Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

.

Or forray - subtle difference :-)

.

M - Forget sub, Fred is just a tool end of.

.

You boys are beginning to confuse me, more than I am normally.

=====

Foraging reminds me of "Wild Camping" and meeting a little Irish man who used to go on forays for food around the beach and estuary in Portugal. He left early in the mornings, with a haversack on a fishing rod and return in the evening for his barbecue of Trout or Bass and his Wild Asparagus , Fennel and various herbs.

We had to provide the wine.

Warm memories of Portugal and its beaches on warm nights with no responsibilities.

------

.

My feelings are espoused by Dylan Thomas.

I think I am politically agnostic.

But what irritates me is the arrogance of those who believe they can walk on water, and lead gullible followers into the depths with ill-conceived ideologies.

A little more humility from some leading politicians would be acceptable.

The problems of government without to much strife increasingly amazes me.

Thank God (if there is one) that I am just a vociferous spectator.



DO NOT GO GENTLE INTO THAT GOOD NIGHT

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

.

Truly awful Cornwall eye-gouge man admits blinding girlfriend

I am thinking of getting some stray dogs and kicking off my own charity. The idea would be to get loads of donations from lots of the gullible public. Then I would run my Bentley (and the wife's) on the charity, as well as also eating out well and engaging in foreign travel for research on stray dogs, etc, etc. Naturally, I would have to travel First Class.

As of the moment, it is all in the preliminary stages of my sorta kinda 'business plan'. I do hope the bottom hasn't dropped out of this kind of thing!

Hmmm?

Why Fred might well have a point with his continual Cameron/Osborne knocking:

From the Tory(*)????)graph (Hmmm? (*) Not any longer it seems) at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9200166/Charity-tax-relief-proposals-The-taxmans-greed-will-strangle-Britains-amazing-culture-of-giving.html

Link provided so that you can read the Comments from others

Charity tax relief proposals: The taxman’s greed will strangle Britain’s amazing culture of giving

Charities cannot exist without their generous backers, so a Treasury assault on them is intolerable.


Every year, at Conservative Party conference, a poster is brought out which actually makes the “Big Society” look like a reasonable and even inspiring idea. It shows two images: a handshake, representing co-operation, and a fist, representing “state control”. This is intended to represent the choice at election time: government coercion, or Conservative liberalisation.

The poster was never used during an election, perhaps due to its excessive honesty. This is just as well, because almost two years into David Cameron’s government, the fist of the state seems to be winning.

The taxman and the charity collector have long been enemies, and they are at war again. For years, HM Revenue & Customs has been jealous of the fact that the rich give so much of their money to charity and, in doing so, legally reduce their tax liability. The best-paid 1 per cent contribute 28 per cent of all income tax, and probably account for an even bigger share of charitable donations. Yet it is a Conservative chancellor, George Osborne, who has authorised the Treasury to pass a new law limiting the amount that can be donated, and counted against tax. The Treasury’s position is that the rich “must pay their fair share”.

The rich certainly pay, but the question is: to whom? Who speaks for society? In Opposition, Cameron adopted a radical position: it should not be him. This is what would be different about his government. It would not try to reorder people like the pieces on a chess board. His policy was to place trust in the courage and the character of the British people, bowing to their greater collective wisdom. The Conservative manifesto was entitled “An invitation to join the government of Great Britain”. The launch of that document, two years ago today, was one of those rare moments in the Tory election campaign where it all seemed to make sense.

But the Big Society theme is now, in effect, dead – its corpse riddled with bullets fired by a jealous government machine that had no intention of relinquishing any power. Plans to keep a log of everyone’s emails, for example, suggest a distinct lack of trust in what we all get up to. And who would bet against these powers being used by the taxman? HM Treasury is hardwired with the idea that anyone who reduces their tax liability is malign. It sees the world through a binary divide: money spent for the good of society (tax) or money spent on selfish, vainglorious or frivolous causes (everything else).

Ministers bemoan the fact that Brits give less to charity than Americans, but this is for a reason. The Americans have a far lower tax rate and can also write off all manner of donations against their liability. But look a little deeper into the figures, and something extraordinary emerges. As you might expect, the highest taxed countries tend to give the least, but there are many anomalies. New Zealanders, for example, are not taxed much but are almost as niggardly as the French with their donations. But closely behind the Americans in the world generosity table come the Brits.

