 | Forum
Reply | McIlroy v Rose Masters Play off
at 09:22 14 Apr 2025
Well done Rory McIlroy! Thoroughly deserved, and such a dramatic evening of golf which was compelling viewing from start to finish. Glad he’s finally got this over the line and will probably push on from here to win a few more majors. Surely has to be favourite for SPOTY? |
| Forum
Reply | Well, knock me down with a feather!
at 15:54 13 Mar 2025
Yes sorry I got a couple of references mixed up there. I think my points is clear though. The Capital Good scheme now applies, and whilst you say it would have been taken into account, a) the Tories contest this, and b) the total to be claimed is an unknown (Labour would have had to estimate), so until the claims are made it will be impossible to tell whether the measure has raised any extra money. That's why I said it will be interesting to see the figures in a few years time. I think this debate has gone as far as it can. |
| Forum
Reply | Well, knock me down with a feather!
at 16:54 12 Mar 2025
All businesses need to adapt or die. Not sure what this adds to the debate. I think your point about 'schools having 'fat' in them which can be trimmed is lazy and only accurate for the elite schools like Eton etc. |
| Forum
Reply | Well, knock me down with a feather!
at 00:20 12 Mar 2025
It wouldn't have been that complicated as before the trading most of the services provided were not vatable supplies and therefore there would be no VAT recovery on any items that related to those supplies.
What I think people don't understand is that VAT recovery of ongoing trading expenses is one thing, but actually the big ticket item is CAPITAL ALLOWANCES. For schools like Eton etc, this will amount to 10's of millions of pounds, and will be payable on submission of a claim. It will be interesting to see the figures on this down the line, but my prediction (and I'm not alone here) is that the amount claimed in backdated capital allowances will far exceed any revenue raised by this measure. The glee that the OP seems to be displaying is certainly misplaced at least on this point.
I also agree with what others have said that the full effect of these measures will be more apparent many months from now when the impact on the beginning of the next full school year will be apparent. However, logically the impact now would be a decline in NEW pupil enquiries, ie. parents willing to start their child in private education knowing the current VAT position. The evidence here seems pretty grim:-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/04/private-schools-closusre-blame-labou |
| Forum
Reply | fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts
at 09:57 31 Jan 2025
I don’t know who would pay for it, but I’m guessing it would be the local authority in the first instance. But this cost could easily be recovered as part of the developers payment into the nature restoration fund. Also, I don’t think there’s any doubt that a proper assessment by a qualified ecologist(s) will be required. Just one big regional assessment though, rather than the thousands of site specific ones we have now. Of course, in carrying out the regional assessments, they have the benefit of access to all previous EIAs submitted before, and I’m guessing these would at least partially inform regional assessments. |
| Forum
Reply | fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts
at 09:50 31 Jan 2025
I agree that habitat for humanity are doing great work. One of the most exciting things they are at the forefront of is 3D concrete printing/construction which has the potential to transform the construction industry worldwide. Sadly the UK will lag behind because our planning laws on design are not very compatible with the technology. Another area of planning in this country which needs fundamental reform. |
| Forum
Reply | fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts
at 22:59 29 Jan 2025
I don’t think this would be as costly as you’re thinking it would be, although I admit that I don’t know what the cost of each regional plan would be. The idea though as I understand it is that each local planning authority would be responsible for drawing up a single strategic assessment and delivery plan for the area under its purview. IMO it would be a straightforward process to map a local authority area into relevant designations, much as we currently have conservation areas etc with settlements. Some sites will have protected status if they meet certain criteria (meaning no environmental harm will be acceptable), other sites will have development status (ie they are considered essential for a town/city’s growth and do not have so many of the features of a protected site (these sites might be strategic land on the edge of settlements or designated sites in the local plan). This won’t be a charter to bulldoze ALL land in ALL areas irrespective of the environment.
The bottom line is that you’ve got two legitimate competing interests here. I don’t think any rational person would argue that 100% of the natural environment should be preserved in perpetuity right? Assuming that’s true, it then simply becomes a matter of degree on how far you move the dial in an attempt to balance the legitimate competing interests of the environment and the need to develop new homes/infrastructure etc. The balance has tipped too far one way and the proposals represent a rebalancing, that’s all. Check out the Dec 2024 working paper from the government if it’s of interest. |
| Forum
Reply | fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts
at 18:16 29 Jan 2025
Sorry but imho you are conflating a number of unrelated issues here. This has got nothing to do with supporting infrastructure, and everything to do with how we approach the issue of ensuring that building and construction has a net positive and enhancing effect on the environment as a whole. |
| Forum
Reply | fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts
at 18:14 29 Jan 2025
Sorry but I think you've completely missed the point here.
