View Full Version : The tory budget
The nhs gets an extra 10bn in funding by 2020
Employment allowance for sole employee companies to be scrapped
Bank levy to be phased out but replaced by a profits levy
Road fund licence being ring fenced for roads
Mortgage interest relief on buy to let limited to basic rate
Rent a room relief raised to 7500
IHT 175k allowance for your home
19% and 18% corporation tax. Blimey!
Loya Jirga
08-07-15, 12:29
I think some students may be regretting voting out the Lib Dems.
Welfare changes a plenty.
saganspirit
08-07-15, 12:35
The chancellor is unveiling "just under half" of the £37bn in cuts he says are needed to clear the deficit by 2018, with £12bn from the welfare budget and £5bn from a crackdown on tax avoidance.
Slight discrepancy there. Not meaning to kick things off on here - just making an observation.
Keep your cock in your pocket unless you can be sure you will never become ill or experience any other changes in circumstance.
The introduction of a living wage. The party of those who wish to work.
Loya Jirga
08-07-15, 12:39
Keep your cock in your pocket unless you can be sure you will never become ill or experience any other changes in circumstance.You can go quite quickly from being a "working man" to being a "scrounger".
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
Loya Jirga
08-07-15, 12:43
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.Sorry, I meant - I didn't like those bits. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/tong.gif
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.Bastard.
Loya Jirga
08-07-15, 12:46
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
I liked the bit where he postponed his surplus again. I also liked the bit where he condemned large families (many of whom are "hard working") with more than 2 kids to a loss of income.What bit did you like most Croesy? Was it the one where aspiring kids will be burdened with more debt just for trying to improve their lot?
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
I liked the bit where he postponed his surplus again. I also liked the bit where he condemned large families (many of whom are "hard working") with more than 2 kids to a loss of income.
did you?graduates tend to be higher paid so it's fair that they pay more for their education than the lower paid.
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
I liked the bit where he postponed his surplus again. I also liked the bit where he condemned large families (many of whom are "hard working") with more than 2 kids to a loss of income.
did you?The introduction of the living wage, the lifting of income tax allowance to £11,000, the reduction of corporation tax to 19% then to 18%, the extra funding for the NHS, the crackdown on tax avoidance, the encouragement of many more people back to work generally and measures to ensure people choose to work rather than breed for their income.
Loya Jirga
08-07-15, 13:06
The fact is, today's announcements may very well lead to a few kids making different life choices when their time comes. You are forced to pay back the loans once you earn £21k p.a. Hardly a huge wage is it? Currently, students have an average loan of £35k p.a. Factor in three years with a loss of wage - and the education costs are more likely to be £70k plus. I'm telling my daughter a completely different thing to what my parents told me (or were able to tell me) - and I think that is sad.
An alternative would be to bring back the grants scheme (means tested) and to introduce a new "graduate" tax on everyone that has ever graduated University (whether it was 2008 or 1978) 2p in the £ for wages above, say, £25,000. So, someone who graduated University and is earning £35k p.a. will pay an extra £200 p.a. Future students are not dissuaded from going to University (although we can argue that too many were/are going to University) by the burden of a £35,000 debt.
If there is to be a graduate tax, then it is only fair that it is applied to all graduates. And, it's only fair that future graduates reap the rewards of the extra income.
Loya Jirga
08-07-15, 13:08
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
I liked the bit where he postponed his surplus again. I also liked the bit where he condemned large families (many of whom are "hard working") with more than 2 kids to a loss of income.
did you?
Bastard.I am not saying it is a wholly bad budget - but there is a bit of robbing Peter to pay Peter in there, isn't there?
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
I liked the bit where he postponed his surplus again. I also liked the bit where he condemned large families (many of whom are "hard working") with more than 2 kids to a loss of income.
did you?
Bastard.
I was, of course, being sarcastic.They will have to do what people have always had to do in those circumstances, roll their sleeves up and work a little harder. It's what people in those circumstances have always had to do.
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
I liked the bit where he postponed his surplus again. I also liked the bit where he condemned large families (many of whom are "hard working") with more than 2 kids to a loss of income.
did you?
Bastard.Now what am I going to do with my extra £6.66 a month?
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
I liked the bit where he postponed his surplus again. I also liked the bit where he condemned large families (many of whom are "hard working") with more than 2 kids to a loss of income.
did you?
Bastard.
I was, of course, being sarcastic.Stop moaning?
Loya Jirga
08-07-15, 13:13
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
I liked the bit where he postponed his surplus again. I also liked the bit where he condemned large families (many of whom are "hard working") with more than 2 kids to a loss of income.
did you?
Bastard.
I was, of course, being sarcastic.
What bit did you like most Croesy? Was it the one where aspiring kids will be burdened with more debt just for trying to improve their lot?Yes, and it's quite often easier said than done.
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
I liked the bit where he postponed his surplus again. I also liked the bit where he condemned large families (many of whom are "hard working") with more than 2 kids to a loss of income.
did you?
Bastard.
I was, of course, being sarcastic.I'm pretty sure there will be dispensation for multiple births
Loya Jirga
08-07-15, 13:14
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
I liked the bit where he postponed his surplus again. I also liked the bit where he condemned large families (many of whom are "hard working") with more than 2 kids to a loss of income.
did you?
Bastard.
I was, of course, being sarcastic.Well, if you get tax credits, it's already gone... pffft.
