Bolitics The New Condem Government

[PauloBarnesi]

When you then see that his fellow Bullingdon members Gideon

Come on, have a go at for his policies, not for his name changing.

No one goes on about James changing his name to Keir, or James to Ramsay, or James to Harold, or Leonard to James, or James to Gordon, or Arthur to Neville, or Robert to Anthony, or Maurice to Harold, or Alexander to Alec, or John to Jeremy, or Jeremy to Paddy, or Walter to Menzies, or John to Vincent, etc, etc.

[kidlewis]

When you then see that his fellow Bullingdon members Gideon

Come on, have a go at for his policies, not for his name changing.

No one goes on about James changing his name to Keir, or James to Ramsay, or James to Harold, or Leonard to James, or James to Gordon, or Arthur to Neville, or Robert to Anthony, or Maurice to Harold, or Alexander to Alec, or John to Jeremy, or Jeremy to Paddy, or Walter to Menzies, or John to Vincent, etc, etc.

It's called Spin Paulo...

[mjmooney]

Two drink-free days a week needed, MPs' report says

By James Gallagher Health reporter, BBC News

People should have at least two days a week completely clear of alcohol, a group of MPs says.

It is one of the recommendations in a report by the Commons science and technology committee, which is calling for a review of all government guidelines on alcohol in the UK.

It says there are "sufficient concerns" about the recommendations on how much people should drink.

The report has been welcomed by charities and public health experts.

Advice on the maximum units of alcohol that should be consumed was introduced in 1987 - 21 units in a week for men and 14 for women.

In 1995, the advice was changed to recommend that men did not regularly drink more than three to four units per day. The figures were two to three units for women. It also says that after heavy drinking people should leave 48 hours for the body to recover.

The report questioned whether this "appeared to endorse daily drinking".

There are sufficient concerns about the current drinking guidelines to suggest that a thorough review of the evidence concerning alcohol and health risks is due”

It said having two alcohol-free days would "would enforce the message that drinking every day should be avoided".

It also says there "could be merit" in setting a lower limit for older people in the same manner as there are more specific rules for children and pregnant women.

The idea of increasing the daily limit, was however, ruled out.

The report highlighted problems when it came to understanding how many units of alcohol there are in a drink.

A survey by the Office for National Statistics suggested that 90% of people had heard of units, yet fewer than one in three knew how much one unit of wine was and that only 13% kept a check on the units they drank.

The report does support the concept of the unit, but said more work was needed to help people understand them.

It says: "There are sufficient concerns about the current drinking guidelines to suggest that a thorough review of the evidence concerning alcohol and health risks is due."

The chairman of the committee, Andrew Miller, said: "Alcohol guidelines are a crucial tool for government in its effort to combat excessive and problematic drinking. It is vital that they are up-to date and that people know how to use them."

"Unfortunately, public understanding of how to use the guidelines and what an alcohol unit looks like is poor, although improving.

"While we urge the UK health departments to re-evaluate the guidelines more thoroughly, the evidence we received suggests that the guidelines should not be increased and that people should be advised to take at least two drink-free days a week."

Alan Maryon-Davis, a professor of public health, said: "Broadly speaking [alcohol guidelines] are fit for purpose, but they need a bit of clarification.

"The word 'daily' I would object to. It gives the impression that it is a good idea to drink every day, which clearly it isn't."

He thinks that phrases such as "in a day" or "in 24 hours" should be adopted.

Prof Sir Ian Gilmore, from the Alcohol Health Alliance UK, said: "The main recommendation of setting up a review of evidence to come up with clear guidelines would be very valubale indeed."

Wine and Spirit Trade Association spokesman Gavin Partington said: "People want simple, consistent advice on how to drink responsibly.

"Through our commitment to the Responsibility Deal, the vast majority of alcohol labels on UK shelves will contain responsible drinking guidelines by 2013, supported by point-of-sale information in both the on-and-off trades."

It is estimated 6,000 babies are born every year in England with foetal alcohol syndrome because their mothers drank alcohol when pregnant

Alcohol Concern chief executive Eric Appleby said: "Accessible and reliable public information on alcohol harm is an essential element in tackling Britain's problem with alcohol misuse. However, the government must accept that information alone is insufficient.

"With the new alcohol strategy currently being developed, the government has the opportunity to confront alcohol harm on several fronts, including minimum price control and the empowerment of communities to control local licensing."

