Sheaf Saint

I think you have misunderstood the government proposals here. The idea behind the changes laid out in that article is that UK companies who have operations offshore can pay less tax on the money they earn in other countries. This is not conducive to attracting foreign companies to invest and provide jobs in the UK - quite the opposite in fact. And the fact that the new rules will only apply to large businesses and not smaller ones tells you all you need to know - that 'Call me Dave' is simply feathering the nests of his business buddies at the expense of the low-middle income majority. The whole thing stinks.

So what about the inevitable job losses when the large corporations shift their operations offshore so they can pay less tax on the revenue from these operations? Does it not concern you in the slightest that government policy isn't just being influenced by big business any more but is actually being dictated? Aren't you the slightest bit annoyed that the responsibility for economic recovery is now falling squarely on the individual and small businesses while large multinational corporations can relax safe in the knowledge they will be better off while the rest of us get shafted?

OK, I admit I don't have an in-depth knowledge of economics, but please explain how this can possibly be good for the UK economy? The idea was cooked up by committees consisting largely of the heads of large corporations - surely that's like asking criminals what changes they think should be made to the justice system. I'm not so naive as to believe that large corporations haven't been influencing government policy for years - it is an accepted part of capitalism of course. But for the new government to state "we're all in this together" only to bend over backwards to reduce the amount of tax paid by large corporations and expect the smaller companies, who are the ones most affected by recession after all, to prop up the economy while the rest of us pay the economic price is just grotesque IMO. But then I suppose that policies geared towards making the super-rich even richer while the low-middle income majority get f***ed over is only to be expected from a Conservative government.

Well thank you for your intelligent and reasoned input into the debate delldays. Out of interest, what are your thoughts on it?

All good points OldNick, but how can it possibly help the country if all of the large companies start outsourcing everything abroad so they don't have to pay any tax on their revenue? You may well be happy to pay your fair share and get on with it, but I can't go along like that in the knowledge that the super-rich elite are just taking the p*** and extracting more money from the economy. We're supposed to be all in this together, remember?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/07/tax-city-heist-of-century Why wasn't this mentioned in the election manifesto I wonder? Edit: Mods can you please correct my spelling mistake in the thread title?

You beat me to it. Hope he's OK because I got the impression he will be challenging at the front this season if the Renault is as quick as it is rumoured to be. Get well soon Robert.

Possibly one of the least informative and most vague articles the Mail has ever published - and that's no mean achievement. No direct quotes from anyone, no 'club insider', no source for the rumours, or even the slightest inclination of who this mystery middle-eastern consortium might be. Best to ignore it methinks.

I am quite lucky that my girlfriend views Valentines day the same as I do: that it is a load of commercial tosh that exists solely to stop companies like Hallmark and Clinton Cards from suffering a huge dip in sales in February. I feel genuine pity for anybody who feels it necessary to buy a crap card with a tacky love poem inside and a heart-shaped balloon / teddy bear just to show their partner how much they love her.

I personally think it is a thing of beauty.

Big lol at the PL spokesman on the news tonight warning that this ruling might result in the rise of a pan-european broadcaster which would apparently be bad news for individual broadcasters and give viewers less choice. Given Sky's complete monopoly on screening prem games over the last two decades (almost), does he really not see the hypocrisy in that warning?

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?28024-The-beginning-of-the-end-for-the-Premier-League-cash-cow Do keep up dear doctor ;-)

True, but the move that lead up to it would have had the pundits coming in their pants if it had been Man Utd or Chelsea.

Good. I hope the whole thing comes crashing down and evens things out a bit. The gulf in TV revenue for prem teams compared to the rest of the league is completely out of touch with reality. It's about time something like this happened.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/sheff_wed/9385962.stm In other words he was pushed before he could walk. Hardly surprising really. They were 2-0 up against Posh on tuesday but somehow managed to lose 5-3! Not sure what's happened to them after they made a flying start to the season, but it seems the rot started to set in right about the time we went and got that 1-0 win at Hilsborough. Looking on their local forum, some of them are already convinced that Milan Mand1ck will splash the cash on someone like Martin O'Neil. The speculation begins.

That article is from 29th December

Erm, in case you hadn't noticed dune, our government has been 'taking action' against radical Islam ever since we invaded Afghanistan nearly a decade ago. And the consequence of that action is that we now have a lot more radicals on our streets than we did before the invasion, because the war/occupation/oppression (whatever you want to call it) is the best possible recruitment tool that the radical clerics could wish for.

And how exactly is 15,000 anonymous thugs wearing hoods and balaclavas marching through a town with a huge muslim population going to stop it dune? What possible good will it do? How many of the militants in those pictures are going to turn their backs on their beliefs as a result of the EDL's actions?

Fed up with what?

But it is not mainstream Islam (the Sunni and Shia sects) that produce the extremists. The form of extremism that is preached in the madrassas of Pakistan and Afghanistan stems from the Saudi-originated Wahabi sect. Fair enough, you might be able to interpret the Koran in particular ways, as they have, to twist it to fit this extremist view, but the truth is that the huge majority of muslims don't interpret it this way. I can't believe I am actually defending a religion here, because my personal belief is that all theistic religions are a load of old superstitious nonsense that were dreamed up as a way of explaining the unexplainable and perpetuated as a form of population control by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. But there is a widespread belief that Islam is inherently evil, whereas in fact it is no more evil or oppressive that Christianity or Judaism.

So are you suggesting that the EDL don't need to provide this education as UKIP do it for them dune? Does that not prove, then, that the EDL's sole purpose is simply to organise these inflammatory marches?

There is an awful lot of stuff in the Old Testament that makes it clear that things such as oppression, slavery, even murdering your own parents if they don't believe in the cause, are all perfectly OK and are God's will. Ancient religious texts can be interpreted in so many different ways, especially if you don't take the stories literally and believe they are only metaphors. It's interesting what SG's friend said about the New Testament being written many years after the events and being altered to suit the agenda of those in power, but the Koran is no different. It is supposed to be the literal and unalterable word of God, yet it was 'revealed' to an illiterate paedophile who had no means of writing down his revelation.

Sorry, I would have thought that someone who obviously believes very strongly in their cause would have that knowledge memorised really. Or perhaps they just don't have any other initiatives at all other than violent marches, which might give you some idea why the vast majority of people who are against the position of Islamic extremism choose not to get involved.

Once again you have completely failed to address the main point of my question. You're really good at this dune, perhaps you should run for parliament. Section 3 of the EDL mission statement that you posted in post #11 states that their main concern is to educate the public about the dangers of radical Islam. All I want to know is how they intend to go about spreading this education. Their mission statement does not go into any details about it, but surely someone who has as much support for them as you do can answer that? Surely?

I hate to come over all Paxman-esque on you dune, but this is now the fourth time of asking... If, as you claim, the EDL is a non-racist, non-violent organisation whose goal is to educate the public about the dangers of islamic extremism, what initiatives do they have running, other than marches which unfailingly result in violent clashes, to get across this education?