5 years hard labour ?

[Primus1]

I see a gap in the market…homing pigeons..

[jthspace]

1 hour ago, Mjolinor said:

Are you allowed to exchange them for cash still at the PO? You used to be able to.

Once you buy stamps from the Post Office, generally all sales are final. So, you can’t sell stamps back to the Post Office, but you do have some options. Instead, you can sell your stamps to a Postage Buying Service for a cash payment.

[Primus1]

1 hour ago, jthspace said:

Once you buy stamps from the Post Office, generally all sales are final. So, you can’t sell stamps back to the Post Office, but you do have some options. Instead, you can sell your stamps to a Postage Buying Service for a cash payment.

Just don’t use the stamps on the envelope…🤭

[Rhymes with Paris]

I have to send a form to the county council offices.

I worked out it will be around £1 cheaper to hand deliver it using my car at the current price.

I can balance out the environmental impact though,by reusing the A4 size envelope I received it in.

And my car not spewing out the black diesel fumes emanating from the local post office vans.

Whether I will face a penalty charge for parking in the staff only car park while delivering, and using the services of the security guards who will probably spend 20 minutes questioning my presence there, remains to be seen.

[Bper]

With the recent broken assurances by Labour before the election with regards to the winter fuel allowance should politicians face prosecution for force representation.

Political parties shouldn't be allowed to get away with breaking the promises they make in the lead up to elections. A lot of voters, especially those who aren’t sure who to support, rely on these promises when deciding who to vote for. Politicians often claim that once they’re in power, they’ll make changes right away, but the sad truth is, once elected, those promises are so often forgotten. They often do the exact opposite of what they said they would.This kind of behavior IMO is fraudulent. Politicians are supposed to represent the people, not just serve their own interests or those of their party. When they don’t deliver on their promises, they’re betraying the trust of the people who put them in office. In any democracy, there needs to be accountability. Voters shouldn’t be tricked into supporting someone based on promises that were never meant to be kept.Yes, there are times when things don’t go as planned, and circumstances can change, but when breaking promises becomes the norm, it really damages the trust people have in their leaders. It makes people feel disconnected from politics, like their vote doesn’t really matter.That’s why there should be better ways to hold politicians accountable for what they say during their campaigns. Whether it’s through legal measures or just more transparency, politicians need to be more accountable about what they promise. In the end, being in power is a responsibility, not a way to gain personal or party advantages at the expense of the public. People deserve honesty and integrity from those they elect, and politicians should be held to that standard.

[Mjolinor]

Are there actually any people left that really believe what they say before an election?

 

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Mjolinor said:

Are there actually any people left that really believe what they say before an election?

 

True, a lot of people are pretty cynical about campaign promises these days. Most of us don’t expect politicians to keep every promise they make, or we take what they say with a grain of salt. Still, there are people who hold out hope that some of the promises, especially the big ones about things like healthcare or jobs, might actually happen. Even if trust in politicians is low, people still listen to what’s being promised because it gives an idea of what the party stands for and what they might prioritise.At the end of the day, even though a lot of voters are skeptical, those promises still shape the conversation and can sometimes push policies in the right direction.On a personal level, I wouldn’t trust one if he told me the car I was driving was a Toyota.😄

[First_Toyota]

7 hours ago, Bper said:

With the recent broken assurances by Labour before the election with regards to the winter fuel allowance should politicians face prosecution for force representation.

Political parties shouldn't be allowed to get away with breaking the promises they make in the lead up to elections

As far as I know, the only legislation that would enable criminal charges to be brought against a candidate for ‘lying’ during an election campaign involve (essentially) slandering their opponent. It’s the ‘Representation of the People Act.’

The Representation of the People Act

Section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (the “RPA”), provides that:

“A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—

(a) before or during an election,

(b) for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,
makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true.”

A person convicted of an illegal practice under the RPA is liable to an unlimited fine. Subsection (3) gives the court power to grant an injunction to prevent any repetition of the statement.

Where a petition is brought to an Election Court under the RPA, and a candidate who has been elected is found by the Election Court to have been guilty of an illegal practice, then pursuant to section 159(1) of the PRA, the election is void.  

The ingredients for an illegal practice are that: 

(a) a person makes or publishes a statement;

(b) the statement relates to a candidate;

(c) it must be a statement of fact;

(d) the statement must be false;

(e) the statement is made in relation to a candidate’s personal character or conduct;

(f) the statement is made for the purpose of affecting the election of the candidate; and

(g) the statement is made before or during an election.

In my constituency, our (new) Labour MP had a number of ‘cast iron’ pledges on her website prior to the election. These were taken down the day afterwards.

They can broadly say what they like without repercussions. I’ve genuinely given up now.

People voted for ‘change’ but are now realising - too late - that not all change is positive. This could already be lining up to be the worst Government in recent decades, and the bar isn’t exactly set high…

Listening to the radio earlier today, there was a painter and decorator who noted that a month ago he had a full order book until March 2025. He then went onto say that the ‘fear’ of Labour’s October Budget had seen customer after customer cancel. He now only has work into November. They need to realise, quickly, that confidence and competence are the most important elements for any Government. They’re currently failing on both counts, and so soon after taking office. It’s a shambles. 

[Bper]

39 minutes ago, First_Toyota said:

As far as I know, the only legislation that would enable criminal charges to be brought against a candidate for ‘lying’ during an election campaign involve (essentially) slandering their opponent. It’s the ‘Representation of the People Act.’

The Representation of the People Act

Section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (the “RPA”), provides that:

“A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—

(a) before or during an election,

(b) for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,
makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true.”

A person convicted of an illegal practice under the RPA is liable to an unlimited fine. Subsection (3) gives the court power to grant an injunction to prevent any repetition of the statement.

Where a petition is brought to an Election Court under the RPA, and a candidate who has been elected is found by the Election Court to have been guilty of an illegal practice, then pursuant to section 159(1) of the PRA, the election is void.  

The ingredients for an illegal practice are that: 

(a) a person makes or publishes a statement;

(b) the statement relates to a candidate;

(c) it must be a statement of fact;

(d) the statement must be false;

(e) the statement is made in relation to a candidate’s personal character or conduct;

(f) the statement is made for the purpose of affecting the election of the candidate; and

(g) the statement is made before or during an election.

In my constituency, our (new) Labour MP had a number of ‘cast iron’ pledges on her website prior to the election. These were taken down the day afterwards.

They can broadly say what they like without repercussions. I’ve genuinely given up now.

People voted for ‘change’ but are now realising - too late - that not all change is positive. This could already be lining up to be the worst Government in recent decades, and the bar isn’t exactly set high…

Listening to the radio earlier today, there was a painter and decorator who noted that a month ago he had a full order book until March 2025. He then went onto say that the ‘fear’ of Labour’s October Budget had seen customer after customer cancel. He now only has work into November. They need to realise, quickly, that confidence and competence are the most important elements for any Government. They’re currently failing on both counts, and so soon after taking office. It’s a shambles. 

Hi Ed,what about Section 107 allows for the prosecution of individuals who knowingly make false statements in election-related materials, such as campaign literature.Does the manifesto not cover this.👍

[TriumphMan]

They all have the ‘get out of jail free card’ once in office, nothing written in an election manifesto is legally binding - all it does is provide points of reference to use in evaluating the degree to which to trust/distrust a party. 

Clearly, a party who doesn’t fulfil any of their manifesto content will have difficulty persuading voters at future elections that they are the ones in whom to place their faith.

The 3 rules of voting - 1) don’t believe a politician in office. 2) don’t believe a politician in opposition. 3) If in doubt refer to rules 1 & 2

 

[Mjolinor]

4) Don't believe ex-politicians

5) Don't believe political candidates

 

[Big_D]

It's like the old classic joke:

How do you know a Politician is lying??

 

They open their mouth

[Bper]

As 1,750 prisoners are being released today under Labour's decision to free up prison places, is this a mistake that could put victims of their crimes at risk? Could this also set a precedent where, instead of building new prisons, the government may ask courts to reduce sentences or release offenders after serving only a fraction of their sentences?☹️

[Wooster]

23 hours ago, Bper said:

Political parties shouldn't be allowed to get away with breaking the promises they make in the lead up to elections. A lot of voters, especially those who aren’t sure who to support, rely on these promises when deciding who to vote for....

Nothing much changes, though. Does it? The attached pdf is over 25 years old....

Politicial promises.pdf

[Haliotis]

On GB News this morning the presenter commented on the fact that Labour has awarded the strikers up to £2,000 wage increase and taken £300 off pensioners.  Then an ex-Labour MP said that he had met pensioners who admitted they did not need the winter fuel allowance.   I would have liked to ask if he had met and of the strikers that did not ned their whacking wage increase.  If he had, and they had been honest, I’ll bet there would have been hundreds of them. 

Regarding the Post Office, I do most of my correspondence on line - about the only time I “pay” for a stamp is when I send greeting cards via Moonpig.

