Yes I understand that and being anti-EU doesn't make someone a racist idiot but it should really be a pre-requisite for voting for a party who call themselves the UK Independence Party.

I'm not sure anyone would be able to stand behind and defend such a withering, scornful attack as "Image from Rochester". Take that, common man!

Didn't you know? Hanging the Cross of St George is racist.

But, then, looking at that photo, I would put the chances of the inhabitants of that house as being racist as pretty high. Does that make me a bad person for thinking that? Am I out of touch with the common man?

I've always considered you pretty common, if that helps.

If you still want to keep the contact, then unfollow him so he still appears on your friends list but doesn't appear on your newsfeed. Otherwise, I think BNP or racist material is a swift 'unfriend' offence.

Fuck you too buddy.

No it doesn't, one of the grey lines represents the non movers, it's small but not in relation to their 2010 share.

If you still want to keep the contact, then unfollow him so he still appears on your friends list but doesn't appear on your newsfeed. Otherwise, I think BNP or racist material is a swift 'unfriend' offence.

I instantly remove anyone xenophobic or racist from my social life. I just don't tolerate that shit. I'm even less tolerant of that during the last 8 years of course because I'm seen how that kind of backwards nastiness affects people. Now I'm at the stage where I don't want anything to do with the 'out of Yurp' type people, because honestly, if they think people like my girlfriend and a lot of my friends should be deported and repatriated, well, fuck them.

Wookie, I have absolutely no issue with anyone having a differing opinion

Oops... Seems there's editing to be done, standing by...

Okay conceded X does say there's NO good reason and clearly there are a few but reading X's post without the purely literal filters on and also in my own opinion the cons to leaving outweigh the pros. Of course if I was to skew my view of the world presume that the Brits were better than everybody else and for that reason should keep our lump of rock to ourselves then that would change everything. Besides all that, this is a public forum and no one should be banished to a "lesser" thread where cranially challenged dim-wits can belm at each other without upsetting their mentally superior counterparts. That last in sarcasm of course.

And as I've said, no-one I can think of is more tolerant to opposing views than I.

http://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7967&hilit=+european

I still haven't had a reason to change my views since that thread.

At the moment tax law ensures that companies based here, with branches in other countries, don't get taxed twice on the same money. They have to pay only the difference between our rate and that of the other country. If, for example, Dirty Oil plc pays 10% corporation tax on its profits in Oblivia, then shifts the money over here, it should pay a further 18% in the UK, to match our rate of 28%. But under the new proposals, companies will pay nothing at all in this country on money made by their foreign branches.

Foreign means anywhere. If these proposals go ahead, the UK will be only the second country in the world to allow money that has passed through tax havens to remain untaxed when it gets here. The other is Switzerland. The exemption applies solely to "large and medium companies": it is not available for smaller firms. The government says it expects "large financial services companies to make the greatest use of the exemption regime". The main beneficiaries, in other words, will be the banks.

In David Cameron we have a leader whose job is to quietly legitimise a semi-criminal, money-laundering economy.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... of-century

Having read the article I can't see any other way to interpret it?

(I appreciate the article's three years old, I just had my attention drawn to it.)

It was also laughably bad when written three years ago and was widely discredited at the time. That the writer had to enhance the article by using 'oblivia' and 'dirty oil' to make a point, rather than, say, 'facts' or 'truth', should say enough to the reader of moderate intelligence.

Indeed when it takes Robert Peston to frame your article in a coherent manner you should probably check you know what you're talking about. Mind you, its Monbiot so I don't know why I was even slightly surprised at the time.

Without going into all my technical issues with the failings of how the article describes the legislation, the key point that monbiot almost certainly intentionally ignores (as opposed to not being aware of) is that it was legislation first proposed by Gordon brown, refined for introduction by darling, and passed by the Tories with more anti tax avoidance protections than the original contained.

So worse than pure unadulterated anti Tory hysteria. It is intentionally misleading.

David Tredinnick: With homeopathic medicine, which I have long supported and advocated, it is impossible to run trials on every dilution: some are so dilute that they do not show up.

Dr Huppert: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Tredinnick: I am always glad to give way to the hon. Gentleman—I am sure he will agree with my every word.

Dr Huppert: My hon. Friend will be well aware that there have been many trials of homeopathic medicines, and the fact is that none of them has shown that they work better than a placebo. He is right that they are very dilute; that is why they do not work.

David Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. I remember when some of his friends went to Boots in Kensington high street and consumed the entire stock of homeopathic medicine. They saw that as a huge triumph, as they felt it illustrated the fact that homeopathic medicine was not effective. Of course it did nothing of the sort; it proved that it was absolutely safe to take these preparations under any circumstances, and that the only time they work is if they are in the right preparation and are taken in the right amount, as prescribed by a professional.

Insecure, low-paid jobs are leaving record numbers of working families in poverty, with two-thirds of people who found work in the past year taking jobs for less than the living wage, according to the latest annual report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
...
Painting a picture of huge numbers trapped on low wages, the foundation said during the decade only a fifth of low-paid workers managed to move to better paid jobs.

The living wage is calculated at £7.85 an hour nationally, or £9.15 in London – much higher than the legally enforceable £6.50 minimum wage.

As many people from working families are now in poverty as from workless ones, partly due to a vast increase in insecure work on zero-hours contracts, or in part-time or low-paid self-employment.

It was also laughably bad when written three years ago and was widely discredited at the time. That the writer had to enhance the article by using 'oblivia' and 'dirty oil' to make a point, rather than, say, 'facts' or 'truth', should say enough to the reader of moderate intelligence.

Indeed when it takes Robert Peston to frame your article in a coherent manner you should probably check you know what you're talking about. Mind you, its Monbiot so I don't know why I was even slightly surprised at the time.

Without going into all my technical issues with the failings of how the article describes the legislation, the key point that monbiot almost certainly intentionally ignores (as opposed to not being aware of) is that it was legislation first proposed by Gordon brown, refined for introduction by darling, and passed by the Tories with more anti tax avoidance protections than the original contained.

So worse than pure unadulterated anti Tory hysteria. It is intentionally misleading.

Sure am glad we've had an economic recovery.

Sure am glad we've had an economic recovery.

The UK unemployment total has fallen below two million for the first time in almost six years, official figures show.

The number of jobless people fell by 154,000 to 1.97 million in the three months to the end of August, the Office for National Statistics said.

The drop, which is bigger than analysts expected, took the unemployment rate to 6%, its lowest level since late 2008.