What even Cameron’s ministers miss is the fact that Britain has an amazing philanthropy culture, which dwarfs that of our European neighbours. The Hudson Institute’s Index of Global Philanthropy, which counts private donations to overseas charities, shows just how generous we are. The average Brit donates four times more than the average German, seven times more than an Italian and nine times as much as a Spaniard. We are the last country in Europe to need what Cameron now proposes: a new law that would extract an average £400 per household, through the tax system, for overseas aid.

The official target sounds innocent enough: that Britain ought to give 0.7 per cent of economic output in overseas aid. A tiny figure, Mr Cameron says, which only the heartless would begrudge. But this only considers state donations, and ignores Britain’s long tradition of private giving. Put them together and Britain, as a country, has already reached its donation target. The mission has been accomplished, and there’s no more need for the taxman’s help. But that doesn’t matter – a vast increase for overseas aid is planned anyway. A victory for “state control”.

The greater danger behind all this is that the taxman’s greed will stifle philanthropy. Oxfam and other charities hoping for a slice of this state funding may soon find private donations drying up, if people now think that overseas aid is covered by their tax bill. The 800 charities that have signed a petition asking George Osborne to reconsider his latest clampdown are only too aware that more state means less society, and more tax means fewer donations.

There is a respectable and coherent argument against charity. The British public are rather gullible, it is argued, and easily swayed by adverts that tug the heart strings. So the millions end up being sent to well-heeled Cornish donkey sanctuaries, and half a dozen directors of the same lifeboat charity are on six-figure salaries.

On overseas aid, even billionaire philanthropists can be duped. Madonna famously spent £2.4 million on a Malawian school project that collapsed last year. Would this have happened had she instead entrusted the money to a team of government development specialists, who are experts in the area?

It’s a good question. The British Government also has sunk £300 million into Malawi, and a parliamentary investigation two years ago found no “reliable and up-to-date information” on how wisely it was spent. Madonna, at least, knows her money was squandered. The British taxpayer is given no such certainty, and still the aid budget is soaring towards a legally binding target of £35 million a day. Government can waste money just as well as charities can. There is no more egregious example of this than the welfare state, which is now creating the most expensive poverty in the world.

Those who have enjoyed success in Britain, and are disturbed about the appalling poverty still suffered in our supposedly rich country, can be forgiven for seeking better homes for their money. It is understandable that HM Revenue & Customs would want to stop people doing so, but baffling that Mr Cameron should help the empire strike back. It is fairly obvious that this was yet another ill-thought-out Budget wheeze, and when the Prime Minister flies back to London he will have to decide whether to tough it out, or to rectify the error.

When he launched the Tory manifesto in Battersea Power Station, Mr Cameron was pleading to be taken seriously. This is not just a politician’s promise, he said, but a solemn pledge to bring in a new style of politics: “people power not state power”.

If he meant it, he should tell his Chancellor that charities, the vehicles of people power, cannot exist without their benefactors – so a Treasury assault on these benefactors is intolerable. This is not just another Budget hiccup, it’s a question of whose side Cameron’s government is on. As the old Tory poster put it: social responsibility, or state control. The choice is his.

US data:
CPI 0.02% as expected
Core CPI 0.3%, expected 0.2%
Consumer sentiment 75.7, expected 76.4

Fred

I am sure you will be pleased that it looks like Osborne's policies are working

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17708678

Standard & Poor's reaffirms UK's AAA credit rating

Ratings agency Standard & Poor's has reaffirmed its AAA credit rating for the UK, saying it believes the economy is "wealthy, open and diversified".

S&P also confirmed a stable outlook, as it expects the government to implement the bulk of its austerity measures

S&P said in a statement: "In our view, the UK has a wealthy, open, and diversified economy, supported by a well-established political system and macroeconomic policy framework, which can react quickly to economic challenges.

"We expect economic policy to focus on closing the fiscal gap, and we forecast the government's net debt burden to peak in 2013 [at about 87% of GDP]."

Chancellor George Osborne said: "This is a reminder that Britain is weathering the international debt storms because of the policies we have adopted and stuck to in tough times."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/other_sports/racing/4256172/Grand-National-guide.html

Exec,

I am beginning to worry you about you.

I hate the thought of you getting lost on the road to Damascus.

Perhaps, I missed my vocation.

================

I have always had a difficulty with “charity” and believed that a civilised state should not have to rely on such to support its “weakest members”.

I am not against the actions of many who are charitable and believe their intentions, in general, are for the benefit of groups within society and probably society as a whole.

I sometimes question which organisation have “charitable” status and hence see difficulties when donations can be seen to be advantaging certain groups whose “values” are similar to those of the donors. Donations to minor religious sects, as well as other groups, may be seen in this way.

