HeadingNorth

As of 2003, it was estimated that repairing the column to allow public access again would cost two million () pounds. That figure can only have gone up, and since it is, apparently, now owned by the council, it cannot be a surprise that they think they have better things to spend their money on. Only if a charity, or a lottery grant, makes funds available is this ever going to happen.

He did ask for accredited courses. With whom is the SNU accredited?

I would suggest that he is, in fact, very much interested in trying to prevent frauds from extracting money out of gullible people.

Prodding and poking is not required. All that is required is to perform an act of clairvoyancy in front of a selected audience. As for "monetising their gift" ... I don't ever recall seeing anybody, anywhere, advertising a claivoyancy evening for which tickets were free.

Everybody has proof of this. Clairvoyancy has been tested under scientific conditions, and does not exist. More practical proof, which might be more persuasive to some people, comes from the James Randi test, which offers $1,000,000 (if not more by now) to any person who can demonstrate clairvoyant phenomena of any kind. To the best of my knowledge nobody has even tried to claim it. Now if you had a gift, and someone was offering you a million bucks free and clear just for showing that you had it, don't you think you'd be interested?

Is this supposed to be relevant? Footballers exist; some are good, some are quite rubbish. Football pundits exist; they talk about the footballers. Clairvoyants do not exist. There is no such thing as clairvoyancy, and anyone who claims to be clairvoyant is a fraud.

What evidence do you have that anyone, anywhere,, claiming to be a football expert must of necessity be a fraud? Because there is ample proof, and has been for centuries, that anyone claiming to be a clairvoyant is a fraud.

They're helpful if they persuade you not to waste money on a fraudulent practice; but I agree, there's little hope of that.

Where did he try to claim that it wasn't?

They can't both be correct. The first statement says that only rich people pay enough tax to have contributed to the bailout; the second says that nobody did.

Every job that they put in England is a job that could otherwise have been put in India. Every dollar they invest in England is a dollar that they could have invested in India, but don't. It makes no difference whether it's sending away existing jobs, or creating new ones outside of the country. The net effect is the same. I take it that the OP is going to be equally annoyed that BMW are investing £250 million in the UK instead of propping up their own country's economy?

Indirect taxation is not what we have. People are free not to pay it, by the simple expedient of not breaking the law.

You would be wrong. The difference between me and you is that when I was caught speeding, I didn't blame anyone except myself for breaking the law.

Well, good. People who break the law, should be caught. If it makes enough money to keep taxes down, so much the better for people who don't break the law.

Taxation would apply to everyone, not just to people who break the law. Not speeding is no harder today than it has ever been.