Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
Here Comes Totalitarianism.
Big Brother speaks.
Britain is too “passively tolerant” and should not leave people to live their lives as they please just because they obey the law, David Cameron has said.
http://
But this doesn't apply to fat cats, right wing press barons, and bankers of course.
Britain is too “passively tolerant” and should not leave people to live their lives as they please just because they obey the law, David Cameron has said.
http://
But this doesn't apply to fat cats, right wing press barons, and bankers of course.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Poll Tax"
"It's not fair. Everyone should pay their share for local services"
(Okay, let's introduce a system where everyone does pay)
"Ooh no, I don't like the sound of that"
ID Cards
"We have no idea who half the people are in this country. They could be here to kill us all for all we know. We need to keep a tab on these people"
(Okay, let's give everyone an identity card, to show who they are)
"Ooh no, I don't like the sound of that"
Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc ...
"It's not fair. Everyone should pay their share for local services"
(Okay, let's introduce a system where everyone does pay)
"Ooh no, I don't like the sound of that"
ID Cards
"We have no idea who half the people are in this country. They could be here to kill us all for all we know. We need to keep a tab on these people"
(Okay, let's give everyone an identity card, to show who they are)
"Ooh no, I don't like the sound of that"
Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc ...
TWR, the last government was a coalition. This one is not.
//they also said that HGVs from Abroad was going to pay for the use of the UK Roads! have they?//
Apparently they have.
http://
//they also said that HGVs from Abroad was going to pay for the use of the UK Roads! have they?//
Apparently they have.
http://
Gromit, What a misery guts you are! What has anyone else done to tackle the problem? Not a lot!! If we want the government to tackle extremism we should be encouraging them - not knocking them at every opportunity. Heaven forbid they should get the impression that the country likes what they're trying to stop!
A lot of froth over nothing. Of course[i we have to curb the kind of extremist views which have encouraged three teenage girls to head of to join ISIS - and it appears they would now agree!
And what a loaded photograph of DC looking like an Orwellian big brother.
The left are really smarting from defeat and don't know what to attack next.
[i]pace] Totalitarianism? Bol****s! you don't know the meaning of the word.
And what a loaded photograph of DC looking like an Orwellian big brother.
The left are really smarting from defeat and don't know what to attack next.
[i]pace] Totalitarianism? Bol****s! you don't know the meaning of the word.
It is not always the same folk who call for "something to be done", and who object to what is suggested, knowing it is probably being used as a pretext to some other government aim anyway.
Poll tax was unfair, whatever it was, it was supposed to solve, as it did not take into account individual's income and thus the ability to pay into a public kitty. ID cards are just wrong as it is an attempt to monitor and aid control of the ordinary decent citizen, when a government should be for the citizens' benefit not a nosey controlling force. And since the imposition of such cards wouldn't help any in the fight against terrorism it had no other purpose anyway. (But it would allow the force to charge folk for not complying with the intrusion into their daily lives.)
If one wishes to heed the words of those who want something done then something useful should be suggested not something the government wants, the people don't and use the calls for change as a feeble excuse.
The above are prime examples of why government is untrustworthy and more about power and influence over the rest of us for those who reach high office, than it is about serving the nation.
Poll tax was unfair, whatever it was, it was supposed to solve, as it did not take into account individual's income and thus the ability to pay into a public kitty. ID cards are just wrong as it is an attempt to monitor and aid control of the ordinary decent citizen, when a government should be for the citizens' benefit not a nosey controlling force. And since the imposition of such cards wouldn't help any in the fight against terrorism it had no other purpose anyway. (But it would allow the force to charge folk for not complying with the intrusion into their daily lives.)
If one wishes to heed the words of those who want something done then something useful should be suggested not something the government wants, the people don't and use the calls for change as a feeble excuse.
The above are prime examples of why government is untrustworthy and more about power and influence over the rest of us for those who reach high office, than it is about serving the nation.
Naomi,
It is fair to knock the Government if the response it not adequate.
We have a problem with extremists. Surely threatening them with OfCom and the Charity Commission is not the right course.
I do not agree with doing the bare minimum (which is what this is) is better than going nothing. The Government needs to take this seriously, and they aren't.
It is fair to knock the Government if the response it not adequate.
We have a problem with extremists. Surely threatening them with OfCom and the Charity Commission is not the right course.
I do not agree with doing the bare minimum (which is what this is) is better than going nothing. The Government needs to take this seriously, and they aren't.
