Public Stoning

deptfordmarmoset

EKE_38BPM wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

People who take drugs should be stoned.

Taking the high ground, DM?

He he, no. I was just thinking about what happens when you take drugs. In fact, if you're taking drugs and not getting stoned you might want to consider changing your supplier.

sketchley

Can you add Bob Crow to the list?

UndercoverElephant

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

People who take drugs should be stoned.

Taking the high ground, DM?

He he, no. I was just thinking about what happens when you take drugs. In fact, if you're taking drugs and not getting stoned you might want to consider changing your supplier.

EKE gets a whoosh for that one.

deptfordmarmoset

UndercoverElephant wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

People who take drugs should be stoned.

Taking the high ground, DM?

He he, no. I was just thinking about what happens when you take drugs. In fact, if you're taking drugs and not getting stoned you might want to consider changing your supplier.

EKE gets a whoosh for that one.

It only just occurred to me (on the way back from the pharmacy, curiously enough) that EKE had planted the word ''high'' in his question. In which case, he scores a pre-emptive whoosh.

Jay dubbleU

mudcow007 wrote:

can it be a boulder so you can flatten the "only way is essex" cast? they get right on my thripny bits

First time I saw that I thought it was a mickey take - then I realised they were real so my vote is for Essex - the entire county - does a meteorite qualify as stoning ?*

*except for the bit where LiT lives

snailracer

Ha, just shows more folks value money more than human life or health

Confusedboy

I'd say a meteorite counts as a single stone, and mine would by an amazing fluke selectively take out all and any illegal car parkers-I don't care if you were only a few seconds buying fags and left your hazards on-and not harm anyone else.

It would also contain the ability to cause a particularly slow and painful death to anyone who has ever parked on a pavement.

I don't have to be reasonable all the time....

EKE_38BPM

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

People who take drugs should be stoned.

Taking the high ground, DM?

He he, no. I was just thinking about what happens when you take drugs. In fact, if you're taking drugs and not getting stoned you might want to consider changing your supplier.

EKE gets a whoosh for that one.

It only just occurred to me (on the way back from the pharmacy, curiously enough) that EKE had planted the word ''high'' in his question. In which case, he scores a pre-emptive whoosh.

I was going to underline the word 'high', but didn't think it necessary. Maybe I was wrong.

DM, it depends on the drug that is being taken. If you take Speed and get stoned, I'm sure you'd be a bit annoyed. A very chilled form of annoyed, of course.

deptfordmarmoset

I was going to underline the word 'high', but didn't think it necessary. Maybe I was wrong.

Curses, you caught me before I could my brain into gear!

nigglenoo

I voted for aggressive drivers, but would have liked the option to have a pop at high earning tax evaders (personal and corporate) as a real and much more costly alternative to the largely mythical benefits scroungers.

Twisterboy

Over aggresive drivers, got my vote!

The amount of people that can't wait or shoot over the roundabout at the end of my street as they can't be bothered to give way to you is shocking, twice I've nearly been knocked off my bike and they blame you!

David

gb155

CyclingBantam wrote:

You have one stone. Who do you hit squarely between the eyes?

Who, in your opinion, would the world be a better place without?

Lance?????

tailwindhome

gb155 wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

You have one stone. Who do you hit squarely between the eyes?

Who, in your opinion, would the world be a better place without?

Lance?????

Et tu, Gaz?

tailwindhome

Or were you suprised to see Lance on the list?

itboffin

Er I stoned a friend today, an accidence of course stone flick off my wheel cutting his shin :?

tailwindhome

rick_chasey

White collar fraud and tax evasion costs the nation vastly more than unemployment benefit fraud. By a ridiculous scale.

EKE_38BPM

Rick Chasey wrote:

White collar fraud and tax evasion costs the nation vastly more than unemployment benefit fraud. By a ridiculous scale.

But cutting down on White collar fraud and tax evasion would mean that politicians and law makers would have to prosecute their friends and peers. And that ain't gonna happen on a large scale.
Also, its an invisible crime. You don't see lines of 'dole scum' queuing up outside the dole office to sign on.
I'm sure lawyers and accountants see (legal) tax avoidance as a game to be played and they are rather good at it, which is easier as the referee is their 12th man.

secretsam

RLJ'ers, my dislike for them is well known, they give the rest of us a bad name and give drivers an excuse to treat us like cannon fodder

Lance? Innocent until proven guilty. But either way, he's a pr1ck and not fit to lace Merckx's shoes.

And I'm a bit of a troll/apostrophe person

rick_chasey

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

White collar fraud and tax evasion costs the nation vastly more than unemployment benefit fraud. By a ridiculous scale.

