egg

Half decent article on the BBC today. The emphasis is very much on that laws in wars are repeatedly being broken by Israel. Addressing the point that has been made on here at times re Israeli government justification, a Swiss diplomat says this when asked about Israel's justification that it is acting in self-defence to destroy a terrorist organisation that attacked and killed its people on 7 October. "It is no justification for a disrespect or for a hollowing out of the Geneva Conventions," she said. "Neither party is allowed to break the rules, no matter what, and this is important because, look, the same rules apply to every human being under the Geneva Convention. "A child in Gaza has exactly the same protections under the Geneva Conventions as a child in Israel." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0r1xl5wgnko

I think he means Ltd rather than PLC, hence my response.

A limited company is a doddle to set up. Once registered with companies house, you can get a limited company bank account and away you go. I particularly like the Tide and have used it with Xero for book keeping and it synced seamlessly with it. For example, if I paid for something with the tide card it worked through to the books automatically. Xero also issued the invoices, did the vat return, and did the bank reconciliation. My accountant guided me on the blend of salary and dividends. Bear in mind the company will have it's own accounts to do but they were relatively cheap as Xero reconciled them as we went along, and kept things in order. The company has to pay corporation tax on it's profits, and it can pays it's staff (you) how much or little it chooses, and could choose to reward you with pension contributions. All of those would be tax deductable expenses to the company, thus reducing its tax liability. If the company has surplus cash that you don't want to take as a salary or dividend, the company can invest it how it wishes, example , it could use it's surplus cash as a deposit on an investment property or whatever. Your company salary and any dividends will be declared in your own tax return, alongside any other income. Not a huge job, and not massively expensive if you get an accountant to do it.

Limited company is different to self employed. I've done both. Self employed is an arse ache and cost me much more in tax than when I was trading through a limited company, and also when earning comparable as an employee. The issue when self employed is paying tax for the year gone, and then on account for the year ahead. There's definitely ways to mitigate tax payments when trading via a company though if you're that way inclined.

There was no implication against you. The post I commented on referred to something that was "nothing to do with me". If it was a self reference, you suggested otherwise.

My tax isn't taken, I pay it. In full. On time. I assume you do too.

So someone trying to beat/cheat the system got caught and had to pay the correct amount?

I don't think it's noble or unusual. Some people want stuff but don't want to pay , and some of those aren't too fussed about their fellow man. Others accept that you get nothing for nothing, accept that those who can pay more should, and that there shouldn't be a massive gulf between the bulk of society.

It's a Renault under the badge. Personally, I'd rather have a Renault built by a diligent Romanian than a French bloke, and pay less for it.

We fail imo as we've been stuck for years with Tory governments over borrowing and slashing services, followed by labour governments raising taxes but having little headroom to increase spending, then repeating. We seem to have a mass of the population yearning for an unrealistic system of good services and low tax, ie the non sensical reform pledge, and being perplexed when it goes to shit. I look at countries like Denmark who's population accept high taxes in the knowledge they get a good return for their buck. It's only worked for them though as they've had consistently, and the people buy into it and see tax as something they need to pay, rather than having tax taken from them.

We'll never agree on this. Fundamentally I have no issue with paying more the more I earn. You'd rather keep more for your self. We're cut from different cloth.

Anyone paying 45% tax is doing better financially than most people, that much is obvious. It means a good level of income. This is an observation, not a criticism, but I've noted many people down the years see their income improve, and become more resentful of paying tax. I guess that outlook comes partly from political ideology. Your latter point is an interesting one and I think it varies from person to person. I've achieved pretty much all there is to achieve in my game so I've taken my feet off the peddle as I'm not fussed about big bucks, status and all they bollox any more, but I completely understand people who strive for all or some of that. If they want it, then more tax is the financial price to pay.

That depends on your outlook mate. The more you earn, ordinarily the more you can afford. I have no issue with a progressive system.

The more you earn, the more you pay. That's how society should be imo. Do I want to pay as much tax as I do? Of course I don't. Do I accept that I should, can, and be grateful that I'm doing better than most? Yes.

Widespread is probably more suitable than universal, but yes, until the US call out the Israeli government behaviour out for what it is, they'll carry on filling their boots.

Yep. The explanation given today is appalling. Essentially, unarmed people apparently walked where they shouldn't in a threatening way, so they shot them. Hard to understand why there isn't universal condemnation for what we're seeing on a daily basis.

Israeli forces killing people desperate for aid for for the 3rd consecutive day. Horrendous. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvg5vyp33j1t?post=asset%3A8ff83e7e-c91e-4294-90f8-f697490c99f3#post

Pharmacy

How do you know he did? Anyways, it's important to remember that the fella hasn't got to prove a thing. On the current charges as I understand them, the CPS need to establish that he intended to severely harm/wound those people, and that if he drove dangerously, that he didn't fear death or serious injury from the baying mob attacking him.

Yep. The idiot who opened the car door has a lot to answer for as well. If gid car hadn't been attacked, and his door opened, what happened after wouldn't have happened.

Yep. Aintforever has convicted him. I'm with the Farmer on this, so far, but let's see how it plays out. My suspicion though is that he'll cop a guilty plea to lesser offences. There's no doubt he's caused GBH, but I'm not seeing any intent to cause harm, just a bloke who shouldn't have been where he was panicking.

That much is known, and that was based on mere suspicion.

Was it ever formally said that he was under the influence? It seemed to a suspicion only.

Yep. And if they accept that he didn't intend to kill, I'm not sure how they feel they can prove that he intended to harm or wound. I think his only intent was to get out unharmed himself.

I more or less agree with you. Having your car door opened, people banging on your windows/roof and shouting kill him, is going to instil panic in anyone. Putting aside why he was in his car to begin with (perhaps feeling unsafe in the crowd and needing a way out), it seems highly possible that the main incident wouldn't have happened if his car wasn't attacked.