They are of such a high quality this year, we have received some for the 
wrong ward, badly photocopied black and white ones with illegible 
photographs, spelling mistakes and mistakes with contact details. The 
latest one was some chap who had put an email address on to contact him 
and he had omitted the .com or .co.uk from the end of it.

-- 
Timothy

In message , "me@privacy.net" 
 writes

>They are of such a high quality this year, we have received some for 
>the wrong ward, badly photocopied black and white ones with illegible 
>photographs, spelling mistakes and mistakes with contact details. The 
>latest one was some chap who had put an email address on to contact him 
>and he had omitted the .com or .co.uk from the end of it.
>

About par for the course reflecting the level of faith one can have in 
the promises made in the election leaflets.!   Like democracy in the UK, 
the election is a sham.   What choice is there really?

Both New Labour and Conservatives have common policies: BOTH have sold 
out to big business: BOTH are headed by  politicians proven to be 
untrustworthy: both will weasel out of election promises if they get 
into power: BOTH will support a forthcoming US "liberation" of Iran, 
West Africa and Venezuela (liberation of oil/gas reserves for the 
benefit of the energy industry); BOTH will act as lap-dogs to Fortress 
America with its isolationism continuing hypocritical imprisonments in 
Guantnamo and elsewhere, refusal to cut noxious emissions and refusal 
to be subject to international law; BOTH will erode UK human rights by 
creating even more draconian laws under the excuse of "war on 
terrorism": BOTH will privatise the NHS: BOTH will privatise the 
provision of State pensions: BOTH will transfer most cost responsibility 
to local authorities, thereby claiming a decrease in central government 
costs but hiding a major increase in local Community Charges: BOTH will 
privatise University and other education, thereby reserving it for the 
elite and thus guaranteeing the future of the Establishment, and so on!

The Liberals have some good ideas.   However their remarkably bad ones 
(local Income Tax, the Island Tourist tax) suggest that they do not know 
their anus from their humerus and are useful only for their interference 
factor in Parliament.   All the other parties fall into a category 
similar to the fun-runners in the London Marathon- totally irrelevant 
other than for amusement value for a short time.

Face it folks- big business has bought the world!   The Church has 
become (maybe always was) its Marketing Section (Spiritual), the Armed 
Forces- Marketing Section (Territory Acquisition) and the media, 
Marketing Department (Advertising and PR).

:-(((

-- 
John

"me@privacy.net"  wrote in message
news:QSYajbGa7JbCFwZe@town-village.demon.co.uk...

> They are of such a high quality this year, we have received some for the
> wrong ward, badly photocopied black and white ones with illegible
> photographs, spelling mistakes and mistakes with contact details. The
> latest one was some chap who had put an email address on to contact him
> and he had omitted the .com or .co.uk from the end of it.
>
> --
> Timothy


Ah!! The joys and pitfalls of checking and proof reading your own wok ;-((

In message <d4iaod$c39$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Mike 
 writes

>"me@privacy.net"  wrote in message
>news:QSYajbGa7JbCFwZe@town-village.demon.co.uk...
>> They are of such a high quality this year, we have received some for the
>> wrong ward, badly photocopied black and white ones with illegible
>> photographs, spelling mistakes and mistakes with contact details. The
>> latest one was some chap who had put an email address on to contact him
>> and he had omitted the .com or .co.uk from the end of it.
>>
>> --
>> Timothy
>
>Ah!! The joys and pitfalls of checking and proof reading your own wok ;-((
>

I realise mistakes are going to happen from time to time, but someone 
surely should have noticed that a grotty sheet of plain a4 with a badly 
photocopied sales pitch on it, looks far from inspiring.

-- 
Timothy

"me@privacy.net" wrote:

> 
> They are of such a high quality this year, we have received some for the
> wrong ward, badly photocopied black and white ones with illegible
> photographs, spelling mistakes and mistakes with contact details. The
> latest one was some chap who had put an email address on to contact him
> and he had omitted the .com or .co.uk from the end of it.
> 
> --
> Timothy


Vote for 'Mental Disorder' party! We have a long list of IOW candidates.

> They are of such a high quality this year, we have received some for the
> wrong ward, badly photocopied black and white ones with illegible
> photographs, spelling mistakes and mistakes with contact details. The
> latest one was some chap who had put an email address on to contact him
> and he had omitted the .com or .co.uk from the end of it.
>
> --
> Timothy


Is it my imagination or are we being hit by more and more this year? Just
had "another" consignment from the Liberals. My worry is, that if/when they
get in, are they going to waste paper as they are now?, only more so????

