rockingrobin

I hear that one Brexit Minister has resigned and another was fired, Gorge Bridges and David Jones

3 hours ago, citybiker said:

I couldn't care less for foreign owned media, they all have one agenda, Guardian, DM, DE & Telegraph..

Red tops are just comics, designed and print focused towards a certain type of intellect.

If a voter is too lazy/ignorant to carry out independent verifiable research to seek balanced unbiased topics important to them and just rely on the media newspapers then who is at fault?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe the majority of voters are Time Poor

3 hours ago, Naam said:

others seem to be blind to the fact that there won't be any hard Brexit. not now and not later. the hardliner Brexiteers have lost, but not willing to accept facts. reason will prevail in UK and the EU. both parties need an acceptable agreement which is a win-win. anything else is nothing but blah-blah!

2 hours ago, nontabury said:

Another one who is drawing the wrong conclusions from this election.

True the Conservatives have suffered a very bad election, even though they did increase their vote. But you would be very foolish to even think this result was influenced by Brexit. Far more likely to have been that stupid and arrogant Conservative manifesto.

 Look up all the expectations of a large Conservative victory prior to the publication of that manifesto, and you will surely come to realise that it was nothing other than a suicide note.

The hard brexit to me appears  politically dead.

T.May reasons for holding  the election , after previuosly stating she wouldnt , was for the sole purpose to improve her brexit negotations as the other parties where attempting to frustrate the process.

The DUP,  Scottish Conservatives dont want an hard brexit, and it is difficult to see what leverage the hard brexiteers within the Conservatives rank now hold, the options avaiable are vote of no confidence and to bring the current government down , resulting in another election.

It was widely speculated that P. Hammond  was going to be sacked, however his re-apointment maybe an indication of what is to come.

8 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Some of you are so consumed with EU hatred that you gloss over key issues

 

1) What about the Northern Island Peace agreement. How can we continue to mediate and be in bed with one of the key players at the same time?

 

2) What about DUP links to Ulster paramilitaries?

 

3) what about DUP misogynistic, homophobic, anti abortion stance

 

4) Are we now going to favour NI over other regions?

 

5) John Major refused to deal with Ian Paisly's gang when he was in a minority situation

 

Frankly the comments on Labour policy are not worthwhile debating. I do not agree that the way to compete is to have the lowest corporation tax. Are we not better than that? Can we not compete with the Germans on a level playing field? Are we not good enough? Seems not...

I agree with you,

westminster has an agreement to stay out of NI politics and remain impartial , unless absolutely necessary. It is difficult to see how T.May can maintain such status quo, given that the price for DUPsupport will be a pursuance of  their agenda . How this will play out politically in Irish politics is uknown given that SF is also one of the main opposition parties in the irish republic, who's prsent government is not secure.

31 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

I wonder if they will use a properly accredited testing facility for the DNA this time?

 

Unlike last time where they had no accreditation and only got it after people started questioning how they can prove the validity of the testing they have done.

 

An absolute shambles as per.

 

Good luck Mr. Looker, you are going to need it.

 

This will have to go through the courts though, as there's no extradition treaty, so the Thais will have to show some evidence that connects Mr. Looker to this murder.

 

Personally I think countries like France and Russia have it right, no extradition of their citizens under any circumstances but they can be tried at home. 

I would assume that he would contest any extradition attempt , due to the possibility of capital punishment if found guilty

20 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

That is the problem with foreigners, they simply can't speak proper English.

 

You have to go to India to find where it is spoken properly.

 

(Intended)

 

Does that mean that another 60 million people are entitled to become EU citizens?

 

There is NO EU passport in reality.

 

Looking at my red passport, (which is to my hand as I will need it tomorrow) it says on the front cover at the top, EUROPEAN UNION,

and below that in larger capitals it says UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND.

 

Inside it says

 

Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concernto allow the bearer to pass freelywithout let or hindrance,, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.

 

There is nothing further said about the EU, which actually is not a state or a nation on its own, but a collection of other nations loosely clumped together.

 

When you pass through immigration in countries other than the EU and the officer asks your nationality, do you answer EU or British, English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish?

 

I always say English first and then British. I could say that I am from Wessex and the British stole the crown from King Arthur but that would confuse matters.

 

EU citizenship doesnt replace your nationality , but is an addition.

However Sandyf highlights that individuals rights are being removed by the consensus of a minority

4 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

A theory that could unify Newtonian physics and Quantum Mechanic and at the same time explain dark mass and energy would truly be beautiful.

 

Newtonian physics works great for large objects with a big mass. Quantum Mechanics is very good at describing the realm of the microscopic with atomic size mass. 

