Lord Duckhunter

I have had English people turn down promotions because it effects their WFTC. I have had Englsih people turn down overtime for the same reason, or they claim it's not worth it because the tax man takes a lot of it. I have yet to have a Pole turn down overtime, in fact I had to tell them to take time off because they were overdoing it. I cant speak for all Poles, but the ones that worked for me, were hard working, respectful and would do any job asked of them without complaining. I wish the same could be said of all my English workers.

My wife is a student midwife, and she has a NUS card. She qualifies in the next couple of months and (fingers crossed) starts with the NHS in Nov, where she will be earning pretty decent money. If the ticket office just accepted her NUS card, she would be getting a consession price for the whole season. Surely it's only right that students prove that they are going to be a student for the whole (or large majority) of season? I would say the ticket office have done the right thing.

So we can't cut the benefits of people refusing to join proper society, because if we do they'll just do illigal things? Welfare should be a safety net for people who are struggling at any given time. Provided they want to get into work, are willing to do any work and are honest law abiding citizens (or is it subjects), then I see no reason why the state shouldn't help them through a difficult period. What I cant get my head round is why our money should be used to fund someone's lifestyle choice. If half a million Poles can find work at the drop of a hat, why are there English people in their 20's & 30's who have never worked?

The feeding part is easy, some sort of pre paid card which can be used in supermarkets to buy food. The unpalatable truth is that the only way we can break the cycle in some cases is to take the children away from the destructive family life they have. In 2012 that is not going to happen, so we end up with generations and generations left behind. It's not the kids fault and if there was an easier answer someone would have found it by now.

Exactly. No doubt Red Ken will be one of the first lefties squealing about welfare clampdown.

5 years ago I was trying to fill posts just above the minimum wage. All I got applying was Polish and timewasters. Timewasters who applying for the jobs, just to satisfy the autherites that they were looking for work and therefore could keep their benefits. They barely made any attempt to conceal the fact, and did not really want the jobs. It is these people that I think of when reforming the benefit system is discussed. How was it that half a million Polish came over here and found work, yet their are people who have been unemployed 10 years? Welfare should be a safety net for people, not a way of life. You say you worry about "the implementation, which is likely to be scatter-gun, and will likely affect people that fall well outside this culture of entitlement" , but the people to blame for this are not the ones trying to clamp down on abuse, but the ones that milk the system to end up with more disposable income than the average working man.As you say it will not be done until after the next election, so let's hope the Torys put it in their manifesto, and then nobody can complain they haven't got a mandate for it.

I'm also attacking Labour rank and file that voted Tax avioder ken Livingstone onto their NEC. In fact Livingstone topped the poll, that's how serious they are about tax aviodence in the Labour party. We expect our politians to be hypocrites, but when it trickles down to the grass roots, it's a bit worrying.

I didn't know that only one country outside of Europe has 50% or higher tax rate, so thanks for that. My view is pretty much that a % is a %, and can't quite understand why the richest have to pay an even higher %. Particulary when you bare in mind that they pay for an NHS they proberly dont use, schools for their children when most go private, and public transport which I doubt they ever go on. All in all we get a good deal out of the richest in society and they pay a lot more in terms of % into the revenue than they did in the 70's. I'm just under the 40%, will never get anywhere near the 45%/50% but still feel the richest do pay their fair share, it's just the ones that dodge it who give the rest a bad name.

Agreed, it should not be optional. But people who do consider it optional should not be Knighted . And when someone who feels it's optional comes top of a political parties election for their NEC, that party really should STFU about tax dodgers.

The HMRC conducted a study into tax aviodence, and The study said the use of tax reliefs on charitable donations was among the top three tax loopholes used to legally reduce income tax bills. Osbourne closed that down, then came the howls of anger and attacks on the Tory party for being out of touch. The vehicle that Carr used was set up by Gordon Brown to help film funding . Had that been closed you would have had luvvies and their leftie mates whinning on about the Govt being "out of touch". It's the same with the so called pasty tax. Why is it right for massive Companys like Gregs to not charge VAT on a hot pasty, but the local family chippie has to? As soon as the Govt tries to do something about tax a special interest group will hit the airwaves and the BBC will lap it up. There are only so many loopholes, because there are so many tax breaks here and there for various pet projects, but also because the tax rate is so high in this country.

