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.

The Greens Committee will be going nuts .

Yep Hilary, but the Birds are the sexiest on the planet and arent slow at coming forward.

Alders yep you are right its all that sex they get , they are totaly shag-ed out most of the time LOL, nope I hear its because its mostly light all year round, some how it depresses human beings.

PS, looks like I missed the Scottish yes vote off Clares tweet, sorry about that, it was probably saying this is how Scotland COULD BE if you vote yes.

yes just checked on twitter, she had it in a small caption.

Should have used Spec Savers.

Why would anyone with even half a brain cell store naughty pictures of themselves on a remote computer?




Apple tightens iCloud security after celebrity nude photo hack


Alerts about suspicious access to be sent and two-factor authentication promoted after pictures were stolen from accounts



Reuters in Australia


theguardian.com, Friday 5 September 2014 06.40 BST





Sorry saga here: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/05/apple-tightens-icloud-security-after-celebrity-nude-photo-hack

this is clearly the very silly season as this discussion went round and round and round a couple of months back ......

legal tax avoidance
HMRC is not remotely interested in morals or morality

if legal tax avoidance is legal, then it is a personal choice as to whether or not you pour your money down the gov't's throat, or avail yourself of those permissions and give it to your children, battersea dog's home or whatever

if you don't like the legal tax avoidance currently in place then become an activist and vote to change it

Tax avoidance is sensible and not immoral. Income tax was introduced as a temporary measure to fund a war. There are plenty of people who do not agree with income tax at all. If you cen get away with paying less or no income tax then you should. The fuss about tax is big at present because we have been in a recession and people are earning less in real terms. It is the politics of envy again. If we were in a boom, tax would not be a story that anyone would be interested in.

Amazon, Starbucks, Google and other companies are just doing what all multinational companies have done for at least 100 years.

What intrigues me is many of the those little englanders who wish to be liberated from the EU, wish to Scotland to stay in the Union, because of the "strength" due to the union.

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

That is what it is about; "If you cen get away with paying less or no income tax then you should."

(I see a belief system is fixed in place, "Darwinian". But. perhaps, it would be wise to reread the theory.)
)

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

Is Cameron trying to play the Maggie Thatcher Falkland card.

Have a feeling it won't work this time and will increase the likelihood of his demise.

Manuel,

It is obvious you variation of morality is well established!

I think GF realises what he owes to society for his "position" now and is grateful, while there are others who think only of what society owes them and are fearful of what "they" may lose if a more egalitarian society evolves.

In general, I prefer GF's positioning, although the path he proposes would be different to mine.

GF on his own admission has avoided huge swathes of IHT, and why should he not indeed

he also sees nothing wrong at all with companies "immorally" but legally avoiding corporation tax

by the way, i am amazed you make the schoolboy howler ...... you cannot be different to but only only different from

Haystack,

Agreed.

I do thing GF is quite confused about this. I also question his approach to his 'loved ones' after his death.

IMHO, to disinherit loved ones, even in part, illustrates a certain, well, "je ne sais quoi?'. Each to their own, I suppose.

To reduce IHT (the goverment's tax take after death) using 'charitable giving' is most definitely tax mitigation and the mechanism of mitigation is by the use of charitable giving.

It most certainly means the rest of us have to pay more tax to the government. The instructions in the Will of the deceased, concerning the gift (in GF's case) of the majority of his estate to charity, quite definitely avoid the estate having to make payment of a large amount IHT to the government.

We therefore have to pay more. Using Goldfinger's Rule's, this is not fair on the rest of us!

Using the more 'normally considered to be OK approach to tax mitigation/avoidance' then it is OK.

Most of us are 'normal'. GF is not. :-)

there is of course also the valid argument, "i paid tax when i was alive so why should i have to pay it again when i'm dead?"

The argument that HMRC uses regarding death taxes is the dead person does not pay. The people receiving the money pays as it is revenue, income or a capital gain for them and therefore taxable.

We must never forget, that the government is the government.

They make the rules.
They have the power to make the rules.
They can make the rules apply retrospectively.
They can forcibly take everyone's pension pot for whatever reason.
They can forcibly take everyone's cash in whatever form and for whatever reason.

Our views on what the government does with its (our?) money often make us feel that they don't: spend it in the best way; spend it thriftily- getting best value; not waste it, etc, etc.

Need I go on?

Anyhow, we feel we can spend it more wisely and do better things with it than they can.

Perhaps GF should remember the government don't use their money in the same kinds of ways he uses his. Mostly, we all feel they piss lots of it up the wall.

Barclays to introduce finger scans instead of PINs

Customers will use a portable device that reads and verifies their vein patterns to access online banking and authorise payments



By Nicole Blackmore

6:02AM BST 05 Sep 2014



Barclays is introducing new finger scanning technology that will allow customers to access their online bank accounts and authorise payments without the need for PINs or passwords.


Customers will be given a portable device that can read and verify the unique vein patterns in their finger in an attempt to combat identity fraud.


The Barclays Biometric Reader will initially be available to Barclays Corporate Banking clients from 2015.


Barclays said the technology is recognised as one of the most secure biometrics in the market. Unlike fingerprints, vein patterns are extremely difficult to replicate. It said the scanned finger "must be attached to a live human body in order for the veins in the finger to be authenticated".


Barclays will not hold a copy of the user’s vein pattern and there will be no public record of it.



More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/bank-accounts/11076131/Barclays-to-introduce-finger-scans-instead-of-PINs.html

I bet it costs an arm and a leg .

No only a finger

I hope people only use their finger.