The problem with black holes is that they are the size of an atom but have the mass of stars. We have no theory to describe that.

I thought that Heavy dense objects were explained by Einsteins theory of relativity (not his special theory), and that the race to connect everything together is currently between string theory and quantum loop gravity

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

The way things are at the moment it is very difficult to put a definition on any particular issue. Pensioners are exactly that and as it it age related healthcare is an obvious association.

The article you mentioned was reported in the Independent and there was a particularly relevant comment from one of the readers. In his view the article had only touched the tip of the iceberg, he lived in Spain and was aware of many that were already looking to come back because of the pound and the political climate. The big problem was that these people were struggling to sell their homes as the market was now saturated. The most likely outcome would be that they would end up selling very low, making if very unlikely they could buy again in the UK.

Generally speaking pensions are well below the benefit levels, although initially capital from the sale would probably exclude benefits it would only be a matter of time in rented accommodation for that to reverse and create a knock on effect throughout the system.

The current policy of paying low pensions and telling pensioners to claim benefits could well become a major headache for the government in the years to come.

Maye the plan is for these returning expat pensioners to take up the jobs that will be created when the immigration level is in the tens of thousands

1 hour ago, freebyrd said:

Of course there is always the possibilty that despite saying otherwise, she's had enough of the whole bag of worms and is hankering to do a Cameron......new Captain etc....

Or maybe T.May is concerned more by public perceptions that she responds to questions with either sound bites, platitudes , or non answers , as evidenced by her recent visit to Plymouth

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/three-minutes-of-nothing-herald-reporter-reflects-on-pm-encounter/story-30363961-detail/story.html

19 hours ago, NanLaew said:

At the risk of getting yet another copy/paste of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicle (international Circulations)1975 , does the declaration specifically and/or automatically invalidate the non-UK DL?

If you declare yourself resident in the UK , how can you be temporarly in the UK

40 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

The declaration specifically and/or automatically invalidates the non-UK DL?

 

Glad that you two agree with what has been known for a long time. The UK, like Thailand, allows you a limited time to drive on the DL of your home country before requiring you obtain a local one.

 

The upshot is if you have a UK license, keep it current but don't use it in the UK. If you have a Thai license, keep it current and use it in the UK.

 

Holding either license doesn't confer any other benefits with regard to tax liability, NHS eligibility or residence status. I think some are somewhat distracted by the fact that the Thai DL is a fairly important piece of PERSONAL ID for foreigners in Thailand whereas the UK DL typically never sees the light of day.

Section 2 of the Motor Vehicle (international Circulations)1975

' 2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Article, it shall be lawful for a person resident outside the United Kingdom who is temporarily in Great Britain and holds—

(a)a Convention driving permit, or

(b)a domestic driving permit issued in a country outside the United Kingdom, or

(c)a British Forces (BFG) driving licence,

during a period of twelve months from the date of his last entry into the United Kingdom to drive, and, except in the case of a holder of a British Forces (BFG) driving licence, be employed in driving, in Great Britain a motor vehicle of any class which he is authorised by that permit or that licence to drive, notwithstanding that he is not the holder of a driving licence under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1972. '

When you renew your UK driving licence a declaration of being  resident in UK is made

14 hours ago, NanLaew said:

The 'debate' rolls on. Thousands of Brits living overseas have a current UK address on their UKDL. Whether that address is their own, a family members or a friends is both irrelevant and improper if they are non-resident in the UK. If circumstances arose where it was found that they were not entitled to having that UKDL due to abuse of the address information and their non-residency, they are still liable for the 1000 quid fine. However, there's no special branch of the UK plod watching out for us so it is all much ado about nothing IMHO. Someone mentioned that government computer databases could be linked up and your true non-resident status easily verified from your passport activity record. However, since I don't recall anyone at UK Immigration ever scanning my passport as I exit the country, I am not sure if that premise is entirely valid. Are UK departure immigration formalities the remit of the airline as it is in the US in that your personal ID, passport and other data is gathered for sharing with multiple agencies at check in?

 

Anyway, if anyone wants to run the gamut of using their UKDL in their homeland one needs to have a bit more than the 2 photo identities, a credit card, a DL a utility and/or tax bill in the same name as the renter, DL and credit card. One needs to go online about a week ahead of the trip and apply to the DVLC for a one-time-code. At the car rental desk, they will ask for this code so they can access the DVLC computer and check on your points and license status. If you don't have a code, they can refuse to hand over the keys. A busier desk will surely have a way for a rental shop manager to use an elevated privilege log-in for the renter who honestly didn't know about the requirements. However, the single, night shift worker at a stormy, rainy, midnight, off-airport car rental pickup facility in Benbecula isn't likely to have that access.