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
I liked the bit where he postponed his surplus again. I also liked the bit where he condemned large families (many of whom are "hard working") with more than 2 kids to a loss of income.
did you?
Bastard.
I was, of course, being sarcastic.
What bit did you like most Croesy? Was it the one where aspiring kids will be burdened with more debt just for trying to improve their lot?
The introduction of the living wage, the lifting of income tax allowance to £11,000, the reduction of corporation tax to 19% then to 18%, the extra funding for the NHS, the crackdown on tax avoidance, the encouragement of many more people back to work generally and measures to ensure people choose to work rather than breed for their income.do you think parents should consider another child if they know they can't afford it?
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
I liked the bit where he postponed his surplus again. I also liked the bit where he condemned large families (many of whom are "hard working") with more than 2 kids to a loss of income.
did you?
Bastard.
I was, of course, being sarcastic.
What bit did you like most Croesy? Was it the one where aspiring kids will be burdened with more debt just for trying to improve their lot?
The introduction of the living wage, the lifting of income tax allowance to £11,000, the reduction of corporation tax to 19% then to 18%, the extra funding for the NHS, the crackdown on tax avoidance, the encouragement of many more people back to work generally and measures to ensure people choose to work rather than breed for their income.
What happens if people choose larger families at a time when they can afford it - only to fall on harder times a few years later? And, genuine question, what happens when someone's second pregnancy turns out to be twins? I bet shares in Durex have rocketed on that news. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
Eric Cartman
08-07-15, 13:19
Presumably the government doesn't believe people under the age of 25 need to 'live'.
Loya Jirga
08-07-15, 13:26
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
I liked the bit where he postponed his surplus again. I also liked the bit where he condemned large families (many of whom are "hard working") with more than 2 kids to a loss of income.
did you?
Bastard.
I was, of course, being sarcastic.
What bit did you like most Croesy? Was it the one where aspiring kids will be burdened with more debt just for trying to improve their lot?
The introduction of the living wage, the lifting of income tax allowance to £11,000, the reduction of corporation tax to 19% then to 18%, the extra funding for the NHS, the crackdown on tax avoidance, the encouragement of many more people back to work generally and measures to ensure people choose to work rather than breed for their income.
What happens if people choose larger families at a time when they can afford it - only to fall on harder times a few years later? And, genuine question, what happens when someone's second pregnancy turns out to be twins? "What's that? You're a 55 year old bloke that has worked for 38 years, have suddenly been made redundant and require re-training because your old skills are no longer required. What? You have 4 teenage kids - well, we'll only pay for two of them so there." That bloke is being treated the same as the few who produce babies with the sole intention of boosting income milking the system. I'm not convinced the changes made today address the fundamental issues.
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
I liked the bit where he postponed his surplus again. I also liked the bit where he condemned large families (many of whom are "hard working") with more than 2 kids to a loss of income.
did you?
Bastard.
I was, of course, being sarcastic.
What bit did you like most Croesy? Was it the one where aspiring kids will be burdened with more debt just for trying to improve their lot?
The introduction of the living wage, the lifting of income tax allowance to £11,000, the reduction of corporation tax to 19% then to 18%, the extra funding for the NHS, the crackdown on tax avoidance, the encouragement of many more people back to work generally and measures to ensure people choose to work rather than breed for their income.
What happens if people choose larger families at a time when they can afford it - only to fall on harder times a few years later? And, genuine question, what happens when someone's second pregnancy turns out to be twins? I see multiple births are to be excluded from this policy, which should set some peoples mind at rest, who were getting a little hyper about the matter.
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
I liked the bit where he postponed his surplus again. I also liked the bit where he condemned large families (many of whom are "hard working") with more than 2 kids to a loss of income.
did you?
Bastard.
I was, of course, being sarcastic.I'll have it if you dont want it.
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
I liked the bit where he postponed his surplus again. I also liked the bit where he condemned large families (many of whom are "hard working") with more than 2 kids to a loss of income.
did you?
Bastard.
I was, of course, being sarcastic.
What bit did you like most Croesy? Was it the one where aspiring kids will be burdened with more debt just for trying to improve their lot?
The introduction of the living wage, the lifting of income tax allowance to £11,000, the reduction of corporation tax to 19% then to 18%, the extra funding for the NHS, the crackdown on tax avoidance, the encouragement of many more people back to work generally and measures to ensure people choose to work rather than breed for their income.
What happens if people choose larger families at a time when they can afford it - only to fall on harder times a few years later? And, genuine question, what happens when someone's second pregnancy turns out to be twins?
I am not saying it is a wholly bad budget - but there is a bit of robbing Peter to pay Peter in there, isn't there?Don't know if that's correct but is what I was given to understand.
What an absolute Tour-de-force of a budget. Something for absolutely everyone there.
It will be interesting to see how Labour respond to that.
I liked the bit where he postponed his surplus again. I also liked the bit where he condemned large families (many of whom are "hard working") with more than 2 kids to a loss of income.
did you?
Bastard.
I was, of course, being sarcastic.
What bit did you like most Croesy? Was it the one where aspiring kids will be burdened with more debt just for trying to improve their lot?
The introduction of the living wage, the lifting of income tax allowance to £11,000, the reduction of corporation tax to 19% then to 18%, the extra funding for the NHS, the crackdown on tax avoidance, the encouragement of many more people back to work generally and measures to ensure people choose to work rather than breed for their income.