Also, some of the major humane and caring actions have been financed by charity and through charities. The Salvation Army and similar bodies, who have cared for some in society who many of us would have difficulty in helping,.

However, I believe that such charitable gifts should be given after tax and at the level which the donors wish to and can afford.

The effective distribution of “charity” to a large modern society cannot be left to the whims of individuals and for me there is the need for a “government” to organise it and the cost borne out of general taxation.

Again, I do think that it is wrong to give donations to so called “charities”, which are later diverted back into the family, even when this occurs abroad. To me this is evasion of social responsibilities.

Therefore, although I have some doubts about the sincerity of George’s proposed “charity tax reforms”, they do seem sensible.
-------------

Regarding Osborne and Cameron.

They can be seen as CEO and CFO of UK corporation and I think if their management, promises and actions over the last 2 years were examined by the share holders, they would be fired for incompetence and general mismanagement .

They are fortunate that, even with such a right winged press as we have in the UK, that they haven’t be mauled for their mistakes in the way the previous government often was. Sometimes the criticism of the previous government’s policies and actions was justifiably, but I disliked the depths of personal abuse which was often descended to.

=============

Hays,

As far as AAA rating is concerned by Standard & Poor's is concerned.

Their opinion hasn’t affected the French economy.

---------------

The above rating company failed to recognise the oncoming financial collapse prior to it happening.

http://rjrnewsonline.com/business/moodys-standard-and-poors-blamed-global-financial-crisis

Moody's & Standard and Poor's blamed for global financial crisis

A United States Congressional Committee examining the causes of the 2008 global financial crisis has concluded that ratings agencies Moody's and Standard and Poor's were the main triggers behind the meltdown.

The committee reached the conclusion after more than two years of poring over countless documents and holding hearings into the causes of the crisis.

The collapse of Lehman Brothers, then the fourth largest investment bank in the US on September 15, 2008, triggered the worst financial crisis in decades.

However, a US Senate committee examining the reasons behind the crisis, points fingers elsewhere and more specifically at ratings agencies.

The committee, in a report, concluded that Moody's and Standard and Poor's, the world's two most prominent ratings agencies, were the triggers of the global financial crisis in 2008.

The Senate committee found that both ratings agencies continued to give top ratings to mortgage-backed securities months after the housing market started to collapse.

The panel said a subsequent "flood of downgrades" in July 2007 was "perhaps more than any other single event ... the immediate trigger for the financial crisis."

The Senate panel also released internal documents showing how Moody's and Standard and Poor's failed to heed their own internal warnings about the deteriorating mortgage market.

It concluded that the warnings were ignored because "neither company had a financial incentive to assign tougher credit ratings to the very securities that for a short while increased their revenues, boosted their stock prices, and expanded their executive compensation."
Etc.

-------------------------------------------------
Also!

To me,they may have a vested interested in maintaining their posturing against QE and prefer “austerity”, which may not effect them personally to much, for possibly the same reason as some of those who have invested in the present “tory” government.

At the end of the day QE is a delayed devaluation. Work out the processes and effects behind the processes, if you disagree.

Hays,

You must be pleased with the latest polls.


YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 33, LAB 39, LD 10
14 Apr 2012

Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sunday Times has topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 39%, LDEM 10% – so the six point Labour lead we’ve had this week remains steady.

------------------------

Edited to relieve it from his fears.

please dont... unfortunately those that want handouts now exceed those that have to provide them. The country is spiraling into an ever worse situation due to levels of taxation that an american (all the americas) would never tolerate. The nanny state has to be cut back and hard.

I don't trust any religious leaders. I'm exceedingly suspicious of the top people who work in and for large charitable institutions. I am very aware of the following:

One of the best ways to become wealthy is to get yourself involved in 'selling things'. This distances you from any 'time related/restricted' methods of making/earning money.

One of the next best ways to benefit yourself to a maximum, is to live on/off the back of a charity. The tax reliefs are much better. Not for much longer though, apparently.

Exec,

Which groups, bodies, or individuals do you completely trust?

(Not to make mistakes, not to run off with the proceeds, or not to dine disproportionately from the troughs.)

Cut down on "welfare" in order for the few to get fatter, or obtain "goods and objects", which are possibly of no use or real benefit to ourselves?

Would you apply the same to judgement to such organisations as Medicins sans Frontieres, or the Bill Gates Foundation?

-------

The cutbacks are to enable the UK to pack its debts. The cutting of our top rate tax was sensible as we were virtually the highest taxed country. We are still almost at that level and I expect the rate to fall to 40%.