Is that the same Philip Green knighted by the Labour Govt?

I have lived in Poole for the past 20 years, and the number of Saints fans I have met, or seen around with shirts on is directly linked to how we are doing and what legaue we are in. Right through the late 90's and early 00's there were plenty, but the last few years there has been less and less.Last season they started popping up again. I travel by train most games, and there used to be a large number of Saints supporters already on the train, when I got on at Poole. The past few years, there have been hardly any. Now, unless people from Weymouth & Wareham ect have started driving it must be linked to which league we're in. I guess we will see whether they are back next year. The fact that we were in the top league alone for the most part of 30 years, has attracted people from all over Dorset. Surely had Boscombe been in the top flight and Saints in the 3rd & 4th tier, these people from Weymouth, Wimborne, Ferndown ect ect would have been going to watch Boscombe. Playing in the top flight and having a degree of sucsess clearly widens your catchment area, and increases the number of fair weather fans. Most on here are "hardcore" and will follow Saints in what ever league we're in, but there are thousends who just want to be seen to support a sucsessful/top flight club. It's why there are loads of non scousers in their 40's support Liverpool and loads of non mancs in their 30's support Man U, and why in 30 years time there will be loads of middle aged man City supporters, who have no connection with the City.

Agreed, And the fake moral outrage from Labour Politicans makes me sick. One of the most notorious tax avioders is Phillip Green, who saved £285 million worth of tax in 2002, by buying Arcadia in his Monaco based wife's name.Fast forward 4 years and he gets awarded a knighthood by the Labour Govt. We have a fat cat business tax avioder knighted, a hypocrite champagne socilaist tax avioder coming top of their NEC vote, yet they still bang on about "sticking up for the right people".

Yes, Blair and Mandleson's tax affairs would make interesting reading. And who has just come top of their NEC vote, held just 2 days ago? It's our old friend Ken "21% corporation tax" Livingstone. Rich Tory families, bankers and entertainers are bad people for avioding tax. Whereas champagne socialist Tax avioders get voted onto to Labour's NEC.

If you're going to use technology, the most sensible thing I've read on here is Bob's 3 challanges. Anything else would be the thin end of the wedge in my opinion. GLT may beep to alert the ref that the ball has crossed the line. But how is it fair to just use it for that? A corner at OT is bent in after going out of play, SRL heads it towards goal, the ref's watch (or whatever) bleeps, and a goal is awarded. It should have been a goal kick. One line decision was subject to technology and one 2 seconds earlier that was an important part of the goal (the cross) was not. Can you see the Fergie's, Wenger's ect standing for that?

Did you see that chump Angela Eagle on the Dail Politics yesterday. They had some fit Socilaist French bird on, and he was asking about the 75% tax rate. Andrew Neil asked Eagle what she thought of it and she was all bluster and waffle. kept banging on about "we wont announce our tax plans until nearer the election". Neil pressed her 3 times, what do YOU think of the 75% tax rate and she wouldn't answer. Neil said, "what's the point in coming on here if you wont answer my questions", when eagle said "can I just make one point" he said "no, you wont answer a simple question, so you can keep quiet". Her attitude summed Labour up completely. Alan Duncan (who I think is a t wat) said, it's bad uncompetitive and wont bring anymore money in. The Labour bint could not bring herself to even comment on it.......

So you would review , throw in's, corners, offsides, & determine where fouls were committed. That's how cricket started, line decisions. Soon moved onto LBW, which is always subjective and the law even says "benefit of any doubt given to batsmen" How long before the presure to get other decisions "right" leads to more technology, as it did in cricket?