What happens if people choose larger families at a time when they can afford it - only to fall on harder times a few years later? And, genuine question, what happens when someone's second pregnancy turns out to be twins?
I am not saying it is a wholly bad budget - but there is a bit of robbing Peter to pay Peter in there, isn't there?are you aware that the new rules affect new claimants only?
Two children families is a Bilderberg directive.
Will the 1% cap on salary increases for Public Sector workers apply to MP's and AM's as well as nurses, teachers and firemen?
Two children families is a Bilderberg directive.I don't think that anyone is suggesting that families should only have two children though are they.
Two children families is a Bilderberg directive.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that families should only have two children though are they.Yes they are. Count the number of children that the royals have. It's a Bilderberg policy http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
Two children families is a Bilderberg directive.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that families should only have two children though are they.
Yes they are. Count the number of children that the royals have. It's a Bilderberg policy http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew? http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/facepalm.gif
Iain Duncan Smith, cheering as George Osborne introduces what was disingenuously termed a "living" wage despite being quite clearly nothing of the sort. Oh, and by the way, you won't get it if you're under 25. If you're under 25 your parents should be able to sort you out.
Some might suggest it's a bit gauche to act like you're in a football terrace as your party introduces a series of measures which bring suffering to vulnerable young people, but let us all take comfort. While working class teenagers - and disabled people, and low-income workers - across the country sit wondering how they're going to survive this, at least one Conservative politician is very, very happy.
http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/body_image2015/cjzqhj-umaac-ji.jpg
Two children families is a Bilderberg directive.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that families should only have two children though are they.
Yes they are. Count the number of children that the royals have. It's a Bilderberg policy http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew? http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/facepalm.gifHint: it's a fairly new policy, from Charles onwards. So you can leave Henry VIII out of it too http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
Two children families is a Bilderberg directive.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that families should only have two children though are they.
Yes they are. Count the number of children that the royals have. It's a Bilderberg policy http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew? http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/facepalm.gif
Where did I mention when it came into effect? Come on, you have to be brighter than that http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif David Cameron - He's attended hasn't he? Didn't he have four?
Iain Duncan Smith, cheering as George Osborne introduces what was disingenuously termed a "living" wage despite being quite clearly nothing of the sort. Oh, and by the way, you won't get it if you're under 25. If you're under 25 your parents should be able to sort you out.the last person who was that happy was Nugent on 26th May 1999
Two children families is a Bilderberg directive.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that families should only have two children though are they.
Yes they are. Count the number of children that the royals have. It's a Bilderberg policy http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew? http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/facepalm.gif
Where did I mention when it came into effect? Come on, you have to be brighter than that http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
Hint: it's a fairly new policy, from Charles onwards. So you can leave Henry VIII out of it too http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif He's not in the same league, he's just a PR bod http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
Two children families is a Bilderberg directive.Ed Balls?
Two children families is a Bilderberg directive.
Ed Balls?I don't think he is an elite with a depopulation agenda.
Two children families is a Bilderberg directive.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that families should only have two children though are they.
Yes they are. Count the number of children that the royals have. It's a Bilderberg policy http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew? http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/facepalm.gif
Where did I mention when it came into effect? Come on, you have to be brighter than that http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif P.S. I think my brother must be a Bilderberger as he's only got two kids as well. With no plans for any others. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/sherlock.gif
Two children families is a Bilderberg directive.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that families should only have two children though are they.
Yes they are. Count the number of children that the royals have. It's a Bilderberg policy http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew? http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/facepalm.gif
Where did I mention when it came into effect? Come on, you have to be brighter than that http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
Hint: it's a fairly new policy, from Charles onwards. So you can leave Henry VIII out of it too http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif Strangely enough I have two children and certainly won't be having any more http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/sherlock.gif
Two children families is a Bilderberg directive.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that families should only have two children though are they.
Yes they are. Count the number of children that the royals have. It's a Bilderberg policy http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew? http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/facepalm.gif
Where did I mention when it came into effect? Come on, you have to be brighter than that http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
Hint: it's a fairly new policy, from Charles onwards. So you can leave Henry VIII out of it too http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
You said "the royals"? Nothing about when it started.It's all a bit spooky. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/Dsmile.gif
Two children families is a Bilderberg directive.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that families should only have two children though are they.
Yes they are. Count the number of children that the royals have. It's a Bilderberg policy http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew? http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/facepalm.gif
Where did I mention when it came into effect? Come on, you have to be brighter than that http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
Hint: it's a fairly new policy, from Charles onwards. So you can leave Henry VIII out of it too http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
You said "the royals"? Nothing about when it started.
P.S. I think my brother must be a Bilderberger as he's only got two kids as well. With no plans for any others. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/sherlock.gif It's all a bit spooky. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/Dsmile.gif
Two children families is a Bilderberg directive.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that families should only have two children though are they.
Yes they are. Count the number of children that the royals have. It's a Bilderberg policy http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew? http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/facepalm.gif
Where did I mention when it came into effect? Come on, you have to be brighter than that http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
Hint: it's a fairly new policy, from Charles onwards. So you can leave Henry VIII out of it too http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
You said "the royals"? Nothing about when it started.
