Jump to content

the_bloke

Members
  • Content Count

    2,902
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About the_bloke

  • Rank
    Cynical Centrist

Personal Information

  • Location
    Next to the fields
  • Occupation
    IT

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I do believe it explicitly says it is owned by the Monarch. It is not owned by the state. How it operates on a day to day basis is up to those board members, who operate independently and who saw fit to spend £2.4m on restoring a property they manage, which is what they are duty bound to do as per the 1961 Crown Estate Act. The only way you can say it's taxpayers money is that by spending £2.4m on restoring a property they have reduced the surplus revenues that gets fed back to the Treasury for that year.
  2. No it isn't. https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/resources/faqs/#whoownsthecrownestate
  3. When you pay £343m into the Treasury through a commercial enterprise like the Royal Family do via the Crown Estate, I'm sure you wouldn't see a problem taking back less than 1% of it to restore a property to live in.
  4. The list of Victoria Cross recipients is available online. 7 were awarded to men with first or last name of George. They are all dead. There is one living recipient of the VC from the Second World War, John Cruickshank of Scotland who is aged 99. He retired from a career in banking in 1977. There is nothing online saying he was part of D-Day. It's amazing how easily people fall for fake outrage on TV thinking it's real. Anyone could have wrote that email.
  5. He is as much of an idiot as those protesting outside schools in Birmingham.
  6. Yes it's a shame Guido reported it first, but it's been followed up in the mainstream media and she's had to issue an apology. Like all instances of politicians showing their true colours on social media, its been described as a mistake. I assume the 'been hacked' line doesn't work in this scenario.
  7. 2019 results: Labour: votes cast 10,484 (30% of the vote) 2017 results: Labour: votes cast 22,950 (48% of the vote) I don't see an increase.
  8. Good. For a moment I thought you were trying to say that because of the bias involved that the information about her Facebook posts should be disregarded. You can read about her thin apology here: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-party-backlash-after-peterborough-byelection-winner-lisa-forbes-liked-antisemitic-posts-on-a4161821.html Its also in various other newspapers this morning including it being mentioned in an interview with Andy McDonald in the Guardian.
  9. I know his agenda as do most people that look at his site. Are you suggesting the screenshots of Mrs Forbes facebook posts are fake and Guido is lying?
  10. Already been outed by Guido as posting and liking anti Semitic posts on Facebook which she's quietly deleted since.
  11. Yes it is; taking into account each time you increase the income of those at the bottom to take them out of the <60% region, you increase the median value. Eventually you'll reach that point but it's not something that could be done overnight in the real world. Good luck with constraining the upper end; I'm not convinced that making people poorer works at either end of the income curve.
  12. If her income in that time was less than 60% of the median income in the UK, then yes she would have been considered being in poverty. Question for this thread; how do you take everyone out of relative poverty? If you arbitrarily make sure that the lowest wage or benefit amount is above that 60% threshold, what happens to the median income in the UK in response?
  13. Always will be when poverty is being defined as relative to the median income.
  14. If you are going for a job at Uni but don't want to live in an area surrounded by students, avoid Crookes. Last time I looked, it's not on a tram route either.
  15. This is a very simplified view. There are already numerous tariffs and restrictions in the EU on imported steel, of which the UK is bound by. None of those have saved British Steel. There were no new tariffs put forward which were vetoed that would have prevented the EU market being flooded with cheap China steel; the UK vetoed changing the limit on tariffs that could be applied through the 'lesser duty rule'. The Labour government previously also vetoed the exact same changes. Unless I am mistaken, we are still in the EU: https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/eu-toughens-anti-dumping-trade-powers/ These 'tough new powers' by the EU were announced in 2017. None of which have saved British Steel.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.