Mike

Mike wrote:

> 
> > They are of such a high quality this year, we have received some for the
> > wrong ward, badly photocopied black and white ones with illegible
> > photographs, spelling mistakes and mistakes with contact details. The
> > latest one was some chap who had put an email address on to contact him
> > and he had omitted the .com or .co.uk from the end of it.
> >
> > --
> > Timothy
> 
> Is it my imagination or are we being hit by more and more this year? Just
> had "another" consignment from the Liberals. My worry is, that if/when they
> get in, are they going to waste paper as they are now?, only more so????
> 
> Mike


Heheh. I collect all election leaflets through my door, but so far have
received only one!

"Mike"  wrote in message
news:d4iaod$c39$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

> "me@privacy.net"  wrote in message
> news:QSYajbGa7JbCFwZe@town-village.demon.co.uk...
> > They are of such a high quality this year, we have received some for the
> > wrong ward, badly photocopied black and white ones with illegible
> > photographs, spelling mistakes and mistakes with contact details. The
> > latest one was some chap who had put an email address on to contact him
> > and he had omitted the .com or .co.uk from the end of it.
> >
> > --
> > Timothy
>
> Ah!! The joys and pitfalls of checking and proof reading your own wok ;-((
>


The pie has worn off, the abuse and personal insults ensue as expected.

"Johannes"  wrote in message
news:426CDFBE.B3DAE0AC@spamblock3sizefitter.com...

>
>
> Mike wrote:
> >
> > > They are of such a high quality this year, we have received some for
the
> > > wrong ward, badly photocopied black and white ones with illegible
> > > photographs, spelling mistakes and mistakes with contact details. The
> > > latest one was some chap who had put an email address on to contact
him
> > > and he had omitted the .com or .co.uk from the end of it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Timothy
> >
> > Is it my imagination or are we being hit by more and more this year?
Just
> > had "another" consignment from the Liberals. My worry is, that if/when
they
> > get in, are they going to waste paper as they are now?, only more so????
> >
> > Mike
>
> Heheh. I collect all election leaflets through my door, but so far have
> received only one!


I like the    notices for Andrew Turner at the crossroads at Princlett
Shute. They are in a field  attached to muckspreaders. Now does that tell
you something ??!!

"JonC"  wrote in message
news:426d6a7e$0$42333$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...

>
> "Johannes"  wrote in message
> news:426CDFBE.B3DAE0AC@spamblock3sizefitter.com...
> >
> >
> > Mike wrote:
> > >
> > > > They are of such a high quality this year, we have received some for
> the
> > > > wrong ward, badly photocopied black and white ones with illegible
> > > > photographs, spelling mistakes and mistakes with contact details.
The
> > > > latest one was some chap who had put an email address on to contact
> him
> > > > and he had omitted the .com or .co.uk from the end of it.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Timothy
> > >
> > > Is it my imagination or are we being hit by more and more this year?
> Just
> > > had "another" consignment from the Liberals. My worry is, that if/when
> they
> > > get in, are they going to waste paper as they are now?, only more
so????
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> > Heheh. I collect all election leaflets through my door, but so far have
> > received only one!
>
> I like the    notices for Andrew Turner at the crossroads at Princlett
> Shute. They are in a field  attached to muckspreaders. Now does that tell
> you something ??!!
>

yes a lot of his banners in places of natural beauty, makes the place look
tatty and cheap, I think we need a change to teach him a lesson.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:43:53 +0100, john
<humblescribe@nocraphere.please> wrote:


>In message , "me@privacy.net" 
> writes
>>They are of such a high quality this year, we have received some for 
>>the wrong ward, badly photocopied black and white ones with illegible 
>>photographs, spelling mistakes and mistakes with contact details. The 
>>latest one was some chap who had put an email address on to contact him 
>>and he had omitted the .com or .co.uk from the end of it.
>>
>About par for the course reflecting the level of faith one can have in 
>the promises made in the election leaflets.!   Like democracy in the UK, 
>the election is a sham.   What choice is there really?
>
>Both New Labour and Conservatives have common policies: BOTH have sold 
>out to big business: BOTH are headed by  politicians proven to be 
>untrustworthy: both will weasel out of election promises if they get 
>into power: BOTH will support a forthcoming US "liberation" of Iran, 
>West Africa and Venezuela (liberation of oil/gas reserves for the 
>benefit of the energy industry); BOTH will act as lap-dogs to Fortress 
>America with its isolationism continuing hypocritical imprisonments in 
>Guantnamo and elsewhere, refusal to cut noxious emissions and refusal 
>to be subject to international law; BOTH will erode UK human rights by 
>creating even more draconian laws under the excuse of "war on 
>terrorism": BOTH will privatise the NHS: BOTH will privatise the 
>provision of State pensions: BOTH will transfer most cost responsibility 
>to local authorities, thereby claiming a decrease in central government 
>costs but hiding a major increase in local Community Charges: BOTH will 
>privatise University and other education, thereby reserving it for the 
>elite and thus guaranteeing the future of the Establishment, and so on!
>
>The Liberals have some good ideas.   However their remarkably bad ones 
>(local Income Tax, the Island Tourist tax) suggest that they do not know 
>their anus from their humerus and are useful only for their interference 
>factor in Parliament.   All the other parties fall into a category 
>similar to the fun-runners in the London Marathon- totally irrelevant 
>other than for amusement value for a short time.
>
>Face it folks- big business has bought the world!   The Church has 
>become (maybe always was) its Marketing Section (Spiritual), the Armed 
>Forces- Marketing Section (Territory Acquisition) and the media, 
>Marketing Department (Advertising and PR).
>
>:-(((


