Unfortunately with the way it was implemented, it ended up gutting the supply of council houses, until we reach today.

Not, Unfortunately. This was openly the Tory plan.

They spent the 1970s arguing that council housing was unfair competition on the private sector. And as such by their ideals harmful to the economy.

R2B was originally set up to reduce the supply of council housing. This was why thatcher banned Local auths from using sales revenue to invest in new council housing.

If we consider good service to have been given.

Rather then because the company can’t be fucked to pay a fair wage.

This exactly. If a company is not paying the expected taxes. Goodbye, let a smaller company compete, that has not learned to be a shithead and provide unfair competition through it tax avoidance.

Can I propose Rwanda. Apparently its very safe now so the tories should have a great time.

Ps sorry Rwandans but your government was the ones dealing with them. So you sorta deserve them.

Yeah im not an apple fan. (My brother would have a heart attack if I didnt say that. He loves them).

But the fact they controll both hardware and software means they can run on lower specs. They dont use it as well as they could. But android having to allow others to develop hardware. Provides a bit more ability for manufactures to implement less efficient drivers. This is why some higher spec low value stuff seems so slow compared to equal speced cheaper Samsung stuff etc.

Well nowadays yes. But when the term smartphone was invented. Really not.

The 1st iPhone was way lower spec then many high end phones of the time. Mainly Nokia but others as well.

Early androids and others def had no specific specs that differed them from other high-end phones such as Symbian Win CE (as crap as the OS was but then so was the smartphone mareted version recreated later on)

Seriously, marketing was the only thing that differed them from phones like the N95 and communicator etc etc.

And as I mentioned, the locked store front. That really seem to be the main difference but really I still find non-advantageous myself.

You are not wrong. Self-defence requires you to be able to show you had real reason to fear for yours, or someone else, safety.

So while a verble threat can apply. It needs to be backed up with some physically obvious danger. So hands in pockets etc would def make it hard to prove this MP felt truly threatened. And continuing to attack once the guy was on the ground, very hard.

But not a forgone conclusion. If we invent a history for idea telling

Just the fact this MP had an historical event of violence(according to another article shared). Means it is possible some statement was made that triggered fear, or the guy attacked was involved. Then it is entirely possible for a lawyer to argue the fear response was beyond rational. So the attack was self-defence due to the mental state of the perpetrator. Think PTSD like defence. It’s not claiming innocence, just astringent circumstances.

been a long while so my memory is likely flawed.

But I’m sure I remember someone getting doom running on a 95 in the 2000s some time.

Had one for a good few years. Moved from US back home to UK with it so lasted a good while.

Loved the thing. Hated when I had to give it up due to lack of support for newer software.

I still find it bloody hard to see how modern smartphone are technically different. When you consider early some android etc had keyboards etc. Basically, it’s just marketing and a more locked in app/program store.

Thats easy.

Some folks are insane.

And thank fuck for them. Doing dumb stuff like this has led to so much of the useful stuff we see and use now.

“Can I make this dumb idea work” is the very source of inspiration behind science. Never underestimate its value.

–

My relative sanity can be so disapointing to me ;)

This. The whole bias of the article is a lie.

He did not say “landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people” he did not even suggest it.

When asked that question, he said, “they are not included in my definition.” That definition being of working taxes.

They are also not included in the Tory definition. This is why they have been paying capital gains tax rather than income tax.

Unless the people complaining are also arguing capital gains tax should end. And all investment income should be taxed under income tax. The whole debate is a lie designed to sow division.

I do not see any house renter looking to pay at income tax rates when selling property. Or pay income tax on all rent paid to the landlords.

And id love to see these right wing jurnalists answer to. “Oh sorry are you aguing rental share and property income should be taxed at PAYE rates?”

So he moved his company out of the UK to avoid tax.

Refusing to cover his share of building the infer structure his and other companies depend on. Also making it harder for non-shitty companies to compete.

And now wonders why the UK is forced to reevaluate how taxing shitty idiots like this needs to work,

In all fairness, what you think does not matter.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I mean by legal etc. ’

The actions you claim the party is to naive to prevent.

is impossible for them to prevent. Because the members are not constrained by the party.

Let me put it simply. You are Naive to believe US or UK political parties have such power over their membership. When I say they are not legally able. That means exercising such control over members would be a crime.

So your complaint is a social network (not used much in the UK) Post from a labour member. Talks about lots of other labour members agreeing with One side of your democratic election.

You seem to think there are some trademark regulations that limit what members of the party can say they are doing together. As I said, at no point is the Labour Party going to tell groups of members they have no right to support a foreign party. The PLP (parliamentary Labour Party, consists just of MPs) dose not have the legal right to do that.

That is just not how political parties work in the UK. You will find social media posts all over the nation of different local parties or groups of members coming together to support a cause.

Heck, the whole structure of our government is such that it is possible to have the official Labour Party disagree with the government and argue at times. That is the very way our representative democracy works.

You saw it with Boris Johnson, Liss truss etc As the government and the Tory party as a whole started to argue amongst themselves. That was a bad example but far from a rare event in UK politics.

Party names and parliamentary bodies are linked with complex multilevel structures because they are by definition democratic organisations that have free members able to act as groups.

Seeing the Labour Name assigned to a group of individual members of the party in no way indicates the government is involved.

Nor would it actually be seen as a bad thing if the UK government actually said hey we don’t like a leader you are thinking of voting. He’ll trump did it over Corbyn and Obama did it over Brexit.

And that is exactly what is happening.

This is trump complaining about indevidual Labour members acting independently.

What he claims is happening is no more then his own invention. No official of the government is acting in the name of the UK gov or the party.

Its almost like you do not realise a huge % of the current government were doing the job pre 2010. Its not like labour is children with no experience.

Not really, Labour has absolutely no reason to think Trump will be a positive effect on UK politics. And its members expressing a preference is none of their legal or moral business.

It would be much more Naive and harmful to labour as a party to be banning party members from expressing views on foreign democratic governments.

UK voters don’t tend to be fans of parties that try to silence members on such things. Even less so when Tory and reform party members are very openly helping the other side.

Any accusations of interference are between your legal jurisdiction and the parties accepting any funds or help. The UK Labour Party has no legal authority or moral right to an opinion at all.

Why the fuck were taxpayers funding spying on folks sued by McDonald.

Reform UK’s MPs are understood to have been unaware

So a local party selling tickets. Without even confirming the people they are selling agree.

Sounds like the sorta shit a corporation claiming to be a political party would do.

The whole thing start to finish was an outright con.

This. When only one side of the bet can lose. It is not gambling but rigged capitalism.

When an industry manages to remove all the risk from investment. While offering little to the society they inhabit.

High taxation to help return their cost to society. Seems a bare minimum charge.

P&O s actions were fucking disgusting.

If DP wants to fuck its branding by openly declaring they are the same company. Go ahead.

Gives protesters more places they can draw attention to the arseholes attitude.