P.S. I think my brother must be a Bilderberger as he's only got two kids as well. With no plans for any others. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/sherlock.gif It's nothing to do with spooky, it's the directive http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/rolleyes.gif
Will the 1% cap on salary increases for Public Sector workers apply to MP's and AM's as well as nurses, teachers and firemen? Anyone?
Two children families is a Bilderberg directive.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that families should only have two children though are they.
Yes they are. Count the number of children that the royals have. It's a Bilderberg policy http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew? http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/facepalm.gif
Where did I mention when it came into effect? Come on, you have to be brighter than that http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
Hint: it's a fairly new policy, from Charles onwards. So you can leave Henry VIII out of it too http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
You said "the royals"? Nothing about when it started.
P.S. I think my brother must be a Bilderberger as he's only got two kids as well. With no plans for any others. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/sherlock.gif
Strangely enough I have two children and certainly won't be having any more http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/sherlock.gif http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
Sludge will be a long in a minute F-ing about the Tory ****s no doubt.....
The introduction of a living wage. The party of those who wish to work.I think you mean scrapping the living wage by re-naming the minimum wage the living wage.
Sludge will be a long in a minute F-ing about the Tory ****s no doubt.....Croesy will be along in a minute to - as usual - do no more than attempt to troll or goad posters who he considers to be lefty types.
Sludge will be a long in a minute F-ing about the Tory ****s no doubt.....
Croesy will be along in a minute to - as usual - do no more than attempt to troll or goad posters who he considers to be lefty types.I have neither goaded nor trolled anyone. I leave that to you and your ilk.
I think the 2 children thing is fair enough, i'm not too bothered by that.
The NHS funding is welcome IF it is delivered. I can still see them hiding behind savings on this one
The scrapping of grants to poorest shows how the tories consider higher education the preserve of the better off.
Only chasing after 2bn of avoidance and evasion is pathetic
Sunday hours is a good thing, i hope its introduced near me
People better get used to paying car tax again :(
The living wage claim is a total pile of bollocks and if you believe that you will believe anything! The minimum wage is NOT the living wage. Pricks.
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.
Surely the name is irrelevant. If the minimum an employer can pay is £7.20 does it matter if it's called the minimum wage or living wage?
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.Whatever it's called I would imagine that it would have a huge impact on Kiffa's life http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/Dsmile.gif
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.There is already a living wage measure and a minimum wage measure, why would they call one the other? http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/sherlock.gif http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/sherlock.gif http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/sherlock.gif
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.
Surely the name is irrelevant. If the minimum an employer can pay is £7.20 does it matter if it's called the minimum wage or living wage?18% of 0 is 0
archibald leitch
08-07-15, 17:45
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.
Surely the name is irrelevant. If the minimum an employer can pay is £7.20 does it matter if it's called the minimum wage or living wage?This is an incredibly cynical move which quite frankly is insulting to the inteligence of the electorate.
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.
Surely the name is irrelevant. If the minimum an employer can pay is £7.20 does it matter if it's called the minimum wage or living wage?
Whatever it's called I would imagine that it would have a huge impact on Kiffa's life http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/Dsmile.gif Tell me how do you claim to know what my income is?
archibald leitch
08-07-15, 17:57
Will the 1% cap on salary increases for Public Sector workers apply to MP's and AM's as well as nurses, teachers and firemen?
Anyone?No.
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.
Surely the name is irrelevant. If the minimum an employer can pay is £7.20 does it matter if it's called the minimum wage or living wage?I fear you miss the point i'm making. From next April the living wage will be the minimum wage. It will be illegal for an employer to pay less than the minimum wage which will be determined by the living wage.
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.
Surely the name is irrelevant. If the minimum an employer can pay is £7.20 does it matter if it's called the minimum wage or living wage?
Of course it matters. I'm genuinely not trying to be contentious here but can you explain why making the living wage a legal requirement is insulting to the electorate?
archibald leitch
08-07-15, 18:22
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.
Surely the name is irrelevant. If the minimum an employer can pay is £7.20 does it matter if it's called the minimum wage or living wage?
Of course it matters.
A living wage is calculated independantly as the amount required to keep your head above water. The minimum wage is well, the minimum wage an employer must pay. ETA - i used the word insulting, cos it is assuming the electorate are too stupid to see what he has done.
Archie
You come across as someone looking to find fault no matter what the policy. The point is that the government are looking to increase the minimum amount that can be paid and make it legally binding. That can only be a good thing. A couple of things in today's budget mean more money in the employees pocket as well as a recent study which shows incomes families need to live have actually fallen. Both have an impact on what the living wage needs to be.
Looking to bring in a living wage of £9 isn't trying to predict the future it's trying to help business plan for the future. It will of course be possible to uplift that figure if the need arises.
archibald leitch
08-07-15, 19:26
ArchieYou really must have been watching a different budget to me.
Raising the minimum wage to 7.20 can only be seen as a good thing. Moving towards a £9 minimum wage by 2020 is even better. It's unlikely that given current inflation that the calculated living wage will be more than that.
The public sector workers will still get a pay rise.
The loss of tax credits will be offset by the rise of the minimum wage to 7.20 as well as increasing the personal allowance.
Further good news regarding social rents going down year on year.