It is proposed to replace EIAs with a different regionally based assessment which looks at the environment as a whole. Piecemeal mitigation on a project-by-project basis achieves very little and costs a disproportionate amount of money and resources. Better to pool money together and create regional mitigation schemes which really make a measurable difference. I think the OP explained it rather eloquently. |
| Forum
Reply | Philogene
at 00:11 12 Jan 2025
Posted in the other thread that I recalled it took ages for Villa to confirm the signing in the summer. Just checked online and the media were reporting that JP chose Villa ahead of us on 12th July, but move was only confirmed a week later on 19th July. Be patient everyone! |
| Forum
Reply | Anyone got a feeling the Philogene signing isn’t going to happen?
at 14:57 11 Jan 2025
Is it just me, or does anyone else remember how it took an age for Villa to complete the signing the first time around, many days after it had become clear that JP had chosen Villa over us? I remember thinking at the time that maybe he might yet have changed his mind…….then the switch to Villa concluded. My guess is that there is something fairly mundane in the background which is specific to JP that has delayed things both times. No idea what it could be though…… |
| Forum
Reply | Adam Armstrong
at 16:53 6 Jan 2025
To be fair she only made a prediction, and a pretty good one at that! She just celebrated winning the prize. Not her fault that they imploded on the pitch.
Also, I didn't like the way that she was dismissively waved away by the announcer like she had done something wrong. Clearly not a happy place down there. |
| Forum
Reply | anyone want to caption this picture
at 21:32 7 Nov 2024
Princess Anne: 'I stand before you holding the only things that appear to have drooped lower than your career.' |
| Forum
Reply | So many still don't understand what VAR can look at.
at 23:27 5 Nov 2024
I may be missing something but I don't think we fell foul of rule 2. As I read it, rule 2 is basically enshrining the position that the ref can't just 'sit on the fence'. In a game, that would look like the ref stopping the match and saying to VAR 'I'm not sure if this was a penalty, can you confirm either way?' The ref did however make a decision in the match which was 'play on, no penalty'.
We fell foul of rule 3, because VAR deemed that the original on field decision was not a 'clear and obvious error'. Here's what I don't get. A penalty is both a binary decision (its either a penalty, or its not a penalty), but there are also nuances between whether its a close decision or a 'stonewall' penalty. This is where I think the rule falls down as currently drafted. TV pundits eg Stephen Warnock are bemused because they are looking at it in binary terms ie. to them its an obvious penalty so therefore it has to be a clear and obvious error. The ref under the rules is having to do something slightly different and to borrow a legal phrase, they have to decide whether the 'man on the clapham omnibus' would have thought it was an 'obvious' penalty and therefore an obvious error.
This is where refs imo are tying themselves in knots. How on earth is a VAR official supposed to decide in real time where a penalty appeal sits in the spectrum? If we grade it out of 10, is a clear and obvious error where 8 out of 10 neutral observers would say it was a penalty? And if that is the threshold for example, how can the VAR system deliver that judgement. It might sound stupid, but you might get more consistency if each of the 4 match officials got to vote on the decision with a 3 out of 4 majority needed to overturn the on field decision. |
| Forum
Reply | Handing in notice before finding another job
at 13:37 17 Oct 2024
I was going to say that 'constructive dismissal' is another example of when you might hand in your notice before having another job lined up.
Your story sounds horrible and sorry you had to experience that. Its only a guess, but I reckon when they found out you might want to leave, they panicked, found someone else who they thought could replace you but only had a limited window to hire him/her, didn't want to be paying two salaries and then hounded you out. Not nice. |
| Forum
Reply | WOW, you guys dont get it.
at 00:52 4 Sep 2024
I concur.
With the small revision that they didn't actually 'forgo' anything. They effectively 'cashed in' their sell on clause and netted it against the total required fee of £18m. |
| | bluestandard
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 146 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 146 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.