Squaredy

No comments about the budget anyone?   I suppose it was already fairly well known so no major surprises today?

+1 for Cutty Mc Cutface.

35 minutes ago, BillQ said:

What does it say?

 

 

If jumping to conclusions was an Olympic sport, you'd be a contender!

You make the point that he is just a suspect, nothing is proven yet.  But I suspect most people would not welcome him in the UK.  It is great to be a lovely caring society but sometimes you have to say 'No!'.  After all, if we get a reputation as being a country that will always protect terror suspects and block them from returning to the country where the crime took place we are pretty much doomed.

And there is a second problem of him staying here.  Should he be allowed total freedom, in which case that could be putting the lives of many people in the UK at risk (if he is a terrorist that is).  Or if we agree he must be supervised or at least kept a careful watch over then what will that cost?

18 minutes ago, green heart said:

Motorway matrix signs... slowing all road traffic down to 40mph, for an  accident, that was cleared the previous day.... ?!

 

Motorways restricted to 50mph and 2 lanes, for several miles, due to road works, where the only person present is the Traffic Management employee -asleep in the truck.. 

 

Yes, I think that's the smell of heated urine..

 

You have just reminded me of the M48 in South Wales.  It’s is always a 50mph motorway.  Permanently.  It is a lovely quiet motorway as the new Severn bridge and new motorway were opened in 1993 which are far more convenient for most journeys.  If I ever go to Chepstow from my house I drive along the full 12 miles of it at 50.  It seems to take weeks.

9 hours ago, Billhook said:

Now I have turned something on, but there was no red warning!  G.O.M.S.

 

While we are on about Road Closed signs what about sets of roadwork traffic lights and cones and barriers that are not protecting a hole in the road, that could easily be shifted to the side after work , holding traffic up all through the night needlessly.  Or similar in the daytime when nobody  is working except for one man reading the paper in his van with the engine running. Talk about pollution as it is happening all over the country 

Totally agree.  I have a photo of a hole dug in a pavement near me which then had a set of three way temporary lights set up and the only obstruction was a small pile of earth in the road - between parked cars.  Ludicrous and caused massive congestion for absolutely nothing.  Actually thinking about it the A48 near me had this earlier this year....but that was a four way set of lights.  And for three days it was just for the pavement - nothing at all in the road.  Finally they dug up the road.  But the chaos it caused for the first few days on a very busy bus route was awful.  No brain was engaged in that traffic managament except covering their backs.

This thread is made for me!  I have wondered in the past about starting a thread about terrible design, but this is even better. 

Following on from the taps mentioned earlier, what about automatic taps that simply do not work.  I first came across this in 1997 (so etched on my mind was the trauma of not being able to work a tap) and one would think they would work well now.  But no.  I know a set of three newly installed at a local sports club near me where you have to dodge between them all hoping that you will get enough little dribbles out of each to finally wash your hands.

1 hour ago, nepia said:

Grumpy Old Man moans... where to start?

 

How about the appalling use (misuse) of Road Closed signs?  You cannot trust them either way and if they're legitimate you can't tell what road they're referring to.

My starter for 10...

Excellent point.  And then if you go past the sign (as they are so often obsolete) and then people shake their heads at you when you are forced to turn round as it is actually closed!

24 minutes ago, tree-fancier123 said:

weird how house prices were even more expensive than today in 1845 - before the minimum wage a lot of those people in 1845 would have been properly poor, so the average wage much lower

Well of course people did not buy their house then.

And I totally agree about upgrading.  I would like to move out of suburbia into proper countryside.  But to do that even for a smaller house means finding about £150,000 extra, so it just ain’t gonna happen.  So yes, we all lose by having high house prices, unless we are lucky enough to inherit or for some other reason have multiple houses.

16 minutes ago, tree-fancier123 said:

I don't see the problems with taxation that you do - many of my customers are quite well off with big gardens, and not aristocrats, just people who worked hard and made good decisions when they were young. Taxation hasn't stopped them building wealth. On this forum I could mention a dozen or more guys who have build successful tree firms that are still trading, despite the tax burdens of recent decades.

Take Beechwood and Aspen, both successful firms that are still trading. You could argue those business owners, as examples would be even wealthier if VAT was only 10% and Ltd tax only 10%, but my point is people are living a good standard of living in the here and now. I'm nowhere near as successful as the two I mentioned, a mere one man band, but I have savings (ISA) and a SIPP, my own modest home nearly all paid for and hopefully a few years left to increase my wealth before my body is degraded to the point manual work is not possible.

Today's environment is good I'd say - I  don't care about VAT or other tax, if I want more mony I just work more days, or sometimes get away with increasing prices. There is no poverty for the hard working that I can see. My tax hasn't all been sqaundered - I've seen a retired guy with a massive lump from leukemia now in remission, cancer treatments are better than 20 years ago. Someone has to pay. People can go to Uni, or become florists, bin men, chefs - all is right in the world

 

I agree I do not see much poverty.  Except perhaps when it comes to buying a house.  I feel for my kids when they want to buy their first house.  

My main gripe is that the government have more money than ever, yet public services are generally dire.  Of course, bear in mind I have lived in a Labour area for 26 years.  Some things like education are certainly better where Labour have not been in charge for long.

25 minutes ago, tree-fancier123 said:

but it isn't the highest tax regime since WW2, if you read that Wiki history of taxation Mark J posted above it says the basic rate was up around 33% for a while. 

 

The government of Margaret Thatcher, who favoured taxation on consumption, reduced personal income tax rates during the 1980s in favour of indirect taxation.^[19] In the first budget after her election victory in 1979, the top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%.^[20] The basic rate was also cut for three successive budgets – to 29% in the 1986 budget, 27% in 1987 and to 25% in 1988; The top rate of income tax was cut to 40%.^[21] The investment income surcharge was abolished in 1985.

Under the government of John Major the basic rate was reduced in stages to 23% by 1997.

21st century

Under Labour chancellor Gordon Brown, the basic rate of income tax was further reduced in stages to 20% by 2007. As the basic rate stood at 35% in 1976, it has been reduced by 43% since then. However, this reduction has been largely offset by increases in other regressive taxes such as National Insurance contributions and Value Added Tax (VAT).

And it is worth remembering that when people talk about austerity, the amount of money the public sector takes as tax and spends is at record highs - not just due to the Labour government.  Despite accusations of austerity public sector spending went through the roof under the Conservatives.

Many services have been cut and are struggling, but this is not due to tax cuts or frugality.  If only it were then the solution would be easy.  Our public sector is better funded than it ever has been, but outcomes are probably worse than they ever have been at least since WW2.  The actual solution is to somehow make the public sector efficient and productive.  

45 minutes ago, Mark J said:

those who own the government debt ie: the billionaires we should be taxing

It is worth remembering that the billionaires you are talking about consist mainly of pension funds.  In other words the future prosperity of you and I (unless you have no pension of course).

17 minutes ago, tree-fancier123 said:

but it isn't the highest tax regime since WW2, if you read that Wiki history of taxation Mark J posted above it says the basic rate was up around 33% for a while. 

According to the media we currently have the highest overall tax burden since not long after WW2.  Yes some rates may be lower, but there are many other taxes.  Remember purchase tax was around 6%, this was replaced by VAT when we entered the EEC at 10%, and now it is mainly 20%.  NI rates are also through the roof, property tax is higher, etc, etc, etc.  So, yes we have VERY high taxation levels currently.  About to get higher in a few days.

9 minutes ago, Mark J said:

The richest paid 98% tax after WW2, that's how social hosing and NHS was possible. 
 

Indeed, they paid 98% on investment income until Maggie came to power in 1979.  And the thresholds were not exactly high, so it wasn't just the super-rich.  So I agree some (on the face of it) good things happened in the period 1946 to 1979, but the country was a basket case.

And I would suggest if you are interested looking into the history of wealth taxes.  It is rather chequered in terms of their success.

On 22/11/2025 at 14:49, Mark J said:

37K views · 2.4K reactions | 👩‍⚕️👨‍🚒🤵 Doctors, firefighters, even the...

WWW.FACEBOOK.COM

---

👩‍⚕️👨‍🚒🤵 Doctors, firefighters, even the super-rich themselves can see it… so why can’t Rachel Reeves? It’s time to tax the super‑rich and invest in the collective future of our...

 

The makers of this video think that the public sector is suffering because of lack of funding.  So where do they imagine the highest tax regime since World War Two actually goes?

1 hour ago, mitchel said:

I have 15 trees on a small woodland along side of an a busy A road and 15 trees have been condemned by the council. I have 4 months to sort them otherwise they will and bill my customer.

 

How easy is it to get a felling license quickly the trees either have Dutch elm or ash dieback. there are others in the woodland that will need taking down at same time due to the same diesease. Obviously just that council man obviously doesnt leave his 4x4 while surveying.

As has been said speak to the tree officer at the local authority; as if they are requiring you to feel the trees for public safety it may be that a felling license is not needed.  Or indeed if the trees are under a certain size.

Nearly all over now sadly.  Been an amazing match, but the Aussies made it look easy in the end.  I see we have a breakthrough now, but just a little too late I am afraid.

9 hours ago, sime42 said:

 

Relatively speaking yes; the BBC are totally balanced and objective. 

Seriously though.Sure, they suffer from bias and serious errors of judgement. Like the Trump speech stupidly, or the Gaza/Israel coverage or the inordinate amount of airtime devoted to Light Blue rather than Green or Orange. But compared to anything else out there, nothing even comes close in terms of breadth of coverage and range of content. In the main all pretty balanced, overly balanced sometimes. 

 

What would you suggest as an alternative to the BBC? Surely to you don't want to end up with a situation like they have in the States, with very little but partisan "news" outlets. Or even worse, having to try and glean glimmers of truth from AI infused social media owned by the likes of Zuckerberg or Musk. Sends a shiver down my spine.

 

 

I agree with much of your analysis, though I think they take the bias further than you do.

And over the years I have liked plenty of their non-news output.

There is not a perfect solution and every news outlet has an agenda of one sort or another.  What I think is wrong is for the public to be forced to fund the BBC.

The license fee should have been abolished as soon as there became a viable choice back in the eighties.  If the BBC are that good they will have no trouble attracting subscribers.  
 

To demonstrate how wrong the current system is, in my household we don’t watch any live broadcast TV except my wife and boys watch the Grand Prix which we pay for through Now TV.  But because they watch this live I am forced to fund the BBC.

It is like shopping in Asda but there exists some archaic law that means you have to pay fifteen pounds a month to Tesco even though you choose not to shop there.

If I get time tomorrow I will list some of the times in the last 20 years or so the BBC has been found guilty of institutional bias.  Of course that will probably be the fault of Ofcom.  The BBC are totally balanced and objective.

1 hour ago, Mark J said:

 

I have heard this before.  The BBC have only made a mistake, and they are the victim of a vicious right wing attack.

I genuinely pity anyone who is sucked in by this.

23 minutes ago, 5thelement said:

Yet more whataboutery.

She was found guilty of a hate crime, encouraging racial hatred on social media, after reacting to right wing populist bullshit that turned out to be incorrect, all this on the day that the children where killed in Southport, play stupid games, win stupid prizes, I have zero sympathy for her. 
She is being held up as the darling victim for the right wing populist press, and you have clearly also got her in your wank bank. 

No, I just recognise disparity in justice when I see it.

47 minutes ago, 5thelement said:

You assume wrong, and your whataboutery  doesn’t make her any less guilty either. 

She was certainly guilty of saying some vile stuff on social media.  In truth probably no worse than a million things said by UK citizens on the internet every day.

32 minutes ago, Steven P said:

 

Thought he had gone to court? But the law has to be fair and even.

He went to court, but he pleaded not guilty, so it went before a jury.  The jury quickly decided he was not guilty.  The words he used were not in doubt, but the jury clearly accepted he wasn’t actually suggesting anyone slit anyone’s throat, even though that is what he said.  Just like Lucy Connolly it should never have ended up in court.

I heard about Stokes’ heroics.  Looking forward to watching the highlights with my boy later.

12 minutes ago, 5thelement said:

She was a victim if her own effing stupidity and was convicted for breaking the law, inciting racial hatred by encouraging people to burn down hotels housing migrants, she is not the victim, although she is playing the victim card now all right, and she did 10 months in total. 

And am I to assume you are OK with Ricky Jones who was a public figure not even getting a reprimand?

2 hours ago, 5thelement said:

He will be playing the victim card like Lucy Connolly when he gets out, seeking ‘asylum’ in the USA, the irony, you could make this shit up with a straight face.

To be fair to Lucy Connolly, she WAS a victim.  What she said was horrible and wrong, but 2.5 years in prison!  Whether she was a victim of poor legal advice (her barrister advised her to plead guilty) of politically motivated state over-reach or both is a matter of opinion. (Compare the similar case of Ricky Jones who pleaded not guilty and got off scott free).