Barbe bleu

I'm not sure the commercial logic of investing in loss making projects really works, but I agree with the sentiment, if applied to the BBC. Take the top 10 BBC earners, cut their salaries in half and invest the savings in this sort of project. I'd rather have one mr bates made with the savings than see x, y or z on channel 1 rather than on 3, 5 or 317. ITV have learnt a commercial lesson and they won't repeat it so it's down to the BBC to pick up the baton, it's what it is for. Itv is there to make money so we can't really expect them to put public service at the fore

If they paid ant and Dec and bit less they would still have lost £1million on the post office drama. If they made more of these programmes they'd lose even more money. ITV dramas like this prove why the BBC licence fee is still relevant.

What a sh*t cartoon. Why would He Man be on a Thundercats duvet cover? Do it again.

Much longer than that to get a hearing. The ECHR can be legally ignored and probably will be so I don't see this as big factor

I was a bit worried when I first heard about this parade. But then I saw a few people had the word 'England' written on the cross of St George and some others were shouting 'In-ger-land' in thick Cockley accents. These two things were sufficient to create a safe space in which I could express my snobbery and class prejudice, which of course I delighted in.

Interesting I've not heard that before and I heartily approve. My mate guy used to day that he could never trust anyone he hasn't got drunk with. Maybe wannabe MPs can get us all drunk two days before an election, that way we can satisfy both guy and heroditus?

Famous for getting on the beers before going to the ballot were they? Persia was famous for its wines so maybe (perhaps not as famous for having actually ballots though)

They are on a Thursday now precisely to ensure that people aren't smashed when they cast their vote! (Insert hilarious comment on previous election results here)

I'd get behind that. We just need to convince the Guardian readers that Nelson was a trailblazer for disability rights by proving that disabled people can be shaggers and heroes as well as, if not better, than anyone.

Me too. Not my area of history so never really looked into it before but prompted by this I had a flick through Wikipedia and it seems that almost all of the prominent Irish nationalists of the 18/19th centuries were also protestant, albeit not anglican. Not sure we need another bank holiday in April. I wouldnt say no if offered but I'd rather have a day or two after August, probably in honour of the UK rather than England. If you can think of an excuse, I'll put it to ministers next time i see one.

It wasn't really what was to happen to the borrowed money that caused the shock. Truss wanted to borrow to pay for tax cuts that would feed investment but it could just have easily been corbyn borrowing for social projects. Truss felt she had very limited time to act so felt the need to go all in (and did so at a time when the BoE was doing something in the opposite direction but let's not get into that). The sting that created will prevent anyone else trying something similar (on either side) for sometime yet. That's why there is nothing between the parties, both are scared of market reaction. I'd say that this event is paradoxically both irrelevant to any election in the next 20 plus years and also a very big reason why the politics of those 20 plus years will be as they will.

This was 2 years ago and has largely been overtakeen by events, it was the work of a different cabinet and neither of the big parties is going to adopt a similar model. I'm not sure it is worth getting into the weeds on this. AlOS has a certain 'style' but he is probably right to advise not getting overwrought about it. Ironically it might have killed off possibilities at both the right and left wings. Stymied the left by emphasising the importance of 'the markets' and the threats posed by borrowing too much and constrained the ability of the right to induce investment into enterprise .

Mainly although, if i recall correctly, she did call for some MPs to resign whilst under investigation though so there is still a charge of hypocrisy to be answered. Mind you no one did resign so maybe she is entitled to follow suit having 'reviewed her own advice' Agree with most of that. Tories went after her because she was the attack dog and they saw an opportunity to neutralise her and to relieve some pressure on them- it's not really about 'seeing justice done', it never is. Second part is interesting. We don't actually know what she is accused of so can't really conclude that no action can be taken. If that does prove to be the case then 'yea I did it, but I got away with it for lomg enough' isnt the best line with which the draw this to a conclusion. So maybe she will want to explain herself and her advice to square it off nicely for her?

I guess that sometimes things are worth a try even if you think they will likely mot work? Or maybe sounding out an idea on a smaller basis and without the baggage ?

It's the way it is I'm afraid. According to the BBC it was our government that initiated this with individual states- the EU didn't like that and took over. Perhaps with both sides having made their point there is now room for sensible discussions?

I'm not opposed to some sort of deal in this area. The terms reported: four years, no NHS deposit and subsidised university are non-starters but something along less generous terms could work all around. Language skills mean that this will be a lop sided deal but both sides qould benefit I suspect so why not

Regret to inform you that my prayers to the Gods failed. When I woke up snodgrass had still pulled rank on the penalty. However, this has confirmed my belief in God. Like 137% of norwich supporters I know that snoddy was the devil incarnate against villa and that he single handedly destroyed Rickie's career that day. And as we know the existence of the devil surely implies the existence of the other fellow.

If I did would I wake up tomorrow to find that Snodgrass let Rickie take that penalty, or it that a miracle/multiverse/timetravelling neutrino too far?

Checked out that tweet at source and found this

I'd be interested in your take on this. I'm not tax lawyer but the statute and advice you linked to suggested that she would have been entitled to the CGT impcaton of the sale if two things applied: 1) the couple used both properties as a 'home' and that they nominated this one as their single main residence. They could not nominate as their home an empty property or one rented out to a third party 2) both positively assented to that status. Does this seem right?

I think there is probably nuance to be added to what you are saying. The rules say that a married couple can only have one CGT exempt property between them and that they can nominate which one of the two or more that is. If that were the end of it then rayner is probably OK. But the following bits complicate it a bit. He must agree with what she nominates, and both must be used by them as dwellings, I'm not sure about the first qualifier but the other is now in dispute "If when they marry or register as civil partners they each own a residence and---- they continue to use both as residences-----, they can ---jointly--- nominate which is to be treated as the main residence. "

For what it is worth I think the electoral declaration thing is pretty minor. If its demonstrated she did wrong I wouldn't want to see her resign over it. Whether that makes her a hypocrit given her statements about other transgressions is a matter for the electorate. The tax issue is the bigger one. Knowingly filling out duff info to reduce your burden is a serious allegation which, if proven, is a sacking offence even if it was some time ago. Wouldn't necessarily bar her from a comeback on my book but these things shouldn't be just nodded away. Thing is all we really know is that GMP are looking at something, that's the limit of the conclusions we can draw. If she followed her own advice she would step down but as no one else took her advice i think she is entitled to stay, for now at least

I've truncated your first two paragraphs to highlight and then shelve one issue for now- we don't know what HMRC are doing so not much point speculating. Yes, my intrigue is about the police investigation. They have already declined to investigate once. So what will they now be looking at? Seems to me to be only three options: (1) there is no new investigation, there is only perfomative action designed to a alleviate pressure (2) they are investigating a whole new offence, not the time barred one (3) they are investigating a more recent incident of the same offence.

I'm very intrigued as to what the police are investigating. The making a false claim thing seems unlikely as the time bar seems impossible but the GMP have reverse ferreted on an earlier decision not to investigate which presumably they did for some reason. The fraud aspect will presumably be on a desk in HMRC so what is under investigation? Is it just police going through the motions because of public pressure or is there a third allegation on the table?

Isn't the rule that non dom status relates only to foreign income? Money made in the UK still gets taxed at the standard rate. I dont really care about the politics of this. If abolition raises the overall take then great, if it doesn't then its a blunder. I suspect that it's 50/50 which will prove true