Chris Sorek, chief executive of alcohol awareness charity Drinkaware, said: "Drinkaware welcomes the committee's recommendation for greater efforts on helping people understand the unit guidelines and how to use them.

"While the committee recognises that public awareness of alcohol units is now high, it supports Drinkaware's evidence that more needs to be done to raise awareness of how many units are in alcoholic drinks."

A spokesperson for the Department of Health said: "It's crucial that people have good advice about alcohol so they can take responsibility for their own health.

"The current guidelines were developed following a thorough review of the evidence and consultation with experts. We will consider these recommendations and look at whether it is necessary to review our guidance.

"Next month, we are launching new Change4Life adverts which will advise people about the harm alcohol can do to our health. We will also shortly be publishing a strategy to tackle alcohol misuse."

BBC

[tonyh29]

seems tax avoidance isn't just Tory donors after all

"We must tackle abuse of the tax system," "For those who can employ the right accountants, the tax system is a haven of scams, perks, City deals and profits."

2011 Windrush Ventures(one of at least 12 companies and partnerships controlled by Mr Blair) , declared a turnover of £12m, up from £8.5m the year before. But Mr Blair's accounts claim that just over £1m of this is profit, the rest written off as "administrative expenses", with no further explanation given for some £7.74m of the total. With the corporate tax rate at 28 per cent, this left Mr Blair with a tax liability of only £315,000.

More Hypocriosy

[bickster]

seems tax avoidance isn't just Tory donors after all

"We must tackle abuse of the tax system," "For those who can employ the right accountants, the tax system is a haven of scams, perks, City deals and profits."

2011 Windrush Ventures(one of at least 12 companies and partnerships controlled by Mr Blair) , declared a turnover of £12m, up from £8.5m the year before. But Mr Blair's accounts claim that just over £1m of this is profit, the rest written off as "administrative expenses", with no further explanation given for some £7.74m of the total. With the corporate tax rate at 28 per cent, this left Mr Blair with a tax liability of only £315,000.

More Hypocriosy

Tony Bliar is a Tory

[andyjsg]

Tony Bliar is a Tory

Not quite, but certainly more centre ground than red Ed.

That's what made Nu Labour sort of electable....

[drat01]

Nope, again another Labour supporter reads what they want to. I did not say she was racist, I said she made a racist comment, these are two mutually exclusive statements wether you think so or not. As I clarified, I think she is an idiot.

Do you think you can compare Abbot's comment to Cameron's? You seriously think they are the same? It is like saying Boris Johnson plays football like somebody with one leg. So should all amputees be offended by that comment?

Again you use lots of "they say", "they are called" etc and then when you provide an example it is usually from some left wing conspiracist. Anytime anything positive comes out for example Osbourne closing loopholes for stamp duty (something Labour didn't do in their 13 years) you ignore it or state it as lies.

I find in debate sometimes it is good to be open-minded rather than constantly on the attack....

What a strange post.

You were obviously trying to make some link between Abbott, Labour and Racism. To then claim you were not is frankly absurd

Secondly who is comparing Cameron's comments to Abbott's? Only you as far as I can see. In a thread about the Con Dem Gvmt, the issue of crass comments from Cameron was raised. A Tory supporter, Tony, tried (and failed) to say that this was in some way an attempt by his opponents to deflect from Abbott. The whole thing about Cameron, (and previously from Boris and Gideon) was that their actions, language and the like were not those of people who are supposedly in power and did nothing more than to enforce the view that they are in the "flashman" mould that people often liken them to.

Thirdly you talk about left wing conspiracy? :-) - you are now in the realms of fantasy land. Where has anyone said anything about lies and Gideon and stamp duty? That is a pretty big claim, it would be good if you could actually show that. Any chance? His performance as Chencellor is poor as I have said on many occasion, the lack of plan B etc etc, but that relates nowhere to what you are claiming.

Lastly your comment re open minded views, is actually a LOL moment. I suggest you look at your own comments for a perfect example of a quite narrow minded view.

[drat01]

Also why have a go at Boris, at least he wants to challenge himself unlike Ken http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16440126

More strange posting. Do you not actually read any posts?

Boris has a track record re "jokes", and his comments previously have included jokes regarding race and actually using Tourettes as some sort of insult (he did it twice and was made to apologise by Cameron).

[drat01]

When you then see that his fellow Bullingdon members Gideon

Come on, have a go at for his policies, not for his name changing.