But cutting down on White collar fraud and tax evasion would mean that politicians and law makers would have to prosecute their friends and peers. And that ain't gonna happen on a large scale.
Also, its an invisible crime. You don't see lines of 'dole scum' queuing up outside the dole office to sign on.
I'm sure lawyers and accountants see (legal) tax avoidance as a game to be played and they are rather good at it, which is easier as the referee is their 12th man.

It's not just that.

White collar crime is often 'grey' - using semi-legitimate means.

They're also often abstract - the odd zero or 9 on a spreadsheet doesn't quite have the same impact as someone sticking a knife in your face, nor is it remotely as visible. It's easier to spot a dole cheat than it is a white collar fraudster.

The police were happy enough to imprison a few MPs for fraud so I doubt that they would mind doing a few guys in finance.

CyclingBantam

[Devils Advocate] Is a 'white collar fraudster' still not slightly better than a 'dole cheat' (assuming we are looking at the absolute genuine cheats here) on the basis that even though they may be cheating millions they are still at least contributing more than the dole cheat has done?[/Devils Advocate]

EKE_38BPM

CyclingBantam wrote:

[Devils Advocate] Is a 'white collar fraudster' still not slightly better than a 'dole cheat' (assuming we are looking at the absolute genuine cheats here) on the basis that even though they may be cheating millions they are still at least contributing more than the dole cheat has done?[/Devils Advocate]

A person or a corporation not paying millions in tax often take their millions offshore so that they are in no way aiding the economy. A benefit cheat takes money they are not entitled to, but are much more likely to spend that money in the UK so it goes back into the system.

Did I answer your question? Not really sure.

rick_chasey

CyclingBantam wrote:

[Devils Advocate] Is a 'white collar fraudster' still not slightly better than a 'dole cheat' (assuming we are looking at the absolute genuine cheats here) on the basis that even though they may be cheating millions they are still at least contributing more than the dole cheat has done?[/Devils Advocate]

By that logic, as long as you are not poor, you can get away with any tax evasion you like...

CyclingBantam

Rick Chasey wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

[Devils Advocate] Is a 'white collar fraudster' still not slightly better than a 'dole cheat' (assuming we are looking at the absolute genuine cheats here) on the basis that even though they may be cheating millions they are still at least contributing more than the dole cheat has done?[/Devils Advocate]

By that logic, as long as you are not poor, you can get away with any tax evasion you like...

Initially, note the words in brackets (that isn't actually my view), secondly, I never said it was right, just they were still contributing more.

Look at it this way:

Rob A Scrounger doesn't work, doesn't look for a job, spends all his money on booze and fags. He has two kids and spends their goverment cash on drink and betting.

Overall contribution to the country = A litte bit of VAT
Overall removed from the country = Some benefits.

Richie McDuck runs a large company with 50 employees. He avoids tax wherever possible. Despite earning £1million per year he pays tax on £50k per year. He avoids pretty much all corporation and employee tax.

Overall Contribution - Tax on £50k
Overall Removed - Nothing technically removed however a very large amount avoided.

Overall, the dosser has 'cost' the country more.

(My personal view is the 'fat cat' is actually worse but this is a debate)

snailracer

CyclingBantam wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

[Devils Advocate] Is a 'white collar fraudster' still not slightly better than a 'dole cheat' (assuming we are looking at the absolute genuine cheats here) on the basis that even though they may be cheating millions they are still at least contributing more than the dole cheat has done?[/Devils Advocate]

By that logic, as long as you are not poor, you can get away with any tax evasion you like...

Initially, note the words in brackets (that isn't actually my view), secondly, I never said it was right, just they were still contributing more.

Look at it this way:

Rob A Scrounger doesn't work, doesn't look for a job, spends all his money on booze and fags. He has two kids and spends their goverment cash on drink and betting.

Overall contribution to the country = A litte bit of VAT
Overall removed from the country = Some benefits.

Richie McDuck runs a large company with 50 employees. He avoids tax wherever possible. Despite earning £1million per year he pays tax on £50k per year. He avoids pretty much all corporation and employee tax.

Overall Contribution - Tax on £50k
Overall Removed - Nothing technically removed however a very large amount avoided.

Overall, the dosser has 'cost' the country more.

(My personal view is the 'fat cat' is actually worse but this is a debate)

If you ever get into an argument with the Revenue, you will know that they consider tax money belongs to them by right - it's not something you "give" to them, it was always "theirs" that you have "borrowed" in the course of doing business. By that logic, the fat cat has nicked more of the Revenue's money than the dole scrounger ever will.

Clarion

I'm torn between David Cameron and Boris Johnson.

mtb-idle

Jeremy Beadle, twice