Eric Cartman
08-07-15, 19:47
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.The under 25 thing is shockingly poor too.
archibald leitch
08-07-15, 19:58
Raising the minimum wage to 7.20 can only be seen as a good thing. Moving towards a £9 minimum wage by 2020 is even better. It's unlikely that given current inflation that the calculated living wage will be more than that.No complaints about raising minimum wage. Can you tell me why you think it is acceptable to change the name of the minimum wage to make out it is something it is not? Can you give an explanation for why they would do that?
The policy on housing which see social housing rents being reduced on an annual basis for poorer tenants, whilst ensuring richer tenants pay market rents and not highly subsidised rents is also a good fair policy.
SLUDGE FACTORY
08-07-15, 20:05
4 year freeze on working age benefits
New claimants for employment allowance and found to be too I'll for work have benefit slashed from £110 a week to £70
****ing Tory ****s
I can't wait for them to build all the housing needed through right to buy !!
Bunck of wankers
Raising the minimum wage to 7.20 can only be seen as a good thing. Moving towards a £9 minimum wage by 2020 is even better. It's unlikely that given current inflation that the calculated living wage will be more than that.
The public sector workers will still get a pay rise.So you aren't unhappy about the policy but just that they have called it living wage. That probably says a lot more about you and your pathological hatred of the tories than anything else.
4 year freeze on working age benefits Shaka, and the walls fell.
SLUDGE FACTORY
08-07-15, 20:22
Shitting on the poor , Ill ,vulnerable, disabled
A great budget for them eh , all you Tory ****s
Don't look for sympathy from me if you have a fall and have to turn to the state if you voted for them
You voted for them , you will get **** all and I will have no sympathy for you whatsoever
Tory fat cats listen and pray for your souls
Satan laughing spreads his wings
Shitting on the poor , Ill ,vulnerable, disabledYou really are deluded.
SLUDGE FACTORY
08-07-15, 20:28
4 year freeze on working age benefits
New claimants for employment allowance and found to be too I'll for work have benefit slashed from £110 a week to £70May as well give them a go mate
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.
Surely the name is irrelevant. If the minimum an employer can pay is £7.20 does it matter if it's called the minimum wage or living wage?
Whatever it's called I would imagine that it would have a huge impact on Kiffa's life http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/Dsmile.gif
The corporation tax can't have much impact on your business. I know it, I checked your financial filings at Companies House http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
archibald leitch
08-07-15, 20:31
Raising the minimum wage to 7.20 can only be seen as a good thing. Moving towards a £9 minimum wage by 2020 is even better. It's unlikely that given current inflation that the calculated living wage will be more than that.
The public sector workers will still get a pay rise.
The loss of tax credits will be offset by the rise of the minimum wage to 7.20 as well as increasing the personal allowance.I note you are unable to give a logical reason for the name change. I can only think of dishonest and deceitful reasons. You on the other hand cannot give any reason. I think that speaks volumes about your slavish devotion to the Tory party.
SLUDGE FACTORY
08-07-15, 20:32
Shitting on the poor , Ill ,vulnerable, disabled
A great budget for them eh , all you Tory ****s My health records say so
4 year freeze on working age benefits
New claimants for employment allowance and found to be too I'll for work have benefit slashed from £110 a week to £70
****ing Tory ****s if my income was frozen I'd look for a better paid job.
Raising the minimum wage to 7.20 can only be seen as a good thing. Moving towards a £9 minimum wage by 2020 is even better. It's unlikely that given current inflation that the calculated living wage will be more than that.
The public sector workers will still get a pay rise.
The loss of tax credits will be offset by the rise of the minimum wage to 7.20 as well as increasing the personal allowance.
Further good news regarding social rents going down year on year.As for your last comment - pitiful. There is plenty in today's budget that I disagree with including the 12bn welfare cuts an an overall increase in taxation. I have no devotion to any party and certainly not a party that raises taxes rather than cuts them.
archibald leitch
08-07-15, 20:52
You don't need to second guess the bleeding obvious.
saganspirit
08-07-15, 20:53
4 year freeze on working age benefits
New claimants for employment allowance and found to be too I'll for work have benefit slashed from £110 a week to £70
****ing Tory ****s
I can't wait for them to build all the housing needed through right to buy !!Now you've done it...
You don't need to second guess the bleeding obvious. That you find fault with everything. This is about policy content and not policy name.
SLUDGE FACTORY
08-07-15, 20:56
4 year freeze on working age benefits
New claimants for employment allowance and found to be too I'll for work have benefit slashed from £110 a week to £70
****ing Tory ****s
I can't wait for them to build all the housing needed through right to buy !!Good luck out there !!!
Jordi Culé
08-07-15, 21:02
Shitting on the poor , Ill ,vulnerable, disabled
A great budget for them eh , all you Tory ****s
Don't look for sympathy from me if you have a fall and have to turn to the state if you voted for them If he does end up in a wheelchair or loses a limb, I honestly don't think it'll be due to an accident.
SLUDGE FACTORY
08-07-15, 21:22
Shitting on the poor , Ill ,vulnerable, disabled
A great budget for them eh , all you Tory ****s
Don't look for sympathy from me if you have a fall and have to turn to the state if you voted for them
You voted for them , you will get **** all and I will have no sympathy for you whatsoever A bizarre unexplained gardening accident on his quad bike ?
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.
Surely the name is irrelevant. If the minimum an employer can pay is £7.20 does it matter if it's called the minimum wage or living wage?