No one goes on about James changing his name to Keir, or James to Ramsay, or James to Harold, or Leonard to James, or James to Gordon, or Arthur to Neville, or Robert to Anthony, or Maurice to Harold, or Alexander to Alec, or John to Jeremy, or Jeremy to Paddy, or Walter to Menzies, or John to Vincent, etc, etc.

Interesting Paul that you chose to pick on my posts (again). I thought we had closed off that little habit. As for calling him Gideon, how many more times do we have to go down that route and the background as to why many people call him that?

[drat01]

seems tax avoidance isn't just Tory donors after all

"We must tackle abuse of the tax system," "For those who can employ the right accountants, the tax system is a haven of scams, perks, City deals and profits."

2011 Windrush Ventures(one of at least 12 companies and partnerships controlled by Mr Blair) , declared a turnover of £12m, up from £8.5m the year before. But Mr Blair's accounts claim that just over £1m of this is profit, the rest written off as "administrative expenses", with no further explanation given for some £7.74m of the total. With the corporate tax rate at 28 per cent, this left Mr Blair with a tax liability of only £315,000.

More Hypocriosy

I love how Tony H tries to justify any questioning of Tory policy not by looking at it's merits (or lack of them) but by deflecting and mentioning Labour. The Ahhh but Labour is alive and well it seems.

If Blair is guilty of anything he will be investigated and dealt with. It's somewhat laughable now that a party that is so well funded by offshore accounts tries to deflect any questioning by relating these to Labour. Are you saying that these are OK now?

I wonder how much of those funds that Blair made were then channelled into the Labour party? But of course that somehow negates that subject doesn't it Tony? :-)

[mjmooney]

So, does anyone know where to claim these two days of free alcohol the government are recommending?

[PauloBarnesi]

When you then see that his fellow Bullingdon members Gideon

Come on, have a go at for his policies, not for his name changing.

No one goes on about James changing his name to Keir, or James to Ramsay, or James to Harold, or Leonard to James, or James to Gordon, or Arthur to Neville, or Robert to Anthony, or Maurice to Harold, or Alexander to Alec, or John to Jeremy, or Jeremy to Paddy, or Walter to Menzies, or John to Vincent, etc, etc.

Interesting Paul that you chose to pick on my posts (again). I thought we had closed off that little habit. As for calling him Gideon, how many more times do we have to go down that route and the background as to why many people call him that?

As I ve said have a go at the policies. Does it matter what he’s called? If you were say the Labour candidate fighting him would you keep on calling him Gideon? Would that be the case you would make? The public one would hope would be more bothered about whether he’s putting the British economy in shape.

As for ‘many’ people calling him that; I can’t find any reference in Hansard to it, I can find mentions on the Evening Standard, Financial Times and on the Guardian, but I wouldn’t say its something that ‘many’ people go on about.

Its an interesting footnote, just like all those other people changing names are. Sure it shows ambition, but also its a personal choice.

[tonyh29]

I love how Tony H tries to justify any questioning of Tory policy not by looking at it's merits (or lack of them) but by deflecting and mentioning Labour. The Ahhh but Labour is alive and well it seems.

Could have sworn tax dodgers was your soapbox in this thread so I thought you'd be pleased I brought another rogue to your attention

If Blair is guilty of anything he will be investigated and dealt with.

sorry but you get the

for crimes against hypocrisy .... we've pages of threads from you about tax evasion ,guess they are only guilty beyond doubt if they happen to be tory

I wonder how much of those funds that Blair made were then channelled into the Labour party?

well when he came back to help labour win the 2010 election :shock: his website was owned by owned by Windrush Ventures No. 3 in conjunction with Blue State Digital, a company with links to the Labour Party ..so it is quite possible that “administrative expenditure” i.e some of that £8m tax avoidance money was indeed channelled off ... who knows , certainly not HMRC that's for sure ...

[drat01]

Nice try Paul, but a fail in my book. Last time I looked political discussions on football forum's were not subject to the rules of Hansard.

If I were candidate opposing him (of any party), I would mention his change of name and ask him why it happened, what his objections were and what his views were on areas such as class, privilege and all the trappings that go along with them. Pretty fair game questions, especially when he claims to be part of the "all in this together" while enjoying massive wealth. And yes I do think that his priority should be to perform 110% better than he has to date as chancellor because he is not doing a good job at that at all.

