dylanisabaddog

I like to think of them as non league weekends. But that list is a little bit silly. Nunez is going to spend most of the first half of the season on an aeroplane. God help us if Sara gets in the Brazil squad

We had a council by-election this time last year. The Tory candidates rebranded themselves 'Local Conservatives'. All 3 seats went to local Lib Dems.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/02/22/efl-introduce-new-rules-stop-teams-playing-weakened-sides/ We simply need to include 10 outfield players in the 18 who played the game before. So 6 on the bench along with starting the back 4 is OK. I'm sure Josh will be rested but I'd also definitely not play Sainz. He is fouled constantly and is also a red card risk.

There are various ways of looking at it. It's a good warm up for a possible play off game but - Everyone is going to be trying to ensure they don't get injured. Players who are trying not to get hurt sometimes manage to do just that. The only way to ensure no one gets injured is not to play them. James Maddison springs to mind. There are 4 or 5 players we simply can't do without so they really shouldn't be risked. Top of the list is Sargent who should be sitting at home with his feet up.

Hopefully. In fact if things go to plan we will probably be putting out a reserve team.

Nonsense. We'll all club together and buy you a dictionary for Christmas.

Atheism is a lack of belief in God (or God's as there have been around 300 so far). It simply rules out God, nothing else. You can try and make it mean something else but you'd be wrong. You are entitled to your opinion but you are trying to change the simple meaning of a word to support your own views.

One small group of people in the scientific community believe there is a 50/50 chance we are living in a simulation. That is very different from 50% of the scientific community believing it.

Google lens doesn't know who he is. Definitely not Richard Bacon as whoever it is is at work.

If you're not sure, perhaps you could just read it?

S222(6) TCGA92 sets out that spouses or civil partners who are living together can only have one main residence between them for the purpose of private residence relief. 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. The two year period for making the nomination commences on the date of marriage or the date of registration. 1. The word 'home' isn't used in the legislation or HMRC guidance. In the widest sense of the legislation the only requirement is that one of them spends a night in the 2nd home. 2. A nomination needs to be made within 2 years of the marriage. I don't know for sure but HMRC may accept the address used on a Tax Return as a nomination. She claims to have taken advice so it seems reasonable to assume it was done properly. In general HMRC is relaxed about this legislation. As long as they get CGT on one of the 2 properties they won't be particularly interested. Someone has said that Rayner has now been accused of incorrectly claiming single person reduction on her council tax. I've no idea if that accusation has been made or if it's true. Quite frankly I wouldn't believe anything I read about her at the moment but I'm surprised that the Conservatives are still throwing mud around. She was an electoral liability before this all started and Starmer would be quietly pleased if she is forced to resign. I was astonished to hear Sunak bring the matter up at PMQ'S yesterday. Bearing in mind his personal circumstances he would be better advised to shut up.

Apparently Donald fell asleep in court yesterday. Somehow I doubt Biden will be silly enough to mention it. What a mess

Lovely line from Starmer at PMQ's. Have you read your predecessor's book? I have the only unsigned copy...

Separate Assessment was a form of independent taxation before the introduction around 1990 of what is now called Independent Taxation. I hope that makes sense. It was horrendously complicated but the CG form you refer to became redundant over 30 years ago. There was also something called a Wife's Earnings Election and from memory it was possible to do both. If a client decided on both their accountant would sob quietly in the toilet for half an hour before throwing themselves off the roof. Although Independent Taxation started 30 years ago there were certain exceptions. One of those was the CGT main residence exemption. If husband and wife had been able to elect different residences every married couple with 2 homes (North Norfolk springs to mind) would have avoided CGT on the second home. That would have been expensive. As regards Rayner, I suspect she worried about the rules on selling a council house she'd purchased at a reduced price and the CGT problem. She took advice but a tax planner can't and won't advise on non tax matters other than to encourage people to consider other implications. No one would have thought about the electoral roll. We've no idea what she is alleged to have done. If she used the wrong address on electoral forms she's been silly but if I was her I'd use security as the reason. She and her children are permanently under threat and it would be difficult to argue with. About a year ago I thought I had found the perfect Labour candidate for South Norfolk it's not in my gift by the way but she would have been perfect). She thought about it and did some research and eventually said no because she was worried about the safety of her children. That was nothing to do with Labour, she would have taken the same view if she was Conservative. That's awful isn't it? We need more women in the Labour Party and the one I know would have made an excellent MP.

Who was it in the Labour Party who persuaded Liz Truss to write a book and say she hasn't ruled out coming back as Leader? Probably the greatest political masterstroke this century.