 

FWIW, I renewed my UKDL using my sisters UK address many years ago and went online and did the address change when she moved house last year; no worries. I use my 5-year Thai DL to rent cars in the UK. Nothing has been or needs to be surrendered to anyone at this juncture.

When renewing UK driving licence a declaration of residency is required which in turn would invalidate the thai domestic licence in the UK , Motor Vehicle (international circular)1975.  The thai domestic licence is only valid for 12 months from the first date of beoming resident, after which point the holder is expected to obtain a UK licence.

31 minutes ago, topt said:

Yes I agree/concede section 4 is the kicker.

What I do not understand though is the lack of a clear statement (which would be so easy) on the relevant .gov.uk sites if, and its a big if, they really wanted this to be enforced. Since you often use your home licence to apply for one abroad one can perhaps assume that pragmatism actually did win out in this case?

It is due to the fact that you can exchange a UK photocard licence for a EEA member states licence if you are resident in that member state.

Also consider that you are only subject to UK law whilst residing in its jurisdiction. Generally once you have left the UK you are no longer subject to its law. 

3 minutes ago, topt said:

Why on earth would I want to do that as already quoted gov.uk sites don't ask you to do that................

 

As Moonlover has already pointed out the actual act seems somewhat different to what you posted plus as I mention your posting is open to interpretation. This is not a debating contest so I am leaving it here unless someone comes up with an incontrovertible quote to say I have to surrender my licence just because I currently do not live in the UK.

 

If someone does then I will concede I am wrong but I still won't be sending my licence back

Take section 4 of the act alongside section 7, 7AA

If your UK licence details are incorrect , then you surrender it to the SoS (va DLVC) , who will issue another licence as long a UK resident.

14 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

A nice try, but wrong. You are using the beginning of the paragraph out of context.

 

Remove the bold type and the underscore and read the sentence in full and a different story emerges.

 

It is saying (in not very good English) ''If your name or address has changed, you must surrender your licence to have it it updated''.

 

This reference has been lifted, not from the Road Traffic Act itself, but from a web site that is using the information therein.

 

Here is the real Road Traffic Act reference concerning the surrendering of licences. Lifted from:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/99

 

(32ZA)  ''Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a licence holder is not lawfully resident in the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State may serve notice in writing on that person revoking the licence and requiring the person to surrender the licence and its counterpart forthwith to the Secretary of State, and it is the duty of that person to comply with the requirement''.

 

(3ZB )For the purposes of subsection (3ZA) a person is not lawfully resident in the United Kingdom if the person requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom but does not have it.]

 

And make sure you read the second paragraph carefully before leaping to your keyboards!

 

 

Look at section 7, and 7AA

42 minutes ago, topt said:

As I and someone else posted on page 1 of this thread - too much credence given to anonymous unofficial online sources perhaps.......

 

Where do the rules actually state this - because I cannot see anything other than contact the country's DVLA that you are in if abroad. If you do not need to change your address for any reason then technically it does not appear that you are breaking any rules?

Also your point above contradicts your last paragraph

Road Traffic Act

15 minutes ago, Rajab Al Zarahni said:

I don't know which of these groups is the most active but  geography would suggest that we join the Australian group.

I certainly commend the course of action suggested in this and your previous post. Doom and gloom comments contribute nothing to the objective of unfreezing overseas pensions and simply serve to discourage those who might add their support.

 

I see from the latest news updates that the Tories are proposing to means test the Winter Fuel Allowance thereby restricting its payment to wealthier pensioners but in Scotland  their will be no means testing. What a shambles of a policy ? Why don't they award a free beer allowance to OAP's in Scotland.

 

I suspect the reason for the shambolic winter fuel payment between Scotland/England is due to benefits being a devolved issue due to come in effect 2019. 

29 minutes ago, Eff1n2ret said:

I've no idea. It would depend whether a residential qualification was a legal requirement for holding those licences. As far as a Driving Licence is concerned, it most certainly is.

26 minutes ago, transam said:

Everyone took a test....Qualified to use those means of transport...That's my point..

I assume you mean european driving licence issued by the UK

From directive   91/439/EEC on driving licences, article 7

1. Driving licences shall, moreover, be issued only to those applicants: (a) who have passed a test of skills and behaviour and a theoretical test and who meet medical standards, in accordance with the provisions of Annexes II and III; (b) who have their normal residence in the territory of the Member State issuing the licence, or can produce evidence that they have been studying there for at least six months.

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

Not mine, I just reposted it. Thought it a good reminder of why people should never take things at face value. Here is another one.

