Tories tackle speed camera rules

Dead right. I don't think this is a bad law in principle, but it's a
bad law in practice.

 

I know that, and I was rather hoping that anyone involved in the thread
might also be aware of that. And I don't need to amend my statement.
There is a real justification for fuel duty /at its present level/.

 

You think we spend more on unemployed people than we do on defence?

 

Robert Elms is a seriously disturbed person.

 

Given the response of some it could prove quite effective for them.

Is the British population *really* that shallow?

 

True but if you are the seriously rich and deriving your income from
'hidden' sources your will either not want to draw attention to yourself
and will pay up what ever is asked just so as to not disturb the status
quo or are a senior member of a political party and don't give a sh*t.

 

You could give 'fine vouchers' for Christmas.

 

You do seem to be rather good at making other people's points for them
*You* might think that "stopping subsidising the defense industry"
is a way out, but the very next post to yours suggests it isn't?
Who's right? Well, that's why we elect a government - to make such
decisions. It's also why gorvernments are inherently unpopular - they
are almost *bound* to piss of more people than they please.

 

The idea behind this is that it's a "fair" system, where people pay
according to their means. I'm merely pointing out that under this
system - which I don't necessarily disagree with - there's a number of
things that will mean that what people end up paying doesn't not truly
reflect their means.

 

You'd better go and play with the other children now, and come back
when you're ready to talk with the grown-ups.

 

Gets my vote. Where do I sign?

 

Name 10% of them.

 

Specifically on unemployment benefit no, but the man said *subsidies*.
That's different from *spending*. I was replying to what was actually
written.

A subsidy is a gift. I would imagine that if MOD were spending money
on Kit they would expect to actually receive something in return (nice
shiny new thing to kill people with etc.).

In 2003-2004 we will spend more on the 'dependencies' (Scotland, Wales
and NI) in total than we do on Defence (which includes wages etc and
procurement is only a part of it).

We also will be spending about four times more on local councils than
we will be spending on Transport.

HTH

 

We do apparently:

http://budget2003.treasury.gov.uk/page_09.html

 

We need a quality Tsar. I vote for A A Gill.

 

I agree with that.

....and I should chair it.

 

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:52:42 +0000, Ben Blaney <>
bored us all completely to death with wittery prose along the lines
of:

I'm all for it!

 

No there isn't.
I've never read any argument for which stands up to my scrutiny.

 

Exactly. It's always important to judge a book by it's cover. If someone
looks rich, they must be. Here, here.

 

Oi, that's copywrited.