TwoPints

Did you find out who they are?... The threesome I mean.

I suspect this programme will open a whole new line of argument. I've watched the first ten minutes and so far they've shown Luton and explained it's where the London suicide bombers got on their train. Immediately linking British Muslims to the suicide bombers is not, in my opinion, a great start to a programme that's supposed to give an unbiased view on the views of Muslims in general. They've then gone on to say that 4% of Muslims have some sympathy with the suicide bombers as does 1% of the general population. They've then quoted the number of people that that 4% equates to but didn't give the same information for the general population, which presumably would be more but they've chosen not to share that. I'll watch the rest and see if it improves.

Beach

I thought the ref was decent today, not that he had too much to do though. Seemed to let the game flow more than most and didn't want to get his cards out at every opportunity which makes a nice change.

Not all profit from a fund is distributed as income. Most is retained in the fund which increases the value of it. With clever use of the CGT rules, particularly if the investments were in joint names as these were, you can benefit from tax fee growth on the investment whilst remaining below the CGT limit on which you pay tax.

Bellowhead

I'm no expert but I think the issue is that by setting up the investment trust in an offshore jurisdiction then the fund itself pays no UK tax on its income or profit. The value of the investment there grows faster as it's not subject to the usual company taxes. Whilst it's not illegal to do this, for a PM who's apparently trying to close loopholes around tax avoidance schemes, by him holding this investment it's certainly hypocritical.

Top

So Dave's admitted profiting from the offshore trust now then but claims all the appropriate tax was paid. Wonder why you would go to the trouble of employing a Panamanian law firm to set up an offshore trust like this if the intention was not to avoid tax? I also wonder why he felt he needed to offload it before he became PM as though it was something he didn't want people go know about. Nothing fishy there

I've been a season ticket holder for god knows how long and every year I have an argument with myself about whether I can afford it and whether its worth the price but every year I end up renewing so a drop in price is a bonus really. It is what it is. Right, now I'm off to argue with myself about whether I can afford it.

Now you've done it ... he can only cope with 'yes' or 'no' answers and is not interested in hearing about experiences of what decent people the vast majority of Muslims are.

I think this is good advice. He loves the attention of all the right minded people on here arguing with him over his silly rants and when it starts to go quiet he just pops up with another islamaphobic post to fuel the flames again. I think it's best to just ignore him as this thread has moved a long way away from its original purpose into one where Sour can spout his bile and watch the reaction. Many pages ago, someone gave me that advice and I wish I'd taken it then to be honest.

Wrong again. The purpose of a well worded closed question is to try and elicit a short response from the respondent. It doesn't obligate the respondent to give a short answer. In this case, a short answer wouldn't have provided the full response that I wanted to give and therefore you got a long answer (whether you wanted it or not) which justified my answer to your question as well as just answering it. Whilst you're trawling the internet to find a page on closed questions that suits your argument (I see that an unverified wikipedia page is the best you can manage so far) you might want to do some research on how to word your questions better if you just want 'yes' or 'no' answers. I haven't been on any other days out recently but, unlike yourself and your constant fear of being a victim of a terrorist attack, I wouldn't fear going anywhere in Europe, including the list of places in your earlier post. When I do go, I'll let you know how I get on as no doubt they will be just as enjoyable as my previous days out.

Maybe it's me looking at that on my phone but I can't see any reference to that saying the answer must be 'yes' or 'no' . Keep trying though.

No. That's incorrect. A closed question doesn't demand either a 'yes' or 'no' answer. You're making things up again. Still no answer to the question of what is it you're afraid of with living in the close proximity of a Muslim community then.

It was a direct response to your question about living in places like Birmingham so how is that not relevant? The question still exists though. What is it you're afraid of exactly?

'ang on, that can't be right. According to Sour, you can't be racist against Muslims.

My brother in law lived in Birmingham for many years and somehow managed to live quite peacefully with the multi racial community there and I experienced no issues whatsoever on my regular visits there. I did not feel in any way threatened by the people or the fact that there was a particular religious building on a street corner. Similarly I have just returned from Cologne. You know the one, where the picture of a city blighted by migrants has been reflected on here because of the incidents at new year. What I found was a beautiful city, with very hospitable people of all races and religion. All the people that might have been immigrants seemed to be going about their business, working, eating McDonald's, shopping just like everyone else. I really don't know what you're afraid of.

Ummm, yes it was your point. It was your post that posted the link. Whatever you want to call it, whether it's islamaphobia, xenophobia or just plain racism, in my opinion, and clearly the opinion of others, some of your posts have crossed the line. You know it, I know it and clearly others do too. Trying to hide behind a narrow definition of racism does you no favours. I note you've dodged another question by the way, this time from Chapel End. It's a shame as your response might have helped to clarify your position on Muslims in the UK. You could quite easily say that you think Muslims have had a beneficial impact on the UK, you were after all provided with a very long list of Muslims that have contributed greatly to the UK before you subtly changed your question, but you don't seem able to bring yourself to do that. Why is that do you think?

What are you talking about. So Corbyn challenges Dave on an allegation that he has benefitted from investments held offshore for the purpose of tax avoidance and you don't think he's right to do so? He's not accusing him of hating the UK or any other such personal attack which has been the modus operandi for the Tories. That is what he was talking about with his new era of politics but to suggest he can't challenge the PM on such a serious matter is bull****. Haven't seen any questions about UNITE using this Panamanian law firm so maybe you could post the link to that? Also not sure why a publicly owned newspapers tax affairs have anything to do with whether the prime minister should come clean on his families tax affairs either to be honest.

Ooh, we'll done.. You found an article where a few Muslims broke the law and have been prosecuted as a result. I note in the article that the QC stated; "'My understanding is that Islam is a peaceful religion and this conduct was unfortunately anything but.' The QC understands that Islam is a peaceful religion and that the perpetrators of the crimes were not so I wonder why you can't see that too? It's also noted that all three had a history of crime and/or drug taking before they converted to Islam. Maybe you could find a story about non-muslims that have been charged with much more serious offences than these today but that wouldn't fit with your agenda would it.

I get mine from Hotter. They're really comfortable and last forever.

We've only got to about a 3 on the Societal Overview of Unilateral Reactions Scale whereas the Icelanders have gone straight for the full backlash with a 12.

It's a train not a boat. The delays are due to UK border controls. There are people on here that think any Tom, **** or Harry can just wander across without so much as a quick glance at a passport.

If anyone thinks we have no border controls in the UK now., they can exchange places with me. I'm sat in a traffic jam at Calais waiting to get through border control into the UK and the queue is a mile long. On the way out, it was straight through.