Interesting you do not question "Mr Bliar" or "Red Ed" though?

[drat01]

I love how Tony H tries to justify any questioning of Tory policy not by looking at it's merits (or lack of them) but by deflecting and mentioning Labour. The Ahhh but Labour is alive and well it seems.

Could have sworn tax dodgers was your soapbox in this thread so I thought you'd be pleased I brought another rogue to your attention

If Blair is guilty of anything he will be investigated and dealt with.

sorry but you get the

for crimes against hypocrisy .... we've pages of threads from you about tax evasion ,guess they are only guilty beyond doubt if they happen to be tory

I wonder how much of those funds that Blair made were then channelled into the Labour party?

well when he came back to help labour win the 2010 election :shock: his website was owned by owned by Windrush Ventures No. 3 in conjunction with Blue State Digital, a company with links to the Labour Party ..so it is quite possible that “administrative expenditure” i.e some of that £8m tax avoidance money was indeed channelled off ... who knows , certainly not HMRC that's for sure ...

:-) - what a massive own goal Tony in trying to justify a failed attempt to somehow justify the Tax evasion of people like Ashcroft and the funding of the Tory party, by mentioning Tony Blair.

Again the Ahhh but Labour is the whole basis for any questioning of your comments, rather than trying to defend the Con Dem gvmt in a thread about the Con Dem gvmt.

As said Tax evasion should be dealt with, I am sure Cameron and Gideon have it as a top prty. Maybe they discussed it with the leaders at Vodafone recently?

As for Blair supplying a website - or at least the company did - you really are scraping the barrel if you think that somehow evens out the many millions paid from people like Ashcroft to the Tory party and the influence that brings. How strange that a ex-Labour leader wanted to engage in helping with Labour party elections

As for your Hypocrisy thing - another own goal. Are you not the one who keeps going on about being proven guilty and until that time you are innocent. Blimey Tony more own goals than Richard Dunne.

[tonyh29]

So, does anyone know where to claim these two days of free alcohol the government are recommending? Very Happy

Today and tomorrow gets my vote

Edit: really must read more carefully as the post said "where" :oops:

[PauloBarnesi]

Nice try Paul, but a fail in my book. Last time I looked political discussions on football forum's were not subject to the rules of Hansard.

Well I would have thought if it were in such common use, it would have been mentioned. Someone like Dennis Skinner would have surely picked up on it and it would have been mentioned in Hansard. Hansard is merely a record of parliamentary debate in Westminster, something I would have thought would have been useful in political discussion.

If I were candidate opposing him (of any party), I would mention his change of name and ask him why it happened, what his objections were and what his views were on areas such as class, privilege and all the trappings that go along with them. Pretty fair game questions, especially when he claims to be part of the "all in this together" while enjoying massive wealth. And yes I do think that his priority should be to perform 110% better than he has to date as chancellor because he is not doing a good job at that at all.

You would mention it, but would you base your whole campaign on it? People know by now most of his background and his name change. Its not that in the end that people will judge him on.

Interesting you do not question "Mr Bliar" or "Red Ed" though?

Why is it interesting? Does it show that I am a “Tory” in your view. Red Ed is commonly adopted by the Right wing media, but its hardly what I would set up to criticise Mr Milliband, and if were going to be critical of his policies I wouldn’t bang on about it, because I don’t think anyone cares?

Its a pretty obvious nickname just like calling someone Supermac, Flashman, Big Jim, The Grocers Daughter, Iron Lady, Grocer Heath, Grey Man, The Welsh Goat, etc, etc. As for Bliar as you know I would never criticise a Tory leader...

[drat01]

I am not sure HOC etiquette would allow for it Paul, hence Hansard, and doesn't he have to be called Right Honourable something or other?

As for basing my whole campaign, eh? Why would anyone do that? Bit silly suggestion Paul. Would you mention it and question him? Probably not?

Who called you a Tory? Stop making things up, this is getting somewhat silly (again).

Nickname's are very much part of political life and are often used in a derisory way. That is the political way and has been for 100's of years.

[tinker]

How anyone can try and defend our politicians, regardless of what colour tie they wear, is beyond me. They are all the same, hopeless, characterless, self serving leeches.

[blandy]

The public one would hope, would be more bothered about whether he’s putting the British economy in shape.

He's making things much, much worse. Call him George, Godeon or whatever. He's poison for the economy and the country