cjcregg
-
Posts
101 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by cjcregg
-
Well there doesn't seem much hope of it being debated here. It seems that like the fracking thread and others you're simply interested in using what is a discussion forum to promote and advertise the causes you believe in rather than actually debate the merits of them. I'm out.
-
Before you can answer how to fund it you need to know what it will cost. Take the above crackpot idea as the model for the UK. Very approximately it would cost £450 billion a year. This isn't far short of the current total tax income the UK receives so tax would have to virtually double to pay for it. The scale of the consequences this would have are so varied and so unfathomable, no Government in their right mind would risk destabilising the economy to that extent.
-
Basic economics. Higher incomes = more spending = more demand = higher prices.
-
I haven't look at it it but does it mention the massive tax rises it'll require to fund it for those that can be bothered to work? Or the rampant inflation it'll cause?
-
Just how did Obama make the ban possible? I mean do you have a more authoritative source than some blog? Trump claims that “My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months'' but that simply isn't true https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_fc-refugee-policy-625pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.dbbf643a6f8f The UK DID protest about Robert Mugabe and, unlike Trump, banned him from entering the UK.
-
I think the petition is poorly drafted. Should we really be concerned about the embarrassment a state visit would cause the queen? The issues we have with Donald Trump are surely a bit more serious than that.
-
Really?
-
I do find it a tad ironic that I'm asked to ''carefully'' read an article alleging a conflict of interested written by a former chief executive of Friends of the Earth. Do you really think he's capable of providing a balanced view? I don't have a view on fracking either way but I do have a view on the importance of objectivity in forming one and to be fair most of the posts here belong on the conspiracy theory thread...just don't let them hear you...they're everywhere...you know who I mean...them...
-
Seems like Friends of the Earth weren't just misleading about the effects of fracking but the outcome of the ASA case too https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-Centre/2016/Opinion-piece-A-fractious-debate-but-a-clear-outcome.aspx#.WH8IZn2K3po
-
Here's the Foster Burnell judgment. OliverFosterBurnellandLloydsTSBBankPlcAugust2014.pdf
-
ASA tweeted ''Friends of the Earth must not repeat misleading fracking claims'' https://twitter.com/ASA_UK?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
-
We don't know the details of the ASA's decision because it was informally resolved and therefore not published but it's usually the case that the respondent of informally resolved ASA complaints do not dispute the complaint grounds so it's a safe bet that, for whatever reasons, the claims were misleading. https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications.aspx#2 Oddly when I looked at the ASA yesterday it listed the case as simply 'Friends of the Earth' but it now lists both FotE Ltd and FotE Trust Ltd (the charity). This coincides with a piece in today's Times that claims FotE misled the Charity Commission as to who published the flyer by claiming it was the company and not the charity, in order to escape censure from the CC. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/anti-fracking-campaigners-misled-charity-watchdog-05jj66rck
-
''Friends of the Earth must not repeat misleading fracking claims'' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-38499811
-
Article 50 Discussion
cjcregg replied to Consumer dude's topic in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
This really is an inadequate argument and a complete waste of pixels as that wouldn't have happened and nor will it in the referendum. Get a grip. -
Government Brexit Skeleton Argument
cjcregg replied to legalistic's topic in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
That wasn't the Government's case in the JR, or am I missing something? In any case the court are the ultimate authority on whether triggering article 50 should be referred to Parliament and not even the Government are disputing that. -
Article 50 Discussion
cjcregg replied to Consumer dude's topic in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
He did have the approval of Parliament, who vote 412/149 in favour of war, even though Governments don't actually need Parliamentary approval to go to war. -
The Claims Guys contracts are, in my view, not compliant with the regulations. http://theclaimsguys-wordpress-prod.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/app/uploads/2016/11/03094535/TCG-TOE.pdf Clause 3 © states that the contract is formed after you have completed and returned the Lender Questionnaire or have completed the Lender Questionnaire over the phone. However if your husband did the latter then, in my view, the contract isn't valid because of the regulatory requirement for CMCs to have a written contract signed by the customer.
-
Article 50 Discussion
cjcregg replied to Consumer dude's topic in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
The Government are getting a second chance by appealing the judgment in the Supreme Court but I don't hear you or any leavers complaining about that. -
Article 50 Discussion
cjcregg replied to Consumer dude's topic in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
-
I don't think that you have the basis of a defence. You could try complaining to the Legal Ombudsman (you'd need to complain to the CMC first) but I don't think you have much of a chance refusing to pay on the basis that you had to fill in a form. The CMC couldn't possibly have got you the refund without you doing so.
-
Article 50 Discussion
cjcregg replied to Consumer dude's topic in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
I don't understand how he could given that the current Government cannot make any plans (contingent or otherwise) until it has triggered article 50, then negotiated the UK's exit terms over the following 2 years and then the trading terms with the rest of the world at some unspecified decade in the future. -
Article 50 Discussion
cjcregg replied to Consumer dude's topic in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
You seem to blame the Government for everything. You can't make them accountable for a decision made by the nation's citizens. The responsibility for how the rest of Europe would react to brexit rested entirely with those that voted for it. -
Article 50 Discussion
cjcregg replied to Consumer dude's topic in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
How could the Government tell us what was going to happen if the country voted leave? Nobody knew the answer and nobody will for years to come - meaning that the people who voted leave did so without so much as a clue as to what they were getting for their vote. -
Minors coming into UK.
cjcregg replied to Consumer dude's topic in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
How? Even the UK doesn't hold a DNA database of its citizens. What are the chances of the 3rd world countries that the refugees are from having one to check anyone against? -
Article 50 Discussion
cjcregg replied to Consumer dude's topic in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
That's the problem though isn't it? Nobody knows the key facts on whether we'll be better off outside EU unless and until the Government have negotiated the zillions of trade agreements with nations around the world, which will clearly take decades. The decision on whether to leave the EU should have been placed in the hands of independent economists. Instead, in his wisdom, David Cameron left the decision to the British public, the group least qualified to make an informed decision. Some of the comments on this thread illustrate just that. The unintended consequences of Brexit are still largely as yet unfathomable by the Government, let alone the average individual. Some people think that referendums are how a democracy is supposed to work. But frankly I'd rather my family's future wasn't in the hands of Mrs Miggins at number 92 and Daily Mail readers.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS