James105

Actually there were a couple of unconfirmed and off the record statements by police at the time that said he spoke when they arrested him stating "I did this for Allah" or something that managed to get out before the narrative was implemented and the conversation was shut down. I wouldn't bother getting your hopes up that he is not Muslim after what we officially know now.

Well, the group that have previously committed atrocities against innocent little kids (Manchester arena for example) are muslims. Since the far right, hindus, buddhists, christians, jews, atheists, satanists, scientologists, rastafarians, jedi's et all have no recent history of butchering little kids I'd say Sherlock Holmes was not required to deduce the glaringly obvious that it was going to be a Muslim. You probably don't want to hear about the rumours about his parents either. Might be a bit much to take in if you are still in shock that it wasn't a Christian schoolboy that did this.

Do you know the requirements to get that though? Someone needs to prove that they are 60% disabled to get it. An enlarged heart that reduces life expectancy wouldn't qualify for example along with probably lots of other conditions caused by this vaccine that don't meet this threshold but have damaging effects on someones life. Considering the average age of death from covid was over 82 years old I suspect that a 20 year old who received that vaccine who is (only) 50% disabled now isn't particularly comforted by this. https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment/eligibility

Most knew he was a muslim straight away so it wasn't really a 'conspiracy theory' at all, just a fact that was being "managed" until it could be released along with some other big news story, like the budget for example. What other group has form for butchering innocent little kids in the name of their religion? It really isn't that difficult.

I was talking about history. Islam is about 1500 years old. If Islamic females could wear bikinis prior to 1979 what changed in the religion that changed the clothing requirements for women. The only 2 things that occur to me is an announcement from their god or an updated version of their manual. Seems like a fair question to me. If the answer is that backwards evil minded tyrants took over the country by force and subjugated their women and destroyed a once civilised country that would also be an answer. Not a religious one, but an answer nonetheless. Something to look forward to in the west once Islam has the numbers I guess.

What changed though? Did their god make an announcement? Was version 2.0 of the Quran released with updated clothing requirements for females?

That was a policy born out of jealousy though and has no impact on government tax receipts and could well end up costing money. The university fees though, it took the Lib dems many, many years to recover from saying things like "we will abolish tuition fees" only to increase them when in coalition government. Labour have been speaking the same language over the years about tuition fee abolishment and they will have some very annoyed students now they are putting them up. They should probably count themselves lucky that even though Universities sell education in much the same way as private schools do that they were not also inflicted with the 20% VAT increase instead of the 3.1% increase that is being implemented, so they are still benefitting a bit from the 2 tier nature of this government.

Students apparently. They are putting up the University fees. This one makes me chuckle though as I can almost feel the anger from the blue haired Hamas supporting leftists all the way over here after they discover their pointless gender/media studies course will be more expensive.

What other way could she protest? That she should face rape, killing or torturing for this tells us everything we already know about this barbaric religion and why it has zero place in the west. This is an image before the 1979 Islamic revolution and their god didn't seem to mind what they wore back then. Why does their god need them be covered completely head to toe today? Did he make some kind of announcement?

Just £6bn for IHT? Well that seems very easily raised. Here are some choices that could be made instead: 1. Don't send Africa £11bn of "climate aid" to Africa which will be swallowed up in corruption anyway. 2. Don't spend £22bn on carbon capture which doesn't work. 3. Don't spend £13bn on foreign aid. 4. Don't send £3bn to Zelensky. 5. "Smash the gangs" and save £8bn a year on illegal immigrants. So plenty of ways that £6bn a year could be very easily raised without making a single cut to any essential public services, and then everyone is treated the same for IHT. As I say (with some justification), they are economically illiterate morons.

No, it wouldn't have benefitted me at all to have them test it and set it up. As has been pointed out to you several times that if a fault was found in store then they probably wouldn't even replace it with a new replacement from stock and instead would need to send it to Apple. Maybe you are not competent enough to set these things up and need a store employee to do this for you and if so that is fine, but I am more than capable of doing with this myself. I am also more than capable of contacting Apple if the phone is faulty when delivered, although since this has never happened in the past then I'd be surprised if it happened this time. If a stupid store policy puts off customers like me from buying the device from them, and puts off customers like me from using them in future then I'd say its a bonkers policy as it is very easily resolved by giving the purchaser the choice of whether or not they need the store employee to open, handle and test the new device.