Whatever it's called I would imagine that it would have a huge impact on Kiffa's life http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/Dsmile.gif
The corporation tax can't have much impact on your business. I can see why people call you thick as pig shit http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
the other bob wilson
09-07-15, 03:54
"Well for all George Osborne's rhetoric that he's a low tax chancellor, he actually announced tax rises that will raise him £47bn over the next five years, according to his own creation, the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Those tax rises include around £2bn a year from the reform of dividend tax and £1.5bn per annum from a hike in insurance premium tax.
Those tax rises contrast with just £25bn given away with populist increases in the tax-free and 40% income-tax thresholds, and a promised two percentage point reduction in the headline rate of corporation tax (and, by the way, with a pledged corporation tax rate of 18%, some competitor countries may start to see Britain as almost a tax haven for multinationals)."
taken from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33452598
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.
Surely the name is irrelevant. If the minimum an employer can pay is £7.20 does it matter if it's called the minimum wage or living wage?
Whatever it's called I would imagine that it would have a huge impact on Kiffa's life http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/Dsmile.gif
The corporation tax can't have much impact on your business.
20% of 0 is 0You are the one as thick as pig shit if you cant read someone's basic accounts.
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.
Surely the name is irrelevant. If the minimum an employer can pay is £7.20 does it matter if it's called the minimum wage or living wage?
Whatever it's called I would imagine that it would have a huge impact on Kiffa's life http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/Dsmile.gif
The corporation tax can't have much impact on your business.
20% of 0 is 0
19% of 0 is 0The beauty is you can't even see it http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/Dsmile.gif
archibald leitch
09-07-15, 06:05
You don't need to second guess the bleeding obvious.
That you find fault with everything. This is about policy content and not policy name.I said earlier this move was insulting to the intelligence of the electorate. It would appear it is not. He has judged the gullibility of some of them perfectly by the looks of things.
@Archie
I think you are reading too much into things and looking to find fault no matter what. The aim is to have the minimum wage of £9 by 2020. At that point it will be more than the living wage (outside of London anyway). These things take time to implement fully.
@TOBW
you're the only one who has picked up on the fact that we are actually seeing tax rises from this government. Whilst we are seeing direct tax falls in the main, indirect taxation has increased. Whilst I prefer indirect taxation as it cannot be avoided or evaded as easily, it shouldn't come at the expense of taking more money from the taxpayer overall.
gandalf1927
09-07-15, 07:21
Most of the policies were actually in the Labour manifesto
archibald leitch
09-07-15, 07:29
@ArchieAnd what about the under 25s?
@Archie
I think you are reading too much into things and looking to find fault no matter what. The aim is to have the minimum wage of £9 by 2020. At that point it will be more than the living wage (outside of London anyway). These things take time to implement fully.Jokes aside, young people are getting royally ****ed.
@Archie
I think you are reading too much into things and looking to find fault no matter what. The aim is to have the minimum wage of £9 by 2020. At that point it will be more than the living wage (outside of London anyway). These things take time to implement fully.From now on young people have to earn or learn meaning by the age of 21 you will either have a degree or will have had to have had a job. Therefore I'd say by 25 most people will be in some form of employment
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.
Surely the name is irrelevant. If the minimum an employer can pay is £7.20 does it matter if it's called the minimum wage or living wage?
Whatever it's called I would imagine that it would have a huge impact on Kiffa's life http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/Dsmile.gif
The corporation tax can't have much impact on your business.
20% of 0 is 0
19% of 0 is 0
18% of 0 is 0Moron.
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.
Surely the name is irrelevant. If the minimum an employer can pay is £7.20 does it matter if it's called the minimum wage or living wage?
Whatever it's called I would imagine that it would have a huge impact on Kiffa's life http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/Dsmile.gif
The corporation tax can't have much impact on your business.
20% of 0 is 0
19% of 0 is 0
18% of 0 is 0
You know what my income is then?Are you even aware of what you said to make yourself look so silly?
@Archie
I think you are reading too much into things and looking to find fault no matter what. The aim is to have the minimum wage of £9 by 2020. At that point it will be more than the living wage (outside of London anyway). These things take time to implement fully.
@TOBWYes, millions of young people on very low paid "apprenticeships" completely exempt from the minimum, sorry, "living" wage.
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.
Surely the name is irrelevant. If the minimum an employer can pay is £7.20 does it matter if it's called the minimum wage or living wage?
Whatever it's called I would imagine that it would have a huge impact on Kiffa's life http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/Dsmile.gif
The corporation tax can't have much impact on your business.
20% of 0 is 0
19% of 0 is 0
18% of 0 is 0
You know what my income is then?
Tell me how do you claim to know what my income is?I know what you said that makes you appear to be a sad little psychopathic stalker.
Eric Cartman
09-07-15, 08:28
@Archie
I think you are reading too much into things and looking to find fault no matter what. The aim is to have the minimum wage of £9 by 2020. At that point it will be more than the living wage (outside of London anyway). These things take time to implement fully.
@TOBWAll the responsibilities of being an adult but none of the freedoms or rights. Next thing George will be proposing mandatory breast feeding until the age of 25 (and you will be on here supporting it... http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif ).
They arent saying the minimum wage is the living wage. They are saying they will introduce the living wage from next April, which surely is just another way of saying the minimum wage.
Surely the name is irrelevant. If the minimum an employer can pay is £7.20 does it matter if it's called the minimum wage or living wage?