 

"But here’s an odd thing, and one that has not been widely reported. As it happens, companies are paying an increasing amount of tax. Even more significantly, they are doing so as the rate of corporation tax falls. There are two things that we can learn from that. The corporate sector is paying its “fair share”, and arguably more than it really should. And if lower rates generate more cash for the Government, perhaps we should think about bringing them down further."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11498135/Why-lower-corporation-tax-means-more-for-Treasury.html

 

Off course there are always those that want to believe that in the face of a financial storm that companies and individuals will sail on regardless rather than take refuge in an offshore port.

Is the article not advocating Reagonomics , Laffer Curve.

The article premise may be correct , but does not go on to debate other reasons for the possible increase in revenue such as business not being able to forward  losses from years prior financial crash. Low interest rates stimulating eonomic growth and thus more businesses to pay tax 

5 hours ago, mommysboy said:

That would be regarded as deprivation of assets in order to avoid fees.  I dont know if it would be followed up in practice, but a lawyer would not advise this.   However, one or both parents could make a will that puts their share in to a trust for the children upon their death. It then becomes random chance as to whether the will is enacted before one or other of the parents has to dispose of the house before enactment of the other's will.

The smallprint gives further information

Pensioners will not have to sell their home to pay for care costs while they or a surving partner are alive. Products will be available to allow the elderly to extract equity from their homes, which will be recovered at a later date when they die or sell their residence.

The above surely means some form of insurance, that will have to be taken out to allow the pensioner to keep thier home, and the premiums will be collected from the house sale.

6 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

I am not really suprised about the threshold increase , considering it was T.May who first introduced this requirement. 

Is it not really T.May response to the SC ruling regarding the treatment of children , to allow other sources of income to be included .

4 hours ago, nontabury said:

If you are meaning,other sources of income to include the income or future potential income, of foreign wives, the answer is they are not included. For the husband,it MUST be a guaranteed income or saving etc,or a combination. But like I said before, there are exceptions,but mainly not for British people.

One of the SC comments on the recent appeal

; Lord Carnwath said he and his fellow judges had held “that the minimum income threshold is accepted in principle” but he added that the Home Office’s rules and instructions failed to take full account of their legal duties in respect to the children involved or to allow alternative sources of funding to be considered '

I suspect that the raising of the threshold is partly in response to this comment

10 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Here's one that will consign me to Thailand for the duration.  Good job I'm doing ok:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-manifesto-lest-theresa-may-immigration-foreign-spouses-threshold-a7742791.html

 

It's a mine field of unpleasant surprises is this manifesto.  Still what would one expect from the nasty party?  I expect Flustered and his mates popped a magnum or two of champers.

I am not really suprised about the threshold increase , considering it was T.May who first introduced this requirement. 

Is it not really T.May response to the SC ruling regarding the treatment of children , to allow other sources of income to be included .

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

 

Tories are so confident that they are turning on their own.  Perhaps it's just 'karma' if you believe in such things- that'll teach the old dafties to vote Brexit

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/18/social-care-funding-what-are-the-conservatives-proposing

 

There is something crucial which effects any homeowner here: get ill in your dotage- even in your own home- and you could find yourself in hock on your estate. Oops... who will explain that one to the kids!

 

However, if a loved one gets really ill with Alzheimers so that they must be in a care home for many years, then at least 100,000 of their estate will be protected.  I must admit I am one of those that benefits.

 

You gotta love the tories and their hard ball games!

 

Labour proposed a fair tax across the board for all.

 

 

Apologies , I have only read the link provided and my knowledge of the subject is limited, but I dont see how 100,000 of their estate is protected.

From the article the threshold to be liable for payment is set at above 100,000 of the estate, with the ability to defer.

What happens if somebody has an estate worth 200,000 , and the bill for care comes to 190,000. 

What proportion of the estate is liable, 100%(190,000), or 90,000 (anything over 100,000), or 100,000 ( to leave the estate with 100,000). 

53 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Tories have been a miserable failure with the economy, and if they are no good with that then they are needed about as much as the proverbial you know what in a swimming pool, since they are useless in all other aspects, save greasing blue greasy palms.

 

Its amazing why any mug still votes for them.  I think it's because they are perceived as the party that will bring Joe Average to untold and unmerited wealth; I suppose it's a bit like buying a lottery ticket.  This time round I think it is the Brexit factor: JA wants a stable, calming figure, ignoring the fact that it is the same tories that have brought the problem about and exacerbated it.  Dumb or what?

 

It's good to see Labour at least gaining some ground in the polls...isn't it?  Corbyn is nothing if not a conviction politician, and he is a good orator.  One can imagine him wiping the floor with May in any debate.  Mind you it does help when you basically have right on your side.

Going by the Cons manifesto , the priveleged few are infants on free lunch meals , and pensioners