Yeah, and people on good salaries who have a mortgage shouldn’t pay taxes which go to disabled people and orphans either, just for stuff that they and their families need.
That's a bit hard of you Stan I don't think if you have a mortgage you should borrow extra to pay off the bloke down the roads
If the bloke down the road needed a fiver to feed his kids I'd give it to him. Admittedly I would be a bit annoyed if he used the fiver to build up his space programme.
No one in Bracknell has a space programme. It would be far too much of a distraction from the Carling and heavily cut drugs.
If I didn’t pay any of the tax that I didn’t benefit from directly, I wouldn’t need a mortgage. Principle is the same.
And that's the crux of it isn't it? I absolutely want us to help people around the world in genuine need. BUT, whilst we have food banks here (waits for incoming!!) and many people in need, I simply can't agree to giving money to Countries with their own space programme etc. There has to be a balance surely? Reduce it by half and spend the rest here!!
Obviously we have to look carefully at how the overseas development budget is spent. I think it’s meant to be on development of economies in ways that actually contribute to our economy. Whether that works or not I have no idea. We are one of the few countries which hits the target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on development aid (a lot of which is low interest loans). Here’s how it’s spent: Only about 16% goes as humanitarian aid, or crisis relief, with the rest focused on strategic or long-term goals. 37% of the money goes via multilateral organisations, like the United Nations. The other 63% goes to programmes in specific countries as bilateral aid. The five biggest recipients of bilateral aid are Pakistan, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Syria. When it comes to continents, significantly more gets spent in Africa (55%) and Asia (41%) than anywhere else. The Department for International Development (DfID) is responsible for most of the UK’s aid spending. They spend 81% of our ODA target; the rest is spent by other government departments and organisations. I think that there are plenty of people in Parliament who agree with you Col. The food banks thing is odd. We have an historically low level of unemployment yet we have food banks and ‘universal credit’ etc to support working people. I think housing costs are the crippling factor, sorting this out and keeping on increasing the minimum wage would make a big difference. I’m quite proud that we try to help other countries. I have very low confidence that Priti Patel and her predecessors of both parties know how to spend the money effectively and have governance in place to minimise waste, corruption etc. But then I’m not deeply impressed with how a lot of taxpayers money is spent domestically either.
throwing your money around down the pub when you have spare cash is great buying drinks with borrowed money is daft
This year marks the 10th anniversary of the start of the EU free trade talks with India. No deal yet in sight. Almost, if not actually, a world record. do the indians not buy many bmws
Ok, heres a hypothetical: Scenario A: A girl gets drunk, ends up with a man who knows this, he talks her into sex, knowing that had she not been drunk she would have said no. Scenario B: A girl is out, gets her drink spiked, ends up with a man who acts exactly like scenario A. Scenario C: Same as B, but the man is the same person who spiked her drink. Scenario D: A girl is pressured into saying yes to sex by a large, powerful man who has the ability to ruin her life/ambition, when what she really wants to do is run. Which of these scenarios is rape? Technically, and legally, all of them are, despite the girl 'consenting' in each case.
Scenario D sounds like a physical threat because the man is large and powerful. That's rape. But what if he was weak and spindly, but influential in her sphere of work. She allows him to have sex with her, so that her career prospects are not damaged. Rape?
Yes. When a woman has sex with a man for fear of the consequences, when she actually doesnt want to, its rape. Thoughts on the first three?
Paul Fleming @MrPJFleming Mar 19 Replying to @HackneyAbbott I have a lot of time for you Diane but suggesting Michael Gove is some kind of believable figure is just ridiculous please log in to view this image Diane AbbottVerified account @HackneyAbbott Mar 20 Replying to @MrPJFleming Take your point about Gove, but even a stopped clock is right once a day
Anything involving spiked drinks when the man takes advantage is rape. More difficult when girl gets drunk voluntarily. Example - Doris tells her boyfriend Fred she's not ready to have sex with him. The next night, she has too many drinks and when Fred presses her, she says "Oh, go on then..." Fred knows it's something of the drink talking. Whether it's rape or not may depend on how drunk she is and whether it removes her capability to consent. Going back to "sex with the fear of consequences" I think it's more complicated than that. If a Hollywood producer tells an aspiring young actress that unless she submits, he'll blackball her in the industry, then that does suggest rape. However, if the producer doesn't threaten anything negative but says "look, agree to have sex and I'll promote you in the industry", and the woman submits to something she doesn't want, calculating that it will help her career, then personally, I doubt that is rape. I suspect the latter is the Weinstein cases, based on hearing the audio when he was secretly recorded. He was insistent but not threatening - he was asking not demanding. The woman is thinking - you've got something I want (power to promote me) but I'm not sure I'm ready to lend you my body to get it. She has choice.