Delivery of on line purchases does give me concern.  Our daughter recently sent a parcel to via Evri (formerly Hermes).  It didn’t arrive and when contacted they said it was delivered and dropped near the shed.  The recipient does not have a shed!!  Unless a recipient is actually included in any photograph, delivery has not been proven.  At a closed door, a courier can photograph a parcel and then take that parcel away with him. Or, left unattended, any passerby could steal it.  I have heard a knock on the door but, when finally opening it, the courier has left.  What if nobody was at home, and I later found the parcel had been “supposedly” delivered. Photographed or not, at a closed door, legally there was no delivery made.  Courier service companies and the couriers themselves need to clean up their act.

[Bper]

8 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

On GB News this morning the presenter commented on the fact that Labour has awarded the strikers up to £2,000 wage increase and taken £300 off pensioners.  Then an ex-Labour MP said that he had met pensioners who admitted they did not need the winter fuel allowance.   I would have liked to ask if he had met and of the strikers that did not ned their whacking wage increase.  If he had, and they had been honest, I’ll bet there would have been hundreds of them. 

Regarding the Post Office, I do most of my correspondence on line - about the only time I “pay” for a stamp is when I send greeting cards via Moonpig.

Delivery of on line purchases does give me concern.  Our daughter recently sent a parcel to via Evri (formerly Hermes).  It didn’t arrive and when contacted they said it was delivered and dropped near the shed.  The recipient does not have a shed!!  Unless a recipient is actually included in any photograph, delivery has not been proven.  At a closed door, a courier can photograph a parcel and then take that parcel away with him. Or, left unattended, any passerby could steal it.  I have heard a knock on the door but, when finally opening it, the courier has left.  What if nobody was at home, and I later found the parcel had been “supposedly” delivered. Photographed or not, at a closed door, legally there was no delivery made.  Courier service companies and the couriers themselves need to clean up their act.

How comes greeting cards are so expensive,I have just used the same company as above for a birthday card and with postage it was £9. As most of the greetings card shops have closed and the bigger ones have the biggest share of the online market why are they not cheaper. Surely it can't be profiteering,can it.😡

 

 

[Graham47]

28 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

On GB News this morning

😂🤣😂

[Haliotis]

2 hours ago, Bper said:

How comes greeting cards are so expensive,I have just used the same company as above for a birthday card and with postage it was £9. As most of the greetings card shops have closed and the bigger ones have the biggest share of the online market why are they not cheaper. Surely it can't be profiteering,can it.😡

 

 

Did you send a standard size card, and was it posted in, and to, the UK?  I have done this in August this year and it cost me £5.34.

[Bper]

2 hours ago, Haliotis said:

Did you send a standard size card, and was it posted in, and to, the UK?  I have done this in August this year and it cost me £5.34.

The card was £5.99p and £2.99p P&P to be sent back to me as it is a card for my wifes birthday.☹️

[Bper]

Despite many Labour MPs opposing the removal of the winter fuel allowance, instead of voting against the bill, they abstained. When the vote was announced, they cheered. Does this not show the contempt they have for pensioners? They didn’t have the courage to stand by their convictions and vote against the bill. Is this because it would damage their political chances of gaining a position around the cabinet table? They should hang their heads in shame, and voters will not forget this.😡

[Haliotis]

One MP, as she said she was abstaining, was ask Ed why she was not voting against the bill.  She “abstained” from giving a reply.  Bob, your reasoning is spot on - she WAS thinking about her future opportunities.  Just one more example of putting self before the constituents who elected her in the first place.  When push comes to shove, where all the MPs are concerned you could probably count on one hand those who are not two-faced.

Also, Labour keep on harping about looking after working people - I would like to know how they classify pensioners. Do they consider us to be a privileged class of layabouts who are getting our pensions for nothing? 

[Big_D]

I saw this tonight. 

https://www.express.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/1947124/hmrc-warning-people-with-3500-savings

[Cyker]

I think the caveat - "...for people that earn over 50k" is important...

They also don't mention what kind of savings accounts - The whole point of e.g. ISAs and Premium Bonds is they are immune to this sort of thing, no...?

 

[Big_D]

Let's be honest here. How many people who earn less than £50K per year will have savings that earn more than £1000 per year? Once again, it's people who have worked hard and have saved money for their retirement that are being (and I quote Leonard from the Big Bang Theory here)  joined to another object, by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis. In other words, screwed

[Haliotis]

I think, as is usual with newspaper headlines, that there is a deliberate sensationalism here.  Any tax on savings is limited to the amount of interest earned - not the capital sum.  If your annual income is less than £50,000 then, AT PRESRENT,  you can earn a total interest of £1,000 in any year without being taxed.  Who knows how this might change with the October budget?  But they still cannot take tax out of the capital.