@Fen Canaryis right in that the fact that smokers don't live as long isn't taken into account in studies. That saving is huge both in terms of pension savings and in reducing pressure on the NHS who won't have to deal with those people who would inevitably fill beds with non smoking related issues.

Having been a smoker I wish this law had existed when I was young. The difference between smoking and drinking alcohol is that it's possible to drink occasionally or moderately without becoming addicted. Nicotine is almost as addictive as heroin. From the point of view of the NHS, a doctor at the N&N told me recently that their admissions are now caused mainly by obesity and diabetes. Alcohol comes next followed by smoking. Smokers will claim (probably rightly) that the tax they pay and pension they don't get covers their treatment but unfortunately successive governments haven't ringfenced the tobacco tax. I'm in favour of the ban simply because smoking is very bad for you and nicotine is extremely addictive. We don't legalise heroin for the same reasons. Like @Fen CanaryI'm a bit concerned about alcohol being targeted but that's because I'm capable of drinking in moderation(apart from when we beat Ipswich). I don't like the idea of it being taxed more but at the same time I'm a bit baffled that Tesco are allowed to regularly encourage their customers to buy 6 bottles of wine for the price of 4. At the centre of this is the question, what are Governments for? Should they be meddling with people's lives because they know better? When it comes to health that question is more pertinent here because we have the NHS. If we had a private health service based on insurance I suspect it would solve a lot of unhealthy habits. We do unhealthy things at the moment because we have a safety net. But in general I think they should. They meddle with our lives in many different ways to keep us safe. We aren't allowed to drive fast because it kills us and other people. Health and safety in workplaces is another one of thousands of things that are designed with us in mind. If they don't meddle is there any point in having them?

I trust you 😊

Thanks. That's bad news!

I haven't got the faintest idea if he could play for us this season but Portsmouth'so last game is 27 April. Our final game is at Birmingham a week later. No doubt the club will be looking at the loan agreement.

The problem is that by the time both of them play Ipswich it is extremely likely that 5th and 6th will be sewn up and they'll have nothing to play for

Atheism is not a form of faith.

Sorry, but because of the law her husband (or is it ex husband?) is involved whether he likes it or not. For the purpose of CGT and main residence I'm afraid Independent Taxation doesn't apply. The media have chosen to ignore his unwitting but important involvement, perhaps because it doesn't fit their agenda of portraying Rayner as a tax cheat. I mention the Daily Mail in particular because they have been consistently running with this as a front page story. One headline read "Proof that Angela Rayner lied!" I read that story and it wasn't proof of anything. Unfortunately other news outlets have picked up the story and run with it, ignoring the fact that the Mail has such a poor record with facts that Wikipedia won't allow them to be used as a source. Even this week they have been forced to apologise to the C of E over a story about the man involved in an acid attack who went on to kill himself. I'm afraid I can't help with registering to vote. The tax legislation refers only to CGT and the rules don't necessarily apply across the board. It may be that the electoral address is a problem for Rayner. If I had to guess I'd say that she delayed selling the house to avoid problems with the discount she received when she bought it, although it is equally possible she simply kept it in case the marriage didn't work. Someone gave her tax advice at the time but whoever that was provided tax advice, not legal advice on property ownership in general. That's not the advisers problem though is it? It's Rayner's problem and it may come back to bite her. In general, I'm surprised this story has attracted so much attention but the right wing media hate Rayner in much the same way as The Guardian hates Braverman. Starmer uses her to keep the left wing of his party happy in much the same way as Sunak uses Braverman. In both cases it's coming back to bite them. I'm partly guilty because I must admit I found it highly amusing that the public school educated Rabb and Johnson were absolutely terrified of a teenage single mother from a northern council estate when they had to face her at the dispatch box. Perhaps the right wing media disliked her because it seemed she enjoyed their discomfort. But bearing in mind what has happened in this country in the last 6 years this shouldn't be front page news. The fact that it is sums up just how bad things are for the Conservative Party.

Sorry you feel like you're walking through mud. I've given you the HMRC guidance but if you don't like that have a look at S222(6)TGA1992. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/12/section/222/enacted A married couple can only have one property for the purpose of main residence and CGT. This is how I made my living for 42 years. Please stop arguing with someone who knows what they're talking about. You are completely out of your depth as is the Daily Mail.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-68731366 Does this open the door to challenge all faith based schools? I do hope so. More than 50% of the population of England is now atheist and our view is finally being acknowledged. We've kicked the door wide open. Lets stop this nonsense once and for all.