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.

as we all do, he CHOSE his path ..... that does not make him either a better or a worse person, but nor does it excuse the damage that he would have wished on the country

Manuel,

Thatcher,cronies and previous governments were as responsible as the unions. She raped the industrial base of the country.

-=-==-=-=

Max,

Is there a little bit of jealousy of Blair having having full pockets?

=-===-=-=-=

I didn't like Blair before, or after he was appointed PM and thought him capable of "self-delusion" while he was attempting to be a "god fearing man". The problem, which I had with him, is that he seemed to be picking the wrong "god" to often. Strange how "god" or "Mammon" tell some that which they want to hear!

Nevertheless, many of "his" policies while he was PM,improved the UK's social conditions, care and well-being from 1997-2006.

I have to admit that he was a very able party leader and manipulator, and for some an effective orator.

On Europe, I agree with him, as many others do, although I question what his motivations are.

He has talents and weaknesses!

Manuel,

You have choices only when you realise you have choices.

Making different choices of behaviour often takes courage.

So, there may even be a chance for you when you vote labour!


8-)

a bit like you didn't know you didn't know :-)

I notice the delight that many have with the introduction of NHS charges on immigrants,

Something to ponder.

Many of the nurses, auxiliary staff and doctors working in the NHS are immigrants.

If they are paying their taxes and NI contributions, but are unfortunate enough in the first months develop an injury, or disease, while performing their duties, will they be expected to pay for their medical treatment while they recover etc.?

I wonder how that will affect ongoing care and attitudes to others?

"while performing their duties" ...... that might therefore fall into a different category; in fact it almost certainly would

Cynic,

Yes, but the question still applies!

------

A doctor, nurse or auxiliary worker walks into a cubicle with with a patient with a patient with undiagnosed infective disorder and slips and drops the pee bottle a cuts themselves on the glass, or spills the contents on themselves.

Unfortunately, the content contained Ebola, or equivalent and the "immigrant" has only been working a week.

Now do we bag them up in a bag and send them back to point of origin (along with dependants), or attempt to treat and hopefully repair preventing the spread of disease), at a very high expense in monetary costs, which probably the treated will never be able to repay in financial terms?

certainly one of your less silly points :-)
i need to dwell on this - if i have time - for i know there is a hole in your argument

==========

at a tangent ......
given that air ambulance and lifeboats only survive by public generosity, should they refuse to come to your aid unless you can show financial support for them within say the last 12 months?

The situation is purely hypothetical and, if answered in a certain way, is slanted towards the creation of a precedent.

As such, it is best if it is never answered.

As and when a problem occurs, the reality of the situation can be used to determine how best to deal with things. It is highly likely in any event, that the patient would be treated compassionately. The precedent though, as referred to in my opening comment above, has not been created.

As with the air ambulance problem - compassion rules.

75% of ALL charities rely on/get funding from the government, ie the taxpayer.
2517

Is that tax relief on donations?

Is that tax relief on donations?

fred's comment actually highlights the sort of problems encountered when trying to formulate legislation

i certainly agree with the concept that to benefit from free health (or housing or unemployment or child benefits), then one has to have contributed to the system
i also concur with the concept that an immigrant would have had to contribute for a certain minimum period to qualify - to prevent short stay, milk the system and then clear out once more

with regard to health, it is perhaps not so difficult to grant exemptions in the event of "critical emergency" ..... however, it is asking for disaster if legislation is drafted intentionally with many grey areas; it's bad enough when that is not the intent at all!

"reasonableness" in legislation is also far too vague

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

to pursue fred's question, and it can even be extracted from the emotional "worker in health care" .....

work-related injuries and the treatment for them could surely be covered by the company's insurance where there is a shortfall between the employee's entitlement and benefit claimable

outside the workplace, the "critical emergency" rule could be applied


i'm sure i have left lots of gaps, and no doubt fred or even others will quickly highlight same

Labour say they will stop nom doms. The BBC is gleefully showing an interview with Ed Balls from two months ago. He says that there is no point in stopping it as it is unlikely to raise any money and would most probably cost the UK money.

Another few questions:

Does Eire count as overseas for non-doms?

Do trusts set up in Eire benefit from ngn-dom arrangements?

Does Gideon gain from such benefits?.

but it'll sound good at the hustings for it will please joe soap greatly .... and then it can be conveniently forgotten should labour actually have to formulate a budget

trusts are trusts and the sponsor cannot interfere with their running
trusts also have to be run for the benefit of the ultimate beneficiary
but you knew all that anyway - or didn't you know you didn't know? :-)

Haze, perhaps again you are missing the principles of the tax avoidance.

Also, if living in the UK with such "arrangements" the practitioners are using the UK and facilities to enable them to do so!


-=-=-=-=-=

But like the "basic wage" and other changes and the tory claims that there would be exit of jobs and the wealthy, it didn't happen.

Fred re 420 no, that is an additional payment by the taxpayer.
2517