Whatever it's called I would imagine that it would have a huge impact on Kiffa's life http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/Dsmile.gif
The corporation tax can't have much impact on your business.
20% of 0 is 0
19% of 0 is 0
18% of 0 is 0
You know what my income is then?
Tell me how do you claim to know what my income is?
I can see why people call you thick as pig shit http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif Didn't think so
@Archie
I think you are reading too much into things and looking to find fault no matter what. The aim is to have the minimum wage of £9 by 2020. At that point it will be more than the living wage (outside of London anyway). These things take time to implement fully.
@TOBW
you're the only one who has picked up on the fact that we are actually seeing tax rises from this government. Whilst we are seeing direct tax falls in the main, indirect taxation has increased. Whilst I prefer indirect taxation as it cannot be avoided or evaded as easily, it shouldn't come at the expense of taking more money from the taxpayer overall.The point I'm making here is that employers will either employ over 25s and pay the living/minimum wage or will take on under 25s and pay less but alleviate youth unemployment accordingly.
@Archie
I think you are reading too much into things and looking to find fault no matter what. The aim is to have the minimum wage of £9 by 2020. At that point it will be more than the living wage (outside of London anyway). These things take time to implement fully.
@TOBW
you're the only one who has picked up on the fact that we are actually seeing tax rises from this government. Whilst we are seeing direct tax falls in the main, indirect taxation has increased. Whilst I prefer indirect taxation as it cannot be avoided or evaded as easily, it shouldn't come at the expense of taking more money from the taxpayer overall.perhaps its a sprat to catch a mackerel. By making it less expensive to employ under 25s may encourage employers to employ that demographic.
@Archie
I think you are reading too much into things and looking to find fault no matter what. The aim is to have the minimum wage of £9 by 2020. At that point it will be more than the living wage (outside of London anyway). These things take time to implement fully.
@TOBW
you're the only one who has picked up on the fact that we are actually seeing tax rises from this government. Whilst we are seeing direct tax falls in the main, indirect taxation has increased. Whilst I prefer indirect taxation as it cannot be avoided or evaded as easily, it shouldn't come at the expense of taking more money from the taxpayer overall.
How do you know what the Living Wage will be in 2020? It will have been recalculated five times by then. Quote me saying they have no work
@Archie
I think you are reading too much into things and looking to find fault no matter what. The aim is to have the minimum wage of £9 by 2020. At that point it will be more than the living wage (outside of London anyway). These things take time to implement fully.
@TOBW
you're the only one who has picked up on the fact that we are actually seeing tax rises from this government. Whilst we are seeing direct tax falls in the main, indirect taxation has increased. Whilst I prefer indirect taxation as it cannot be avoided or evaded as easily, it shouldn't come at the expense of taking more money from the taxpayer overall.
How do you know what the Living Wage will be in 2020? It will have been recalculated five times by then.
I am not reading into it. It is as clear as day what they are doing. IDS jumping up like a school girl on heat shows it is just political posturing and spin. Why would he be happy? He thinks £53 a week is a living wage. I'm pretty sure all ministers were vying for funding and policy implementation in the budget and IDS was probably happy because this is most likely to be his policy. But again because IDS is a tory some must automatically see the bad in him.
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/55200944.jpg
Leeroy Thornhill wroteYou really are a nasty piece of work.
Leeroy Thornhill wrote
On one hand you are saying the under 25s have no work, I think you need to calm down love
Leeroy Thornhill wrote
On one hand you are saying the under 25s have no work,
Leeroy Thornhill wroteYou are a nasty piece of work.
You'll have to explain that to me, chum
You'll have to explain that to me, chumAnd I'm anything but your chum.
You'll have to explain that to me, chum
I won't explain anything to you.Don't be like that, buddy, just let me know what I'm doing wrong and I'll see what I can do to change. That's what's friends are for right?
You'll have to explain that to me, chum
I won't explain anything to you.Don't be like that, buddy, just let me know what I'm doing wrong and I'll see what I can do to change. That's what's friends are for right?
Leeroy Thornhill wrotemy bad kiffa. I was half responding to you and half to Archie when he said what about the under 25s
Will the 1% cap on salary increases for Public Sector workers apply to MP's and AM's as well as nurses, teachers and firemen?
Anyone?Some friends of mine who work in the Civil Service are still waiting to receive their 1% increase that was due to them in August 2014, so effectively they'be received 0% cos they reckon that if/when they do receive it, that it wont be backdated.
archibald leitch
09-07-15, 19:44
my bad kiffa. I was half responding to you and half to Archie when he said what about the under 25sWhat exactly did i say?
And what about the under 25s
archibald leitch
11-07-15, 07:33
Quote:And? This has nothing to do with your allegation that someone had said the under 25s would be without work.
Quote:
And what about the under 25s I've already said I was half answering you and half answering Kiffa.
archibald leitch
11-07-15, 09:37
Quote:
And what about the under 25s
And? This has nothing to do with your allegation that someone had said the under 25s would be without work.But no one had said what you claim was said, so you were not actually answering anyone http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Quote:
And what about the under 25s
And? This has nothing to do with your allegation that someone had said the under 25s would be without work.
I've already said I was half answering you and half answering Kiffa. Exactly. You've got it.
Quote:
And what about the under 25s
And? This has nothing to do with your allegation that someone had said the under 25s would be without work.
