anothersaintinsouthsea

Quite, and you also demand that gay people should be allowed to have a marriage in a civial ceremony right?

What point are you trying to make now? I believe in secular state eduction for the whole of the UK not just my corner of Hampshire (well done for picking up on the clue!) and think that a secular approach to education would benefit a lot of countries right around the world. That's my personal opinion, I'm well aware that many would disagree.

Yawn, at first I thought you were pretending to be thick but now I wonder if I gave you too much credit. For the last time: If parents want a religious education then that is fine by me but it should be up to the parents or religious institution to fund it themselves, not the state. State education should be secular with an element of teaching about religions.

My position is clear, I refer you to earlier posts.

And now you're playing dumb. A little bit tiring but I'll carry on. My earlier posts are pretty clear but for the sake of clarity: If people want to be religious then great for them but they can pursue their worship and the indoctrination of their kids at their own expense. State schools should educate kids about different religions but that's as far as it goes.

Great satire on your normal posting style of reactionary goon. Good stuff.

Well "the State" is obviously happy but it is funded by tax payers and Government policy is somewhat reflective of voters' wishes. Some tax payers and voters don't want State money spent on faith schoools. What's your view as a (presumably) voter and (presumably) a tax payer? You're obviously flagging up "multicultural society" for some reason, probably think you're being really clever, but this country has had state funded education since well before we approximated anything close to a multicultural society so it's totally irrelevant. Even so 99.9% of state religious schools are either CofE or Catholic so not in anyway multi-faith or multicultural anyway.

Which would put them equal bottom on points and second from bottom on GD. Nice.

Other than a badly worded post early on in this thread, no one has argued that RE shouldn't be taught at schools. Several people appear to object to State funded faith schools. What's your view?

what an obnoxious ****

I don't think Religious schools should be publically funded, if private schools want to be religious that's up to them. Marriage should be a secular affair as well. If people want a religious blessing after they've completed the state service then bully for them. Religious institutions shouldn't be forced to offer blessings to gays.

aintforever still moralizing yet he's already admitted to not paying full tax if it gives him a discount #pickandchoose****

You pay cash in hand knowing that the discount you've received is because tax won't be paid on it. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it won't make it true. No one is crying like baby.

Ever paid cash in hand?

Exactly, anyone earning this much is already paying way more tax than they get back.

Personal questions then, choose not to answer if you prefer: are you currently receiving any form of benefit or tax relief or have you ever in the past?

It being illegal didn't stop them then?! Drug use should be treated as health issue not a criminal one. For every one person negatively impacted by Cannabis there are many more who use it with no problems.

I was agreeing with you.

It's not but some people love to sensationalise.

I was only being facaetious. The UK already has a problem with an ageing population. We should be making it easier for working people at all income levels to have kids - you can be sure that the feckless who never have worked and never will are breeding like rabbits in any case.

You hit upon an interesting point there. Many many pensioners (generally 60-75) did very well out of a generous welfare state, final salary pensions, rising house prices etc and have faced very little in the way of cuts. They're almost untouchable because they vote in big numbers and cuts against them make very poor PR - people think of frail and cash poor old biddies like my nan (93) rather than solvent 60 somethings. In general I think an extra penny on the top rate to 41p would have been a lot fairer and more effective. Cutting child benefit won't actually save that much, increases bureaucracy and importantly takes a slew of people out of the welfare state altogether. This will give rise to less "we're all in this together" and more "I get **** all why should others".

People who earn less than £35k should be ashamed of themselves. They don't pay enough tax and yet can claim tax credits and child benefits.

cobblers. what about dual income households both earning £49k - should they be ashamed? People earning over £50k are already paying for the benefits of countless others so I think they have nothing to be ashamed about at all. Child Benefit for anyone above the poverty line is effectively a form of tax relief. There are loads of different reliefs in the current system, some designed purely to raise money and others designed to encourage different behaviour.

Yes, same boat.

If this was the case then Chanrai would certainly have already settled. The love the bit where it says that previous valuations have been between £0 and £2.5m - lol some one of their expert valuers have valued Krap Nottarf at £0. I know it's a **** heap but even so I'd suggest it's worth at least a few hundred quid