Yes. I think thats a fair summation.
ukmp
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

I quite like the Liberal idea of Local Income Tax instead of Council tax.
In theory it could all be done via computers without involving extra staff.
But BIG PROBLEM : the Government never seem able to get these big computer
projects to work properly. Strange really as Income Tax has been done that
way for forty years.
-- 
Old Don

"Old Don" <don@ jestright.clara.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:01c54a85$8212c0a0$a6837ed4@donadams...

>I quite like the Liberal idea of Local Income Tax instead of Council tax.
> In theory it could all be done via computers without involving extra 
> staff.
> But BIG PROBLEM : the Government never seem able to get these big computer
> projects to work properly. Strange really as Income Tax has been done that
> way for forty years.
> -- 
> Old Don
>

Any extra tax gained by getting more from the wealthy Don (and it's the 
wealthy who will be hit hard by the Liberal Democrats) will be lost by those 
who currently pay 40 per cent and earn over 100,000 a year (when the 
Liberal's 50 per cent kicks in) and move to Monaco, Andorra, the Bahamas, 
etc. Quite a few millionaires and multi millionaires would do that.

The flight of capital abroad would be significant.

I've nothing against the wealthy paying more, but in this day and age of 
communications many can run their businesses from anywhere in the world and 
still be allowed in the UK 90 days a year with no UK tax to pay.

Roger



> 

In message <01c54a85$8212c0a0$a6837ed4@donadams>, Old Don 
 writes

>I quite like the Liberal idea of Local Income Tax instead of Council tax.
>In theory it could all be done via computers without involving extra staff.
>But BIG PROBLEM : the Government never seem able to get these big computer
>projects to work properly. Strange really as Income Tax has been done that
>way for forty years.


Unfortunately, a local income tax would be just as expensive to collect 
as that of the Inland Revenue, despite the computing power, because of 
the number of people that would need to be involved.

Firstly, there is be the problem of acquiring the information about the 
income and then assessing the tax due from the taxpayer- exactly the 
same problem the IR has- as, [surprise! Surprise!], taxpayers are not 
always honest about their level of income!  Then there is the problem of 
collecting the tax- who collects it?  Direct charge to the taxpayer? 
Collected through wages and salaries?  What happens if the Island-based 
person is paid by a mainland company- how does the Island IR actually 
get the money?  Would companies have to send off cheques to the local 
government offices of each of their employees?   What about multiple 
employments- who pays the local tax?  How would the Island IR find out 
about it and collect?   What would be the frequency of collection- 
daily, weekly, quarterly, annually?    From an Island perspective, how 
would the Island IR capture the local tax from the transient working 
population supporting the tourist industry between May and October each 
year?  Are they going to chase them up in Liverpool and Scotland?

Then there is the problem of tax allowances (if any)- how are they 
claimed, assessed and managed?

[One could in theory add local income tax as a bolt-on extra to the 
national Inland Revenue operation.  Given that IR systems have been 
creaking at the seams for decades and their inability to recruit 
intelligent Tax Officers. ("Yesterday I'se stacking shelves at 
Sainsbury, today I is a Tax Inspector!")

Not only does that put the local tax collected into the Treasury's 
sticky mitts but also start to look like a (spit, spit) "Poll Tax!.

The local tax idea is nice in theory but extremely difficult in 
practice.  The big plus of the Community Charge is that houses do not 
disappear when tax bills arrive.
-- 
John

How would Councils know what % to charge?  With a property based system
you can divide the budget by the number of properties.  If the IoW
council needs to set a budget of £100 million how could they work out
the number of employees paying x% ?  I can see no mathematical formula
that could even come close.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:43:53 +0100, john
<humblescribe@nocraphere.please> wrote:


>In message , "me@privacy.net" 
> writes
>>They are of such a high quality this year, we have received some for 
>>the wrong ward, badly photocopied black and white ones with illegible 
>>photographs, spelling mistakes and mistakes with contact details. The 
>>latest one was some chap who had put an email address on to contact him 
>>and he had omitted the .com or .co.uk from the end of it.
>>
>About par for the course reflecting the level of faith one can have in 
>the promises made in the election leaflets.!   Like democracy in the UK, 
>the election is a sham.   What choice is there really?
>
>Both New Labour and Conservatives have common policies: BOTH have sold 
>out to big business: BOTH are headed by  politicians proven to be 
>untrustworthy: both will weasel out of election promises if they get 
>into power: BOTH will support a forthcoming US "liberation" of Iran, 
>West Africa and Venezuela (liberation of oil/gas reserves for the 
>benefit of the energy industry); BOTH will act as lap-dogs to Fortress 
>America with its isolationism continuing hypocritical imprisonments in 
>Guantnamo and elsewhere, refusal to cut noxious emissions and refusal 
>to be subject to international law; BOTH will erode UK human rights by 
>creating even more draconian laws under the excuse of "war on 
>terrorism": BOTH will privatise the NHS: BOTH will privatise the 
>provision of State pensions: BOTH will transfer most cost responsibility 
>to local authorities, thereby claiming a decrease in central government 
>costs but hiding a major increase in local Community Charges: BOTH will 
>privatise University and other education, thereby reserving it for the 
>elite and thus guaranteeing the future of the Establishment, and so on!
>
>The Liberals have some good ideas.   However their remarkably bad ones 
>(local Income Tax, the Island Tourist tax) suggest that they do not know 
>their anus from their humerus and are useful only for their interference 
>factor in Parliament.   All the other parties fall into a category 
>similar to the fun-runners in the London Marathon- totally irrelevant 
>other than for amusement value for a short time.
>
>Face it folks- big business has bought the world!   The Church has 
>become (maybe always was) its Marketing Section (Spiritual), the Armed 
>Forces- Marketing Section (Territory Acquisition) and the media, 
>Marketing Department (Advertising and PR).
>
>:-(((


Yes. I think thats a fair summation.
ukmp

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:43:53 +0100, john
<humblescribe@nocraphere.please> wrote:


>In message , "me@privacy.net" 
> writes
>>They are of such a high quality this year, we have received some for 
>>the wrong ward, badly photocopied black and white ones with illegible 
>>photographs, spelling mistakes and mistakes with contact details. The 
>>latest one was some chap who had put an email address on to contact him 
>>and he had omitted the .com or .co.uk from the end of it.
>>
>About par for the course reflecting the level of faith one can have in 
>the promises made in the election leaflets.!   Like democracy in the UK, 
>the election is a sham.   What choice is there really?
>
>Both New Labour and Conservatives have common policies: BOTH have sold 
>out to big business: BOTH are headed by  politicians proven to be 
>untrustworthy: both will weasel out of election promises if they get 
>into power: BOTH will support a forthcoming US "liberation" of Iran, 
>West Africa and Venezuela (liberation of oil/gas reserves for the 
>benefit of the energy industry); BOTH will act as lap-dogs to Fortress 
>America with its isolationism continuing hypocritical imprisonments in 
>Guantnamo and elsewhere, refusal to cut noxious emissions and refusal 
>to be subject to international law; BOTH will erode UK human rights by 
>creating even more draconian laws under the excuse of "war on 
>terrorism": BOTH will privatise the NHS: BOTH will privatise the 
>provision of State pensions: BOTH will transfer most cost responsibility 
>to local authorities, thereby claiming a decrease in central government 
>costs but hiding a major increase in local Community Charges: BOTH will 
>privatise University and other education, thereby reserving it for the 
>elite and thus guaranteeing the future of the Establishment, and so on!
>
>The Liberals have some good ideas.   However their remarkably bad ones 
>(local Income Tax, the Island Tourist tax) suggest that they do not know 
>their anus from their humerus and are useful only for their interference 
>factor in Parliament.   All the other parties fall into a category 
>similar to the fun-runners in the London Marathon- totally irrelevant 
>other than for amusement value for a short time.
>
>Face it folks- big business has bought the world!   The Church has 
>become (maybe always was) its Marketing Section (Spiritual), the Armed 
>Forces- Marketing Section (Territory Acquisition) and the media, 
>Marketing Department (Advertising and PR).
>
>:-(((


Yes. I think thats a fair summation.
ukmp