How far back do you go? And why just a goal. If Saints need a win to stay up and are drawing 0-0 in the last minute, the ref gives a goal kick when it should be a corner, therefore depriving Saints the chance of one last attack and the chance of that winning goal, why can't that be reviewed? Especially as earlier in the game the opposition had scored and a review had awarded the goal. What's Adkins going to say "control the controlables" or "why could one decision be reviewed, but not another". I can hear it now, "we have the technology in place, why aren't we using it?"

Good luck with telling Fergie that the offside goal against Man U will be given because the video ref reviewed it and said it crossed the line. Can't dissallow it for offside, because it's for goal line stuff only. I can see it on MoTD now, week after week managers queuing up to ask, "why was that corner, foul, offside,dive, handball that led to the goal not reviewed"? It will lead to creeping technology, reviewing all decisions .

If that's the case then surely an organsation that is run by a poll tax from the public purse, should ensure that every single person they pay, pays the correct amount on that particulary money. If the "star" doesn't like it, then go and work for someone else.

That's my point. The people calling for goal line tecnology only, would have given that "goal", but ignored the offside. Unless they are now calling for all offside decisions to be reviewed.Why then stop at offside, shouldn't Maradona's handball be reviewed? What about fouls or dives? You could end up with a situation where a guy dives for a peno, the resulting peno is smacked down onto the line, reviewed, and a goal given, yet the intial dive was not reviewed. You say review all goals, but that wasn't a goal as the ref didn't give it. If the ball stayed in play, when do you stop and review it, and how do you restart the game after stopping it, if it wasn't over the line.If you wait until the ball goes dead (which could be 4/5 mins in the modern game), all sorts of events could happen. What if a player commits a bad challange and gets a second yellow during the period we are waiting for a review, if we then go back and give a goal does the sending off still stand?

He has worked for the BBC. An organisation funded by a poll tax, taken from us, normal tax payers. Are BBC "stars" & emplyees all PAYE and if not, why not?

I had a few of them work for me over the years and most were pretty fit (apart from their teeth, they all seemed to have bad teeth). They were very good workers, very respectful, and a credit to their Country. According to a couple of the guys whio tried to get into their knickers, they dont put out very easily, but a couple of the girls told me that they found English blokes too pushy, so it may have been them.

It looks like 2 mistakes were made, one by the lino and one by the offical by the post. How is it fair that one mistake can be corrected by technology and the other one not. It's all well and good saying it is for goal line stuff only, but that will change once the unfairness becomes clear to people. remember cricket started for line decisions only, and it now includes LBW. The LBW law has always stated that the benefit of the doubt should go to the batsmen. That law has clearly been overlooked since technology came into play, because there must be a doubt for the umpire to refer it. I beleiev that within 5 years of tecnology being used for goal line decisions, all decisions will be subject to this. This is what happened in cricket, what makes people think football will be any different?

I am totally against goal line technology. Not becaues of time, but because of fairness. What if Maradonas handball goal, had bounced just over the line and been subject to technology. The camera would have shown the ball over the line, but he punched it over the line.Are people who are saying it should be "only goal line decisions", prepared to allow the goal to stand when a reply clearly showed a handball? What if a throw in is awarded at OT against Man Utd when it was clearly their throw.From that throw in, Frank Lampard smacks the ball against the bar and just over the line, the Ref waves play on, but we go to the goal line technology and the video guy says it's a goal. What's Fergie going to say "fair enough", or is he going to say "why was the ref helped to make one decision and not another one". Even the hawkeye stuff in the goal wont stop the unfairness, what if a guy crosses the ball when it's clearly behind for a goal kick, it's headed just over the line. Hawkeye gives the goal, but the ball had clearly gone off for a goal kick. It will be the thin edge of the wedge. Bring it in for goal line stuff and it'll end up being for every decision. I prefer every decision made on the pitch to be subject to human error, not some subject to human error and some not. It's quite simple really. A goal is a goal if in the eyes of the ref and his asst it is over the line. It doesn't matter a toss what anyone else says, if the ref doesn't think its a goal, it's not a goal.Just as if the Ref doesn't think it's a foul, it's not a foul. Or if the Lino thinks it's a goal kick, it's a goal kick.