youreavinalaff

They are not the highest. When I started work the base rate was 25%. It's now 20%.

With no tax rises. Pull the other one.

It should only be referred to as "Union Jack" when flown from a navy ship. That's the historical correctness. Many people nowadays incorrectly refer to it as "Union Jack" in every scenario.

I depends where you are. I can't answer for everywhere. In the village where we live there are 2. As a percentage of those who still tend their own land, many now rent it out to the big companies with the large machinery, it's about 20%. As a whole, including those I mentioned above, it's nearer 5%.

You are way of base. There are still a %% of farmers still using buffalo to work, albeit a small %%%.

An explanation.

So you can't explain. I didn't think you would be able to.

Go on then. Explain.

We? I thought it was you and us?

You must have gone to the same maths classes as Starmer. First it was a generation. Now you can only find yourself to pledge 2 general elections. That's only 5 years and 5 weeks, max.

Which one?

What do illegals get free?

Once again, I've never professed to know how it will work. You have but have not cleared up my question. The difference here is you fail to accept that you don't now how it will work either. As an example, you mentioned 300 000 recruits. The proposed figure is 30 000. Only out 10 fold. 🤣🤣🤣

I think you missed the point. Only 1 in 26 would likely do military service. Exemptions from the whole scheme are yet to be announced.

No, I didn't. You missed that it won't be "Every" voting mother and father. However, if the "darling child" in your comment was sarcasm, I agree. 😅😅 I don't think it's an own goal, not yet anyway. If it's announced those entering uni or those in full-time employment are exempt, I think there's milage in the plan.

You clearly haven't read the report.

I know you often fail to grasp simple English but this example really takes the biscuit. Another poster and I were discussing "How it might work" not "If it works" or "If it's working" A fundamental difference noticeable to all, with the exception of trolls.

If you can't see it, I hope those you trained are no longer in service. If they are, the security of UK is in deep sh$#. Try again. Here's my reasoning: "What I do know is your comments are wide of the mark. Unless you know all nearly 18 year olds that it will affect, how many will choose the 12 month option and how many will then choose to enlist." Tell me you do know and I'll withrmdraw my comment of you being wide of the mark.

And? What's that got to do with my post?

Read my previous post.

I don't recall saying I had ideas. Then again, it's not up to me. What I do know is your comments are wide of the mark. Unless you know all nearly 18 year olds that it will affect, how many will choose the 12 month option and how many will then choose to enlist. How many years did you get involved with training those on national service?

Interesting. You know so much about how it's all going to work. I'd be in awe if you weren't wide of the mark.

A good idea if there are exceptions. Any 18 year old going to university or in full time employment, with time limits, need not go. That way, the lazy ones that come out of school and straight on the dole will, I'm sure, find work.

Well there you go then. SOME women. Just because is all women in your experience, doesn't mean it's all women in general. All it does is puts the spotlight on you.

SOME women are never satisfied with what they have and always want more or different.