Lord Braykewynde Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 RogerC - 2012-02-19 7:00 PM The nub of my argument (and possibly that of the 'thinking' public) is based on old fashioned values Just those few words sum it up Roger. Well put ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 pelmetman - 2012-02-19 2:07 PM...............................No doubt you will come back with "they could earn much more in the private sector"..........I doubt it......as the private sector doesn't pay for incompetence........unless of course you work for a pseudo private company like Rail Track etc *-) Sorry to return late in the day. Such fun this. :-) May I just point out that the banks were in the private sector, few of the senior management seem to have gone, and most are still seeking to justify their hardly justified bonuses, so I thin the private sector does, indeed, pay colossal sums for incompetence. :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 pelmetman - 2012-02-19 3:21 PM......................To be subsidised means I have received monies from the the taxpayer to buy the camera.............well obviously I haven't been given any tax payer dosh to go and buy it so your argument is a non argument ;-)...................... Further apologies, further fun! :-) Don't agree Dave. It really doesn't matter whether you receive the subsidy directly, in the form of cash, or indirectly, by way of deduction. Putting less in, in the end, has the same effect as taking money out: there is less in the kitty for deserving causes. So, IMO, it is an argument. Discuss! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Brian Kirby - 2012-02-19 7:49 PM pelmetman - 2012-02-19 2:07 PM...............................No doubt you will come back with "they could earn much more in the private sector"..........I doubt it......as the private sector doesn't pay for incompetence........unless of course you work for a pseudo private company like Rail Track etc *-) Sorry to return late in the day. Such fun this. :-) May I just point out that the banks were in the private sector, few of the senior management seem to have gone, and most are still seeking to justify their hardly justified bonuses, so I thin the private sector does, indeed, pay colossal sums for incompetence. :-D Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that the taxpayer has paid for their incompetence, considering how much we have put into the banks ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Brian Kirby - 2012-02-19 7:55 PM pelmetman - 2012-02-19 3:21 PM......................To be subsidised means I have received monies from the the taxpayer to buy the camera.............well obviously I haven't been given any tax payer dosh to go and buy it so your argument is a non argument ;-)...................... Further apologies, further fun! :-) Don't agree Dave. It really doesn't matter whether you receive the subsidy directly, in the form of cash, or indirectly, by way of deduction. Putting less in, in the end, has the same effect as taking money out: there is less in the kitty for deserving causes. So, IMO, it is an argument. Discuss! :-D All right then Brian the camera cost £115 the receipt will go to my accountant end of May and I'll leave it to her to sort ;-)..................as far as I'm concerned its a business expense so there!..........nah nah nah :D BTW I filled up the works van yesterday so that's another 50 quid of stealth tax for the government to waste *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 francisgraham - 2012-02-19 5:15 PM.......................The others were not dishonest but played the system and were encouraged to do so as that was the ethos at the time....................... Just in case dear Dave thinks I'm running some campaign against him, I don't think this is really good enough Francis. These are our legislators, and they really should possess a better moral compass than a bunch of sheep. Their own judgement should have led them to question the "ethos of the time": it seems some managed that and, IMO, many more should have done so. They do rather tend to get on their high horses in public, and more than a few were at least guilty of hypocrisy. I am aware it started under Thatcher as a way to boost MP's pay without appearing to do so, but that subterfuge, too, was basically dishonest, even if politically expedient. Sow dragons teeth etc? :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.