Gromit, but they are taking it seriously and the proposed measures are not restricted to threatening them with OfCom and the Charity Commission. I’ll post this for the second time in this thread.
http://
http://
A bit off topic, I know, but since it’s been mentioned:
"Poll tax was unfair, whatever it was, it was supposed to solve, as it did not take into account individual's income and thus the ability to pay into a public kitty."
Neither did its predecessor, domestic rates, nor does its successor, Council Tax, OG. Any tax levied at a flat rate cannot take account of ability to pay. Council Tax is no fairer than the Poll Tax (or Community Charge to give it its proper name). In fact it could be argued that the Community Charge was fairer because (a) it did not vary according to some arbitrary valuation of the property in which the people who paid it lived and (b) it levied a charge on each adult in the household. The current Council Tax system charges a retired couple living on a fixed income but in a largish house in which they probably raised their family around twice as much as a young couple both earning £50k living in a small flat in the suburbs.
The Community Charge was high jacked by the Left (who gave it its ridiculous nickname as if it was a tax on voting rights) and used it against a government (and in particular a Prime Minister) they despised. If charges are to be made for local services it was a perfectly reasonable way of levying those charges – a flat rate for all adults (with appropriate safeguards for the sick and poor). The current system raises those charges based solely on the value (relative to others in the same area) of the property occupied by the taxpayer(s).
But back to this question. The UK has become far too tolerant. In demonstrating its “pride” at being a tolerant nation it has become the laughing stock of the world, allowing people like Abu Hamza to regularly block St Thomas’s Road in Finsbury Park to hold prayer meetings whilst PC Plod simply ordered drivers to find an alternative route to go about their business. These proposals won’t address such problems as no government of any persuasion has the will or the inclination to insist that people living here behave in a fashion acceptable to the vast majority of the population.
"Poll tax was unfair, whatever it was, it was supposed to solve, as it did not take into account individual's income and thus the ability to pay into a public kitty."
Neither did its predecessor, domestic rates, nor does its successor, Council Tax, OG. Any tax levied at a flat rate cannot take account of ability to pay. Council Tax is no fairer than the Poll Tax (or Community Charge to give it its proper name). In fact it could be argued that the Community Charge was fairer because (a) it did not vary according to some arbitrary valuation of the property in which the people who paid it lived and (b) it levied a charge on each adult in the household. The current Council Tax system charges a retired couple living on a fixed income but in a largish house in which they probably raised their family around twice as much as a young couple both earning £50k living in a small flat in the suburbs.
The Community Charge was high jacked by the Left (who gave it its ridiculous nickname as if it was a tax on voting rights) and used it against a government (and in particular a Prime Minister) they despised. If charges are to be made for local services it was a perfectly reasonable way of levying those charges – a flat rate for all adults (with appropriate safeguards for the sick and poor). The current system raises those charges based solely on the value (relative to others in the same area) of the property occupied by the taxpayer(s).
But back to this question. The UK has become far too tolerant. In demonstrating its “pride” at being a tolerant nation it has become the laughing stock of the world, allowing people like Abu Hamza to regularly block St Thomas’s Road in Finsbury Park to hold prayer meetings whilst PC Plod simply ordered drivers to find an alternative route to go about their business. These proposals won’t address such problems as no government of any persuasion has the will or the inclination to insist that people living here behave in a fashion acceptable to the vast majority of the population.
Nonsense Old Geezer.
You state the Community Charge was unfair because it didn't take account of an individual's ability to pay. If this is your argument then Council Tax is just as unfair. Council Tax also takes no account of the ability to pay.
It is much fairer for each adult in a house pay to pay their fair share into the kitty, as opposed to a charge based on an arbitrary valuation. How is it possibly fair that a couple on a basic state pension are paying the same amount as their next door neighbour who may have a household income of, say, £250,000?
Competely off topic I know - but for the life of me I could never understand why the great unwashed went absolutely nuts when the Community Charge was introduced.
You state the Community Charge was unfair because it didn't take account of an individual's ability to pay. If this is your argument then Council Tax is just as unfair. Council Tax also takes no account of the ability to pay.
It is much fairer for each adult in a house pay to pay their fair share into the kitty, as opposed to a charge based on an arbitrary valuation. How is it possibly fair that a couple on a basic state pension are paying the same amount as their next door neighbour who may have a household income of, say, £250,000?
Competely off topic I know - but for the life of me I could never understand why the great unwashed went absolutely nuts when the Community Charge was introduced.
