHNICALLY stopping an employee and employer 'colluding' in such a way IF they wanted to?

@pn_neil_allen: Trevor Birch insists PKF have yet to take a penny out of #Pompey in administration fees. http://t.co/0V7DJAhv I wonder if PKF shareholders are happy with Birch putting the plight of Pompey ahead of their own profits and cash flow? Surely the main goal of an administration company is to make as much profit out of the industry they are in as possible?

I've got a radical idea....let's give it a go for one season and see what happens. I'm guessing no-one will die as a result of trying it out. Next week I shall be mainly having a crack at rocket science.

I'm genuinely surprised that human beings don't appreciate that other human beings have different opinions and that neither their opinion or someone else's opinion is right or wrong. I'm with you, let's give this technology malarkey a go. Nothing to lose. But I understand why the human nature in others is reluctant to give things a go. Some people will always prefer some things the way they are, other people will prefer to change. That's life. No surprises there.