Yes, we will not agree on this. I view inheritance tax as theft. The government should have no claim to something that someone has already paid tax on just because they died. I find this especially egregious for any family run business, but in the case of farms it is unique as the nature of the business will mean it will have a lot of land which has a disproportionate value compared to how much profit can be earned from it (its not a concrete block of flats for example), and that profit will be nowhere near enough to cover the tax bill. So imagine the pain that a farmer who has worked his land for 50 years will be feeling knowing that should he happen to die during this mean and cruel governments tenure, his family will lose this farm. When the farmland is inevitably sold will the new owners keep it as a farm that produces crops based on the value to profit ratio and the labour costs to farm it? Highly unlikely. So bad for the family and bad for the UK's ability to feed itself. It's a policy written and created by economically illiterate idiots who have zero knowledge of farming or running any business that needs to makes a profit to survive.

Again, I can only speak from the experience of watching Clarkson's farm, but it seems nothing 'overly generous' occurs to farmers. It looks like a very tough job with long working hours that carries a lot of risk with the adverse impact different weather conditions can have on crops, and it seems that to be successful requires a lot of knowledge that is passed down from one generation to the next. It seems that the IHT would be an impossible sum of money to raise for a family that have lost the head of their family that no doubt spent blood, sweat and tears working the land, only to see that land be sold off due to a mean spirited and cruel policy. These are not oil producers making billions of pounds in profits here, just honest people working on land at very small margins of profit to provide the food that we eat. I don't see why for such an insignificant sum this policy was needed at this time.

Yes it does and says it is not affordable for farms. "Is the tax affordable? Sam Kirkham, who specialises in agriculture at Albert Goodman accountants, says "people look at the value of farms and think the farmers must be wealthy". But she says if the farm passes down to the next generation to continue to produce food, they never get to realise that capital. And she adds farm profits are insufficient to meet the additional cost of inheritance tax. Government figures suggest that the average return on capital for farms (which is the percentage return that they are making from things like land and machinery) is only about 0.5%, which is very low." Interesting that the largest farmland owner in the USA was paying a visit to Labour just before the budget then isn't it. Another cruel and pointless policy considering how little it raises relative to the pain it inflicts on those affected.

Labours own report suggested that it would kill 4000. They are well aware that the poorest pensioners who are actually entitled to pension credit cannot complete the 243 question form needed to claim it and get the winter fuel allowance, and if they did all claim the government would make a loss from this policy. It's a policy that literally requires the poorest not to claim their entitlements to pension credits. There was no need to rush this through. They could have streamlined the process for claiming pension credits and reduced the amount of (probably pointless) questions and started it from next winter. It is a cruel and unnecessary policy.

So if a farm is worth £6m and it is a family farm then that family would have to stump up £1m or sell it to someone like Bill Gates and find another way to make a living? How much does a farm this size actually make in profits - enough to pay back £1m over 10 years? I have seen a bit of Clarkson's farm and it doesn't appear that there is that level of money in farming to be able to pay that kind of money to be able to keep the farm. How much money does this policy even make for the government? Enough to even cover a fraction of the £22bn being spent on pointless carbon capture technology?

You are correct I don't like the policy but I did buy a case with it in the first store, which was also refunded to me with the phone refund. Every apple device comes with a worldwide Apple guarantee as standard for 1 year. There is zero risk in buying these products and as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, if a fault was found with the device after purchase and tested in store, then the purchaser wouldn't get issued a new replacement device and the phone with the fault would be sent back to Apple to deal with. So it makes the whole testing completely and utterly pointless as the customer might as well deal with Apple directly anyway if there is a fault after they have left the store. In the highly unlikely event that it is DOA then I contact Apple support and presumably I get a replacement from Apple. Not sure why you sound so salty about this really.