I've already said I was half answering you and half answering Kiffa.
But no one had said what you claim was said, so you were not actually answering anyone http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif I assume someone actually said this otherwise why on earth would you say that someone did?
Quote:
And what about the under 25s
And? This has nothing to do with your allegation that someone had said the under 25s would be without work.
I've already said I was half answering you and half answering Kiffa.
But no one had said what you claim was said, so you were not actually answering anyone http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Exactly. You've got it.I don't think you're following this. I've already said I responded to your post and archie's post as if they were one.
Quote:
And what about the under 25s
And? This has nothing to do with your allegation that someone had said the under 25s would be without work.
I've already said I was half answering you and half answering Kiffa.
But no one had said what you claim was said, so you were not actually answering anyone http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Exactly. You've got it.
If you could just quote anyone saying the under 25s would be out of work feedy we can probably clear this one up pretty quickly. So the question remains, why on earth would you claim that one of us, or indeed both of us did? Most perculiar.
As i said Kiffa, you are not following. you mentioned people being out of work and archie mentioned u25s. When I responded I did so as I if I had read both comments in one single unified post made by one single individual.
That's the fourth time I've explained this, hopefully it will sink in this time.
As i said Kiffa, you are not following. you mentioned people being out of work and archie mentioned u25s. When I responded I did so as I if I had read both comments in one single unified post made by one single individual.Just stop saying people have said thing that they haven't and you won't look like such a plum and people might start taking you a bit more seriously. Genuine advice feedy.
Kiffa
Where have i lied? With my 'my bad' comment earlier on I accepted I got it wrong. Yet 4 posts later you are still going on about it.
You clearly mentioned jobs in your post and archie clearly mentioned u25s. When I read the thread I made the mistake of assuming they were in the same post.
For the fifth time, no one mentioned u25s and out of work in the same post apart from me when I responded and read it wrong. Hopefully that will help you get your head around what has happened because quite frankly what you are writing and the way you are writing it is a little disconcerting.
Perhaps you can explain how admitting I read it wrong is trying to cover my tracks? Quite often I'm sure you're just looking for an argument that doesn't exist.
And I don't out words in people's mouths. For example, when archie says he wants to see the end of capitalism and capitalism is defined as private ownership of economic resources, then it's quite easy to suggest archie is against the private sector as he is against private ownership. That isn't putting words in to people's mouths, that's restating what has been said using synonyms.
KiffaJust. stop. talking. shit.
Kiffa
Where have i lied? With my 'my bad' comment earlier on I accepted I got it wrong. Yet 4 posts later you are still going on about it.do you seriously expect me to quote verbatim on regarding I refer? You clearly want to find fault in everything. Is that the best you can come up with
Kiffa
Where have i lied? With my 'my bad' comment earlier on I accepted I got it wrong. Yet 4 posts later you are still going on about it.
You clearly mentioned jobs in your post and archie clearly mentioned u25s. When I read the thread I made the mistake of assuming they were in the same post.I often wonder if you think the conversations you have in your head are reality
Let's recap the conversation
Kiffa: who mentioned out of work u25s
Me: you're right, no one did, I made a mistake
Kiffa: so who has mentioned out of work u25s?
Me: for the second time, it was my error
Kiffa: fine but why did you mention out of work u25s
Me: because I read it wrong and made a mistake
Kiffa: stop talking shit, no one has mentioned out of work u25s
Me: I accept that, it was me who made the mistake
And so it continues
Kiffa
Where have i lied? With my 'my bad' comment earlier on I accepted I got it wrong. Yet 4 posts later you are still going on about it.
You clearly mentioned jobs in your post and archie clearly mentioned u25s. When I read the thread I made the mistake of assuming they were in the same post.
For the fifth time, no one mentioned u25s and out of work in the same post apart from me when I responded and read it wrong. Hopefully that will help you get your head around what has happened because quite frankly what you are writing and the way you are writing it is a little disconcerting. We've already established I mixed posts hence why I referenced u25s.
Let's recap the conversationFeedy: But but but, you did say jobs
Didn't I say right at the outset I got it wrong? So whether I claimed you said jobs or work or whatever is moot because I didn't read what you and archie wrote correctly.
Didn't I say right at the outset I got it wrong? So whether I claimed you said jobs or work or whatever is moot because I didn't read what you and archie wrote correctly. you had plenty of time to re-read everything before the next claim
Didn't I say right at the outset I got it wrong? So whether I claimed you said jobs or work or whatever is moot because I didn't read what you and archie wrote correctly.
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif It's a football forum, I'm not going to lose sleep over any inaccuracies. You may see it as a competition where you get to prove your capability but for me it's just light entertainment.
Didn't I say right at the outset I got it wrong? So whether I claimed you said jobs or work or whatever is moot because I didn't read what you and archie wrote correctly.
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
you had plenty of time to re-read everything before the next claimJust a little more advice though feeds, maybe do read back a little bit when you get called out on misquoting people just to make sure, just to stop you looking like such a tool if nothing else. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
Didn't I say right at the outset I got it wrong? So whether I claimed you said jobs or work or whatever is moot because I didn't read what you and archie wrote correctly.
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
you had plenty of time to re-read everything before the next claim
But that's the point Kiffa. I don't re-read threads at all. I recall from memory what was written, sometimes more accurately than others.http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.