Sure, but if they don't sell the phone they also don't sell the case or other accessory. I doubt I'll ever use them again either. Not sure how not just letting the customer leave with the device they have bought in the brand new condition it was bought in is a good store policy here. Anyway I've ordered it directly from Apple now and it doesn't appear that it will come with a store employee in the box who insists on opening it and messing with it before I have had a chance to use it so problem solved.

I think it was a mistake that will make it difficult for the Tories to win next time as I don't see much difference between her and Sunak. I actually think this incarnation of the Tory party are almost as obsessed with gender and colour as the Labour party and instead of choosing the stronger candidate with clearer and actual conservative policies, they have chosen someone who ticks the identity boxes as some kind of stick to beat Labour with. Time will tell I guess but it's difficult to imagine she is the one that will encourage those 4 million Reform voters to go back to the Conservatives when her policies on immigration are no different or worse than Sunak's. Of course if the Labour clown show continues on it's current trajectory of uniting the country against Labour then maybe it won't matter.

I tried that in the second store yesterday. They said they cannot sell me it if they couldn't open it themselves, and go through the set up themselves, connect it to the internet and 'activate' it themselves. I even asked them what if I was buying it as a gift and they said the same. No new iPhone leaves the store without being opened and activated by a store employee before the customer has had a chance to use it themselves. They were not in the least surprised that I was unwilling to purchase the phone on those terms so I doubt I am the only one who is uncomfortable with this process.

Buying it from Apple directly I have done in the past, but every time it has been shipped from China (even if in stock in Thailand) so can take a week or more to get it. Buying something from a Studio 7 store has never been a problem before. I bought my last iPad from one of them. The system was that I paid for the device and left the store with the device in its box without anyone needing to open it.

The store employee when the phone is new has full admin control over it and could potentially install firmware (root kit for example) that provides a back door into the phone for a nefarious individual. Connected to wifi means connected to internet and the internet is a place full of dangerous software that could be downloaded and installed as the store employee has full admin control over the device at this stage. So lets say a nasty hacker is aware of Studio 7s policy of accessing the phone before the purchaser has secured it themselves and one of their "tests" is to connect to the internet and activate it. This nasty hacker offers lowly paid Studio 7 store employees 20,000 bahts per phone to simply visit an IP address and download a root kit to the phone that reinstalls itself whenever a factory reset is activated. The customer then factory resets the phone and goes merrily on his way thinking the phone is "secure" as its been reset, but in reality the device is completely open to the hacker thanks to the software the employee downloaded. Is that far fetched? Sure it is. Is it possible? Sure it is. If the store employee doesn't connect the phone to the internet is it possible? Nope. The point I am making is that it is impossible for this to happen if the customer takes control of the phone after purchase and sets it up themselves. Letting someone else do something with the device and connect it to the internet just seems like an unnecessary risk (no matter how small that risk is) considering the device will have full access to every aspect of my financial life.

Root kits would be my main concern as they can affect the hardware of the device and potentially can be set up to reinstall on reset. Do I know how to do it? Nope. Can it be done if someone has control of your device and its connected to the internet to download and install it? Possibly. Can it be done if I am the one setting up the phone? Definitely not.

Actually, whilst I was talking to the manager about it I got a notification on my phone that the payment was refunded which the first sales guy did as he got the hump with me laughing at the silliness of it all. If they had explained and/or just let me set the thing up which I was trying to suggest as solution and do the tests myself in the English language (rather than the Thai language he was doing it in) it probably would have resulted in win/win (store sells phone I get phone) instead of lose/lose where store has an opened phone they cannot sell and I don't have phone. This makes the whole "testing to make sure it works" scenario utterly pointless then as you are in no better position than if you took it out of the store in its box without testing. I doubt very much they would break the seals and open a device box prior to payment as if you change your mind they now have an opened device which most people would be reluctant to buy.

Sure I could watch him do it but since he was using the Thai language to go through the set up which I cannot read that wasn't much comfort. Maybe if he had explained before I bought the device what he planned to do and why he had to do it then it wouldn't have caught me by surprise.